# Board of Adjustment Hearing - April 12, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 12, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5328 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5328?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-04-12 - **Last revised**: April 12, 2021 - **Length**: 55,145 words - **Speakers**: Renee > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on April 12, 2021, at 1:30 PM via video teleconference with Thomas Glover presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed eight agenda items during the session, considering various variance requests, conditional use permits, and an administrative appeal from property owners and businesses throughout the jurisdiction. The board took eight votes on the matters before them, with five items receiving approval, two being denied, and one postponed for future consideration. Public participation was active, with five public comments heard during the proceedings as community members weighed in on the various development and zoning matters under review. The approved items included variance requests for Julius Property LLC and Williams Enterprises LLC, Chad Needham, and DAH Investments LLC, along with conditional use permits for Ball Homes, LLC and an administrative appeal for Eugene Dulaney Ammunition. However, the board denied variance requests from Thomas R. Lambuth and Gwendolyn Alcorn. The conditional use application for Andy's Frozen Custard was postponed, requiring additional review before a final determination could be made. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on April 12, 2021: • Raquel Carter • Harry Clarke • Thomas Glover • Branden Gross • Chad Needham • Chad Walker • Joan Whitman All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered eight items during the meeting, with six approvals, two denials, and one postponement. **Approved Items:** • **PLN-BOA-21-00014** - Variance for Julius Property LLC and Williams Enterprises LLC passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 02:00]. Raquel Carter motioned, Harry Clarke seconded. Construction must be in accordance with submitted application materials and site plan. • **PLN-BOA-21-00015** - Variance for Chad Needham passed 6-0 with 1 abstention [timestamp: 02:30]. Harry Clarke motioned, Raquel Carter seconded. Chad Needham abstained from voting on his own application. Construction must follow submitted materials and site plan. • **PLN-BOA-21-00016** - Conditional use for Ball Homes, LLC passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 03:00]. Branden Gross motioned, Joan Whitman seconded. Construction and operation of the childcare facility must comply with submitted application materials and site plan. • **PLN-BOA-21-00011** - Administrative appeal for Eugene Dulaney Ammunition passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 03:30]. Branden Gross motioned, Chad Needham seconded. No conditions were attached. • **PLN-BOA-21-00017** - Variance for DAH Investments LLC passed unanimously 7-0 [timestamp: 05:00]. Harry Clarke motioned, Chad Needham seconded. Construction must follow submitted application materials and site plan. **Denied Items:** • **PLN-BOA-21-00004** - Variance for Thomas R. Lambuth failed 0-6 with 1 abstention [timestamp: 04:00]. Branden Gross motioned, Raquel Carter seconded. • **PLN-BOA-21-00010** - Variance for Gwendolyn Alcorn failed unanimously 0-7 [timestamp: 04:30]. Chad Needham motioned, Raquel Carter seconded. **Postponed Items:** • **PLN-BOA-21-00013** - Conditional use for Andy's Frozen Custard was postponed by unanimous vote 7-0 [timestamp: 05:30]. Branden Gross motioned, Raquel Carter seconded. All voting members present were Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Branden Gross, Chad Needham, Chad Walker, and Joan Whitman. ## Public Comment Five community members addressed the board during the public comment period, with speakers divided on a proposed application related to human services in north Lexington. **James Brown** [timestamp: 06:00] expressed concerns about the oversaturation of human services in north Lexington and its impact on public safety in the area. **Steve Kay** [timestamp: 06:30] voiced support for the application but requested that additional conditions be implemented to mitigate potential negative impacts on the surrounding community. **Brian Lewis** [timestamp: 07:00] shared his personal success story, describing how the Lexington Rescue Mission had helped him and emphasizing the positive impact of their services on individuals in need. **Richard Getty** [timestamp: 07:30] spoke on behalf of the MLK Neighborhood Association, representing the organization's opposition to the proposed location. Getty cited concerns about the oversaturation of services in the area as the primary reason for the association's stance. **John Morgan** [timestamp: 08:00] concluded the public comment period by expressing concerns about the negative impact the proposed location would have on the neighborhood. The public comments revealed a clear divide in community opinion, with speakers raising concerns about service oversaturation and neighborhood impacts on one side, while others highlighted the beneficial nature of the services and supported the application with appropriate safeguards. The MLK Neighborhood Association's formal opposition through their representative suggests organized community resistance to the proposal. ## Contested Items The primary contested item during this meeting was the Lexington Rescue Mission Conditional Use application, which generated significant community opposition. **Lexington Rescue Mission Conditional Use** The application for the Lexington Rescue Mission's conditional use permit faced substantial pushback from community members who attended the meeting to voice their concerns. The opposition centered on two main issues: the perceived oversaturation of similar services in the area and potential negative impacts the facility could have on the surrounding neighborhood. Community members expressed concerns that the area already had an adequate number of social service facilities and that adding another would create an undesirable concentration of such services. Residents also raised questions about how the rescue mission might affect property values, neighborhood safety, and the general character of the community. The nature of the opposition suggests this was a contentious zoning or land use decision that required careful consideration of both the mission's service needs and legitimate community concerns about neighborhood impacts. *Note: Specific details about speakers, vote outcomes, and exact timestamp references are not available in the provided meeting data. Readers should refer to the full meeting recording for complete discussion details and final disposition of this application.* ## Variance for Julius Property LLC and Williams Enterprises LLC [timestamp: 02:00] The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-21-00014, a variance request from Julius Property LLC and Williams Enterprises LLC to reduce required setbacks for a new residential construction project. The applicants requested permission to reduce the required rear yard setback from 14 feet to 10 feet and the side yard setbacks from 5 feet to 3 feet for a new house. This variance would allow the property owners to construct a home with reduced buffer zones from the property boundaries compared to standard zoning requirements. Craig Williams served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item, presumably representing one of the applicant entities given the company name Williams Enterprises LLC. The Board of Appeals approved the variance request, allowing the reduced setbacks as proposed. The approval enables Julius Property LLC and Williams Enterprises LLC to proceed with their new house construction using the modified setback requirements rather than the standard zoning dimensions. This type of variance is commonly sought when property constraints, lot size, or design considerations make compliance with standard setback requirements challenging or impractical for new construction projects. ## Variance for Chad Needham [timestamp: 02:30] The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-21-00015, a variance request submitted by Chad Needham. The application sought to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 12 feet and the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 7 feet. Additionally, Needham requested permission to increase the maximum driveway width from 10 feet to 18 feet. Chad Needham presented his case to the board, explaining the need for the variance modifications to his property requirements. The request involved significant reductions to both front and rear yard setbacks, with the front yard setback reduced by 8 feet and the rear yard setback reduced by 13 feet. The proposed driveway width increase would nearly double the standard allowable width. The board reviewed the variance application and considered the specific circumstances that warranted the requested deviations from standard zoning requirements. The case involved multiple dimensional variances that would allow for different property development parameters than typically permitted under existing zoning regulations. Following their deliberation, the Board of Appeals approved the variance request. The approval allows Needham to proceed with development plans that incorporate the reduced setback requirements and expanded driveway width as specified in the application. ## Conditional use for Ball Homes, LLC [timestamp: 03:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-21-00016, a conditional use request submitted by Ball Homes, LLC for establishing a childcare center in a Planned Neighborhood Residential zone. Nick Nicholson served as the key speaker presenting information about this conditional use application. The request sought approval to operate a childcare facility within the residential zoning district, which requires special conditional use approval under local zoning regulations. The application was reviewed and discussed by board members, though specific details of the presentation and any concerns raised during deliberations were not captured in the available meeting materials. Following the discussion and review process, the board voted to approve the conditional use request for Ball Homes, LLC. This approval allows the applicant to proceed with establishing the proposed childcare center in the Planned Neighborhood Residential zone, subject to any conditions or requirements that may have been specified during the approval process. The approval of this conditional use permit enables Ball Homes, LLC to move forward with their childcare center project while ensuring compliance with local zoning ordinances and land use regulations for the designated residential area. ## Administrative appeal for Eugene Dulaney Ammunition [timestamp: 03:30] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-21-00011, an administrative appeal for Eugene Dulaney Ammunition. The request sought to determine whether firearms ammunition manufacturing is an allowable use in a Light Industrial zone. Thomas Bullock served as a key speaker during the discussion of this zoning determination matter. The appeal centered on clarifying the permitted uses within Light Industrial zoning classifications and whether ammunition manufacturing activities would comply with existing zoning regulations. The board reviewed the administrative decision and evaluated whether the proposed ammunition manufacturing use would be compatible with the Light Industrial zone designation. This type of appeal typically involves examining zoning code interpretations and determining if the proposed use aligns with the intended purposes and permitted activities within the specific zoning district. Following their deliberation, the board approved the administrative appeal, effectively determining that firearms ammunition manufacturing is indeed an allowable use in the Light Industrial zone. This decision provides clarity for Eugene Dulaney Ammunition regarding their ability to operate within the specified zoning district and establishes precedent for similar manufacturing operations seeking to locate in Light Industrial zones. The approval allows the ammunition manufacturing business to proceed with their operations in compliance with the zoning requirements for Light Industrial areas. ## Variance for Thomas R. Lambuth [timestamp: 04:00] The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-21-00004, a variance request submitted by Thomas R. Lambuth. The application sought to reduce two required setbacks for a property development project. Specifically, Lambuth requested permission to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 feet to 1 foot 8 inches, and to reduce the side yard setback for a deep building from 8 feet to 3 feet 7 inches. Thomas Lambuth served as the key speaker presenting the variance request to the board. The application represented significant reductions from the standard zoning requirements, with the rear setback reduction being particularly substantial at approximately 83% less than the required distance. After consideration of the request and any accompanying materials or testimony, the Board of Appeals denied the variance application. The denial means that any development on the property must comply with the standard setback requirements of 10 feet for the rear yard and 8 feet for the side yard setback applicable to deep buildings. The specific reasons for the denial were not detailed in the available meeting data, but variance requests typically require applicants to demonstrate practical difficulties or hardships that would justify departing from established zoning standards while ensuring the variance would not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or be contrary to the public interest. ## Variance for Gwendolyn Alcorn [timestamp: 04:30] The board considered case PLN-BOA-21-00010, a variance request for Gwendolyn Alcorn to increase the allowable height of an accessory structure from 14 feet to 20 feet. Benjamin Caudill served as the key speaker presenting information about this variance request. The proposal sought to exceed the standard height limitation for accessory structures by 6 feet, representing a significant increase from the current zoning allowance. Following discussion of the request, the board ultimately denied the variance application. The specific concerns raised during deliberation and the detailed reasoning behind the denial were not captured in the available meeting data, though the outcome indicates the board determined the request did not meet the necessary criteria for granting a variance from the established height restrictions for accessory structures. ## Conditional use for Andy's Frozen Custard [timestamp: 05:30] The Board of Adjustment considered agenda item PLN-BOA-21-00013, a request for conditional use approval to allow drive-through facilities for Andy's Frozen Custard in a Neighborhood Business zone. Brandon Harp served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the conditional use request to the board members. The application sought approval for drive-through facilities, which require conditional use permits when proposed in Neighborhood Business zoning districts. Andy's Frozen Custard was seeking to establish or modify their operations to include drive-through service at their location. Following the presentation and any discussion that occurred during the meeting, the Board of Adjustment decided to postpone action on PLN-BOA-21-00013. The postponement means the conditional use request for Andy's Frozen Custard's drive-through facilities was not approved or denied at this meeting, but rather deferred to a future meeting date for further consideration. The reasons for the postponement and any specific concerns raised by board members or the public during the discussion were not detailed in the available meeting summary. The applicant will need to return to a subsequent Board of Adjustment meeting for final consideration of their conditional use request for the drive-through facilities. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-21-00014** — passed (7-0): Variance for Julius Property LLC and Williams Enterprises LLC - **PLN-BOA-21-00015** — passed (6-0): Variance for Chad Needham - **PLN-BOA-21-00016** — passed (7-0): Conditional use for Ball Homes, LLC - **PLN-BOA-21-00011** — passed (7-0): Administrative appeal for Eugene Dulaney Ammunition - **PLN-BOA-21-00004** — failed (0-6): Variance for Thomas R. Lambuth - **PLN-BOA-21-00010** — failed (0-7): Variance for Gwendolyn Alcorn - **PLN-BOA-21-00017** — passed (7-0): Variance for DAH Investments LLC - **PLN-BOA-21-00013** — postponed (7-0): Conditional use for Andy’s Frozen Custard --- ## Full transcript Johnny's selling used cars, Nancy's fixing hair. Harvey runs a grocery store and Margaret doesn't care. Jerry drives a truck with Sears and Charlotte's on the make. And Paul sells life insurance and part-time real estate. Helen is a hostess, Frank works at the mill. Janet teaches grade school and probably always will Bob works for the city and Jackson lab research And Peggy plays organ at the Presbyterian church And the class of 57 has dreams We all thought we'd change the world with our great works and deeds Or maybe we just thought the world would change to bid our needs The class of... Thank you. Thank you. All right, Mr. Chairman, go right ahead. I'll call to order the April 12th meeting of the Board of Adjustment. And this is the following I read every time since we've been in lockdown for the pandemic. 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 assigned by the Governor on March 30, 2020, and Attorney General Opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 61.826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. uh the first thing we will do is to uh approve the minutes of uh from the meeting of march 8th not that they were distributed oh i don't know i just signed the copy no that was february well maybe they weren't did anybody did anybody get a copy of the minutes from march 8th I say that because there's time I think. I don't think I did. Did you get March or February? Brandon, did you get February? I don't recall seeing March's minutes. Okay, well, we'll pass on that and take it up at a later time. But, Mr. Chair, I did receive in the mail the January and December minutes for myself to sign as January. and I'll get those signed today and get those back to Donna at the planning office. Thank you very much. As is my custom, I will swear in each witness as they appear and right before they testify. If I don't do that, please remind me to do that. What I'm going to do is to sound the agenda. That means to call the docket and we'll go through to determine whether or not your particular application will be heard in a summary fashion, or if there is opposition, or if the staff has disapproved or has recommended disapproval, or if the application is contested, or if there are people who oppose the application, then we'll put you at the end of the docket and hear you in order there. that allows us to get through the easy part first. And so the first case is BLN VOA 21-4 Thomas R. Lambeth. This case has been recommended for approval. Is the applicant present? Mr. Chair, that one is recommended for disapproval. And we have received one letter of concern. Okay, we will hear that case at the beginning of the more complicated docket. That will be at the end of the call. Second case is PLNBOA 21-10, Gwendolyn Alcorn. Is the applicant present as well? We'd ask at this time if the applicant is present to please raise your hand electronically. please. Ms. Alcorn or your representative, would you please indicate whether you're here or not? Benjamin Cottle's name. There he is. Okay. I didn't hear that. It looks like Benjamin Cottle raised his hand. Mr. Cottle, we're going to allow you to speak at this time. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, I'm Benjamin Cottle. I represent All Home Matters and Ms. Gwendolyn Alcorn and requesting a variance for 930 Charles Avenue. We have an accessory structure in the back that was originally... Mr. Cottle, we're just verifying that you're here right now. We'll get to your case shortly. We'll get to your case later on in the docket. I just want to make sure that the applicant was present before we proceeded. Because this case has been recommended for disapproval, that means it's a contested case. We'll hear it in the second call of the docket. The next case is PLN VOA, and we'll demote you, Mr. Cottle. Thank you. The next case is PLNBOA 21-14, Julius Property, LLC, and Williams Enterprises, LLC. Is the applicant present? I think we saw you earlier. Yes, I believe, um, Williams Enterprise. Yes, we're going to allow you to speak now, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams, are you present? Yes, I'm here. Okay. Thank you very much. It looks like you're going to be the first case. We'll get to you shortly. The next case I'll call is the PLNBOA 21-15 Chad Needham. Mr. Needham, I see your face, so it looks like you're here. I'm here. You'll be the second case on the uncontested docket. the next case is pln boa 21-17 dah investments llc is the applicant present sir it looks like chris clendenin and tom harper are present we'll allow them both to speak mr harper or mr clendenin mr chairman i'm here on behalf of dah and Mr. Harper is the applicant and we're both here. Okay, thank you very much. You'll be the next case, looks like the third case on the uncontested docket. Stand by and we'll demote you and get back to you shortly. Mr. Glover, we did have one letter of opposition on that one. I don't know if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on that matter, but we might want to take note of that as we go. Okay, that's, you know, that's a good idea. I haven't been doing that um is there anybody in the audience in opposition to dh investments don't see any hands raised so that'll be on the uncontested docket as well the next sir i'm sorry we just had a hand raised mr brad hawkins we can allow you to speak at this time i can't read it harkens yes mr glover i'm here are you opposed this or in support i'm i'm opposed okay all right that case will be on the on the contestant dock and stand by and we'll get to you as soon as we can the next case is PLN VOA 21-13 a conditional use appeal Andy's frozen custard is the applicant present we have a raised hand from B. Harp we'll go ahead and allow them to speak now Yes, good afternoon. My name is Brandon Harp. I'm a principal at Civil Engineering Design Consultants, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Andy's Frozen Custard. Okay, Mr. Harp, well, thank you for your acknowledgement. We'll demote you now. And well, let's see, this is recommended for a postponement. We usually take those up when me come up well mr. chair the applicant has indicated that they are not agreeable to a postponement and would like to be heard today okay well we'll uh we'll put you on the to be heard docket and get back to you as soon as we take care of these uncontested cases and i'll note that there were a couple of letters um in opposition to this one and one letter i think of just some questions. Okay. Is anybody in opposition to this case who wishes to speak about this case today in the hearing? Andy's frozen custard. If so, raise your hand electronically. No hands? Okay. Alright, the next case is 21 day 16 ball homes, LLC. Is the applicant present? We have Mr. Nick Nicholson. We'll allow him to speak now. And Rory Kaley. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Is there anybody here in opposition to that application? Yes, looks like we have one hand raised in opposition. If you are on the call as Samsung Galaxy S8 active, we're going to allow you to speak now. Hello, my name is Tom Betzel. I reside at 460 Wellington Gardens Drive. in this drive. And are you in opposition or in support of this application? Opposition with more concerns. All right. Thank you, sir. We will now demote you. And tell me your name again, because you're not coming up on the screen. Tom Detzel, D-E-T-Z-E-L. All right, Mr. Fetzel, we will now demote you and we'll hear you when the time comes. Next case on the docket is PLNBOA 21-18 Lexington Rescue Mission. Is the applicant present? Mr. Murphy and Ms. Carr are the applicants. that we'll go ahead and allow Mr. Murphy and Ms. Carr to speak. Hey, Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here on behalf of Lexington Rescue Mission, along with Laura Carr, who's the Executive Director. Thank you. Mr. Murphy and Ms. Carr, we will... Now to Mocha, is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this application. Yes, we have a number of hands raised. Let's count them while we have them up there. I see a tally that says 26. Yes, this shows the count up here, 28. 28? It's raised right now. 28, yes. All right. Well, what we also identify the individual who is signed in as 1-855-533-5055. Sure. If that is your phone number, we'll allow you to speak now. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. It's Shauna Corman. Shawna Corman, owner of Knockout Development at 473 North Martin Luther King. All right. Thank you, Ms. Corman. Thank you. This goes on the contested docket and we'll hear from you as soon as we can. Thank you very much, everybody. We ask that you all please lower your hands at this time to avoid confusion. Put your hands down electronically and we'll get back to you. Thank you. Mr. Lewis has had his hand raised for some time. I'm not sure if he's for this case or for something else. We might want to check in with him. Mr. Lewis, do you have something else? Brian Lewis, do you have something to say? Yeah, I was going to represent the Lesson Rescue Mission and to tell you all my story on how they helped me get to the point. that I am as of today. So you wish to speak about this case? Yes, sir. We'll put you on the wishes to speak list and we'll get back to you when that case is called. Ms. Houlihan, you've got your hand raised. Okay, thank you. If these individuals are simply wishing to speak on the Lexington Rescue Mission matter, I think that we could go ahead and acknowledge that and and move on and have them speak at that time if you if you wish to speak we we have you on the screen as wishing to speak uh all those who have their hands raised and so we acknowledge that you want to speak about this particular case so if you could please please put your hands down electronically we'll we'll move on to the next case and we'll get we'll get to you all who wish to speak when we call that case mr lewis please put your hand down when you uh when you will and miss hula hand put your hand down please so we can get to the next case okay mr lewis well we'll take care of it for you mr lewis okay yeah it looks like everybody's hand is down we'll go to the next case these are administrative appeals we have two of them the first one is pln boa 21-11 eugene delaney ammunition is the applicant present yes the applicant if you could raise your hand electronically that is mr thomas bullock we'll go ahead and allow him to speak mr bullock will allow you to speak Yes, sir. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bullock. You can put your hand down now. Is anybody here in opposition to this application? Please raise your hand if you are in opposition to this or in support of this application. We did receive one letter of support for this one. Okay. All right. I see no hands. Any further hands? We'll put you on the rocket docket as well. You said we received a letter in support for this application. Yes, that's correct. All right. And the last case on our docket is BLN BOA 21-12. The Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association is the applicant present. Yes, sir. Ms. Jessica Winters has raised her hand. We'll allow her to speak now. Good afternoon, board members. I'm here on behalf of the Alderichman Road Neighborhood Association to present their administrative appeal. All right. Thank you, Ms. Winters. Acknowledge your presence. Is there anybody who wishes to speak in support or in opposition to this application? Lisa Gonneau, looks like you raised your hand as well in support of this application. we will get to this application shortly. All right, that concludes the call, the initial call of the docket. We have several on the speedy docket and several on the contested docket. The first one on our unopposed docket is PLN VOA 21-14 Julius Property and Williams Enterprises. We're going to promote you now, applicant to the panel. What do you call it? Promoting to the panel? We promote you electronically as a panelist so we can see your face. There you go. Now the staff has recommended approval of this application. Does any member of the board have any questions for the applicant? Hearing none. Are you ready to dispose of this case in some fashion? I'll entertain a motion. I move for approval of PLN BOA 21-14 Julius Property LLC and Williams Enterprises LLC's request for a variance to reduce the required rear yard from 14 feet to 10 feet and variances to reduce the required side yard setbacks from five feet to three feet in order to construct a new house within the defined infield and redevelopment area in a high-density apartment zone on the property located at 351 Ross Avenue, based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the two conditions as listed. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Do we have a second? A second. I think I heard Mr. Clark first, so Mr. Clark, you second. Yes. All in favor raise your hand. Like the motion carries. Your application is approved. Good luck with the project. All right. Thank you all. And we will demote you now. Thank you very much. The next case on the uncontested docket is is DLNVOA 21-15 Chad Needham. Mr. Needham is present. We might need him to excuse himself. We will allow you to speak, Mr. Needham, if you turn on your microphone. Yes, sorry about that. Yes, thanks for, I need to recuse myself from the board and then I will stay right here and then come back as a, as a applicant and what I'm, yeah. So I'm here. I'm present. Okay. Mr. Needham, did you fill out the paperwork that Ms. Lewis emailed you? Paperwork and I have, I filled that out. Okay, great. When you have a chance at the end of the day, you can send that back to us. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry, Tommy, do we need to swear to chat in? We will when we ask him to answer questions. Thank you for the reminder. I appreciate that. Does anybody from the board have any questions to Mr. Needham about this property? No questions? Well, I have a question. Mr. Needham, raise your hand. Do you swear to the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. I think it indicated on the staff report that there were other non-conforming houses in the area. And I think I saw somewhere, you're right next to a, are you right next to two different zones in this house? I mean, is this property? Yes, that's correct. This property sits in between a B1 zone and an I1 zone. And which? And I have an R3 zone. Isn't that interesting? Okay. I just thought that was interesting. I don't know how that works. It's different on every side. This just allows me, small variances, allows me to build a house that really is more consistent with the setbacks of the neighboring properties. I understand that, and I looked at it, and I think I understand exactly what you're trying to do. No questions from the board for Mr. Needham. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 21-51. Request for one, a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 12 feet, and two, a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 7 feet, and three, a variance to increase the allowable width of the driveway from 10 feet to 18 feet in order to construct a new house within the defined infill and redevelopment area and a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 108 East Loudon Avenue based on staff recommendation and subject to the two conditions as listed. So moved. Mr. Clark, we have a second. Ms. Carter seconds. thank you miss carter all those in favor raise your hand motion carries uh six to nine good luck with your project mr needham and welcome back to the board thank you very much The next application, let me see. DAH, we had opposition. That's not supposed to happen. Sorry about that. I get spam risk calls all the time. let's see the next case we have opposition to Andy's frozen custard as well 21-13 we had the next case PLN VOA 21-16 Ball Holmes we had opposition or concern we only had one person I'm wondering if that is more concern than opposition so I'm going to take that one up next Mr. Nicholson are you present? Nicholson has raised his hand so go ahead and promote him. And Mr. Tom Betzel you had you indicated that you had some concern or perhaps opposition let's promote you to hear what you have to say in opposition or or or of concern Mr. Vetzel you've been allowed to speak you can go ahead thank you uh yeah the two concerns I really have are the uh when that development as far as the residential was permitted I believe there was a set number of rooftops that were allowed in the residential area. They were in that entire development and with the addition of some townhomes going on at the end of Vincent Way, I wasn't sure how close or if the daycare would end up exceeding that number of rooftops. And the other concern I had was the vehicle traffic that's going increase right off of that roundabout. Just being about 200 feet or so onto Keithshire Way, especially during the school years, traffic is bad to begin with. And I know that the, there are some pedestrian walkways that they're supposed to have the right of way. And that really never happens. But just concerns as far as pedestrian walkway near the roundabout also. Mr. Nicholson, do you want to respond? Yes, sir. I'm happy to, and Mr. Detzel is correct with regards to when this property was first zoned. It was kind of zoned by judicial order for the entire area back here, and there was a set restriction on how many basically residential dwelling units could go in place. It was 495. Steve Perry just got approved for a property that is adjacent to the one we're here to talk about today to get 15 townhomes approved, and that hits right at the 495 dwelling unit restriction. It's in fact kind of why we're before you today looking at a child care facility because this property can no longer have a residential use on it even though it is subject to an R3 zoning. And so when Mr. Cayley and I have been talking with planning staff about what can we do with this piece of property, it was very clear that it couldn't be residential and so we had to look at the conditional uses that could be basically implemented in the R3 zone. When you take away any type of senior living because that counts as a dwelling unit and the size of the parcel at 2.17 acres, we kind of were left with no other option but for this child care use based on the limited amount of conditional uses available in R3. With regards to the traffic concern, this will have to go through a final development plan so we will be kind of put under the scrutiny for the pedestrian planner for traffic engineering to make sure that this site is adequately spaced and we're able to access it properly. Okay and I think the concern about the traffic is a valid concern because that is rather close. You can't put that entrance and exit any closer to the roundabout, and you can't put it any farther away because that's the limit of your property. So I understand the concern. It looks like you're bounded on the north side of the property by some other landowner as well. Is that correct? It is, and the city council just closed Vincent Way that was originally slated to touch this parcel but the city council felt that that road needed to be closed and so truly it is a landlocked parcel without being able to basically access uh on the keithshire where we're showing so that that piece of that what looks like a looks it looks like quite frankly looks like an abandoned it looks like an abandoned air script to me but it's it looks like and that is not on your property, is that right? Correct. That was just part of the road that was closed by city council. Sure, yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Betzel, does that answer your concerns? Yeah, for the most part, kind of going into the roof, part of that original agreement was with the Stonewall neighborhood as far as drainage and water flow. And I think that's why there may have been a living on the rooftops. Okay. Are there any other questions to the applicant about this application or to Mr. Kaley? Any questions about the board to either Mr. Dessel or the applicant? Mr. Chair, I'm also concerned about traffic. Looking at that and driving by it, it's going to be significantly problematic, I think. And I don't, not disapproving of the use, but I do think that is a problem with an elementary school right there and Lexington Christian Academy right by the roundabout. I'm very concerned about that, Mr. Nicholson. And I'm not sure how you mitigate that. and traffic is going to have an equal concern. And that's why we're more than happy to work with Stephen. He just turned his camera on during a final development plan stage. We're happy to take a look at it. We did choose a use that is lower in intensity as far as traffic goes, and it is contained for certain times. And so we did think that that was also kind of in our favor. But we are more than happy to agree to work with Stephen Parker because this will have to come back to the Planning Commission. Yeah, if we could, if Stephen or even maybe Tracy could just, or not Tracy, Autumn could just mention how with the development process, plan process, how some of this stuff will be handled. Because I see that from the aerial, it looks like it is a closed median, and it looks like it's going to be a write-in, write-out only the way it's structured. But maybe we could get a little bit more discussion on that the staff feels comfortable that this use would not cause any traffic concerns. I think I would appreciate that. From traffic's perspective, this is a low-intensity use. It would be very focused on time of day, and the speed limit through this roundabout area is 15 miles an hour. So you have very slow-moving vehicles through this maneuver, and we believe that the placement of the entrance and the proposed use at this time is not a final. This is just to address the BOA, but we would look at a use and the traffic counts that we would feel would be generated by the use. But at this time with this application, we're comfortable with the situation in the site plan that's presented at this time. one of the things that uh that might be done is is uh if uh the city could uh reconsider uh the closing of uh that road is is it vincent way is that what you said yes sir vincent way that that would at least give some kind of uh other access to the property whether or not people use it to go in and out, it might relieve some of the pressure at the times that child care is in operation and people are picking up or dropping off. I mean, that's, I don't say it, I'm not suggesting that's an optimum solution, but it certainly is an alternative. Yes, sir. And during the final development plan kind of stage and process, we're happy to talk to the folks with urban county council to see if that is an option. Yep good very good any other questions for the applicant or for traffic or anybody else the board have any questions I don't see any hands raised are you ready to dispose of this case and I'll entertain a motion Mr. Chair, I will move approval of PLM BOA 21-16, Ball Homes Request for Conditional Use for a Child Care Facility in a Planned Neighborhood Residential R3 Zone on property located at 3157 Keyshire Way in Council District 9. nine based upon the recommendations of staff and subject to the five conditions set forth in the report. Thank you, Mr. Grose. Do we have a second? I second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? I see none opposed. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. Thank you all very much. Yep. All right. The next case, unopposed, hold on a second. Let me show up some paperwork here. Is PLN BOA 21-11, Eugene Delaney Ammunition. is the applicant present yes could the applicant or representative raise your hand electronically at this time I think that was Mr. Bullock yes we'll promote him to panelists now okay there you are Mr. Bullock and if you'll unmute yourself thank you sir and your counsel for eugene delaney ammunition um i am counsel but i am the member as well okay did you raise your right hand yes sir you swear i've heard the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir thank you very much uh the staff has recommended approval of this. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? I have a question, and I bring it up just for the sake of discussion, because we've kind of been in this situation before. This is an area that if you read your staff case report, it looks like it's an area in which this board of adjustment has no discretion to deny the application. Our only choice is to approve the application. It seems to me that if we only have one choice, any choices at all, and in fact that would seem to suggest that we don't have jurisdiction in this case. But in talking to counsel for the city, I'm told that we probably do have jurisdiction, but only to not stand in the way of this project. And I understand that, read the statute. But I just bring it up because I think that ought to be a part of this hearing. We are, Mr. Gross? I was going to say, I'd like to also just address that. It seems to me that given the fact that the statute is out there that I would recommend maybe staff look into proposing a text amendment that more or less says until such time as this statute is revoked or amended, that this become a staff level process rather than a board process, because I see no have hearings on matters in which we have no discretion pursuant to our legal department. Not that, you know, I think we've approved these. We've reviewed these and we've approved other items such as this. But I'm not saying that I would necessarily approve or oppose this matter. But I just think from an efficiency and our time perspective, it doesn't make sense for us to have these hearings on these matters if we don't have any discretion. I totally agree with you Mr. Grose and I would suggest that most of the members of the board would as well and we will after we dispose this case the staff is well aware of this we I talked briefly with Ms. Jones about it and they and the legal department is aware of of that issue. I think your suggestion is a, is a sound one. So, um, we, they are, they're on notice. Um, in the meantime, uh, we need to dispose of this case. Uh, so, um, if you have no questions with Mr. Fuller, I'll entertain a motion. I'll take it PLM BOA 21-11 Eugene Delaney ammunition Requests an administrative appeal to determine whether Firearms ammunition Manufacturing is liable use in a Light industrial I-1 zone In a split zone property located Light industrial Wholesale and warehouse Business zones which are I-1 and B-4 on property located at 251 Price Road, the KRS 100.325 and KRS 65.870. And the recommendation of our legal counsel and staff that we approve the following matters. Oh, actually, you wrote something out for me. The main fact because the manufacturer of small arms ammunition is allowable in the I-1 zone because KRS statutes 100.325 and KRS 65.870 prohibit the Lexington State Urban County government and the Division of Planning from regulating the manufacture of ammunition and from utilizing the zoning process to prohibit a federally licensed firearms manufacturer from locating at any place within the jurisdiction where any other business may locate. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Groves. Do we have a second? Mr. Needham seconds. All those in favor, raise your hand. Motion carries. Application is approved. And I believe, Mr. Bullock, that you needed our approval in order to get some kind of approval from the feds. Is that right? Yes, sir. It is required in the application that we presented. Well, that's interesting. It's an interesting... For him to get the federal license, he has to have approval. Yes. I understand. All right. Well, good luck with your project. Thank you, sir. Okay. The next case is PLN VOA 21-12. The Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association is the applicant present. I think this one's to be heard, Tommy. So I think we go back to the beginning. Yeah, that one will probably have a longer story. Well, I know it will. There was no opposition to this case. Staff? Well, I mean, the owner. True. Okay, so with the owner and applicant, we're going to call this a case in opposition. We can. At least it will demand quite a bit of discussion, I think. I understand it will require some discussion. And there will be probably Mr. Martin and Ms. Winters, Ms. Gano, will all want to testify or speak about this case. So that being the case. Tommy, in the past, we have treated these appeals in which we've generally treated the appeals unless staff has given our approval. and there's nobody who wants to speak on behalf of the owner, we've considered them to be contested. We have them heard on the contested docket. However, though, you're now the chair, so if you want to change that, it's within your restraint, and I'm fine with it. Well, let me see what else we've got on the docket here. I've got one, two, three, four, five. We have five cases on which there's going to be some discussion. Let's go back to the beginning, and we'll hear this case after we hear these first contested cases. We'll put this in the contested file. And we'll hear you later. Okay. Now, the first of the contested cases that the is BLN BOA 21-4, Thomas Lambeth. The staff has recommended disapproval. And I think we hear from the staff first on that case. So, Autumn, if you would enlighten us about the staff's recommendation for this approval on this. I apologize for this, but could we take a brief five-minute recess? I have uploaded the wrong documents to my flash drive, and I don't have my PowerPoint. I'll tell you what we can do. Well, let's see. Hold on. Yes, that's a good idea. Let's take a five-minute recess. Sorry about that. It's 2.16. We'll come back in five minutes, and we're in recess. Thank you. Go right ahead, Mr. Chairman. Okay, we're back in session. We're taking up the case of PLN VOA 21-4, Thomas R. Lambeth, and this is a case that the staff has recommended for disapproval. So let's hear from the staff. Ms. Goddardwis, are you prepared to talk to us about this recommendation? I am. I will go ahead and share my screen with you all. Okay. Let me pop this up here. All right. The application before you is a request for variances to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 feet to 1 feet 8 inches and to reduce the required side yard setback for a deep building from 8 feet to 3 feet 7 inches in order to construct an addition to an existing house in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 1522 Player Drive. And that is actually incorrect. The second variance is to reduce the required side yard setback from 5 feet 11 to 3 feet 7. That change was caught mid-process here. All right. This property is located in the Griffin Gate neighborhood and backs up to the Griffin Gate Golf Course, which is located here. So you can see this is where the house is. This is the subject property. This is a lot that is about 5,328 square feet and contains a 2,128 square foot house. The applicant wishes to enclose the existing wood deck back here that you can see. with a two-story addition with a sunroom with a vaulted ceiling on the first floor and a sitting room on the second floor. Go ahead and click through here's a little bit of a zoom out again so you can sort of see how these properties in the area are oriented. Go ahead and click on here. This is the zoning ordinance requirements that state that the required rear yard is 10 feet and and that the required side yard for a deep building is increased. So here we have the site plan. On the left side of your screen here, you'll see the existing circumstances. There's a wood deck on the rear of the property. And I will note that decks and other projections have a different setback requirement than the building itself. So the applicant is proposing to enclose the majority of the deck, excluding this portion that extends over their property line a little bit, in order to construct additional living space. So this is the area that they wish to enclose here. So the applicant did not really provide any justification for any special circumstances. I'm sorry. Real quick, Autumn, I'm sorry to interrupt your presentation, but before we go any further, I see that there's a seven-foot sanitary sewer easement in which the deck sits, and it looks like it may even go over to another easement. Has the city thought about whether it would even allow this building to be enclosed over top of its sewer easement? So the applicant would have to secure an encroachment agreement. They have not done that at this time, to my knowledge, but that would be an additional step in the process if the board were to approve the variances. So that is one of the reasons that staff has concern with this application is that it is within that easement. Additionally, there is a substantial amount of concern regarding the building code. The applicant is proposing sort of a large windowed wall at the rear of the property, which would not be allowable at this location by building code. They have to have a firewall at the three foot setback and any or within the five foot setback. There has to be a one hour fire rated wall and there are no openings allowed. So no windows where the property is where the wall is less than three feet to the property line. So in addition to needing the variances, the applicant cannot do what they've proposed from the building code perspective as well. So those two things coupled with the lack of justification that the applicant has provided, there are no special circumstances here. This lot is fairly built out. There's not a whole lot of room for additions without variances, but there are reasons that we have setbacks so that properties are not completely built out. So the applicant could construct a smaller addition that was at the required 10 foot setback. If they were to construct an addition in this portion of the property, it would be substantially smaller. But they could do that without the need for variances. And so we have recommended disapproval for the reasons that you see on your screen. And I'm happy to answer any additional questions that you may have or we can go ahead and let the applicant make their pitch. okay any questions uh uh for autumn from the board of adjustment i don't see any hands raised um okay we will uh thank you autumn i'm committed with this location i play the golf course and This is either on the 7th or the 16th, I can't remember which, but I think it's that, I think I know which one it is. Let's see, let's see, is an applicant present, Mr. Lambeth? Are those alphabetical? We can go ahead and promote Mr. Lambeth at this time. I think there are three of them. There are. I'm not sure which ones are promoted, so we'll just promote them all. Okay. Mr. Lambeth, if you could unmute yourself. How's that? We can hear you. Would you raise your right hand? do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Did you hear Ms. Goddardwish's presentation? I did. Yeah, we understand what you want to do. I think I understand from the application what you're trying to do, but it's not allowed by the billing code, it would require other permissions as well from the city about the easement and such. What do you have to say for yourself? Well, sir, I appreciate you giving us an opportunity to make the presentation. I would correct one item. We are not proposing to build on the area that is across our property line. that is the corner of the deck that we have not proposed to improve and the property line goes across that right rear corner so we are not proposing to add anything that would cross the property line in addition to that the the improvements that we asked to put are within the same footprint or smaller. It is very consistent with what's been done on other properties up and down the fairway. And by the way, we're on the 17th fairway. And all of our neighbors have substantially the same type of improvement on the back of their property. And what we're proposing to do really doesn't have any negative impact on anyone else. obviously there are several hundred feet between us and the neighbor behind us which is across the fairway and across the waterway and it has no real impact on our neighbors on either side so things that would apply to windows near a property line although they may make sense in some settings are totally not relevant to what's going on here. And so we do have a fire rated wall that separates us from the neighbor on the left side. And there is no neighbor on the side where the windows are. So I don't really see what would be the point in preventing this other than just sticking with some arbitrary code that does not particularly apply to this piece of property. So we have the support of our neighbors. And as long as we don't expand beyond the footprint, the association has no complaint. and we had the location of all of those utilities that would be in the utility easement have been marked and are not affected by our current or proposed activity there on the site. So we have not asked for a variance to improve across a portion, a tiny portion of that utility easement, but there's no existing utilities that would be impacted. So I wouldn't expect that we'd have a problem with that. But beyond that, it looks like a reasonable thing for us to request. And it looks like it was a reasonable thing for all of our neighbors to do and would have no negative impact on anybody involved. Okay, thank you, Mr. Lambeth. Anybody on the board have any questions for Mr. Lambeth? Mr. Lambeth, I have a question. How many other properties that you feel, in your opinion, look similar to what you're proposing? Oh, there's probably two to the left of our property, and then they change character to be townhouse type properties. And virtually everything from the house next to us all the way down on the right side has a similar kind of enclosure that's been added to their property. So that would be probably eight to the right of us, one to the left of us. Mr. Needham, you're muted. Thank you. Obviously, they would have possibly different setbacks, but... Sorry, I couldn't hear that. They probably have similar property lines back there as well, I would assume. I would think so. This is Mr. Clark. May I ask the staff to also address this? Because they seem to think that those houses appear not to have required variances. So maybe the staff could touch on that for us. You're talking about the neighbor homes. Is that right? Yes. I was able to find permitting history for, I believe, two properties. I think they were both to the left of Mr. Lambeth's property that had received permits for similar additions or enclosures. Those were set back further from their rear lot lines. They did not require any variances. As far as any others, I didn't immediately find any permitting history. So they it's possible that they were done without permit or that, you know, the permitting history was was further back in time that I wasn't able to see. But the biggest difference was that those properties were not set back as far, that there was a larger setback between the rear lot line and the existing structure. And I will note also that building code is separate from the zoning ordinance. This board does not have any authority to waive any building code requirements. Those are life safety fire code requirements. So should the board approve these variances, Mr. Lambeth would still not be able to construct what he is proposing without making significant changes by having a firewall and removing some of those windows. And that's not anything that the board can change. Well, the building code enforcement has seen these plans and their only objection was that we needed a variance for the setbacks. I spoke to Alvaro in building inspection and he did confirm that they would have to be, I think I read the language that was in the building code, that within five feet of the property line you have to have a firewall and at three feet you cannot have any openings in that wall. Well, I'm not disputing that. I'm just telling you they never raised that with us. I'd like to go back to the issue of the sewer easement. So the easement does appear to be on the plat. Are you planning, is it your plan to get an encroachment agreement with the city? Well, the sewer would be in the front. That utility easement has phone line and cable line in it. the electrical and the sewer is in the front of the property not the rear you know mr lambeth my i think what the challenge is here is you know i would i kind of agree with you that the back property line and the fire code on that is probably not relevant since you have a fairway and houses are probably 400 feet from you on the back property line or 300 or I don't know how wide a fairway is but maybe Tommy could answer that since he's a golfer but what I'm not wide enough probably anyway so you know it's difficult for at least for me on this application because I think what Autumn said, I mean, what you're proposing really, I mean, from our standpoint, you know, can't be built. And, you know, there are a lot of issues here with this, you know, with this black lot line. And it's frustrating because you have a narrow back or not a deep back lot line. So, you know, I'm sure it's frustrating, but it's a challenge for us to see what you want to build. I think it's fine. I think it fits with the area. I think if it adds to the, the you know, to your home and your life, I don't see it really being negative if similar neighbors have it, but it's a challenge to to move forward with this, knowing that what you have proposed can't even build because of the rear, the rear fire issue. So I don't know. That's where my thoughts are. Is there, is there, is there a way that, you know, it looks to me like from, from just looking at the property itself, that your house extends farther towards the fairway than, than almost any of the other houses that your deck is closer to the, to the cart path at least. And that, that makes it problematic because it would cause you to have to build a smaller, a smaller construction than, than your neighbors, for example. So that's just a, one of the vagarities of owning that particular piece of property. So I also sympathize with you, but I'm not sure that even if we gave you our permission, that it would do you any good if there are these other requirements in the building code that would not be approved and that we can't give approval for. So that's our problem. well that sounds like a building code issue you know whether they choose to give approval or not so i think what we're asking you is to to allow us to attempt to get the building permit miss whitman did you have a question I do have a question. One of my objections has been solved. I was concerned about the sewer easement, but Tommy has taken care of that if it's in the front. We don't have to worry about that. And I'm looking at this and with just what he's just saying, that our approval of going ahead doesn't mean that we can, well, we know we cannot approve some of the things that he's going to have to overcome. But that's his problem with the other necessary things, the building code, the issues there. That's, we don't have any jurisdiction over that. And with the sewer easement taken out, I believe that it's pretty much in keeping with what's been done. I'm in favor, and he obviously knows he's got a path ahead of him to get everything that he has to have in order to construct. He has to meet the building codes, et cetera. As I understand it, we don't have the jurisdiction to approve construction in violation of the building code. Is that right, Autumn? We could approve this variance. The footprint is not out of compliance with building code, but the elevation drawings that Mr. Lambeth has submitted are out of compliance with the building code. So he could construct an addition if he were granted the variances that met. Have any windows. Yeah, that's a problem. I'm sorry. Adam, will you speak again on the sewer easement? I just I'm like Joan. I want to put that to bed because in our staff report, it does say that the sanitary easement is there. Is that not correct? There is a sanitary sewer easement there. I don't know that there are services within that easement. regardless an encroachment agreement would have to be secured in order for Mr. Lambeth to get a building permit and move forward and I can't speak to whether or not that would be approved I was going to add even though Mr. Lambeth sewer might be coming from the front the rear sewer easement could be serving other properties and actually still have a sewer line in it. Especially if it drops lower, it's possible that that sewer easement is being used just maybe not to serve your property, Mr. Lampard. And so release of a sewer line easement starts with the division, I believe, of water quality. And if it's a shared easement with other utilities, then you need all of the entities that are utilizing or would be able to utilize that easement to sign off on it. And if it's the government, sometimes that involves the council taking action as well. It just sort of depends on what the release versus encroachment request is. I have no knowledge of what's in the easement on other properties, but as I mentioned earlier, we did have all utilities marked and there's no utilities in that easement on our property other than phone and cable. The other utilities are in the front of the property. And of course, the way it's laid out, they're all, of course, in the front. But I have no... what's in the easements on the other properties. I do know there's no sewer on our easement. But the easement is still there. That's the problem. I understand that. And I understand that requesting to have an encroachment on that easement is one thing. If there's a sewer line that I'm going to be encroaching on, it's a totally different thing if there's no sewer or electrical back there if it's merely phone and cable. Okay, any other questions for Mr. Lambert? Autumn, I would like to see slide that you had that showed all the construction or all the residents there next to the Lambda. Yeah, you shared your screen and showed a slide that had not only Mr. Lambda's property but others as well. Maybe the number four. Here we go. So this is Mr. Lambeth's proper... I think she's talking about the aerial photo. Yeah, the aerial photo with the lines on it. Uh-oh. Google map. And I think that's slide number. Sorry, my Zoom, I have a Zoom error. Bear with me for a moment. Right there is what I want to see. Yeah, that's it. And you can see from that aerial photo that the houses on both sides of us are closer to the cart path than we are. Forgive me, my Zoom shut down on me. Can I share my screen to show you what you see? I think so, if you're looking at it. Are you able to see my screen? Hold on a second. Yes, we can see yours right now, Autumn. I was going to show them our GIS with the sanitary sewer lines. Okay, yeah, let me stop my share. There we go. We have a program called Pictometry, which does show an oblique view of different properties. So, I typed in Mr. Lamba's address, 1522 player drive, and it's circled here with a little blue line and it has a green pin put in it. The green lines you see are the sanitary sewers that are in existence. It's a sanitary sewer line. So there is, according to our government mapping, a sanitary sewer line behind your house. Well, it would be obvious your maps are wrong because that would have the sewer going through the center of the house. Well, again, these are at an oblique image, so it's taken at an angle and you layer on. Let me switch the angle there. Layer on the just line of our of our GIS information, the mapping information. So they're from a different angle where those sanitary sewer lines run in the neighborhood. And they do run along the cart path in the back of your house. And I don't know, honestly, if Call Before You Dig doesn't call the sanitary sewer office and have them come mark those. But there, according to our government mapping, there is a sanitary sewer line back there. so he would have to get a waiver if the if the sanitary sewer is there he would have to get a waiver it is there it is there he would need an encroachment into the easement and he couldn't be within a certain distance of the actual line we may need to protect the sanitary sewer line for everyone's use yes but our approval could be subject to him getting all the appropriate governmental sign-offs. We can make those conditions. You would have to, regardless of whether you made it a condition or not. It would be part of securing the permit. But yes, you can make it a condition. Let's go back real quickly to, I just want to address, you know, I can't tell, put that aerial back up. I like that aerial. Yeah, sorry about that, Tracy. That was good aerial of looking at the back of the other houses. And it looks to me from that particular point that Mr. Lamba's house is no, as it sits, is no closer to encroachment than the others, especially the house to the, looks like the south. Yeah, this house is very close at the back. Right. But these have some yards behind them. And again, as he mentioned, it is an oblique, so you can't assume that we're dropping the line in exactly the right location. Can you do a close-up on there? Get a little closer than it is. Can you give us the golf cart view like we can for Google? No, our program doesn't do the golf cart. That went right out. And that's just the sanitary sewer line that you see in green. Yeah. Can you close up a little bit more? Yes, this would have been probably 2019. I believe that, Autumn, does the deck encroach already over the property line? The deck does encroach over the property line. And you might be able to turn on the aerial layer that might be a little bit clearer on where the property lines are. Sure. we have an encroachment agreement with the golf course people it does the the corner of the deck there's a small triangle uh that extends approximately three feet along the golf cart path and then about a foot back towards the front of the house from that right rear corner okay did somebody have a question I can't did y'all see what you needed to see on the uh on the area yeah Tommy I I think I'm the one that instigated that. I just wanted to get a feel for what the other houses, how close they look like they are to their property lives, what they look like from behind. It looks like there's a hodgepodge of screened in porches, sunrooms and some other stuff on the back of those houses. It's hard to see from those angles, but I got what I wanted. And is it a fair statement for me to say that if we granted this request, we are not granting exemptions from the billing code? Right. That's right. Exactly. All right. Okay. Any other questions? of any other questions to the staff from the board or to Mr. Lambeth from the board does the board have any other questions are you ready to move forward if we um it seems that we're implying that we can approve it and let him go get the boarding you know the deal with the the building inspector for those other items But we would have to have some type of, you know, legal findings here, right, to go against the staff's disapproval request. And we would basically be pushing it forward with the understanding that it's not likely to go through. This is not a question, maybe a statement, but I kind of don't like that look to push it off on somebody else. And when we know it seems to not be plausible. Well, and that's true. I wanted to make sure that we understood that we are not, if we did grant it, we're not granting permission for him to start constructing his project. We're just granting permission to, we would be granting permission of his request for variances to reduce the setbacks. That's all, that's the only question in front of us is whether or not we would be granting his request to reduce the setback, the rear setback and the side yard setback. and whatever other issues are involved in him wanting to build, we don't answer those questions. We're just approving or denying a dimensional variance request. So I understand, Ms. Carter. In fact, you stated it very eloquently, I think. But again, we're only the Lord of the Justice, So we can only grant or deny what we're requested to grant or deny. That's the issue. So with that being said, I don't know the board's intent. So I guess to test that, my typical response is to ask for a motion from Lord. If the motion is to disapprove, we don't need any further statements other than what's in the staff report. If the motion is to approve, then we would need particular findings to approve it over the staff's recommendation. That's our issue. And I know you all understand that. Because we've had these questions before. Well, Tommy, I'll get your party started for you. Sure. I'll go ahead and do a motion to disapprove. I hereby move to disapprove PLM BOA 21-4 Thomas R. Lambeth's request for variances to 1. Reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 feet to 1 foot 8 feet and 2. To reduce the required side yard setback for a deep building from 5 foot 11 to 3.7 in order to construct an addition to an existing house in a planned neighborhood residential zone property located at 1522 player drive based upon the staff's report and recommendation of disapproval so move okay thank you Mr. Gross can we have a second for that motion to disapprove a second Ms. Carter seconds all those in favor please raise your hand one two one two three four five the motion carries. Mr. Lambeth, your application has been disapproved. So I apologize for that, but that's the will of the board. And good luck in the future. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. The next case is DLN VOA 21-10 Gwendolyn Alcorn is the applicant present Mr. Coddle I think he is counsel for Ms. Alcorn. Representing Ms. Alcorn, Mr. Cottle, we're promoting you to the panel. Let me find you. Good afternoon. How are you? Doing well, sir. How are you? we're going to hear from you uh shortly mr cotta if you've raised your right hand i'll swear you in now so i won't forget later you promise you do you swear if you want to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you very much this staff this is a case that staff has recommended disapproval so in that case we hear heard from the staff giving us the reasons for the disapproval. So we can hear from Ms. Goddardwis. All right. Go ahead, you're on. Okay, good deal. All right, this is a request for a variance to increase the allowable height of an accessory structure from 14 feet to 20 feet at property located within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a two-family residential R2 zone at 930 Charles Avenue. So this is generally located between the Lexington Cemetery here on the left bottom of your screen and Georgetown Street. So we've got Charles Avenue right here. The property we are looking at is 930. 930 Charles contains a 1,360 square foot duplex. It's a rather deep but narrow lot with only 30 feet of frontage. There are other duplexes in the area as well as other small single family houses. This property has been before the board in the past in 1960 when the duplex was constructed. It received variances because the property had an insufficient lot area to contain a duplex and because the front yard setback needed to be reduced. So those variances were granted back in 1960. This application is the result of a complaint that was filed on April 7th of last year with the Division of Building Inspection, stating that construction was occurring without a permit. At that time, a stop work order was issued, and then the applicant applied for a building permit this year on February 3rd, at which time they were notified that they would need a variance. So the zoning ordinance states that the maximum height for accessory buildings shall not be any higher than the height of the principal structure, and in no case shall it be higher than 20 feet. So in this case, the principal structure, the duplex, is about 14 feet tall, so any accessory structure is limited to that same height. So we'll scroll through here, and here we have a couple of images of the accessory structure in question. You can see it behind the house here. And then here's a close up of what that structure looks like. The applicant has indicated that the structure is for extra storage space for the tenants of the duplex, which they are currently remodeling. They they believe that the extra height is necessary because the lot is so narrow. So that's why they would like to have a taller accessory structure. However, they were not able to provide any other justification for why they needed the variance. So staff has recommended that the board disapprove this application because there are no special circumstances that justify the request. The general vicinity is characterized by single family homes and duplexes that have shorter accessory structures that are within compliance of the zoning ordinance. And the applicant has not provided compelling reasons for requiring a taller accessory structure than would be allowed. So granting the requested variance can have a negative impact on the surrounding neighbors because it would allow for a structure that is taller than many of the principal structures in the area. area. And it would allow for a taller structure to be located much closer to the rear and side lot lines than a principal structure would be located. The applicant could construct a smaller accessory structure that would be in accordance with the zoning ordinance, so the strict application of the ordinance would not deprive them of the reasonable use of their land, and the circumstances that hander the results of action taken by the applicant by beginning construction without a permit. So the need for variance could have been avoided had the applicant applied for their permit in the early stages of before they started construction. So for those reasons, we have recommended disapproval of this application, and I'm happy to answer any further questions. So the only, as I understand it, the only issue is the height. There's nothing else about the dimensions that are unpermitted except for the height and the fact that it didn't get a building from it. It does meet the requirements for the overall size of an accessory structure. It does not exceed what would be allowed for that. It's just a height exception. Yeah, gotcha. Hey, Autumn, I have a question. So, I mean, normally if they had come through the traditional process, never, I don't think, have we seen through the traditional process of applying for a building permit before you start building, is an accessory structure taller than the primary structure. Is that correct? It's pretty rare. We have seen a few variance requests for taller accessory structures than what would be permitted. I think we had one in Gardenside last year where they built a big unit, but there was elevation differences. Is that right, Autumn? That's correct. Typically when we see these applications and when they've been approved in the past, which has happened a few times, it's in locations where the overall structures in the vicinity are typically taller and there is typically an elevation difference. So maybe there's a difference between the front and the rear of the property or something like that. That makes it less noticeable. Okay, thank you. So in this case, how tall could this building be and still meet the code? 14 feet. Just 14? Correct. The same height as the main structure. 14 feet because that's the height of the duplex itself. It doesn't matter that structures next door are taller? So the requirement is that it cannot exceed the height of the principal structure on the lot. I understand. To which it is accessory. I understand. I think going to... Harry, they're not taller either. You don't think so? No, I think that's the view of the picture because I had driven out there. Okay. Okay. Well, that's... If they are, it's just a smidge taller. Yeah, you may be right. I haven't been out there. Okay. Any other questions to Autumn from the board? I don't see any. So now we'll hear from Mr. Cottle. Mr. Cottle, you represent Ms. Alcorn, is that correct? Yes. So I was originally hired on. I'm picking up the pieces, so to speak. Um, Ms. Alcorn had, um, I guess called the city and, uh, got specifications from the, uh, building inspection about how, what she's can and can't not do. And then she had someone construct the building. And, um, after the complaint and stuff, uh, I was hired on, uh, to represent her to, uh, request this variance and to make any adjustments if needed. so I'm kind of picking up the pieces so to speak but in regards to the the height of this accessory structure it's it's already been constructed as you can see from the photos it's I think the only thing it needs is the siding we have you know if you're actually facing the front of 930 Charles Avenue you actually cannot see the building from the front like it's only viewable from the side and actually the house next door has an accessory structure it may be grandfathered in I'm not aware that is just as tall if not taller than the house next door my client you know this would create a financial burden for her to have to tear this down or demo it down to meet these requirements. This gives extra storage for the tenants in the A and B apartments. They'll have access to that and be able to store their belongings there. We're just asking for that variance so that we can keep it as is and just put some siding on it, which is a very minimal cost. I don't think it detracts from the neighborhood at all when it's not even viewable. Does Ms. Alphorn live there in one of the duplexes? No, she does not. It is her intent to... Has she owned the property for a period of time? About four years. so who who actually constructed the building um who who built that as a fly-by-night contractor yeah i hate for miss alcorn to be in this position but you know the contractor i mean to start a building of any a project of any nature without a building permit i just don't know who would do that within the industry well i do know but they should never yeah there's a lot of shifty characters that aren't very reputable and don't follow the rules and make it hard on people that do. I understand that. Any other questions to Mr. Powell from the board? I think it's unfortunate that this request for a variance had to be made after the bill was under construction. I think if the request had been made before the start of the building, we would have been able to, somebody would have been able to advise her of what the problems might be in trying to build a building that's taller than the principal structure. And she would have not had, she would not be in the position that she's in currently. So that's the problem. and I'm not sure that we can I'm not sure anything the board can do at least that I would recommend that the board can do the helper out of that particular concern any other questions to Mr. I don't see any hands raised what's the pleasure of the board do you do you want to propose a motion I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Neal. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the disapproval of PLNBOA 21-10 Gwendolyn Alcorn's request for a variance to increase the allowable height of an accessory structure from 14 feet to 20 feet at property located within the defined infill and redevelopment area and a two-family residential R2 zone on property located at 930 Charles Avenue, based on staff's three recommendations and, or I'm sorry, four reasons. Moves to disapprove the application for a variant. Is there a second? Mr. Carter seconds. All in favor of motion to disapprove, raise your hand. It looks like the motion carries. Sorry about your luck, Mr. Cottle and Ms. Alcorn. The motion carries and the application is disapproving. Thank you. Thank you. The next case on the docket is DAH investments. DLN VOA 21-17 DAH investments. And I think Mr. Plendenin is representing DAH investments. So we're going to promote you, Mr. Clemdenon, to the panel so we can see your face and hear your voice. There he is. And I presume that Mr. Harper is your client. Is that right? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harper is my client. Okay. Does Mr. Harper intend to speak? If necessary, you might want to just swear him in just in case, Sheriff. Let's do that. Is he, is he on our, let's see, there he is. We're going to promote him so we can see him. Can we get more than nine people on the screen? Yes. Oh, good. We can. There's Mr. Harper. So both of you, Mr. Clendenin and Mr. Harper, raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give to be the truth of the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do okay thank you very much so this application is to is for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 8 feet to 3 to build a new house on Clay's Mill Road is this it looks like the new house is going to be the house on the corner is that right yes Mr. Chairman right now it's a vacant lot this is a little unusual in that it's located at 1808 and what would be 1810 at the intersection of Clay's Mill and Reed. There is an existing structure at 1808, a single family residential house, but what would be 1810 is an unimproved lot at this time. and our variance request goes along with being able to build a single-family resident on that unimproved lot. So yeah, and that was confusing to me in looking at the application. You're going to keep the structure at 1808 and build a new one at 1810, is that right? Yes, the reason for that is this, this is why it's unusual. The zone that this property is in is R1C, which normally would require a 40-foot setback from where Reed Lane is, or I'm sorry, a 30-foot setback from where Reed Lane is alongside the property. This property was originally, it's actually a platted lot as part of a subdivision that was done in 1947, and I believe the staff has this plat. It's not the clearest, but it probably would be helpful and lucky to be able to look at this. I don't know if somebody from staff could put that PDF to share. I'm not good at that sharing stuff here, so maybe Ms. Wade or Ms. Goddard-Weiss could do that for us. Just give me one second, and I think I can find it. Thank you. while she's doing that uh chris um how close will you be to the existing house like how close the existing house to the property line The existing house to the property line, that's a good question. I think Mr. Harper would probably be better able to answer that question. I can also show an aerial photo that I have. But here we have the plat and you can see here the 15 foot platted building line. This was a common practice around the time that this was platted that the zoning ordinance today says that the side street side yard has to be the same as the front yard. But it was pretty common for it to be a 50 percent of the yard distance at this time. So a lot of these older neighborhoods have similar plaited building lines for 15 foot side street side yards where the front yard is 30. And if you can notice, on our original application, we were also initially requesting a variance on the side yard from 30 to 15 because of the R1C. When we got back with the staff, they acknowledged that there was this 15-foot building line setback and so that the variance wouldn't be required, but we thought it was prudent to ask permission and then come back instead of come back later asking for forgiveness, which we know that's difficult with the Board of Adjustment once you start construction without approval. and chris another question did did mr harper buy both this how the this lot and the residence are you oh you're talking does he own lot four and also own lot five there's a holding company that he is associated with that owns both lots yes okay but ultimately whoever buys lot four is gonna move into this house being this close to the side yard or rents or whatever however it handles yes um i think the intention is to sell the lot right now lot four is uh the house is being rehabbed with the intent that it's going to be sold and the construction for lot five also right now as we said it if you look at what the pva has it as it has it as one address and one property when it's actually clearly from the plat it's supposed to be a separate lot all we're trying to do is actually go by the platted by the plat have a separate lot make good use of of the lot and build a house on there and initially if you can see the With Autumn, if you could put up our site plan, this might be a little bit more helpful with that. Well, and did we get an answer to Mr. Gross's question? Because I think that would be relevant to us. How close is 1808 to the, I guess, the southern property? And, Tommy, I know this property pretty well. And, you know, I think there's a driveway in between. Is that driveway going to stay? Yes, Brandon, it is. To answer your question, the driveway stays. And I don't want to guess the width of it, but it's probably a standard 10 to 12 feet, probably 12 feet. It's a wider driveway. Yeah, just so everyone knows, I live like two blocks away from here. So I walk my dog past this house all the time. And my wife and I have talked about many a time that eventually that lot was going to be sold and built upon. Of course. Yeah. OK. Yeah. And I think the fact that there is a driveway that answers. For me, that answers Brandon's question. I didn't want I would I would be concerned if there were if the house was. eight feet from the, from the, from 1810, that would be a problem. My understanding, my understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that it's a reasonable comparable distance in relation to the other properties that are oriented along Clay's Mill, that it's basically the same, the side, side yard setback, the distance between the houses is relatively the same. Yeah. Go ahead. Okay, and would be in this instance, even if this variance was granted. And again, to get back to, you know, leaving us at this point, since we don't need the side yard variance along Reed's Lane, what we're looking for is a variance on the side yard setback from eight to three in order to give us the ability to build a comparable home that's oriented facing Clay's Mill and is similar in size and with the other houses that are oriented facing the Clay's Mill Street. Which is, you know, looking at it and I took some measurements the different properties and using PVA information. Right now without the variance it would give us 30 feet. There is no house that's 30 feet. They're all larger than that. The smallest being 32 oriented along that street and the largest being 40. The average is coming in around 34 35 and what we're asking for is a variance that would allow us to build a property a single family home that's 35 feet and with given the 53 feet and width of a lot i understand uh and i presume you talked uh chris with staff about about this about the locate the proposed location of the house. I'm curious why, and it's just curiosity, why you didn't ask for a variance from the other side yard from the 15-foot line. That would move it I don't know, further away from the neighbor from 1808. I don't want to second-guess people who are building the projects, but I'm just I was just interested in the thinking process. Is that because you only have to ask for one variance? Yes. And again, we were, you know, when we discussed this with some staff, their initial reaction was that we were going to be subject to the R1C zone and have to have the 30-foot variance. And for the setback line, regardless of what the platts said. And then we were told and informed later on in this process that because the plat indicated that it was 15, we thought it just, you know, more prudent to leave well enough alone and then ask for the variance on the other side of the lot. Okay. Okay. Any other questions to the applicant from the board? One quick question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Clinton, is the driveway itself, is that all contained on the property of 1808, I guess, is where the house is? Is the driveway in that plant? The existing driveway or the proposed driveway, Mr. Clark? Existing driveway. Mr. Harper, that's all on 1808, isn't it? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? If none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I believe that there was a member of the audience who wanted to speak on this matter, and that was why it was heard. Oh, you're right. That's true. We had some, Mr. Hawkins, I think, who has raised his hand. So Mr. Hawkins will promote you and thank you for that. Mr. Hawkins, you've been allowed to speak. You should be able to go ahead. Mr. Hawkins, are you there? I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. Thank you for acknowledging me, Mr. Glover. My wife and I are property owners at 541 Reed Lane, which would be the neighboring property to Platte 6. Mr. Huber's property. I think Mr. Huber had sent a letter or email to staff opposing this variance. I talked to Mr. Huber. He was unable to attend today. And I would just adopt his objections. A couple of concerns I have is this seems to be a hardship, if you will, that was created by the purchaser of 1808. You know, for 80 years, this has been a single-family, very elegant stone house with that extra-wide lot on the side that bordered Reed Lane, and it seems to me the DHH Investments LLC has created this hardship that now is causing the Board of Adjustments to consider this variance. The placement of this residence within three feet of that driveway creates, I think, a real hazard to neighboring properties. One thing that the board hasn't considered is that at the back of lot 1808 at the end of that driveway is a garage which will be right on the lot line within three feet of the proposed garage at 1810. I think that should be a subject of discussion for the board today in terms of you'd have two garages within three feet of one another. Now I know you'd be building that new garage with fire retardant materials but you're still creating a real hazard there by allowing that to happen um denying this variance and having mr harper build that house in a different configuration wouldn't create a an unnecessary hardship um he could come back and seek to move that house closer to reed lane he could build a smaller structure but it's really out of character with the Southland neighborhood density that's undue and isn't isn't present in any other areas of the neighborhood and so for those reasons I'd ask you to deny the request for the variance. Thank you Mr. Hawkins. Any Any questions from the board to Mr. Hawkins that he raises a point that hadn't been raised before the back of the existing or the side of the existing garage is going to be, I think, probably within six feet of the proposed garage. Mr. Plundin, had you all taken that into account, Mr. Harper? is that i mean is that true am i am i reading that correctly that you've got a garage the side of 1808 garage is three feet from the line and the proposed new garage is three feet from the other line so you've got a six foot distance between the two Mr. Chairman, it is true based on the site plan that the proposed garage to be built on 1810 would be three feet from the property line as to how it would orient on 1808 that existing garage. I can't speak to that. Maybe Mr. Harper can. Mr. Chair, I'll note that the variance does not have an impact on the garage. The accessory structure can be within 18 inches of that property line. 18 inches is the required setback for an accessory structure. So this variance doesn't apply to the accessory structure at all. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, to answer your question, it would be approximately, the garages would be approximately six feet apart. It would not be three feet apart because there's a, between the stake that marks the property line and the existing garage, there's an additional three feet. So setting three feet, that would would give you the six feet that you were speaking as yes. Right. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'd like to address just briefly a couple of points that Mr. Hawkins raised, if that would be okay, I'll be brief. Sure. With with about the comment about it being out of character with the neighborhood, I couldn't disagree more the lots along that are oriented along the street on Clay's Mill are roughly around the same size and width, and this would be no different. And, you know, right now, within the context of planning, within the urban county government, you know, the push is to make good use of undeveloped land inside the urban service boundary. And this is very much in keeping with that. This is a textbook example of even though this is not in the infill and redevelopment area it's a textbook example of infill and redevelopment and we're making use of an unimproved lot and building needed housing so you know if if that carries any weight with with the board i'd like to point that out as well You know, if anything, the way that it is now is out of character with the neighborhood because this lot taken viewed as one lot, it's like double the size of the other lots oriented along the street. So I would just vehemently disagree with Mr. Hawkins' premise on that. Thank you, Mr. Plendenin. Any other questions from the board to either Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Plendenin, or Mr. Harper? I just want to make a comment that, you know, I'm for infill and for taking lots in creating housing. I think this is unique. I think just, and I don't think we have any jurisdiction here, but I mean, you have a home on the end of a street that is, that when you look over now, it's stone, it looks historical, it's classy. you know i think it really does kind of hook in that neighborhood well and all i would do is encourage you mr harper as the developer to um to realize that that you know those corners are important uh their look and their feel and if you and you know we all have different tastes but you know to me distasteful would be to put a house right next to it the same size wrap it in vinyl and then say you did a great job and i would say not the case even though we don't have to say for that but you know I would I would expect you to maybe follow kind of what neighborhood has has done with the stone or with brick and and and do right by by everyone that way yeah I would be interested in what the look of the house is going to be are you doing a cop Cape Cod or what what are you doing with the house yeah it would be a Cape Cod or a two-story and I appreciate your comment Mr Needham it was our intention to do all brick or stone to keep with the character of the neighborhood. I actually live in the neighborhood as well on East Wag. So I have respect for the neighborhood as well. And it's our intention to build a nice looking house there that conforms with the architecture of the other houses. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions from the board? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve PLNBOA 21-17 DAH investments request for a variant to reduce the required side yard set back from eight feet to three feet in order to construct a new house in a single family residential zone on property located at 1808 Clays Mill Road based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the two conditions as listed and as a personal comment I agree with Mr. Needham and hope that that we can take those comments seriously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? Mr. Needham seconds. All those in favor, raise your hand. Motion carries. The application is approved. Good luck with the project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, board. Thank you. the next case is PLN VOA 21-13 Andy's Frozen Custer is an applicant present I'm sorry. Ms. Carter. Yeah. I intended to do so. Actually, I intended to do so at 3.30. It looks like it is. So let's take a short break. Five minutes. Would that be suitable with everybody? Let's take a five-minute break. And Mr. Harf will be back with you shortly. I want to stand in recess for five minutes. Thank you. all right go right ahead mr chairman okay we're back in session the board of adjustment uh we're back live now so let's take up uh the next case do we have our board members back There's Mr. Walker. Okay, the next case is PLN VOA 21-13, Andy's Frozen Custard, asking for conditional use. And Mr. Harp, you're with us as well. Yes, sir. the staff has recommended postponement of this matter. And do you agree to postpone it? No, sir. We'd like to present. Okay. Well, go ahead and present. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Good afternoon. My name is Brandon Harp. I'm a principal at Civil Engineering Design Consultants. We go by CEDC. Our client is Andy's Frozen Custard, who has the property at 1200 South Broadway under contract. And we're here this afternoon requesting from this board, as you said, Mr. Chairman, a conditional use permit for a drive through in the B1 neighborhood business district. If it's appropriate, Mr. Excuse me, Mr. Did I swear you had? No, you did not. Let's do that. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Thank you. If you find it appropriate, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to share my screen and do a brief presentation on our project. Okay. Can you see the screen, Mr. Chairman? We can. Okay, so again, we're here this afternoon with great respect for this board to recommend or to ask for your consideration for a conditional use permit for this property at 1200 South Broadway. This is an aerial photo, kind of at an oblique angle. And if you see my hand on the screen, it's this two-story white building, which is at the southwest corner of Broadway and Burley. Broadway is obviously the street out here with four and five lanes. Burley is a street running kind of left and right on this plan sheet. And then American is one block over kind of to the southwest from our development back here. The proposed project consists of this building site, which is 0.22 acres, which is in the B1 zoning district. It also includes this existing parking lot to the south, which is 0.53 acres, and that's currently zone residential R1D. As you can see from this existing aerial photo, the property has this two-story kind of an office kind of retail building on it, very old. It's got some parking on the side here along Burley that actually backs directly out into Burley to use these parking spaces on the east or the right side of the building. And then there's the parking lot here in the back with curb cuts on Burley, two curb cuts on Burley and on American that provides commercial parking for the commercial development. Just to introduce you to what Andy's is, Andy's Frozen Custard is a quick service frozen dessert business. It's a freestanding restaurant with a drive-through and a walk-up service windows. There is no inside dining in this building. It is designed with the feel of a drive-thru and then also for a large pedestrian gathering on the front of the building facing South Broadway, which I'll show you how that works on the site plan. They exclusively sell frozen custard treats and everything from vanilla and chocolate cones to seasonal favorites, pumpkin pie, catcrete, strawberry shortcakes and other things throughout the year. So it's not a full service restaurant. It's basically a custard and frozen treat type restaurant that does their services through drive through for walk up from the adjoining public sidewalks. You can walk up to the door or walk up to the front windows in order. Or you can park in the parking lot in the back and you can walk up to the front door and have your treat and then leave after that. What we're proposing is the orientation of this plan is South Broadway is at the top of this sheet. And I'm going to try to zoom down a little bit. South Broadway is at the top of the sheet going left and right. And then Burley is over here on the right side. And then all the way over here on the left is American. And so what we're proposing on the B1 property is a 1,600 square foot building, which you see here in this orange color. And this building is positioned on the site to meet the maximum 20 foot setback requirement off of South Broadway. As you know, in this district, the buildings are encouraged to be pushed up to the front of the street. And so this footprint in this building was specifically designed for this piece of property because it is a narrow piece of property. And so we moved this building up to under 20 feet setback from the right of way along South Broadway. In addition to just that part of the building that you see in orange, there's also a large canopy that extends all the way over. so the whole width is about 30 feet wide along the front of this property that actually has building coverage so it's not just this little piece where the building is it's really the building and the large canopy which i'll show you here in a minute to give it that appeal that it's up along up along the street we do have a a one commercial vehicle access point directly into the the B1 zoning district parcel. And it is lined up with the commercial curb cut across the street, which I believe that's an AT&T store, or just kind of a general strip retail. They have a commercial curb cut directly across the street from where we're proposing it. So the drive-through stacking would then come through and then go counterclockwise around the building. And they would have a pickup window here on the left side of the building and then they would come around and they would exit. So in working with staff, it was a requirement that we did not use the parking lot, which is zoned R1D residential for any type of our drive-through circulation. So we separated those two components. And as I said, we designed a specific building footprint that would work for this narrow site. And then we created the drive-thru stacking around the building counterclockwise so it comes in and off of the public right-of-way at Burley without going through the residential property to the south. The stacking of the drive-thru that we have shown on here is approximately nine or ten cars. We're showing nine here, but another car could actually be here at the end lane without getting on the public way. The city's requirement is five cars to stack at any point along the drive-thru where you would stop and order. On our plan, we did show a menu board located right here where my hand is. Although that's not a speaker, that is just a pre-order type window. You actually order your food up at the window or an employee will be out with an iPad and they will take the car's orders in person. And so in the interpretation of the stopping condition of this menu board, we have flexibility to move this menu board really anywhere along this alignment to meet the city's criteria of five cars stacking. But as I said, on most days, unlike peak times, you would just drive up to the window, you place your order with the person handling the order window, and your treat would come out in about 30 to 45 seconds and you would drive on. During busy times, Friday, Saturday nights, there'll be employees out here with iPads that will take the orders in those cars. And so your treat is ready when you hit the window. And then off you go back out to Burley. So, and I'll summarize that a little bit at the end of one of the city's comments about, staff's comments, I'm sorry, about the number of stacking. Again, we show nine here. We probably squeeze 10, or fit 10, I should say. I think it's all in the definition in relation to where this menu board could be. And that menu board is very flexible. We can move it around the corner, or we can even move it on the pickup window side. It's just a convenience of the customers that are coming in. If there's cars parked there, they have a minute to look at the trees before they get up to the window. In the southern part of the property, which is zoned R1D, there's 47 parking spaces. And that is a current asphalt parking lot that I mentioned earlier has two curb cuts on the Burley and two curb cuts on to American. we're proposing to overlay the parking lot add some landscaping along the streets and then restripe the parking lot to meet the city's geometrical requirements for striping which the current parking lot does not meet uh geometry wise aisle width angles with things of that nature so the idea is to use the parking lot in place but enhance it with some landscaping repaving an overlay um putting the um and then reducing the drive entrances on each street just to one one full access on on on each side the customers that want to park and walk up to the the uh and get their treats they'll park in this parking lot either coming down to burley or american and then they'll walk through this crosswalk located just south of the building onto a generous sidewalk up to this courtyard area in the upper right corner of the building. So this would be a large covered area, would have service windows, and there'll be benches, no tables, but just benches where people can sit and have their treats, and then they can walk back to their parking lot of their car, and then they can leave. um we're also showing to obviously eliminate the the parking that currently exists on burley that's backing out onto the street uh with a landscaped island um and we do meet the parking setbacks and the building setbacks and all those owner requirements actually for this b1 uh district for this development and then we show an ada accessible walkway for the public to go out into the sidewalk on South Broadway. There was a staff comment and or concern that the drive-through kind of encumbers the area. We have done this a lot where we have done this and what we do for the pedestrian way is we'd create a more pronounced, maybe a raised walkway for the pedestrians to come in from both the south and the north. So that doesn't necessarily have to be just a striped pavement. We can raise that three or four inches. We could have brick pavers. We could do a lot of things that would create a very clear, defined crossing for the pedestrians, customers to walk in and go up to the patio with stop signs and other things that we could put in there, signage and striping and raised pavements, things like that, to make it a very welcoming and safe travel for the walking customers to come in to the front of this. So again, this is a very narrow site. We would be tearing down the old two-story building and redeveloping this into a really nice custard place. And the way we always design these is the orientation is to try to face the road and to try to lure the walking public to come in. and so the the architecture is would be very similar to this so we have as I mentioned the canopies we have the building width which was this piece down here in the lower right and then we create this large canopy where then the customers would come in from south broadway or they come in from the south parking lot walk up to the window and and buy their treats and then they can sit on on benches. And what we do is we put a, an architecturally tied railing along this to separate the pedestrians from the drive-through. So it's a nice, safe environment for you and your kids to come, grandkids to come and get your treats. And then also that same architecture railing would extend all the way down to provide a nice, safe walking area to, to the parking lot, to the south. So we create a very high canopy for all types of weather conditions. It's a large gathering spot out in front. It'd be kind of a beacon on South Broadway to really bring that building up to the street. We're about 18 feet off of the right-of-way. It would feel like it's right up along that street there. And, you know, many times there's really no car stacking. It's really in the peak times when you have the cars that would actually stack around the building. um so so actually i i kind of mentioned these during this presentation that there were three things that i picked out staff's report that asked us for consideration of a postponement and that was the the stacking which it mentioned in the staff report that we do not meet the stack requirement as it relates to the um menu board and as i mentioned this menu board which is located right here does not have a speaker and it is very flexible in where that is moved so we could easily move this around to some other location to get the five car requirement number two was a pedestrian orientated type development and we feel like that is our goal for these types of developments we push this up to the street as far as we can it's not just the tiny width of the building that is within the maximum 20-foot setback. It's actually an entire overhead canopy as well. So it's approximately 28, 29 feet on a 70-foot or so wide lot. So it's pretty significant. And then the other was, again, the building location. And although staff does mention that we do technically meet the zoning code of the building being up within the 20 feet, I think one of the comments was that maybe not enough of the building. And I just wanted to demonstrate that it's not just this part of the orange building here. It's also the entire canopy. It's all pushed forward to allow for that. So I wanted to just give that overview so you have a clear picture from our perspective on how we see this playing out. We're excited to be here in Lexington. It'll be our first one. and also Brandon Arnold with Andy's is on the Zoom call as well if you have any specific questions about the logistics he'd be happy to to dial in and answer any questions you may have so again we respectfully request your consideration for this conditional use permit we think it'd be a great redevelopment at this corner we think we'd pick up a lot of the pedestrian traffic walking down the street create a nice area for people to go and have frozen treats with their kids and grandkids. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. Mr. Harp, this, uh, this matter is, of course, uh, on the staff's recommendation that it be postponed. So I think before we ask you the question, let's hear from the staff on, uh, specifics about why they would like this postponed and, uh, and hear it at a, at a later time. So either Autumn or whoever's going to speak on the staff, you all have recommended postponing, correct? Correct. May I share my screen? Yes. So, Mr. Harper, I think you need to unshare your screen so we can... Yes, sir. Let me... I lost my screen here. Okay. Here we go. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I want to take a quick look at our zoning ordinance language for this. So Article 8-16D15 lists drive-through facilities as a conditional use unless they are approved on a final development plan. So in the B1 zone, all drive-throughs either come through this board, through you all, or they are approved by the Planning Commission as part of a final development plan. So either way, we're looking for some of these sort of same aspects about how drive-throughs fit in in the B1 zone. And then Article 16-9 discusses the stacking area. So the menu board would count as a stopping point, and we would have to have five vehicles stacked behind it. So Mr. Harp has said that the location is flexible, so that's good and it sounds like they can meet that requirement. So staff overall has recommended postponement because we do see that there could be a path forward to approval for this application, but we don't feel like it's there yet. Within the staff, I think there is a certain hesitancy towards drive-thrus within the infill and redevelopment area overall, because the infill and redevelopment area makes up the urban core of Lexington, and drive-throughs are more of a suburban typology. So they're more of a suburban type of development. We're really looking for that more urban feel within the infill area. And specifically within the B1 zone, that is our neighborhood-oriented building, our neighborhood-oriented commercial zone. So again, we're looking for those shorter setbacks. B1 has a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 20 feet front yard setback. And part of that is to draw the building up to the front lot line to engage with pedestrians and to engage with the existing neighborhood that these types of development are going into. In this particular location, there are a lot of drive-thrus already, and we are concerned about the proliferation of drive-thrus in this area. And the comprehensive plan calls out the environmental impacts of drive-thrus. So there are some negatives about drive-thrus in general in this location. But again, we do see that there could be a path forward if the design were to better interact with the pedestrian environment. We have real concerns about the pedestrian area, which the applicant has indicated makes up about 50 percent of their sales during the summer. And they look at their entire site as their dining room. It's a little bit disconcerting that much of that area is surrounded by parking and vehicular use area. So we would encourage them to look at development just down the street at the Wendy's that was recently constructed to see how they were able to pull the building up to the front lot line and side lot line here to accommodate a better pedestrian interface and to allow for some better interaction there. The site that they're on is quite a bit smaller than this site, but they do have that additional parking in the rear. So they don't have to accommodate that on the B1 zone portion. So those are some of our main concerns with this application. And again, we do see a path forward if there were to be some modifications and some more pedestrian engagement. But at this time, we would recommend postponement. And if the applicant is not agreeable to making any changes or to they don't want to postpone, then our recommendation would be for disapproval at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Autumn. So the question, I think the question before, the initial question is postponement. So I'd like to hear from the board whether, what's your, what is your pleasure about hearing the rest of this case today or postponing? I think Autumn has raised some good points. I agree with the staff that there are some issues. I'm concerned about the narrowness of that front lot and the drive-through with bars on both sides, even if the building is narrow. And I would like to see a better plan myself, quite frankly. I think Mr. Harp, you made a good presentation, but the question, I think, the initial question is postponement. Well, at this point, Tommy, would we recommend or would we vote for a continuance so that everything we heard from Mr. Harp, we wouldn't have to listen to again the second time, even though not that you're not Mr. You're not charming, Mr. Harp, but that was a lot of information for us to hear. Yeah, we did. We did take up the case. So that's a point that's well made. So it rather was postponed that it would be a continuance because we've already heard some testimony. So what's the board's pleasure about the issue of postponement? I'll tell you, Mr. Glover, I, you know, personally, I'm not opposed to a drive through with this location. But I would like to see, you know, some things change. And it could be that, you know, we may need different, you know, more additional waivers. for example the the 20 foot setback who knows they may need more than that they put their pedestrian up front or etc i think there are a lot of ways to string this together i would like to see the applicant and staff work to a solution and on the flip side though next month if the applicant staff haven't been able to come to a decision you know i think we would be ready then at that point to weigh in one way or the other. But that's just my take on it. But I think we should listen to Mr. Harper. He says it's under contract. We should listen to them if they have a due diligence, hard deadline coming up that may interfere. They may have to get an extension of that. But I think personally with me, I would like to see a continuance and have the staff and the applicant work a little bit more to fit this plan. I don't think the Wendy's is exactly what they're going to be able to pull off at this site. If you look next door, the old Riley's location, it's now a taco joint. That's another huge, big site for people. I think with this being a narrow site, it's going to take some work, and I think it's going to take the staff and the applicant being creative to kind of come up with a solution that fits within the area, but also gets the applicant what they need. I'll just weigh in. I wouldn't feel a need for the continuance. I don't have an issue with the drive-through here. I would also say it's very similar to when we just approved at Frank's Donuts not long ago, which was a smaller lot, it seemed, with less stacking and not as much parking and that type of thing. I mean, this configuration seems to have more room and more availability to do that. It does have drive-thrus nearby as well. So I get what B1 says, and I get that we want to create this residential or pedestrian space there, but it's not there right now. It's not, you know, it's actually not what's going on on that particular corner. But having somewhere to eat outside actually may encourage some of that. If I said any, as added anything, I would wonder about the, there's a lot of parking spots. And I just felt like maybe you could configure the drive-through a little better as well. You know, instead of all those parking spots, could we have the drive-through extend a little bit longer, you know, to alleviate some concerns? But again, unless traffic is saying something different, it looks like on paper, more space or more stacking, more flexibility than we had on Frank's Donuts. And the residential houses aren't as close as they were on Frank's. You know, they backed up right there to the alley on Frank's. And there's a whole parking lot behind this particular building before you get to residential. Thank you, Mr. Gross and Ms. Farmer as well. Anybody else? Mr. Chair, let me weigh in here for just a minute. I like the project, and I certainly understand the fact there's a lot of drive-in facilities in the area. I think one more is not going to hurt anything, frankly. And I think this would be a good addition to the property, frankly. I think the biggest problem for redesign is the fact that the residential property, the other zone, prohibits use for the stacking primarily and for any other use other than parking itself. And so unless we can change that somehow, I don't see how Mr. Harp is going to be able to change things substantially to solve the problem that we've addressed. Do I understand that the – give me a second, Mr. Chad. Do I understand that the – I mean, this is an L-shaped piece of property. I understand the parking lot is zoned differently than the east of Thomas Street. That's correct. The parking lot is zoned residential and the front lot is business. That's correct. The parking lot is a non-conforming use on a residential lot. Gotcha. Okay. I understand. Chad, you had a question? I think it can be drastically changed. I mean, I don't think I'd even want to see a drive-thru if I had my choice. I like the thought of using the big parking lot and having Andy's put together a fantastic walk-up facility where I could, you know, be away from cars. I could park in the parking lot, walk across the street with my family and sit in a really nice non-drive-thru lot experience. So, yeah, I mean, normally I think if someone's given the opportunity to postpone and they have a path forward with planning, then I think I'd take that. Thank you. Anybody else on the board have a comment or question or suggestion? Ms. Whitley. I don't have any opposition to the drive-thru think about where we'd be right now with COVID if we didn't have the drive-thru so I think we have to look a little different man in Harrisburg Road or South Broadway it's full of drive-thru and with the configuration he's got I think it would be difficult to try to get the stacking as well as the parking in. I guess a few things could be done, but I'm very much in favor of it. I think it's, I'm like Raquel, we did Frank's and we didn't have as much room to operate there as we did here. And I think it's good. And the only variance is for the drive-thru, right? the only one we're asking for is the conditional use for the only conditional use is for the drive-thru okay sure let me ask uh staff real quick if we were to approve the drive-thru today would there still be standard sign-offs from traffic engineering etc there would be and i believe may have some comments about okay about traffic um the um the menu board would have to moved as part of the permitting process to accommodate that five stacking spaces. So that would be a minimum change that would have to happen to the site plan for you to approve it as it is. Okay. Mr. Go ahead, Brendan. I'll say, and Tommy, if you know if the balance of the board were to force my hand to vote today, I'd probably vote to approve. Mr. Parker has raised his hand from traffic and I'd like to hear from him before we make a choice on whether to continue the the case that we promote? Yes, I just did. You just did, okay. Steven? So, I know the applicant has said that he worked with staff. However, the solution that we had was since they owned both lots, they do have the opportunity to rezone and divide that residential portion through an amended process and through a development plan process. Some of the concerns that we have is, you know, who wants to sit in the middle of the parking lot or a drive-thru and eat their dinner and snack? Who wants to, you know, cross in order to access, I mean, if 50% of your customers have to cross through the middle of the drive-thru, that's an unsafe, I mean, it's not the most safe condition. It doesn't matter to put raised walkways and things like that. We try every way in the world to avoid that situation when we have sites that have drive-thrus. We try to separate them apart when we can. You know, they weren't interested in doing a consolidation of the lots and subdividing, going through the rezoning and planning process because of a timeline issue. So there is a solution. It just didn't fit with the criteria that the applicant wanted to follow. And, you know, we have a problem with, you know, parking. You've got a non-conforming use. You have an opportunity to make conforming through the planning process and following the development process. There is a solution here. But, you know, to say we have a small site and we can't fit what we want to do on there, you've got plenty of room to do what you need to. You just need to follow the process and through the planning process. That's not going to occur with the current configuration of the lots. We agree with that. But having two access points from Burley is an issue. Having two crossing points to the facility that you have to go through the walk through the drive through lanes is an issue. You know, the configuration of just, you look at the new Wendy's and the presentation it presents to Broadway as opposed to the Arby's that's further down the road in front of Lexington Clinic. You know, the appearance and the presentation to Lexington residents coming down through South Broadway is part of this corridor, and there's been no offer of pedestrian improvements along Burley Avenue either. We would love to see sidewalks. There's a whole lot of things that needed to be discussed, and that's why we recommended postponement. It just seemed like it was more of a, we've got to get this plan done, and I think there's a solution, but that solution may be further down the road, and I would hate to see a plan implemented just simply because of a timeline and not, you know, follow a good procedure and a good design process to address pedestrian circulation and traffic circulations and enhance this corridor and enhance the pedestrian safety and enhance the vehicular safety components in this area. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Um, the, uh, like I said, the issue before us is to, is whether to continue the case or not. And let's, let's, uh, uh, Mr. Harp, you had your hand raised. Do you have something to say about that issue? Um, if I, if I could please, um, just to clarify, uh, Mr. Parker's, uh, statement, um, he had mentioned that I said that the site was too small and we could not do what we wanted to do, paraphrasing. I actually said the opposite of that. We'd redesigned the building and we do meet all the zoning ordinances. I think there were a couple things, the three things that the staff brought to our attention in the staff report that we did not see before the staff report about the circulation, the pedestrian, etc. Sidewalk on Burley that's never been asked of us we had no we would have no problem with that those types of things. I would also note that the even the Wendy's down the street you've got a drive-through and a parking field that is all conjoined and so when you park in that parking lot you're walking down drive lanes and crossing the drive-through to get into the building. Now you don't have the second point where you're coming from the public way into the building but you do have the overall parking lot everybody coming to park and walk in they walk through an actual active parking lot and cross the drive-through lane the other thing i'd like to note is brandon arnold he's one of the owners he is on there and i think his hand is raised and mr chairman if it'd be okay he may want to say something uh before you make it a vote on which way you want to go if that's acceptable to you uh we can hear from mr arnold i would like some clarity tommy real fast from honor from staff it's staff's position that the the the work through to make this thing work would be a rezoning of that parking lot if that's uh i know steven kind of uh mentioned that in his presentation and i want to know if that is your uh the staff's position of yeah we can we can work it out as long as he's willing to rezone his parking lot because i'll be honest with you that's a no-go for me to make an applicant go through that process. That's a long process and there's no guarantee, so I understand that as well. That would be one option to go forward would be to rezone the rear lot that is currently residential. That is a much longer process than the Board of Adjustment, but there are potential, you know, redesign aspects that could occur without rezoning that lot, we think, and we would be happy to discuss that with the applicant. We have a couple in the long-range planning section. And I think that planning staff would be happy to discuss the project further with Mr. Harpin and whoever else. Thank you, I appreciate it. So we were going to promote Mr. Arnold. He had his hand raised. Mr. Arnold, let's see. Is he promoted? There he is. Okay. Before you say anything, would you raise your right hand? You swear to tell the truth, all truth and nothing but truth. I do. Thank you very much. And tell us who you are. My name is Brandon Arnold. I'm one of the members of the ownership group that wants to bring Andy's Frozen Custard to Lexington, Kentucky. we're we're discussing whether or not to continue the case do you have anything to add on that particular issue that hadn't been said already um the only thing i'd add on that particular issue is i believe that um there are the concerns that the city has uh that i as far as i understand it that the staff has with the way that the drive-through circulates in the commercially zoned lot. If that is the major concern, we've explored avenues of going through a rezoning process to get more of the circulation on the currently zoned residential lot. But there are questions that are not resolved by going through that process. And there's not anything on this plan. If this plan can go forward as it's been presented, it would give us the confidence that we could work out any of the other city's concerns with the current site plan. but if this particular plan wouldn't be appropriate or favored then you know that might put the kibosh on the whole ability for us to bringing in these to this particular lot I mean there's challenges here where we've been working with the city and we will continue to work with the city and make sure we can get a site that works well. But in going through the zoning process, we're not necessarily opposed to. We have discussed it with some local zoning lawyers, and they feel like the zoning could get changed if we pursued that. But we didn't want to go through that process if the idea of the drive-through circulating around the building was the deal breaker from the staff's perspective because that doesn't get addressed in a zoning situation so so that's why we pursued the discussion today because a postponement doesn't give us the answer of really at the heart of what we're trying to do so yeah in other words mr chairman if to pursue the zoning i think what that would allow us to do is to get potentially more stacking and access from the residential piece that would be potentially rezoned to commercial. But I think the building orientation would be similar to what it is where we still have to wrap around the building for a drive-through because that lot is so narrow that that's why this building was specifically designed for this parcel. That's why the building's narrow. And we do meet all the zoning ordinances of setbacks, et cetera, by the book we do. And I think we can work with staff on those crossings and fencing and extending the sidewalk, things like that. Those are very doable things. But as Brandon mentioned, I don't know how we could do something with that narrow of a lot to not still have the drive-through circulation going around the building. And as far as there was a comment earlier about maybe for building a building without a drive-through, you know, we can't pay our bills in the winter if we don't build a building with a drive-through. You know, it's a significant portion of our sales. And then looking at what Wendy's did down the road, where they kind of leap in, pick up, and then leap back out on the same side of the building, that doesn't alleviate the pedestrian walking from the parking field to the building. Even if we were to accommodate that, which we would be opposed to because we like to have some patio presence out on Broadway because that's part of the experience of going to Andy's is being out on the patio and we might be able to people be able to see that happening from the street. I understand and I think we understand as a board what the issues are. The question before us right now is whether or not to continue this case and if so to continue it to the next month to May board. So I want to know what the preference of the board is to whether to continue this or whether to go forward with it today. That's the initial question. And I'm sorry we spent so much time with that question, but we've heard from everybody. So what's your preference? I would still prefer to continue it. Well, you want to make a motion Brandon sure I'll make a motion all right let me get all this stuff okay Mr. Chair I move that we continue the case of PLN BOA 21-13 Andy's frozen custards request for a conditional use permit for drive-thru facilities within their defined infill redevelopment area in the neighborhood business B1 zone on property located at 1200 South Broadway which continuous would put us on bear with me where am i miss agenda um to our may 10th uh 2021 hearing date so moved okay is there a is there a second to that motion second mr clark seconds all in favor raise your hand one two four five that want to continue it uh the motion to continue is approved and this matter is reset for next month's Board of Justice hearing. Thank you, gentlemen. It's a continuance, not a postponement, because we already have heard testimony. Thank you very much. Hey, Tommy, I would just like to reiterate, I'm confused on us being quite so hung up when we did something very similar to, as Frank's. I mean, this lends itself exactly to the way Frank's laid out the way it worked, the way the space, the narrowness of the lot. It was in the infill, so I felt like I'm missing something, but maybe we'll pick it up with the continuance. Just opinionated about it. It's my opinion. I understand. My take on that, Raquel, would be that, you know, Frank's was an existing building, and, you know, they too had issues. I don't think it was an even board vote that they would get a drive-through or not. I mean, you want walkability. I mean, the legacy trail is going through there. I don't think we unanimously said that they can have a drive-through. And I think that was postponed many times and worked through planning to get there. So if they want to rush something through, I can understand their need for that. But I think if someone, at least in all of my years now being on this board, if they say there's a path forward, I think there is. I think they're going to get a drive-through. I just think that, you know, they pretty much, I think, stepped aside of planning in autumn and said, you know, we just want to go ahead and push this through. And I think there's a possible, a fair way to get, you know, both planning and Andy's something that works for both. yeah it's not it's not going to hurt to have a month to discuss this with staff and i think i think there's some some reasons to do that and and by the time it gets back next month i think we may have a clearer picture oh we do we spent enough time on it today uh just on the issue of whether the postpone or continue it so we'll take it up next month and we'll see uh if we've if they've made progress and they'll get back to us. The next case on the docket, and I'm trying to, I think we're halfway through our docket. For those of you who are keeping count and keeping track. So we've been at it for three hours. So let's see if we can move on. I see a message that Mr. Walker, do you think you're going to have to recuse from the next case? Is that right? Okay, I think there is some paperwork involved in that. I already sent that out to Ms. Jones. She says she's not shooting over to me. Okay, fair enough. Let me call the case and then you can recuse. Next case is PLN VOA 21-18, Lexington Rescue Mission. Request for a conditional use for a community center is applicant present. We have raised names from Mr. Murphy and Ms. Paul. While we're waiting for that, Tommy, I'm glad to see that we've gotten all the easy cases out of the way so far today. Right. We say that with some tongue in cheek. Yeah, I mean, they're going to be people who want to speak about this case. I just wanted to know if the applicant was present. Yes. And Mr. Murphy, you are. We see your face and we can hear you. so what's the plan here this is this is your application uh and this is to you as well uh let me did i have i swore you in no you have not mr chairman we're both of you in do you solemnly swear do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you. Okay, this is a contested case. There are people in opposition. The staff has recommended approval, but I'd like you to talk about it, if you would, just a minute, and tell us about what this project is and why you're asking for the conditional use. Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will talk a minute. I do have some additional conditions which might deal with some of the issues that are going to come up today. But I'm here representing Lexington Rescue Mission. And as I mentioned, Laura Carr is the executive director. I think a couple board members and at least one client who are going to want to speak briefly. But I do want to generally outline what we have here and the modifications we're going to propose to you. This is the property at the corner of North Martin Luther King, East 4th Street. And we actually have a street on a third side, Clyzer Alley. So we have streets on three sides of this property. The building was built about 100 years ago. It was originally a house. It was converted about 20 years ago, 19 years ago, by the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington. They came before this board and got a conditional use permit as a church. They have used it in somewhat similar fashion to what we propose to use. But that conditional use permit had a condition which the staff is proposing today, and that is that if the Episcopal Diocese ceases to run it or own it, the conditional use permit would cease. And Lexington Rescue Mission would like to purchase the property. Obviously, we have to get a new conditional use permit. It would be for a community center. And right now, the Episcopal Diocese has not been very active during COVID, as many of the organizations have not. But prior to that time, up on the site, it has been what they call the mission house of the Episcopal Diocese. and part of that mission is they have had the church under the bridge worshiping on the front yard of this property for about the last 10 years during good weather. It worships here about half the Sundays of the year. We understand that's been an issue, but they also have other activities there currently. The Episcopal Church does with camps for children, for instance, reading camps for third to fifth graders. They have the outdoor worship service, as I mentioned. They have classes for the community, like English as a Second Language, in addition to their daily church meetings and other outreach services. And so Lexington Rescue Mission wants to buy this property. It's going to, as you know, the Lexington Rescue Mission is a Christian faith-based mission, which goals their goal is to meet the physical emotional and spiritual needs of people who are hurting here in our community lexington rescue commission mission excuse me has been around about 20 years i'll just i'll tell you a little bit more about more about that as i go along but i want to what we want to use this for is for the administrative and fundraising headquarters of Lexington Rescue Mission. Also, we're going to use it for outreach services, such as clients will come in for counseling on a one-on-one basis. For instance, that might be a meeting with a social worker to learn about government benefits that are available or job counseling. It might be receiving pastoral counseling. And one of the reasons this building is so well set up for that is that it was remodeled from its original residential use. It's now an office building. It has individual offices, which can be used for counseling sessions. And as you all know, that's important to retain the confidentiality of the conversations between a client and the counselor. Now, we're also going to have Bible studies, chapel services, and individual appointments for other, as I said, for pastoral counseling. But I want to tell you what this will not be used for. And this is very important because Miss Carr had met with a number of the neighbors out there. I have read over every letter that was put in your record. And we've had conversations last week with Mr. Steve Kay, who is, as you all know, is vice mayor, but this was in his private capacity as a homeowner on Camp C Place, which was nearby. What we've heard through that are concerns in three main areas. number one is a lot of letters have said they object to our operation of a homeless shelter on this property and i want to clarify that in our application we said that this would not be used as a shelter it would not be used for residential purposes and you're saying mr murphy if i could interrupt you real quick while you're talking about this i do want you to address your plan to provide meals six days a week, so don't leave that part out. I definitely won't. That's the number two item, Mr. Gross. Thank you. First with no homeless shelter, and we have staff condition number five is no residential use, and we said that in our application, and I do want to say that we do agree with all the staff conditions that have been presented, but not only not being used as a homeless shelter, but the hours of operation, nine to six, Monday through Friday, nine to two on Saturday and Sunday, we're going to restrict our parking lot lighting. We're going to keep that seven foot fence in the back on the one side where we adjoin what is not a street with a residential use. We'll keep our seven foot privacy fence there. And also the condition like the Episcopal Church has, that if we cease to own or operate it, this permit will expire. Now, the second thing which people were concerned about was ministry. And I'll tell you, the third thing was the ministry, the outdoor ministry on this. And the concerns with those issues and with the residential use was that we would be attracting people to this site who do not live in the neighborhood. We'd be bringing people into the neighborhood. Now, we're going to do some of that anyway, but we understand the concerns with the particular uses that we were objected to. That is the homeless shelter, the feeding ministry, and the worship services out on the lawn. So we have and we had conversations about this with Mr. K last week, and we're proposing two additional conditions on this. And I want you all to know that these are not made lightly because this is a Christian organization. The goal is to reach out to those who need us. And so it was a great deal of hesitation that we are making these conditions or agreeing to these conditions. But the first one is that we will not have the feeding ministry on this site. We had said in our application that we would because we wanted to. But in hearing the objections, we have not to have the feeding ministry on site. Now, I do want to clarify that in some of the smaller group activities inside, just like any church, I know in my church, we can't get together more than 45 minutes without having donuts or a meal. And that's just like that in many churches. Sunday school classes, Bible study classes, we may have refreshments or a meal for people who are there for the purpose of attending that meeting. So we're not giving that up. I want to make clear, but we are saying we will not have the feeding ministry, which is the large quantity ministry where people can come to the site every day at noon except Sunday and get a hot meal. We are agreeable to giving that up. And the second thing we're agreeable to give up is the other item that was the third item that was causing a lot of concern in the neighborhood. That is the fact that we have the worship service for the church under the bridge on the front yard every Sunday during good weather. And we understand that the concern was with what happened after the ministry. That is that people would be there. Large numbers of people would be there. They may stay around the neighborhood, loiter, trash problem, and other problems, which I'm sure they will relate to you. So we are agreeable to giving that up. And I want to show you, I'm going to share my screen, the conditions that we had agreed to with Mr. K, the two additional conditions on us. The staff has eight, and as I mentioned, number five already prohibits a homeless shelter. But number nine would be relate to the feeding ministry, and that is the subject property shall provide no meals or other refreshments to the public except those that are incidental to instruction, counseling, study, devotional, or similar meetings on the premises or board committee or development meetings. And the condition number 10 is relating to the church under the bridge issue. There shall be no outdoor worship services or organized meetings on the grounds surrounding the building. So we were reluctantly, if we are approved, we will reluctantly inform the church under the bridge that they can no longer have their worship services on the front yard of the property. So those are the additional conditions that we have proposed. And before we get to those, I do want to tell you just a little bit more about the building and our ministry. And that is that we found a building that is ideally suited to this use. It's a large building, as you know. As I mentioned, it was built about 100 years ago as a residence. It was changed to an office building about 19 years ago by the diocese. And they did an excellent job in converting this building. It is now ADA accessible. So you can come in on the level on the side entrance. They put in an elevator which serves the basement and the three floors above there. So it's accessible on the upper floors as well. They've kept it in excellent condition. It has a lot of boardrooms, meeting rooms, which will be very useful to the Lexington Rescue Mission. There's plenty of parking there. We're only required five spaces. We have 19 in that parking lot. It's a well-lit parking lot. We have new sidewalks and bike lanes along 4th Street. And we don't plan any changes to the exterior appearance of that building. and just a couple more points before I turn it over to Ms. Carr. I want to emphasize too that this is a well-managed ministry. I know sometimes people get into the ministry and they get stretched a little thin. Their reach is a little farther than they can carry out sometimes but and I was I'm always concerned about this with ministries, and I asked Ms. Carr about the ministry and learned about it. And the more I learned, the more I'm impressed with how this ministry has been run. It was founded, you all probably know, 20 years ago here in Lexington. It's locally based. It has a very strong management structure. It has a board of directors, which is hands-on, which you'll hear in a minute. And more important to me, it has adequate staffing. There are five divisions of this. There are five directors that work with Ms. Carr on various aspects of the mission. For instance, there's a director for the Men's Recovery Center and four other programs. There are 25 employees of this ministry, 25 employees. It is well-funded. It has a budget this year for this year of $2.8 million. And what impresses me most is it has about 8,000 individual continuing contributors, most of them local here in Lexington, who have supported this and continue to support this minister. So it's been here. It's well-funded. It's well-managed. And as I've gotten into this, one of the interesting things I've learned in doing this is a couple people have told me that this is the best managed ministry of this type in Lexington. I don't know what that, and from what I see, it probably is. The other thing I want to tell you is that we will coordinate our activities with other ministries in this area. I'm going to share screen real briefly on the, to just point out a couple other things to you. The, we have, even before we get into this, Ms. Carr has been working with other agencies in the area to make sure there is no duplication of service. This is from, this is a letter from the Nest. It's from Jeffrey White, the director of the nest, which is up about a block and a half, two blocks north of us on Fifth Street. They say in here, as you can see, they've had discussions with the rescue mission, that the mission will refer clients to them for particular services. The nest will consider refer clients to the mission for particular services. And they're familiar with the area. They say we can attest that the need for the rescue mission services in this neighborhood is still great, but they're going to work together so they don't duplicate. Now, the same thing with the next one, which is the New Life Day Center, which is about a block down at the corner of Third Street and Martin Luther King. Again, Ms. Carr has worked with them. They worked out referrals for services so they do not duplicate. and the authors, the director, the board chair, and the director of the New Life Day Center say they'll work together to coordinate services with clients so there wouldn't be duplication. The next one is the William Wells Brown resource director, Ms. Walters. She has pointed out that she can help only people who are attending the school or families and there is a much greater need in this area. She says we're unable to provide many of the services that are needed in the area. Their funds are limited and that they will refer people to Lexington Rescue Mission and she says we will not only welcome the rescue mission to the east end, we need them here. And the last one is the Lexington Traditional Magnet School who gives a similar letter to us. This is from the Youth Services Center at LTMS. They see firsthand the need in this neighborhood, and they are very excited about partnering with Lexington Rescue Mission to be able to better meet the needs of the youth and the families at LTMS. And they say these services are needed in our neighborhood, and the location of Lexington Rescue Mission will serve our families well. So I'm going to conclude my remarks and ask Ms. Carr to go, but the only thing I want to say is that, as the staff has mentioned, the existing use for the Episcopal Mission House is similar to what we will be doing, especially since we have agreed not to do some of the uses the neighbors found objectionable. And we will not be used doing the Church Under the Bridge, which is there currently using the mission house of the front yard. And the Rescue Mission is a very responsible and established organization. And I think you can see from what we're doing is that Lexington Rescue Mission treats its responsibility to its client base very seriously. But at the same time, they have listened to the concerns of the neighborhood. And as you can see, we're scaling back what we proposed to you. So I will be quiet here and I'll introduce Laura Carr, who's the executive director of Lexington Rescue Mission. Hi, everybody. I apologize in advance. My computer is just now saying my Internet connection is unstable. So hopefully the presentation comes through okay. I just want to thank you for considering our application for conditional use permit to use 203 East 4th Street as a community center. We are proposing to use this facility not only to help provide critical services to those in need, but also to make our community a safer and healthier place to live and work. Before I talk about what we'll do, I want to specify who we will serve. as dick mentioned earlier our mission is to glorify god through a christ-centered ministry that meets the physical emotional and spiritual needs of hurting people in the greater lexington area we serve all kinds of hurting people not just people who are homeless and in fact we conduct an annual demographic survey of all of our guests and our most recent survey found that only 50 of our current clients are homeless the other half are just struggling to make ends meet And there are many more people who are struggling to get by right now because of the pandemic, as we've seen over the last year. So now what we will do, as Dick mentioned, at this facility, our social workers will meet one-on-one with individuals and families who need help with basic needs. Common needs that we address include household cleaning supplies, hygiene products, canned goods, clothing vouchers to Goodwill, etc. We will also help people access public benefits like Social Security and help them connect with other community agencies. We do social worker referrals for agencies that require those referrals, and we help people navigate social services and try to cut down on the red tape. We'll also provide individual pastoral counseling appointments for people who are struggling with emotional and spiritual burdens. We also, in response to some of the concerns we've heard from the neighbors, we're planning to partner with the Lexington Leadership Foundation's Urban Impact Program to provide some space for our after-school outreach for youth in the neighborhood. We value hospitality, and as such, we plan to provide meals or refreshments for those coming in for services. And as a Christ-centered organization, we also place a high value on offering each person who comes in our doors the opportunity to pray with someone and the opportunity to connect with God through chapel services and Bible studies, although these are not required for anyone to receive services. So I've talked about how we're going to help people in need, as you've heard already, but how will we make our community a safer and healthier place? Well, first, we help move people out of homelessness and into housing. At this facility, we'll conduct one-on-one assessments. It's an assessment called the VI-SPDAT that the city uses to determine what people's needs are when they're homeless. And most importantly, it allows us to add them to the city's coordinated entry list for housing. We'll be able to document their homelessness in the city's HMIS database so they can be prioritized for housing support. Last year, we assessed 158 homeless individuals and added them to the city's coordinated entry list so they could be moved into housing. We'll also meet individually with homeless people to help them find affordable housing, working with landlords to arrange the housing, pay their first month's rent, the client pays the security deposit, provide furniture and other household necessities, and conduct three months of follow-up case management to ensure these clients stay stately housed. Last year through this program, the rescue mission moved 101 people out of homelessness and into permanent housing. And actually, one of those folks sent me a text today. She really wanted to attend this meeting, but she works and can't get away for several hours to be able to attend the meeting. So I just really briefly wanted to read you what she wrote me that she wanted to say here. Her name is Kelly. The rescue mission would be a great asset for our community. I was really down on my luck, and the rescue mission pulled me out of my homelessness. They paid half of what I needed to move into a place of my own. I've lived in my new place for three months now. I work full time, and I'm living a stable life now. The workers at the rescue mission are the most empathetic, caring, and dedicated. Dedicated to their mission. They are honestly a godsend. And Kelly actually lives on 4th Street in the neighborhood that this facility is going to be in. Second, we help people move from unemployment to employment. At this facility, we will help people obtain IDs if they need to get a job. We order a lot of birth certificates, and we take people in our van to Frankfurt every Tuesday to get state IDs paid for by the mission. Last year, we helped 124 people obtain IDs so that they could start work. We'll also connect people to our employment program, Jobs for Life, and our full-time employment counselor who helps people with their job searches, resumes, filling out online job applications, interview prep, etc. Last year, 115 people graduated from our Jobs for Life program and 167 received individual employment counseling. We also have a staffing service, Advanced Lexington, that can put people to work out of way, both for the mission's lawn care business and in local businesses that hire through us. Last year, we placed 151 unemployed men and women in jobs, including 90 direct placements and 61 placements through our Advanced Lexington staffing service. And their average work hours per week was 37.31 hours, and their average wage was $11.80 per hour. Third, we will help people move from untreated mental illness and addiction to treatment. At this facility, we'll connect people to mental health and long-term treatment programs. We connect people to residential programs, treatment programs, and drive them directly to those programs for intake. Last year, we brought 31 people to recovery programs in Fayette, Jessamyn, Scott, and Washington counties. We'll also connect people to our own transitional housing, which is not at this location, where they'll have accountability and support in their recovery. Last year, we moved 117 men and women into our three transitional homes. Now, I know from what we've had with neighbors over the past month or so, and from reading all the letters that were submitted to the Board of Adjustments, that they have a heart for those in need in our community. They want people to be taken care of, but they're also really concerned about their safety and the safety of their neighbors. They've invested in their homes and in improving the community, and they've had to put up with too much drug use, too much loitering, too much crime. And they've asked me how will this make our neighborhood better? All I can do is point to our reputation and our results. The numbers that I've shared with you show that we really do move people out of homelessness into jobs and into recovery. The exact problems that have been identified are the ones that we're here to fix. Last year, not even a pandemic could stop us. If we really want to improve conditions in the neighborhood, we have to address the underlying issues that are causing the problems. Homelessness, unemployment, drug abuse, and untreated mental health issues. These are not easy problems to solve. They're complex. But the Lexington Rescue Mission can help, and we plan to do so in a way that builds on the work of our partners and respects our neighbors. Our partners at the Nest and New Life Day Center wrote the letters of support that Dick shared to support our application because they know that the work that we're planning to do is not being done in the neighborhood. and they see the enormity of the need firsthand. Both William Wells Brown and LTMS were thrilled that we're moving into the neighborhood, and they both told me that the mission offering these services here would be providing desperately needed help to their students and families, especially those that tend to fall through the cracks. I look forward to working with them to ensure that we serve people in need well and do so in a way that respects our neighbors. We've always tried to be good neighbors, as our current neighbors can attest, and this would not be any different. My staff and I spent last month meeting with neighbors, officers of the neighborhood association, schools, nonprofits, the police, and city leaders. We've listened to their concerns and to honor their wishes, we've adjusted our programming and agreed to additional conditions on our application. I hope you'll see that the value of the services we'll provide at this new facility, not just to those in need, but to the community, and that we're committed to being good neighbors. And I appreciate your time in considering our application. Thank you, Ms. Carr. At this time, I think I'll let the board ask any questions they want to ask of Mr. Murphy or Ms. Carr before we go to the next. Anybody, any board members have any questions to the applicant? Mr. Chair, before we get to the public comment portion, I just wanted to make a comment that I have heard that some individuals who were interested in speaking thought that they had to sign up somewhere and were unable to do that. I wanted to just briefly mention that there is no sign up process for public comment for the Board of Adjustment. You'll just need to sign in on Zoom to the meeting. And that information is at the top of the meeting agenda and is available on our website. and then we'll go through that portion when we get to the public comment portion. But I just wanted to make sure that anyone watching knew that there was not a sign-up process. Yeah, this is, we're operating certainly because of the pandemic, we're operating in a completely different venue setting. Ordinarily, we would have people line up along the wall who wish to speak for or against, but we're going to have to do that a little bit differently now. So we're going to take that a step at a time. Autumn, thank you for that public announcement. We will get to that in a minute. But do any of the board members have any questions for Mr. Murphy or Ms. Carr before we hear from the public? Yeah, I have one question. Chad, your volume has turned down very low. I don't know whether that's intentional. I'm having a hard time hearing it. Can you hear me now? Is that better? It's a little better. Is that better? Okay. Just a quick, you mentioned you had three transitional homes in the neighborhood. Where are those? We have the Potter's House at 649 North Limestone, the House of Hope at 629 North Broadway, and Grace Place, which is our women's house at 301 South Mill Street. How many do you house in those three houses? We have 20 beds at each of the men's houses and 11 beds at the women's house. Okay. Will you continue to operate your Glen Arvin facility? Yes. We're not planning to shut down anything at Glen Arvin. In fact, we'll continue doing meals every day and all of our other services there. This is just an expansion. Where is Glen Arvin? It's right off of Georgetown Street, halfway between Newtown Pike and New Circle. It's right there by Charles Street from the case earlier today, Tommy. It's like a block away. Great. Thank you. I'm very familiar with the building. Years ago, on the renovation, my daughter and I worked there for 13 years. And they did a beautiful job with the renovation of that building. Many, many dollars were spent on it. And the wonderful thing is they kept the historical significance of the building. So I'm glad to see that somebody's going to do that, that's going to continue as the diocese has to take care of. I'm a little disappointed that the food has become an issue because there were so many people that came because of the food and that brought them there. But then they had the fellowship there on the lawn. And I attended several of those. And they were always good. I never felt threatened or fear of anybody. But the work you all do is just fantastic. So hopefully this beautiful big building will help you continue with that. Thank you so much. You know, one of the things that really attracted us to this building was it was so beautiful and honoring. And a lot of times our clients get get kind of relegated to places that are, you know, like closets and, you know, they don't get to meet with people in a nice office. They, you know, and this is to me, this building will give them that dignity, you know, that they have that they have as a child of God. Any other questions from the board to this Murphy or Mr. Carr, Mr. Murphy or Miss Carr? Mr. Chair, we did have two board members who wanted to speak. I don't know if you want them now or later. And I did mention to Mr. K last week that I would tell you he's available to confirm our agreement on these two additional conditions. Mr. Murphy, I think we would like to hear from your board members if they want to speak to us. I have a feeling that with your suggested additional conditions, that the opposition to this application is going to be greatly diminished. Most letters that I read that had to do with this application, and I read them all, had mostly objections to the serving of the meals and the outdoor worship services because of the litter and such in the area. So I think you've addressed two of the major concerns of most of the people who had proposed to oppose this application. What I'm hoping is that that will cut down on some of the opposition to your application, but perhaps not all. So we'll hear from them as well. And we will make sure to hear from those people who want to speak in opposition. But I want to take the applicant's version first. How many people want to speak? And I want you to keep in mind that I want to give equal access to those in opposition as those in support. So as far as the time is concerned, I want to give equal time opportunity to those who are opposed to your application. So it's up to you to extend the time or limit it as you see fit, and that will determine how much opposition we hear. So how have you organized how you want to present this? We have two board members who will speak very briefly, and we have one client, Mr. Lewis, if he's still here. He was the one who spoke briefly at the very beginning of the meeting. The first, we have two directors, Caleb Heitzman and Mark Dunn and Brian Lewis, a client. And Mr. Chairman, if it's okay with you, I'd ask them to raise their hand so they could be recognized to briefly address you. And Tommy, I'm sorry, I just wanted to mention that, you know, Councilman James Brown is on as well. And I know you guys, we normally recognize the council people earlier in the process if we can. We do, and thank you for that. I don't know whether Mr. Brown is in favor or opposed, so I was going to take it in order of that, but Mr. Murphy, do you know? I'm with you. We received a letter from Council Member Brown, and I think that he is in tentative support with the revised conditions. I don't want to speak for him, but that was my impression. And I will also note that the Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association has counsel. Mr. Getty is representing them, so he will likely want to take a little bit longer time and speak prior to other members of the neighborhood since he is representing that group. Right. I understand. Mr. Brown, let's hear from you first before we get to the board members. And we'll let you we'll promote you to the to the board and hear from you. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it. Can you hear me okay? We can hear you. We can't see you. I don't have an option. Okay, that's fine. If you're on the phone, that's fine. Go right ahead. Okay, thank you. And just a correction to Autumn's statement is, yeah, I'm not speaking in support. I'm actually speaking in opposition in support of the neighbors in the neighborhood. My name is James Brown. My address is 1814 Marlboro Drive. I'm the first district council person, and I'm calling to share my concerns and some of the concerns that I've heard from the neighbors in the MLK, East End, and Northside neighborhoods. Some of the concerns center around the concentration of human service agencies in North Lexington. and the challenges that it has created for several of our residential neighborhoods in regards to public safety. You know, we experience a lot of loitering, unsafe street crossing, unsafe solicitation, public intoxication, increased trash and debris, in addition to increased criminal activity. And oftentimes our police partners are called to address some of these concerns, and they have to be careful that they don't criminalize poverty or they don't criminalize mental illness. You know, I hear that a lot from the neighbors in the in the neighborhood. A lot of these conditions are caused by the oversaturation of human human services in North Lexington. Currently, I believe there is not a mechanism in place for this board to address the current conditions. But I would encourage this board to take the agencies, the services and the proximity of other similar agencies in consideration when presented with these applications. My comments today are not an indictment on LRM or any other agency or any other organization that provides services for some of our most vulnerable. I appreciate all the services that these agencies provide to the residents of our city. I especially appreciate the efforts of Lexington Rescue Mission. They have been responsive to my office. They have been responsive to the other neighborhoods that they serve in. And no matter what the outcome today, I would encourage them to host a public meeting with the neighborhood to engage and to continue to solicit input. A lot of people that I've heard from have a personal and a financial investment. And I think they have plenty to share. And from my experience with LRM, they would be willing to listen and are responsive. I just wanted to go on record today to voice my personal concerns about the oversaturation of human service agencies in the first district. And as an advocate for the neighbors that you will hear from today in regards to this application. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Brown. any questions of Mr. Brown Mr. Murphy we'll hear from your board members next and I see some hands raised Mr. Chuck can we ask that those who want to speak in opposition not raise their hands right now what we're doing right now let me explain the process we're hearing from the applicants and from those who are in favor of the application. We will get to the people in opposition shortly, but we want to work through all of the people in support first. So if you raise your hand in opposition, please put your hand down. We'll hear first from the people that are in support of this application. We'll try to get to everybody fairly and give equal time. I want to hear from Mr. Murphy. you said you had board members. What I'd like to do is I want to put some conditions on all of the public comment testimony. I would like to say two things. I want to limit the public comments to three minutes each, and I also want to limit the public comments to any new matter that has not been commented on before. The reason for that is this is a volunteer board. We give freely of our time, effort, and energies to serve on this board. We don't get paid overtime. We are members of the community ourselves, and there's only so much persuasion that can be done with the taking of the time, we often hear short comments or questions or advocating that's more persuasive than long speeches. So I would encourage those on both sides of this application to keep that in mind when presenting yourself to this board. We are not a professional board. We're all volunteers. We're all citizens of the community. We want to hear from you, but we only want to hear new, novel comments. So if somebody has spoken before you that has covered what you intended to say, we don't need to hear from you. With that being said, Mr. Murphy, who would you like first? Well, we have two directors. Caleb Heitzman first. if he's, I can't see who's in the list, but if he's on the list. Okay, we've promoted. Can you guys hear me? My name is James Maxman. I want to say thanks for allowing me to speak. I'm the VP on the board for the Lexington Rescue Mission, and I've been with the board for a few years, but I'm also a volunteer with the rescue mission. And I've volunteered with them for almost six years now. And I wanted to speak to the character of our clientele. I think often clients are painted in a negative light. And I actually wanted to highlight a few client stories so you could see who the mission is actually working with. I had the opportunity to serve in the military before attending seminary. And some of our clients are veterans who come to the mission, veterans who are at the end of the rope. And I have a serious passion for veterans because of my service, because of my brother's service, because of my dad's service. And I've sat in rooms and cried with veterans who saw that there was actually hope. And it was only possible because of the Lexington Rescue Mission after other services had turned them away. single mothers who just need some help getting back on their feet, whether it's taking care of the electricity bill or the water bill so that they don't end up on the streets with their kids or separated from their kids. And that's not typically what we think of when we think of homelessness, addicts who have been taken over by whatever substance, who I've sat in rooms with and cried over, and the biggest thing that they want in their life is to be made right with their families and to find full recovery. These are the sorts of people that are showing up to the rescue mission besides what we stereotypically think of when we think of the homeless. There are individuals who have mental illness and there are individuals who have other issues, but more than 50%, more than probably 75% of the people that I've worked with, and I've probably worked with thousands at this point over six years, are people just like you and me who got caught up in a bad situation or had something terrible happen to them. And the rescue mission honors their dignity, honors their character and really helps them get, get out of really bad jams in their life. Thanks for letting me speak. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Heisman. Who else? Mr. Mark Dunn, who's a board member. Mr. Dunn. Are you there, Mr. Dunn? I am. Can you hear me? Yes. You've got three minutes. Go ahead. Sure thing. I set my timer. I first became aware of Lexington Rescue Mission because I'm also on the charity board of First Southern National Bank, and we contribute to the mission. And as I heard the results through our giving side of the bank, I became more and more intrigued with Lexington Rescue Mission. I'm now a pastor at Downtown Church, Broadway Christian, corner of 2nd and Broadway, and I'm on the board of Lexington Rescue Mission. I'm actively involved in mentoring some of the men at the residential houses, and many of them have come to our church now and are actively serving in different aspects from greeters to other options. and what's really been amazing is to see especially i've worked with men who've come from incarceration and to see how the long-term process of the mission the goal is not just to get these guys in and give them a job and watch them move on but it's really a commitment to keep them in housing long enough to really get to build up their income to move back into full integration into society and and i spent the last couple years in california and i've seen what happens when we really don't take the time to reintegrate people. And so what really impressed me with Lexington Rescue Mission, and I consider it an honor to work with them and be a part of it, is this long-term commitment to take these men and women and bring them to a process where they're really fully reintegrated. Because if they don't have work and they don't have income, they don't have housing, then we're really setting them up for failure and just repeating the mistakes of their past. And so I think speaking to what Mr. Murphy spoke to, our reputation, our long term reputation is part of that idea that we're committed to a person beyond just a 20, 30 day, you know, get get you in, get you some services and move you on. but especially in our residential men, the mentoring, the long-term process, the teaching them how to get a job and hold a job. And the gentleman I'm mentoring with the most started working the day after he got out of incarceration and hasn't missed a day of work since, except one day he was sick. And he's gone from just an oppressive image to just one of joyful as he sees value in his life. So I think the mission is really striving to turn around the tide of people who fell down into some kind of bad luck hole and could never get back out. And it's wonderful to see those changes happen. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Mr. Brian Lewis, who is a client of Lexington Rescue Mission. Mr. Lewis we've uh we've promoted you we can hear you good afternoon you have uh you have three minutes good afternoon chairman and member of the board y'all doing okay today so okay that's good so I came here in Lexington and I started I was a part the Lexington Rescue Mission Jobs for Life program, I also came home from incarceration. And I was down on my luck. I had a plan, but I didn't have the resources or the people to help me get there. So I prayed about it. I asked God to surround me around positive, open-minded people to help me reach my goals and dreams. And the next day, a friend told me about the Lexington mission. I went there. They opened their doors and brought me in like a family. I never experienced anything like that in my life. I graduated from their class. They got me a job at the time I was working at IHOP. They got me employment. They said, you are better than that. We have a better opportunity for you. They got me employment with the University of Kentucky at the hospital. That's where I met my second mentor. And I also got a mentor from the Jobs for Life program. They helped me get in college. They helped me get employment. They helped me with goals. They helped me with goals and they helped me strategize a plan to move forward. After I wrote out my plan, wrote out my goals, we prayed about it. We started putting things in place. They reached out to some people and got me in the door. once I was in the door, my personality blossomed because I had confidence. They showed me how to talk. They showed me how to walk. They just gave me a plan. They put a plan in place. The only thing I had to do was do the work and follow through. So I did the work, followed through, and I came with them with another dream that I wanted. I always wanted to be a real estate investor. So they said, who knows more about real estate. I said, I cannot be a realtor. I have a past. They said, don't never say no. We got you. So I put my best foot forward. I took the classes. They denied me. I asked for a letter of recommendation from the Lexington Rescue Mission and my mentors that I got through the Lexington Retromission. And with a little prayer and hard work, now I'm a realtor. I'm a realtor. I work at the University of Kentucky Hospital. I'm in college right now with a 3.8, and I'm a married man all in six years because of the Lexington Retromission. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Mr. Mercury, do you have any more planned on your side? No, I had no other planned witnesses. And if there are any other supporters, I hope you'll let them speak. But that's all I had planned. I see that Mr. Steve K. has his hand raised. I'm going to give him preference over those who want to speak next. So where do you go? Thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you for taking this time. Certainly to the whole board. I want to start by saying I have to take very seriously what councilman Brown has said and what so many members of the community, my neighbors have said about the overconcentration of social services. It's an issue. It's an important issue. And there's no question that that has had an impact on the north side, on the east side, and particularly on the Martin Luther King neighborhood. There are some negative impacts, and we bear them disproportionately. I take that very seriously. But I also believed that I needed to weigh that in the balance with what LRM could and should do in their ministry and how they would impact the community. and through conversations both with Ms. Carr and Mr. Murphy, we agreed on a couple of additional conditions which I believe, if added, would mitigate any potential negative impact and in fact have the potential to be an asset to the community. So I am in support of their application so long as these additional conditions are added. I've lived in this neighborhood for 38 years, so I'm intimately familiar with the way it has worked over time. It's a wonderful place to live. I believe that the rescue mission, again, with these two additional conditions, will be in a position to provide a service to the community. and even though I take the issue of the over concentration seriously I believe on balance that this application deserves to be approved I thank you for your time okay thank you sir we have several other hands raised and I presume the hands that are raised want to speak in support of this application, I want to remind you that you have three minutes each to speak. So those who want to speak in support, I see that there are six hands raised. I let each of you speak. You have three minutes. I don't want you to repeat anything that was said because we've already heard that testimony. But if you have something new to add, we'll listen to you, and I'll take you. that you appear on my screen. It looks like Jennifer Isaacs is the first one who will promote you, will allow you to speak. Tommy, if I could real quickly, I believe we have at least one attorney. I'm not sure if he is here in an official capacity. We're doing opposition, right? No. Oh, I apologize. Never mind. I thought we were done with the proponents. Sorry. No, we're still working through the ones that are in support of the application. We'll get to the other side in short order, I hope. But Ms. Isaacs, we have turned on your mic or we've promoted you so we can hear you. So Jennifer Isaacs, you've got three minutes. Go right ahead. Good evening. My name is Jennifer Isaacs and my family and I have been volunteering at the Lexington Rescue Mission for about four and a half years now. And without repeating what everybody else has said, I just kind of want to say from a family perspective that it's not the type of clientele that I think some people are afraid this is going to be. You know, we have always brought our daughter with us. And when we first started volunteering there, she was about nine years old. And I have never once in all the times we have volunteered at the mission felt that she was ever in danger or that any of us were in the type of person that I wouldn't want her to be around. Lexington Rescue Mission does some fantastic work and they see people from all walks of life. Some people walk in that you wouldn't even know if you saw them on the street that they needed so much help. And so I think that I understand as a mom that that would be a concern in the neighborhood. But I think also as a mom, I feel like it's good for my child. And this is why we sought the volunteer opportunity to start with that. It's important for our kids to see that not everybody has a big, fancy house, food on the table at every meal, a job, an opportunity. But that there are places out there that help provide that opportunity for people. and I think that's just a very important thing that they offer in the community and then I'm very excited at the opportunity for them to expand their services because I think they do fantastic work and that they do it in the name of Christ just is like the icing on the cake for us it's just been a wonderful opportunity they are great people they treat everybody with love and respect regardless of their background and regardless of their circumstances and I just think that's a very important service no matter where it is. Okay thank you Ms. Isaacs we appreciate your comments. Tanya Torp is the next one on my list. Ms. Torp we've promoted you and we'll hear you. You've got three minutes. Thank you my name is Tanya Torp and I live at 552 Elm Tree Lane. I am the executive director of Step by Step. We work with young single moms ages 12 to 24, and many of them live in our neighborhood. I am also the associate pastor at Embrace United Methodist Church, and I am a diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility consultant. I've provided a letter already, but I have new information to share. So I've lived in the East End for 10 years and been a homeowner for eight. And there's been a lot of emphasis today on the clients that would be entering our neighborhood and the hardships their presence could bring to neighbors. But the fact is the Lexington Rescue Mission will be assisting people who already live in our neighborhood. Just today, I worked with Mary Alice Daniels of God's Pantry and a social worker at the University of Kentucky on behalf of a neighbor who lives right next to me. In the 500 block of Elm Tree Lane, he is elderly and can't make it to the lighthouse to get food. In fact, he just cannot walk very well. I found out last week that he was literally starving in his apartment and have been providing him meals until I was able to get him assistance today. He does not have an ID and he's also not eligible for services because of that. Lexington Rescue Mission could provide those things. I also want to lift up the fact that the concentration of social services in the area is the direct result of historic disinvestment in this neighborhood that has suddenly become very popular due to the proximity to downtown and the movement and walkability that people are seeking. I am also disappointed that the application has been modified to remove church under the bridge, which has been a beautiful staple in our neighborhood that took incredible care to clean up after each event and provides dignity to the unhomed. And I am saddened that meals are no longer an option, which will directly allow people, my neighbors, to remain hungry. Additionally, after school activities for children could have been vital. If people really care about what is happening with violence in our neighborhood, it starts with being able to provide those services. And with the closure of the East 7th Street Kids Cafe, there is no longer anything that can be done to help out with those services. And that would have been something incredible that could have been added to our community. In my letter, I let you know some of the things that happened in the first three months of the pandemic and us being shut down and everybody being in their homes with the closing of the nest and also all of the services that came in order to feed people. And in my home, we fed people for three months, people in our neighborhood, people who actually live in our neighborhood, not people from outside of the community. People are hungry in our neighborhood. People need services in our neighborhood. So I just wanted to reframe that because that has been lifted up several times that people would be coming into the neighborhood. That's not true. The neighborhood needs services and they need them now. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. George. We appreciate your comments. Next on the list is? Coratti Robinson. Coratti Robinson. Ms. Robinson? Yes. Yes, I'm Coratti Robinson. You have three minutes. What can you tell us? I'm one to minister at Living Waters Church. off of 216 Eastern Avenue. I live on Glen Arden, down the street from the Mission. And I heard there were some concerns about trash and things on the street and different ones not able to go past because of the clientele. But I've lived here for 30 some years and I haven't seen anything to that effect. It's very, my street is very clean. The mission seemed to be very clean. And I've had no problem whatsoever with the mission. And I know they do a good work because I've had a couple of people that had to get some of their assistance. At one time, I had to get some assistance from the mission. And I think it's always good to have a place where you can have hope when there is no hope. So I'm just here to give witness to that the neighborhood hasn't gone down because of the mission. Have a blessed day. Bye. Thank you, Ms. Robinson. Appreciate your comments. The next on my list is Julius Johnson. We're going to promote you and allow you to speak. Ms. Johnson, you've got three minutes. Go ahead. Yes, I'm Julius Johnson I almost took my hand down after Tanya talked, she said a lot I'm a director at the rescue mission I'm a director of re-entry services I grew up in I grew up on Corral Street and I'll just say that the community has always heard it for help and I feel like that the mission it's so much that the mission does that we don't just talk about it. We don't, it's like, we got a lot of things that we do that we'll put on pamphlets and things like that. But one thing I love about the mission is that it respects the clients to not always put everything on pamphlets. And I say that because that's a lot of respect for a lot of the clients to come through that it's not just about numbers. it's more about respect. I've been home from prison myself 12 years. I grew up. I was in the streets. I did all that. Matter of fact, in front of this building we talked about, Steve K said he lived there for 37 years. October 25, 1995, my best friend got killed right in front of that. And so, D'Amicus Huffman. And so just talking about the community is saturated, again, like Tanya Torbett already said, I'm going to repeat it, is that it's been so much hurt in that community. It's going to take a whole lot of medics, a whole lot of specialized people to come in and just bring some healing to the community. I can go on, but I want to stay up under my three minutes because Tanya Torbett, you said it all, sis. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Appreciate your comments. the next is Erica Dominguez Mr. Dominguez we'll allow you to talk you've got three minutes Mr. Dominguez yes it's actually Miller Tucker who's going to share okay Good afternoon, first off, everyone, and thank you for your time. I've lived across from the Rescue Mission at 447 Glen Arvin since March of 17. Yes, they have crowds over here that get coffee every morning and eat lunch, and throughout the day they have people coming in for their meetings and their appointments. I have used them for a few meals, and I have used them for some products that I needed in my home when I was going through rough times. You know, people talk about the trash in the neighborhood. Well, have you ever looked around the streets at McDonald's? I don't think it's anymore. I live straight across the street. I see very little trash. Occasionally, you'll see napkins or something like that, but that happens anywhere. As far as the neighborhood goes, I've had no troubles over here out of anyone that's came to the rescue mission. As a matter of fact, some of them have become quite good acquaintances. All I have is positive comments. And I thank you for your time, and I'll let you proceed. Okay, thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments. Thank you very much. The next on my list is Sean Gladding. Sean, how are you? I hadn't talked to you in a long time. I'm glad to be able to hear you. Hope to see you again soon. How are you? I'm well this afternoon. Thanks, Tommy. It's good to see you. And good afternoon, board members. Thanks for the immense amount of time you spend doing this. I'll be very brief. My name is Sean Gladding. I live on Johnson Avenue in the Martin Luther King neighbourhood, which is a block from the property in question. Our family has lived here for more than a decade. I've been active in the Neighbourhood Association for many years, and I've served as a board member of the Neighbourhood Association for the past two years or so. vocationally I've served in pastoral ministry for the past 30 years most of what I would say has already been said I will say that I would welcome Lexington Rescue Mission's physical presence in our neighborhood primarily because of the counseling services they'd be making available within walking distance of many of my neighbors who are struggling and I love the idea that those who are struggling with addiction mental health issues looking for work my marginally homeless neighbors can just be a short work from people who could actually help them find a different trajectory in life than the one they have at the moment. And that's why I support this application. I also want to stress that most of the people I've been talking to over the last month as a board member and as a neighbor support the work of the mission, many of whom do so financially, even if they are opposed to this project in this location. I just want to stress that these are people who believe in what the mission does. Finally, though, I know one thing that would ease perhaps many of my neighbors who are about to speak in opposition would be the question of I know Laura it's a huge concession for you to make those two conditions to add those two conditions and I appreciate you listening to all the neighbors who you've been spent a lot of time talking to and I know a lot of those neighbors have a concern that if the mission changes its mind in the future is there an effective way to hold the mission to those conditions and so I wonder if the board can speak to that issue because I think that would help ease the way for some of the opposition perhaps. So thank you for your time and grateful for your service. Thank you, Sean. The next, we'll make a note of that. Next on my list is Drew Bowling. And so we'll promote Drew Bowling and let you speak. You've got three minutes. Okay, thank you. As a resident of the East End, I want to share with you that I am in favor of the Lexington Rescue Mission, moving to 203 East 4th. street. I'm a social worker, I'm a housing advocate, and I'm a fair housing investigator. So the issue of community and who is or isn't welcome to one is of immense interest to me. And despite my representative's comments about representing his district, his opposition does not represent me. The presence of the rescue mission in our neighborhood stands to strengthen our community, not diminish it. And if the location of the rescue mission should be pivotal or important to anyone. It should be only so that because the people who benefit from the new location already live in this community. The church has offered similar services for years, as other people have said, and the nest is right down the street, which will not offer duplicate, but rather complimentary services to the rescue mission. And I also just want to say that speaking of our community members, the language I've seen in newsletters from the neighborhood associations involved in the opposition, claiming that this will attract certain people to our downtown neighborhood. In those newsletters, I've seen the folks who would use the Rescue Mission services described as homeless and drug addicted, transient and panhandlers. And I just want to say that the people who patronize Rescue Mission may never directly hear what some of you are saying about them, but your friends or family who are silently struggling with the threats of poverty, addiction or hunger will have heard you. So if you can't understand the impact of your words on strangers, I hope you will at least consider their impact on people you know. I want a community that cares about its members, regardless of how unsympathetic some of us are to a handful of property owners. A strong community is one whose members are in solidarity with all of its members, and one where neighbors take care of neighbors, where we are driven more by compassion than by capital. That's the east side I can take pride in. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bowling. Appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else who has not raised their hand who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, now we'll hear from the opposite side. We will hear from people who want to speak in opposition. We've heard about an hour and 10 minutes of proponents of the application, including the applicant itself. So those in opposition to this application, who want to speak about it, please raise your hand. I see nine hands raised. And Mr. Getty, I think I will take you first. I know Richard from way back. And so we'll promote you and allow you to speak first. Richard, go right ahead. Can you see me? I don't. I'm looking at the screen. We can hear you. Okay. I don't see the screen. Do you have me on the screen? We do not. We don't usually accept applicants themselves, but we can hear you. So just go right ahead and tell us what you had to say. Okay. I was unaware of that distinction or difference in terms of those either for or against the proposal. Well, this is not the ideal situation. Doing it by Zoom has created many problems, quite frankly. And this is one of them. We're not able to meet in person, so we can't see everybody's face and measure their demeanor. But we try to hear and listen to everybody's comments as best we can under these different and constrained circumstances. So go right ahead. Well, Your Honor, I do want to compliment your patience. The board has obviously shown infinite patience today. I guess my job, you know, and I volunteered to represent the MLK Association, partly because I own properties in this area. And I've seen what exists at this point myself individually. But I guess my job ought to be to try and focus the board's attention on what really is at issue here. No one says that the Lexington Rescue Mission doesn't do an admirable job in providing the services it provides. I have no question about that. But, you know, this is an issue that should not be decided on an emotional basis. No one objects to what they do. What everyone seems to be objecting to and was articulated by Councilman Brown, who I'm glad he did attend because there was some confusion at the beginning where I understood that he had tentatively might approve the process. project or not be opposed to it, his words were in total opposition to it. And I think the reasons that he raised are the reasons and the factors that the board really ought to focus its attention on. Not on, does the rescue mission do a good job? I'm sure it does. Has it served the community at other sites? I'm sure it does. No one questions that. What we question is the oversaturation and the impact given the existing level of problems in this area. The problems right now are severe. I probably couldn't say it any more eloquently than what Thomas Tolliver, who lives on the corner of 3rd and Ohio Street. I know that because I owned a property right down the street from Thomas, and I've known him and admired him for years. I'm just going to paraphrase a couple of things that he said, because they are right on target. And I think, you know, the board needs to understand that this is why we've objected, not because of anything the rescue mission does, but because of the impact already on these areas and what we expect will continue or be exacerbated by another facility placed at 203 4th Street. The Martin Luther King and the adjoining East End neighborhoods already carry a disproportionate burden when it comes to facilities serving the city's homeless and hurting population. The last thing these two neighborhoods need is yet another one. The scars of the Catholic Action Center have yet to heal. In fact, if we learned just one lesson from having the Catholic Action Center here, it is that these centers do not belong in residential areas. I hope that the board members will have the backbone to say 203 East 4th Street is not the right location for another homeless center. If the mission was able to find this building, it can find another one, ideally in an area not already overrun with homeless people and the associated problems. it's not it's not that that the problems the problems may be affected to some degree or lessened because they're not meals six days a week but people come and go to this facility and there are people that will be attracted to this facility during the day that may or may not be the type of people that the rescue mission really wishes to serve or that they target in terms of the good services that they do do provide. If anybody's ever been in the area, and I own properties in the area, I've put a ton of money in a property at 149 East 4th. It's a historic building that was built sometime between 1797 and 1810. But my wife and daughter will not come to that property to help with landscaping or to do other things to clean or provide help. they will not go there unless I am physically with them and they will not go there unless my project manager a woman who helps with a lot of the landscaping is there I have had people try to break the glass on my French doors you know I have alarms but you know I have a I put a 65 foot 65 inch tv which could be seen through the french doors within 48 hours someone tried to break in to take it i had to move it up to the second floor so it wasn't visible um i've had people loitering around the property i've had to call the police uh and run them off or i had to run them off myself. So I speak, you know, partly from personal experience. If you want to see what's happening over there, start up there at 4th Street. And, you know, during the middle of the day, walk right down MLK and see what's happening at the marathon station, both in the day and in the evening, and see what's happening at the New Life Center, even when it's closed. I own another property on Third Street that I put substantial money in. When I visit that property and I come up the alley, I have to divert through the Sarah School parking lot. You know why? Because I'm disabled because of drugs or drunkenness or whatever, lying in the middle of Houston Alley. people in this corridor basically in their opposition to this pro this proposal are saying to you please help us this this is enough the area is is drastically oversaturated with you know with these kinds of facilities, and we just don't need another one. And if you don't believe that in the evening, there are going to be problems, I mean, another facility is just going to be, it's going to be an attraction, a shining diamond for some of the people that are down MLK that now hover around the New Life Center or Marathon. It's not good. I've personally experienced it, and I've talked to numerous people, both in the MLK Neighborhood Association and some of my neighbors on 3rd or 4th Street. And, you know, I think you really need to consider what's going to happen, But what's already happening in this area? I mean, we went and looked at statistics for crime or police visits to the area. And, you know, first of all, 93 residents who live in this corridor say, we don't want this. we don't want this facility and I think you know virtually everyone would say we don't want this facility whether or not they serve meals six days a week because it's going to attract no matter what happens you're going to attract people who are now down the corridor who will come farther up north and you're going to have the same kind of problems we have farther south In 2016, 1,230 police calls, and we limited our analysis to items such as assault, attempted break-in, auto break-in, threatening, things of that sort, which eliminated a lot of calls. You still had 1,230 in 2016, 1,572 in 2017, 2018, 1,039. In 2019, it was down probably because of the pandemic to some degree. 2020, it's up 1,538. And to date, in 2021, we've already had 310 police calls that are concentrated on those kinds of problems. You know, I think there's been no consideration given to these problems in the statement of justification that the mission has filed. and and there's been no attempt it appears by the staff to do any kind of investigation uh of the area and what what's the people who live in that area really want want you know want to say um you've gotten letters of objection uh and the neighborhood association you know collectively has filed the opposition that we filed. But when you work through all of these issues, I guess where we come out, the MLK Association comes out, is that we just feel the area is oversaturated already. We don't question that this entity does good things. and and I would just implore you to you know put that aside nobody disagrees that they do good things and that they provide services that are beneficial it's just that with the other entities that are already providing those services do you need one more and I think overwhelmingly when 93 people sign a petition saying no, I think you've got to pay attention to their voices and really look at the facts. If the situation is the way it is now in that corridor with problems, with drug overuse. And God knows, no one in the world understands the problems and the impact on families of drug use and what can happen in my family. We lost a beautiful 27-year-old son because a drug dealer hounded him, sold him drugs with fentanyl, and he died. So I know firsthand and nobody in this area wants to say or utter a word that the rescue mission doesn't do a good thing or good things. It's just that we have other people doing similar things, other entities. And you reach a point that enough is enough. I mean, I think this board has to consider, you know, thinking about what Mr. Mr. Tolliver said. Is it fair to the citizens who live in this area? You know, some of whom are, you know, trying to hold on the retired people trying to hold on to the properties. They've lived there for decades. Or other people that have come in and tried to improve the neighborhood. Is it fair to them to place all these facilities in this tight corridor? It's not. And the only people that can, you know, protect the people that live in these areas, this area that don't want another facility because of what's already occurred, are you. So, you know, I would urge you to take note of the type and the level of opposition to this proposal. I don't think it really, I don't really think it changes the level of opposition, given that meals are not going to be served and there's not going to be a religious service. That's not what I'm focusing on Or what the MLK associations are focusing on They're focusing, they're trying to tell you Ladies and gentlemen, we already have a problem Drive through the area Look around, you can't avoid seeing it Police are there constantly From Constitution The whole way up, passed forth and you know i've talked to people who live on mlk passforth they live right right up the street they don't want any more problems we have enough already and if if if the if there's anything that ought to be persuasive to you it's the statistics on what has what already happens on a day after day after day in this area. There are break-ins, there are assaults, there are problems already. And maybe those problems are coming up the street from some of the other facilities or from that marathon station, which I don't know why something hasn't been done about that. But they exist. I'm not talking to you about what's going to happen if you put this facility in. What I'm talking about is the reality of what is there now and whether or not this facility would ever increase those problems. Those problems are there. We don't want another facility in this corridor. We have too many already, and the city itself needs to really rethink this proposal where they have placed all these facilities in such a tight area. It is not fair to the people who live in the MLK corridor in the East End. And that's what I think, not emotionally, but looking at the true reality and the statistical information before you. That's how I think you should decide this. And I hope that you do. I have nothing more to add. I could add some personal anecdotes, but I won't. Thank you for your time. The next on the list is, on our list is Mr. John Morgan. Mr. Morgan, you are promoted and we appreciate hearing from you. yes good afternoon to members of the board of adjustment and thank you very much for your service to this important part of lexington i want to try and reiterate a couple of points which were made earlier about investment in the community my wife and i have lived on north limestone since 1984 when we got married and we've raised two children we've also invested significantly in the neighborhood we restored the property at the corner of four from limestone, and we've also restored on East 3rd Street, which we bought first in 1997 at 122 East 3rd Street. We bought 120 East 3rd Street and restored it, 126 East 3rd Street in 2004, and 146 East 3rd Street in 2010. So we are committed to the neighborhood. I've also run a business. I'm the senior vice president of an engineering firm, which is based in Rapid City. We've got 420 employees. I employ 31 people in Lexington, and they all work on East 3rd Street. So we've been very exposed to the changes in the neighborhood and are very concerned about the way that these changes are affecting us, specifically the New Life Day Center. You've heard it being referred to before. And we've got reason to be concerned. When the New Life Day Center opened in 2011, it required a zone change. There were commitments made at that time that New Life Day Center would be a well-run day center and make Lexington community in this neighborhood a better place. That's a quote from Mr. Polston. Also, he said food will not be served. Both of those are incorrect. Some of the statistics which Mr. Getty mentioned regarding police calls are direct account for what happens at New Life Day Center. So we have made our comments and we tried to reach some accommodation, Mr. Polston, who reached out to the neighborhood in a limited way at the last minute. But Mr. Kay, Council Member Steve Kay, got involved to try and make sure that we could accept this. So Mr. Kay said, we want to develop criteria for measuring negative impacts a center might have on the neighborhood. If the negative impacts can't be ameliorated, you close this facility, Kay said to Mr. Polston. We have complained. There have been multiple police calls. There's been public intoxication. There have been people sleeping on the street and on the Huston Alley. We've complained. It is creating a negative impact on the neighborhood. What does Mr. Kay do? Nothing. So we are very concerned. And I think, as Sean said in the previous comments, that you can put all the conditions you want, but how do we make sure they're enforced? So we appreciate Ms. Carr's commitment to removing the feeding program. We understand the burden it places on your mission to take away the Sunday services. But we know historically that it's what happens after people leave the property that creates the problems. So what can you do as additional criteria which would ameliorate these problems, as Mr. K said he would do for the New Life Day Center? He didn't. We want to make sure that doesn't happen again. And also, I think I'd turn the tables a little bit about on Mr. Murphy and Ms. Carr. It's not just the mission that you serve for your clientele, which, as everybody says, is admirable. It's also what you want to do as a neighbor to our community. That's the part which has been missing in this outreach. Ms. Carr, I know you said you talked to other people about this mission and your desire for this zone change, or sorry, conditional use change. But you haven't talked to us. We haven't had a public meeting. We'd like to know what are you going to do to try and help the neighborhood as an integral part of the future. Thank you very much for your comments, and I hope you were at that conditions or turned down this application. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. uh the next person on my list is um jim burton mr burton we promoted you and you can uh you can speak and you've got three minutes uh first of all thank you chair i appreciate you in the in the board service i would like to begin with a point of information for mrs whitman if uh if permissible uh we uh we're not taking questions from the audience we're from the public we're uh we're receiving comments to the board so if you uh if you have comments to make we'll be happy to hear from you if you don't okay well then i would ask that the secretary recommend uh enter into the record though that I've made the request and it was denied uh for the question okay I'll begin with comments uh first of all I think uh thank you again for for your time it's already at six o'clock p.m it's been a long day because we've all been online since 1 30 uh but for the neighbors that surround uh I live on 448 Martin Luther King uh I'm only a seven houses away from the house in question, and I've spoken with Mrs. Carr, who, while I believe she wants to do God's work during the day, I think she ignores the consequences that she brings to our neighborhood after they leave at six o'clock, and while I applaud, you know, efforts of service from nine to six p.m. each day, the neighbors like myself have to deal with the very real consequences after six p.m. until the next morning, which are substantial. I've had my home broken into. I've had my rental property kicked in. I even have on security camera footage, which was then related to the police department after the church under the bridge services on a Sunday afternoon, where they actually, a gentleman put his food package down that he was given during the service, walked into my garage, went through my things, and stole a very expensive bike. And while that may sound very trivial, you know, to the members of the board, the insecurity that you feel when you've been violated is substantial and significant. And this is not something that I take lightly. I've addressed it multiple times with the police department with multiple calls, as well as finally then reaching out to the Episcopal Diocese, where they then placed a monitor on Kleister Alley to help reduce the frequency of negative events at the conclusion of the Church Under the Bridge service on Sundays. I can't absolutely, if we're going to be now inviting people into our neighborhood seven days a week, or even six days a week, and the consequences that happen after the services are stopped for the day at six o'clock. I'm disappointed that we're not able to share our screens, even though the applicants are. I feel that provides a very unfair competitive advantage in presenting the facts. I do have documentation from a Freedom of Information request with the police department documenting that we had 44 calls for service at the property in question. And again, trying to use that as an average because of not being able to share all the data with you. I'm having to just give you just the highlights. We're going from 44 average calls for service to the Glen Arvin property managed by the applicant. Looks like they average 185 calls for police service. We can't handle any more police calls. It already takes 45 to 50 minutes for a police response for another issue. And if we have two mission-type facilities within one block, which is going to be the same, central sector beat two for the officers. So we have six officers now going to have to cover two very high volume call facilities, as well as the Third Street Fire Department. Now it's going to have to provide the fire and EMS support. When we have, as a neighbor, if we have an emergency, if I have an emergency, I'm not going to be able to get the service that you would expect at your home. And that is substantial and significant and has been grossly overlooked in this application. Um, uh, the condition number nine that, uh, uh, that, uh, Mr. Murphy mentions is a very slippery slope. You know, if you don't, you know, bring it outside like the, uh, church under the bridge versus just serving inside, uh, that, that's something that can't be clearly ascertained. And I think we're asking for, uh, for, for trouble there. Uh, the amount of garbage on Sundays on my alley is, is significant. and I shouldn't have to go out every Sunday and clean up after other people. And for the statement by Mr. Murphy saying that they were good stewards, I don't experience that each Sunday, and I, again, do not want to see that increase. Let's see here. The services, I think we've failed to mention how many really are in our neighborhood. We have movable feast on Silver Maple. We have the nest. We have New Life Day Center. We have Revive Life House. We have multiple churches that provide outreach and other nonprofits, just like Tanya Torp mentioned with her Justice House. We have a lot of resources in our neighborhood already. And with the documentation that was submitted this morning for your view, I hope that you had the opportunity to read through that. There's actually case studies in regards to an oversaturation of social services actually being detrimental. And we already experienced that to a certain degree now, and this will... Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burton. We did receive those materials. We have read through them. And thank you for your comments. Next on our list is Stephen Manon. We'll promote you and allow you to speak. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Wonderful. Thank you again for your time. And, you know, I am speaking on behalf of Sayre School, just located right in this area. We have 590 students and about 125 employees. I did submit a letter earlier and I trust that everyone has seen it. And so I won't reread that, but we'd like to add a few points. When Mr. Getty was speaking and he referenced 90 plus people signing petitions and he said what they're saying is please help. What I would add to that is, yes, we are asking for help because we haven't seen help or significant action when we see the neighborhood deteriorating. And, you know, I referenced the New Life Day Center and the situation that takes place there. And what I have seen, and I've been head of school at Sayre since 2012, so I sort of inherited that arrival, is that I haven't seen, once something is in place, any meaningful action from a community standpoint or leverage to reverse a situation that Mr. I think Mr. Getty so well articulated. and that that certainly is one of our grave concerns you've heard the you know the list of social service entities outlined that are in this area from the lighthouse ministries to life day center to this proposal and i would just add to that understand that there are at least four schools that neighbor every single one of those from saint peter and paul to us to ltms to the New Life to the Living Arts and Science Center. And I think it is a worthy question to say when you're looking at planning and approval, can you identify other areas that have this density of school serving school-age children with this many social service entities really adjacent to it? I'm not aware of it, but I think that is a very worthy question to have answered before approving conditional use permits of this sort. Someone earlier in support mentioned that there's been a disinvestment in this area, and that's contributed to some of the issues. And all I will say is, on behalf of Sayer School, we've been in this area since 1854. There has not been a disinvestment, and our students and our faculty volunteer, provide services in many ways, fundraise and give to these social service entities that are already in place. So we do care about humanitarian efforts, helping those in need, but I don't think I could say it any better than Councilman Brown did when speaking about the oversaturation within this cohort and how much can one area bear before it really crumbles. And I think if you would go back and look at some of the incidents or police calls that have taken place since 2012, it would be a fairly compelling argument that this neighborhood is doing its part, but it can't really sustain any more. Thank you, Mr. Manel. My daughter went to Sarah School and got a tremendous education there, so I'm a big supporter. I appreciate the work that you all do. Thank you very much. The next person on our list is Esther Harvey. Ms. Harvey, we'll hear from you now. You've got three minutes. Hi, my name is Esther Harvey, and I live at 433 Silver Maple Way, and I own 434 as well. I am a single mother with three children that I have adopted through foster care system, and I have restored two properties on this street. and I was attracted to this neighborhood for many reasons but one of the one of the reasons was diversity I wanted rich I wanted poor I wanted single I wanted married I wanted families I wanted black I wanted white you know I wanted everything but I did not want skid row and that is what it has become and since the new life day center has opened my children have seen a huge difference the bus stop across from the Lyric that has a beautiful sculpture has posters with artwork my children I would always talk about now my children refer to it as the drug stop my children my 11 year old daughter was playing with two nine-year-old girls and saw someone OD on heroin in the parking lot of 203 East 4th Street after hours it was after the Episcopal Diocese had left for the day so she got another neighbor and the cops were called and the ambulance was brought in, but you know, that's not okay for them to play in that environment. And you know, none of us are against what the Lexington Rescue Mission does. And by being opposed to them at this location, it doesn't mean we're opposed to them. We're just, this is a children heavy environment. And at what point my children matter and my children's safety matter. I love that there's so many families in this neighborhood and I love that my children can go out and play. But when I hear Laura talk about treating the untreated with mental health issues or the 31 that are in, you know, recovery programs or the recently incarcerated, I think that's a wonderful ministry, but not all of those are success stories. And those are the people that you're going to be bringing into our neighborhood that are not currently living in our neighborhood. And that is what my children are going to have to be exposed to. And that makes me very uncomfortable as a mother. And you know, it's sad because the group of people in this neighborhood, we, a lot of us have the same excitement and a passion for bringing up these old houses, making it a beautiful, safe neighborhood to raise families. And this is flying. And it's not about the ministry that the Lexington Rescue Mission does. That's, no one wants to argue that. But I think there's too many of those services and seeing already what the New Life Day Center has brought in, and you're going to be serving a lot of that same presence. And when you leave it, who's taking care of it? Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Okay, thank you. Next on my list is a single name, Sabrina. So I don't know who that is, but we will promote Sabrina and ask you to identify yourself. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hey, I am Sabrina Oaks. I live at the corner of Camp C Place and MLK. And I just have a few quick comments. I agree with everything that Esther has said and the comments about oversaturation. Our neighborhood has become unbearable. The services that have brought a lot of very troubled people into the neighborhood tend to keep those in the neighborhood. I spent last summer at home, of course, in quarantine and could see out my windows at the number of people who had set up camp at Living Arts and Science. I don't know how many drug overdoses, you know, we we would have to call in. There are people that camp out on my porch sometimes doing drugs and the same thing with the neighbors. One thing I would like I guess I have two main comments. the conditional use offered by Mr. Murphy said no organized meetings outside. If anything, I would want that to be changed to no unorganized meetings. The original application referenced a nice shady lawn where I can see right now homeless people or people who don't really have a lot of other options loitering about there are no infrastructure in our neighborhood so people who there are no public toilets or no services that serve that so that is a lot of our problem so I would like for the board to kind of consider that the issue of of organized meetings versus no organized meetings and what do underserved clients do for restroom activities as well as the notion of bringing or maybe excluding sex offenders for counseling and not really bringing those into this building that is right across from the Living Arts and Science, which does cater to children and children's camps as well as proximity to the schools. And that's pretty much it. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you much, Ms. Oaks. Thank you for your comments. Next on my list is Christy Razzavi. I'm probably mispronouncing. It's Razzavi. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you all for your time. My name is Christy Razzavi. I live at 407 Silver Maple Way, and I've lived here for over six years. My backyard faces the property that we're discussing on 203 East 4th Street. And I have a bird's eye view of this beautiful historic home and all the activity that it attracts. Currently, this facility is being used as office space for the Lexington Diocese. diocese. However, we all know every Sunday the diocese allow the church under the bridge to hold an outdoor service and provide meals for those in need. And I remember moving into my home thinking that that was such a nice thing to do for our community. And I quickly realized that what I thought was a nice thing for the community was actually quite detrimental to the neighborhood. um you see when those that do good go home at night the property still remains and so do the people that they've left behind um the large expansive covered front porch of this historic beautiful home can accommodate teen trespassers shooting up drinking squatting for several days that's how many people I counted at one point last summer not to mention numerous other times where there were several people living I would say living there in the evenings the stairwell that leads to the basement of this location creates a nice outdoor bathroom as do the trees lining the property the romantic side porches are the perfect place for public fornication And the expansive yard makes a great waste bin for whatever trespassers don't feel like throwing in the trash that's located literally right around the corner. The police officers in our district are incredibly busy. So sometimes they can't, if I call or if anybody calls, it can take them up to 45 minutes just for an officer to respond to these types of issues. I'm a new mother. I have an eight-month-old baby boy, and as things are currently, I will not sit outside my home with my child on a Sunday. That's just something simple that probably any of you on the board can do with your family on a Sunday. If the Lexington Rescue Mission goes into this location, I will not feel safe in my own home or my own neighborhood. I've worked hard to make this my home. As have my neighbors. This is a residential community. and knowing that so many neighbors in opposite are in opposition of this. And I asked this to the board, I did speak with them and, or I spoke with someone that works there and kind of stated my case. And I just said, are you still planning on moving in our neighborhood when there's so much opposition? And they really couldn't answer that for me. So I don't necessarily feel like there's concern for the neighbors. And that's a huge problem for me. And I also just want to point that nearly everything that Lexington Rescue Mission mentioned that they are going to be doing, the NEST already does. They, with the exception of serving homeless and ex-offenders and sex offenders that the LRM serve, the NEST is already doing that. So it is a repetition of services. And that's the other. I have one more point. There was something, they changed the wording for no food to be served. But it said, it said only food, which is incidental to instruction. And I think that's pretty vague because I think as one of my neighbors put it, food is a great hook to get people in the door. And so I don't know really how you would define what is incidental to instruction and what isn't. I just think it's a really slippery slope and it opens up a whole can of worms and a whole exposure in my backyard. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much for your comments. The next person on my list is Lori Houlihan. And we'll promote you, Ms. Houlihan, and allow you to speak. You have three minutes. so I'm Lori Halligan I'm not Lori Houlihan people do get us mixed up I'm the executive director of Living Arts and Science Center and we have been located at the directly across the street on 4th street for 52 years we've been at this location and I may go over my three minutes because one of our board members was on the call for almost five hours and had to leave to pick up his children. But I would like to point out a board member who has said that we appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns. We had produced a letter that we want the board to address. And when please, you know, look at those details. We hope those concerns are taken with the understanding that we have experienced occupancy issues on our property, and we're apprehensive that having more people around the property would enhance those issues. And we want to emphasize we don't have issues with the Lexington Rescue Mission's mission generally, and we support making our own programs accessible to as many people in the community as possible. But we do appreciate having the opportunity to speak to you. I won't go over some of the things that have already been discussed, but I do want to raise the issue of parking. We already have a lot of issues with people parking in our parking lot, which is a private parking lot. And we're concerned with the number of employees that are working there, would be working there at the mission. And there's very limited street parking with the addition of the Legacy Trail. Many of those parking spots on 4th Street were taken out. so parking hasn't been addressed as an issue we have or we are concerned about personal safety of our staff as well as program participants we have concern that the mission will be serving sex offenders if we were a school I don't believe they would be able to locate because it would be too close we don't have the designation as a school but we act very much as a school we do after school programming and during the summer and any days that school is not in session, we have pre-COVID, we had approximately 100 to 125 students in our building a day. We're a very popular field trip destination for schools, not just in Fayette County, but all around. So there will be access, there'll be children here. and we're just concerned about personal safety of children. The public bus discharges directly onto our property. So again, we're concerned about the fact that Lexington Rescue Mission serves sex offenders. One of our final concerns is that in the staff recommendation, it was said that there would be no adverse effect on adjoining property And we respectfully disagree with that assessment. We realize that there's already issues with our property, particularly with loitering and use of no or lack of public restrooms, as some of the other people have said, as well as people homeless and people either sleeping on the property or just loitering on the property. We have 1.5 acres of beautiful grounds. We have picnic tables. We are a private property, but people do trespass on a regular basis. So we appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns, but we respectfully disagree with the staff's recommendation, and we would ask the Board of Assessments to deny the application for a special use permit. Okay, thank you, Ms. Halligan. Sorry I mispronounced your name. We have one more speaker who we should speak in opposition. Linda Miller, we're going to promote you and allow you to speak. You've got three minutes. Ms. Miller, are you there? Yes, sorry. Can you hear me now? Yes, certainly can. Go right ahead. Okay, good. There are two of us actually sharing one computer, so we were only able to raise one hand. But there are two comments that we'd like to make. I appreciate your saying this unbelievably long amount of time. We are, I live at 456 North Martin Luther King Boulevard. I've got a couple of comments. One is relative to the review process. That is clearly to determine if the applicants have met the city's requirements. If we determine that they do. but we don't see a place where there's any evaluation, informal evaluation for the impact on this fragile neighborhood. And we are a fragile neighborhood, as I think you can tell from the things that other people have said. We do understand, as we've all said, the urgent need to provide services to our community members and our citizens. And we don't doubt at all the mission or the capability of the LRC. but the intentions and a very similar mission in many respects. That doesn't mean that the intentions are always carried out, and it doesn't mean that all locations can equally handle them and that the potentially toxic impact are not benign on all of them. I apologize for my internet connection. Are you still able to hear me? I'm flaking in and out and it's gone out on me six or seven times during this afternoon. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. The services that they provide are not cost free to the location or the neighborhood. And we have paid the price of that. That's why you hear, I think, the urgency in so many of our voices. We know what this is like. We're not guessing. We've had this experience. We know what a well-intentioned, good, positive service can do to the neighborhood around it. And that is why we are so terrified of the potential here. We have needs. Our neighborhood clearly has needs. And those needs aren't being met. This is a neighborhood that, as you've heard, is multicultural in every sense of the word. We have a wonderful range of socioeconomic people here. We have different income levels, different education, different races, ages, employment. We've got single women in multigenerational households. You cannot achieve this through planned urban communities or rural communities. We moved here 12 years ago from Western Kentucky. We were in a completely homogenous neighborhood. There were no Black families anywhere around us. And in fact, in very few of the neighborhoods that we ever went into that we encountered in Black families. that is one of the motivating factors for us coming here the diversion here is we encounter daily people with different perspectives different backgrounds this is good for a community and it's good for us and it's good for our grandchildren and the children of the people in this neighborhood in short we represent that goal of urban planning we're not living in paradise we know that we're still reeling from the myriad effect of the relief services that wing us the catholic relief center has been gone for a long time, but the impact that it has had in that area is still there. I still can't drive by there with my grandkids without worrying about them witnessing drug deals, without worrying about the people that are standing in the street. Government can't build a blend of neighborhoods that exist on Martin Luther King. You can't do it. It's got to be organic, but you can destroy it. And we are begging you to give us a chance and not do that to us. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just going to stay along with Linda. My original comments are going to have to do with the impact on some of the visitors to our neighborhood who come by way of the Lexi Trail and some of the negative perceptions they might take away with them. A lot of my concerns were in fact addressed by the two additional conditions that have been added, but I don't I think that's true of the concerns of all my neighbors and our neighbors that you've heard. Those conditions will help, but if they're sufficient to solve the problems we're talking about, that is not clear. It is the case that a lot of the activities we're concerned about are generated by traffic to the site. There'll be less traffic if there are fewer meals and fewer services, but with a staff of 25 and of large. We congratulate the rescue mission on the success rate that they have. But the fact of the matter is that they will not be successful in every case. And some of the people who come to the general create the problems after hours that you have heard about today. And in addition to that, there will be other people who come with them who are not clients of the mission and who will exacerbate some of those problems as well. What we have not heard is any responses that would address the problems after hours, that would increase the security around that building to try and make sure that they would not be generating problems after hours, after it's closed. And that would then do a great deal to exacerbate, to relieve some of the problems that we've heard about from the people in this neighborhood and this community. and for that reason we don't think that this proposal is ready to be accepted thank you hey thank you for your comment uh we're going to demote you now we have one more hand that's raised uh it's not somebody that's identified so we'll promote you and let uh to allow you to identify yourself mr lover did we get the name of the second individual who spoke on that last one Yes, my name is Lindy Brown. I believe... We did not. I took it that it was Mr. Miller. Thank you. Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead, identify yourself. Yes, my name is Lindy Brown. I live on 3rd Street. And I would just like to comment very briefly that I was raised in California. and I loved California for all its offerings and all its special, special assets. I moved to Lexington and now I can see Lexington turning into another California, which is not a good thing. It is deteriorating as we speak and I watch our house become a crime-ridden area that is very reminiscent of the way California went. And I am just sick about it. Thank you. Okay, thank you Ms. Brown for your comments. We do have two people who are on from a telephone. So if we can try to identify them and just make sure they're here to speak. Sure, for the person who is calling from number 859-321-0330, we'll allow you to speak now and you can let us know if you were in support or opposition of this application. No answer from that number, Mr. Chair. So if you are calling from number 859-396-5256, we'll allow you to speak now. all right we've heard from uh from the opposition uh incidentally it's uh the opposition time took about an hour and 10 minutes as well which is the same time we gave uh for the applicant mr Murphy, if you want to address any opposition points, I'll give you a few minutes to do that. You'll have to unmute yourself because we muted you. Okay. Thank you very much. I know this is a difficult issue. And that's why Ms. Carr did go to a lot of neighborhood meetings, why she talked to many neighbors individually, why she's reached out to the other service agencies in this area. Number one, to see whether they felt that Lexington Rescue Mission was needed. And number two, to avoid overlap of services. And I think you see from the letters that I put in when she reached out to the William Wells Brown School, Lexington Traditional Middle School, the NEST, the other agencies, they were all almost unanimous saying, yes, your service is needed here. We need you here. We've looked at the census data figures, and this is a census tract that has more than its share of issues with homelessness and the problems that go along with it. we submitted our application to you and in the many meetings that Ms. Carr had and reading the letters and my talking with Mr. K, we did identify the three issues and we addressed three issues that had been expressed as issues. And that is the not being a homeless shelter, eliminating the Sunday services on the lawn, which attract a large number of people, which apparently caused other problems when those people lingered in the area. And also the issue of the feeding program, which we wanted to do. And it was with a heavy heart that we agreed not to do that, but we understand that. What I hope everybody remembers is that the Episcopal Mission House is there now. I know it's been less active during COVID, but at the mission, there was the church under the bridge. There were other programs that brought people over there. That we are going in the location where that mission was located. We are not adding an agency. We are replacing an agency with another. And I think with the conditions that we have agreed to, I think the footprint of Lexington Rescue Commission will be no greater than the mission of the existing mission house there, especially with the church under the bridge. we are left with the possibility of having our offices there our development office there our counseling services there one-on-one and small group meetings there bible study that sort of thing at the location and we think the the program that will be provided will be a cure to some of the issues that are here and will not add to some of the issues that are here. I just want to look at some of the things I've written down that I wanted to reply to, too, that there have been some questions about, well, can these conditions be enforced? And these conditions of your approval, and as you all know, you have a zoning enforcement staff, And under the law, they have to check everything out once a year to make sure all conditions are being complied with. But they can check that out anytime they want to on that to make sure that the conditions are being complied with. We are a totally different mission than the Catholic Action Center. I don't want to criticize any other mission, but we are supplying a service which is totally different than what happened at the Catholic Action Center there in the neighborhood. Another critical thing is that we have a track record. This is not an agency that is being created to start this program here. The reason we showed you the information on our other locations, which will remain, they will not be closed down to be consolidated here. The only thing that may be moved here is some of our counseling, and that is so we can do it in a private, one-on-one basis, in a location where nobody else is listening to the conversation, either voluntarily or involuntarily. the schools in this area two of them the William Wells Brown and LTMS have asked for assistance and and written letters talking about the need for this for the Lexington Rescue Mission to come here the we have eliminated the feeding program as I've mentioned and as and as I mentioned And as any church does, we still need to be able to have donuts or refreshments or a meal when people come to a small group. I asked Laura early on on this about the meals. I said, you know, because I wanted to know, does the bribe work? Can you bribe a person to come to your program by saying you get a meal? And she told me no. She said, they've been in this business for 20 years. And people who don't want to sit through a program aren't going to sit through a program just to get a free meal. So I said to her, I said, in other words, the bribe doesn't work, does it? And she said, it certainly does not work. What they did want to do here was a feeding program that was open to anybody who needed it. No program, nothing they had to sit through. come and get food if you needed it. We have agreed to totally eliminate that. All we want to do is have the ability like any church does for the small groups inside the building. By the way, I've been inside this building. There's no place in this building where 100 people could meet. There are, there's a boardroom and there is a chapel. And those are the biggest rooms in this building. I'm guessing you could get maybe 20 people in there comfortably to a meeting. You can fit more in if you wanted to crowd them in, but there's no place you could have a large group meeting inside this building. It is set up for exactly what we're going to do inside. We have small Bible study classes, other classes, counseling, offices, board meetings, development meetings, that sort of thing. I was texting back and forth to Laura during some of this conversation about the issues of security on this property. The thing we have here is a beautiful building on a large lot. And that's going to be there no matter who operates this facility here, whether it's us or somebody else or whatever. It is a beautiful building on a large lot, has a lot of grass on here. And in this area, I suppose that may be an issue no matter who's here, whether it's us or somebody else. But I did talk to her about what we could do for additional security. And she mentioned we could get a private security company to come on and do additional patrols along the property after hours. but I want to emphasize we agree with the hours that the staff has proposed we will not be having programs after six o'clock here weekdays we will not be having programs after 2 p.m on weekends so we will not be having that attraction and we will not be having big gatherings to be an attraction here and all I can others say I'm probably forgetting about some of the things that were raised and we'd be happy to answer your questions about it. But I think we described to you what we want to do. And I think most important to me is that we have a mission that has a record and a track record that you can see how they handle these things. And nobody here at this hearing or anybody that I've talked to for this has ever said that Lexington Rescue Commission runs a loose ship. Nobody has said that. Everybody has said that this is, if not the best problem. A lot of them said it's the best agency in Lexington. And everybody has said it is extremely well run, extremely well managed. And I think you can see that from our directors there who not only come to a board meeting and talk about things, they come and they serve at the mission here. So I will let it rest at that. I don't know if Laura wants to add anything to that as well, but I want to add too, just to remind you, your staff recommended approval of this before we added the additional conditions. I think the additional conditions we are adding will go even further to eliminate the issues that had been expressed to you today. Thank you very much. And I believe in this mission. And I know Laura, who's been involved for 20 years, believes it greatly and puts her belief into action. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I don't think we need to hear from this far. I just want to give you a chance to about any issues you thought would work well. we don't allow a surrogate I see a couple of hands raised from the public we don't have time for and we don't have the procedures for allowing for that if you spoke in opposition we heard you actually there are three people here sitting taking notes maybe four taking notes of everything they heard does the board have any questions of anybody either the applicant or any of the applicants witnesses or any questions to any of the opposition. I'll let the board members decide who they want to address any questions to. Now is your chance, Board of Adjustment members. Yeah, I do. I have maybe more comment than question. This is a tough one for me because as everyone has said, Lexington Rescue Mission is doing great work. I admire the way you guys are already aiming to be a good neighbor, and you've gone out there, and you've spoken to the residents, and you've made some concessions already. That is very admirable. My concerns or questions in particular are twofold. One is the partnerships that you did discuss with the New Life Day Center. You guys may be a well-run ship, but their reputation is not the same currently. And it does seem like with creating such a partnership, you may not be duplicating services, but you could be creating a traffic pattern of participants from one to the other, and that could be a concern. The plans for after hours, I think Mr. Murphy touched on just a little bit. so I do think that's something that needs to be vetted out a little more because even the supportive residents were excited about what you did during the day and then everybody left you know we're excited about what's going on so and they do still have to live there so that is important and when Tanya Torp spoke earlier she is correct this is historically an area that has been devalued, that has been systematically ignored, that has been segregated purposely in a way to not have resources, and it has shown. So I do understand the need for the resources there, but I also see the opposite side of it. I see that by putting all the resources there in that particular area, we're continuing to keep it contained. You know, I always ask myself on each of these issues, whether the earlier issue, we're talking about a drive-through, or we're talking about the Lexington Rescue Mission, you know, will we make the same decision in different neighborhoods? And so I would ask myself, would we make the same decision, you know, would we have approved it so easily in other neighborhoods on the south end of town, or in the Hamburg area, you know, would we have made that approval so easily? So that came to mind. I also mentioned, I was surprised a little bit by the support of the schools. My son just is two years out of LTMS. And I can remember picking him up every day. And I would think, you know, and some of his friends that had to walk to school, they have to walk the long way right now. You know, if they're coming, they're going to be tardy. If they're coming from, you know, I'm not good directionally. So I don't know if it's north, south or whatever. but so that they can avoid that intersection on Martin Luther King and Third Street they're going to go all the way around right now to come up Fourth Street and your Martin Luther King way and they do that every day on the way to school and back from school they're doing it in the evenings after basketball games and I always you know I just shuddered a little bit to see these young girls leaving from the basketball game and they've got to cut through this section and they have learned to go the long way and I just it's something that we may may or may not be considering always so again I don't know if any of those were questions except for particularly the traffic pattern that we may be creating between the two centers when there's already an obvious issue with one of those programs. Thank you Ms. Carter. Any other any other comments or questions from board members to either applicant or opposition or anything like that. I'll entertain those now if you have any. Mr. Chair, I'd like just to make a quick comment. One thing that has not come up, and I'm going to disagree with Mr. Murphy. He said this house was 100 years old. I disagree with that because this house, the initial structure was built in 1810. by a very famous lexicon architect, Matthew Kennedy. It was the beginning of this house for Benjamin Stout, I think it was. In 1829, it was sold to John Brand for his son, William, and William's new wife, Harriet Holly, who was the daughter of the Transylvania president, Horace Holly. And this house was known as Elmwood and Brand rebuilt the house or added to the house in around 1840. David Barrow in 1905. So anyway, this is this is important. What I'm trying to say, this house is historically credit, credible and valued. It has tremendous historical significance. So I worry a little bit that a nonprofit, in any case, can maintain historical prominence of this house. It's important historically, and I'd like to see us keep that in mind. And I think it would be probably a problem for Lexington Rescue Mission to keep that up as it should be. We've had the same kind of problem with the Morton House that's owned by the city. Same kind of problem. It's difficult to keep it up if you're a nonprofit. So I just want to bring that up and to clarify the record that Mr. Murphy had mentioned that the house was 100 years old. It's really 200 years old, Mr. Murphy. I apologize and I appreciate the historical research on that. I do want to assure you, though, that the rescue mission has the funding to keep the house up. the diocese has done which is also of course a non-profit agency has done a tremendous job of keeping that house up and it's true it looks fantastic on the inside as well but the funding is there to do it and Laura I'll let you confirm or not what I'm what I'm saying. Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. So for those of you who probably don't know, I'm a very new executive director. I've just been the executive director since August of last year, although I've been working for the mission for the past 15 years, roughly, and my parents founded it. So I've been involved in one way or another since the beginning. and I can assure you as a new executive director the last thing I wanted to do was to get into a property that I felt like was over my head so I've been going in all the inspections every electrician plumber, roofer, structural engineer everybody that's come through there I've walked through it with them to make sure I understood exactly what we're getting into so that we I knew that we had the funding to maintain and we were really blessed this last year with incredible giving that's allowed us to create a significant cash reserves as well. And that's been really helpful, you know, just to be able to make some improvements on our current properties, but also we knew that this was setting us up to grow and we wanted to make sure we had enough reserves in place to maintain and preserve the property. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions from the board or members to either applicant or opposition before we move forward. If not, I'll entertain a motion. And if you want to discuss the motion after it's made, we can do that as well, or we can take a vote either way, whatever your pleasure. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN-POA 2118, Lexington Rescue Mission, Inc., the request for a conditional use for a community center within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a high density apartment r4 zone on property located at 203 east 4th street in council district one uh with the the staff's uh recommendations um four recommendations and then subject to the following conditions. We listed eight, and we have two more that we have had on the screen. And I don't have them in front of me, but the not serving of meals and not conducting the church service that had been a part of the diocese. Do we need to put those back up on the screen? I think Mr. Murphy had them up, and I have a copy. If we need to look at them again, we can certainly put them up on the screen. I don't, but I think I don't know whether any of the others do or not. Does any other member of the board need to see those two additional conditions that we'll put up briefly during Mr. Murphy's presentation? I have a copy sitting in front of me. If you like, I can read it to you, unless you have a copy in your packet. Let's see if we can pull it up. I can screen share if you want, Mr. Chairman. We're trying to do that ourselves. There you go. So there's a total of 10 conditions. Yes. The subject property shall provide no deals or other refreshments to the public, except those that are incidental instruction, counseling, study, devotional or similar meetings on the premises or board committee or development meetings number 10 there should be no outdoor worship services or organized meetings on the ground surrounding the building and those are the two additional terms thank you miss whitman for the motion do i have a second Thank you. her motion, I will make an alternative motion. Well, but we'll need findings of facts. Well, if the motion on the floor does not receive a second, then the motion will die. I don't see any hands up for a second, and so I will declare that motion unsupported and will entertain any other motions that the board wishes to make. Well, Mr. Chair, and I'm not sure if someone else wants to make a motion, but if we are making a motion and an alternative with a recommendation of disapproval, we probably need to get with legal counsel so that findings of facts can be put together and shown on the screen and approved as part of that motion. So we may want to recess. Plus, I've got to go to the restroom. Yeah, I was planning on a recess after this vote, but I wanted to clarify, is your alternative motion going to be a motion to deny the application? I will make that motion to deny. Okay, in that case, let's take a 10-minute recess and let you converse with whoever you need to converse with and we will reconvene in 10 minutes. Mr. Chair, Ms. Harry, I have no alternative but to leave at 730. I'm sorry for that. I've been to every single meeting we've had in the last several years, but I have to leave at 730. I understand. I never expected it. We hope we still have a forum. Thank you. Okay, that's great. which I haven't had a chance during the meeting. Just wanted to respond to two quick items. One is that we could have a night watchman on the premises to deal with a lot of these issues. And the second is the programs done with the New Day Life Center could be done at the New Day Life Center to cut off the traffic between the two agencies. Nope, not yet. Yeah, we're back on the air. Go right ahead. We are on the air. Okay. I didn't see... Hey, Tommy, your camera's not on yet. Yeah, we're working on it. There we go. Sorry, I didn't know it was that. Okay. All right. We're back in session. That was longer than 10 minutes. I apologize for that, but we have had stuff to do and other people had stuff to do as well. So we're back on Lexington Rescue Mission's application for conditional use for the community center. the original motion to approve it failed for lack of a second. Mr. Gross, do you have an offer of an alternative motion? I do. If the staff could at least put part of it up, it will at least show the reasons, and then I'll read the motion if we could get that up on the screen. Wait just a second. Yes, that way. And I'll just read it from there, but people can read along. What? I think it's more of you. can you navigate to the network hold on a second we got kicked off and we're trying to get back on the network mr chair did you hear my two comments that i made before you got back on say them again uh dick yeah number i i had a chance to talk to miss car briefly number one is we could have a night watchman on the premises to avoid some of these issues that have been raised about after hours. And number two, the programs that are done in cooperation with the New Life Center could be done at the New Life Center to cut out the cross traffic that had been discussed. Okay, we'll make a note of that. And Brandon, did you hear that? Yes, sir, I did. Okay. If that affects your motion in any way. It does not. Okay. We put up on the screen. Let's see if we can enlarge that some. Can you just change the font? There we go. Okay. There you go. Okay. So, Mr. Chair, I hereby move that we deny the request of a conditional use for a community center within the defined infield and redevelopment area in a high-density R4 zone on property located at 203 East 4th Street. And this is for case PLM BOA 21-18 Lexington Rescue Mission. for the following reasons. The proposed use will have an adverse effect on the adjoining properties in the nearby neighborhoods due to the concentration of social services being provided in the immediate area. The applicant's proposed use and services are duplicative of social services being provided by agencies and organizations in the neighborhood. The addition of another social service and community center will lead to public health, safety, and welfare concerns. Police and fire emergency services will be additionally burdened due to the increased activities at the site. So moved. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Let's leave that up there for just a second. And do we have a second for that motion? Mr. Needham seconds. Could we go out of share screen? Yes, let's go out of share screen and back to our, we've got one, two, three, four, five, six. We've got six. All in favor of Mr. Gross's motion, raise your hand. One, two, three, four. All opposed. Two opposed. The motion carries. The application is defeated. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Now we're going to take up the last item on the agenda six hours after we convened. the case of i'll call the case of plnvoa 21-12 the old richmond road neighborhood association this is a third party appeal and i understand that ms winters uh is representing the applicants so we will promote you to panel There you are. Mr. Clark left. Go ahead. Who else? Just Mr. Clark left. Mr. Clark left. Yes. Is Mr. Walker coming back? I'm not sure. It's possible he isn't. I don't see him in the email. I don't know. I don't have any way of contacting. My guess is at 730 and he will not be back. We're going to assume that he will not. And if he does come back, that'll be nice. But if he doesn't, we're going to move ahead. So, Ms. Winters, this is your appeal on behalf of the Neighborhood Association. How much time do you need to make your presentation? I believe I just need like 20 minutes. I have a PowerPoint that I was going to use. So I just use that to share screen. That'll be fine. Okay, 20 minutes. Go right ahead. Okay, great. And thank you for your service to all the board members. I know it's been a really long day, and I appreciate your time and attention as we head into this meeting. My name is Jessica Winters, and I'm here today on behalf of the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association and Dr. Luise Gano. with regard to this administrative appeal, which challenges the Office of Planning's interpretation and enforcement of the terms of a conditional use permit issued for 7524 Old Richmond Road. I'm going to share my screen so you can see my PowerPoint here. Can you guys see this? I just put it in a PDF form to make it easier to go through. That's fine. Go right ahead. Okay, great. If you are not familiar with the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association. We're very familiar with the Old Richmond Road location. Thank you very much. Okay. And the Neighborhood Association has more than 100 members. And, of course, as you know, it encompasses an area that straddles urban and rural users here in Lexington. And we are asking that the board rule that the use of grow lights 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the greenhouse on the subject property be deemed a violation of the hours of operation restriction on the conditional use permit issue for this property. We are further requesting that the applicant be immediately required to install landscaping that satisfies the specific terms of the approved landscaping plan. And first I'll address the lighting of the greenhouse. And here's a picture of the greenhouse lit up at night from the across the street neighbor property. And this is across Old Richmond Road. This is what it looks like when it's lit up at night. To refresh your recollection, the subject property is a triangular shaped parcel of around 1.5 acres located between Old Richmond Road and I-75 in the AR zone. And in September, an application for a conditional use of this property as a plant nursery was filed by the owner and applicant. The staff recommended approval for several reasons, one of which was its finding that the proposed use should not adversely affect the subject or surrounding properties. There will be no on-site sales and activity on the site is expected to be relatively infrequent. And that's from the staff report for the conditional use application. The board voted to approve the conditional use over the objection of many neighbors and the 12th district council person. The approval of the requested conditional use by this board is on appeal to the Fayette Circuit Court, but the issues presented by this appeal are entirely distinct. The board's vote was subject to nine conditions, including that hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7.30 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and Sundays from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. Restriction of operating hours in this context was meant to reduce the impact of the business activity on surrounding properties. For several weeks now, the owner of the greenhouse has worked to install growing lights throughout the greenhouse, which are being left on seven days a week for 24 hours a day. Some of these lights appear to be fluorescent and are extremely bright at night. Lighting of the greenhouse throughout the night, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is a continuation of the operation of the greenhouse that violates this condition placed on the issuance of the conditional use permit by the VOA. Bear in mind that this business is not open to the public, and the explicitly stated business operation and use of the building was for growing. Therefore, the hours of operation include those during which business activities, such as the use of grow lights, occur on the property in such a way as to impact its neighbors. Again, the restriction of operating hours was meant to reduce the impact of this business activity on surrounding properties. Use of the exceedingly bright grow lights during the night constitutes ongoing activity. In approving the plant nursery use, the board approved a use that is defined in our ordinance as quote, an establishment engaged in the outdoor cultivation of only trees and shrubs for transplanting. The definition states that a greenhouse may be an accessory structure when used to propagate and prepare the trees or plants for planting on the premises. The 6,500 square foot greenhouse is in fact the only structure on the property and is now being used to grow plants using bright grow lights around the clock. Plants that are not being transplanted elsewhere on site but instead are being loaded on the trucks and transplanted off-site for sale or transplant. There are no plants that have been planted on site other than some plants installed in connection with the landscape requirements of the permit. Because the 6,500 square foot greenhouse is constructed of transparent material, oh, I'm sorry, one second, let me go over some of these emails. So the next few slides are emails, which I won't address in detail, but this PowerPoint has been made a part of the record of this proceeding, and it should have been shared with you. As you can see in these emails that I'll scroll through here, neighbors include and representatives of the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association have complained of the use of the grow lights since that activity began in January of 2021. And they have pointed out that a required use of the lights in the greenhouse was not disclosed to the BOA in connection with the conditional use permit application. um apparently the owner operator is stating that the grow lights have to be on 20 hours a day and the overturn road neighborhood association has been told that there's nothing that can be done about it because the lights are inside and that um i guess the planning staff has made a finding that it doesn't have anything to do with the hours of operation that the grow lights are on throughout the course of the night. Unfortunately, because the greenhouse is constructed of transparent materials, the lights used inside the structure have the same impact on neighboring properties as outdoor lights. And this is likely one of the many reasons that commercial greenhouses are not permitted in AR zones, except under narrowly drawn circumstances, none of which apply here. With regard to exterior lighting, the zoning ordinance provides that light is not to spill onto adjoining properties so that neighbors are not disturbed. This requirement is completely subverted with the 24-hour-a-day operation of grow lights throughout this massive greenhouse structure. Please be aware that during the September BOA meeting in which the Board granted the requested conditional use, the record notes and comments of that meeting reflect that objectors did in fact ask about whether or not there would be light inside the greenhouse, but there was no discussion of the issue at all by the applicant or the BOA. The applicant never disclosed through its presentation, application, and documents and testimony the operation of the greenhouse as an accessory use for this plant nursery would entail the need for intense, obtrusive, and constant interior lighting inside the greenhouse. Importantly, under the terms of the conditional use permit, the greenhouse is designated as an accessory structure to the plant nursery activities supposedly occurring elsewhere on the property. There's another image from Knight. The continuous use of grow lights undoubtedly negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhood. On our provisions in the ordinance governing conditional use permits, it states that the board shall have the power to hear and decide applications for conditional use permits to allow the proper integration into the planning area of uses which are specifically named in the zoning ordinance, which may be suitable only in specific locations in the zone only if certain conditions are met and which would not have an adverse influence on existing or future development of the subject property or its surrounding neighborhood. These lights are brighter than an electronic billboard and are certainly negatively impacting the surrounding neighborhood. Keep in mind that the use of the property approved by the BOA was not a commercial growing greenhouse, but a plant nursery with limited hours of operation. This is not a business zone, but an agricultural rural zone. Commercial landscaping businesses are not farms and crops are not being raised in the greenhouse as part of an overall agricultural operation. This certainly looks like a commercial growing greenhouse as a principal use, especially with a 24-hour light. And we are requesting that the BOA enter a ruling that the 24-hour-a-day lighting is violative of the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit relating to the required hours of operation. So that's part one of our appeal, which is actually twofold. The second part of our appeal is that the applicant should be required to immediately install screening as required by the terms of the conditional use permit. A little bit of background on this. In December 2020, a temporary occupancy permit had been issued for the greenhouse. and Dr. Gonneau appealed to this board to have the temporary conditional use permit revoked based on the failure of the owner applicant to comply with the approved landscape plan. At the meeting of the board in December, the board was unable to act on her appeal of that issue because the Division of Planned granted the final occupancy permit that very morning before Dr. Gonneau's presentation could be made. Issue 1C of the occupancy permit was in error, though, because the requirements set forth by the VOA for the landscaping were not yet complete in December. And these show some emails here. The next few slides show some emails that were sent back and forth about the fact that the landscaping plan had not yet been complied with in December. And the applicant was given until January 29th to submit an updated landscape plan for approval and install the correct trees in the correct location and the it was brought out that the landscape plan in a fellow wasn't the one that was approved and so there was all this back and forth about the landscape plan and what would be required to comply with the approved landscape plan before the occupancy permit could be issued here's what we're working with here the applicant was supposed to install 21 six to seven green giant arbor vidi trees as a screening. And this doesn't really show the placement of the bushes very well, but this next image here shows that they're supposed to be placed all along Old Richmond Road here to provide screening between the greenhouse and neighboring properties. Okay and in December the landscape examiner inspector report actually marks that the approved landscape plan had been followed even though it hadn't been yet. I don't think it's disputed that the actual landscaping that's there now wasn't installed until a month or a couple months later. At this point with the landscape examiner inspection report in March it says that the approved landscape plan was followed but that's also an error. Now, while there are the required number of plants installed, they are not the required size. So the next few slides here, I'm going to show you what it looks like. Our position is that the trees are not, the arborvita that have been installed are not anywhere close to the 6 to 7 feet provided for by the landscape plan. So here's an example of some of the trees that have been planted along the perimeter of the property. I'm just going to scroll through and allow you guys to see what it looks like out there right now. The trees that have been installed are bending and wilting. They haven't been properly watered or staked. And so it appears that they will be dying off pretty quickly. This is what the landscape buffer looks like. You can't even really tell from this picture where the buffer plantings are located behind this existing tree line. This is what the property looks like from the back when you're traveling down on Richmond Road. There's no landscaping to the rear of the property. This is the driveway. And again, another view of the long side of the greenhouse that directly faces across the street, neighbors across the street on the Richmond Road there. And you can see that even with the bushes that have been installed, it's not nearly sufficient to provide screening. Section 18-1 of the zoning ordinance states that any landscape materials that fail to meet the minimum requirements of the article at the time of installation shall be removed and replaced with acceptable materials. Further states that all unhealthy or dead plant materials shall be replaced within one year or by the next planting period whichever comes first, while other defective landscape materials shall be replaced or repaired within three months. The ordinance further states that violation of these installation and maintenance provisions shall be grounds for the Division of Building Inspections to refuse an occupancy permit or institute legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of the article. And it states here that where landscaping is required, no building permit shall be issued until the required landscaping plan has been submitted and approved and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the landscaping is completed as certified by an on-site inspection. The applicant here in connection with this appeal is requesting a ruling that the landscape plan approved by the BOA must be complied with and is further seeking a revocation of the the occupancy permit until compliance is achieved. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Ms. Winters. I think Mr. Martin was representing the applicant in this matter, and I notice that he is present. His hand is raised. So we're going to promote him. Let's promote him too so we can see his face as well. Thank you. Opposition. Where did he go? There he is. I'm glad I wore my suit. Yeah. Wait a second, Mr. Chair. I didn't think we showed the other side on camera during these hearings. Well, we do if they're represented by counsel or if they are representing the applicant. In this case, Mr. Barton does represent the applicant. and we showed him by the last time he was on, he's not just a member of the public. So that's why we're showing him. But I think this is a different filing. I mean, totally different matter. This is an appeal. Since Mr. Martin's client owns the subject property, that's sort of the reason that we have allowed him to be on screen with this type of appeal. All right. Sorry, Doug, go ahead. Go ahead, Doug, you're on. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. I know this has been a very long day. I've been here with you as well. And so I will try to be as brief as I can. So I'm Doug Martin. I represent the owner of this property, 7524 Old Richmond Road, which is Ecton Farm. This is our third appearance before you. Our first was the approval of the conditional use of this property as a plant nursery. And the second time was an appeal of the temporary certificate of occupancy. And so this was brought against by Lisa Gonneau and the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association. Just very briefly, as you may recall, Ecton Farm is a commercial landscaper. They do a lot of big projects here in town. They did the Hamburg YMCA. They did the Memory Care Center in Beaumont Circle. They're going to be doing the landscape revamping in the Marriott on Newtown. And so they are a real commercial business. Prior to purchasing this property, Acton Farm had to buy all of its landscape materials from commercial vendors. The purpose of this purchase was so that they could grow their own material and save a substantial amount of money. Much of that has been spent on defending Lisa Gano's complaints on this. So the first thing that is at issue are the grow lights. And so, you know, we take issue about this statement about 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As it turns out, the issue is moot at this point, because Mr. Ecton has stopped using the grow lights and removed his plants from the greenhouse, effective about around April 3rd and doing part the vandalism and I'll talk about that in a little bit. Mr. Ecton worked to try to accommodate Ms. Gonneau by installing timers on the grow lights that can be turned off between the hours of 8 p.m. and midnight. They didn't mention that. The first set of timers that he bought and these are two or three these are multiple timers that required. They just didn't work very well. He couldn't figure out how to work them, so he bought a second set of timers. And at that point, with the filing of this action, it became apparent through the amount of effort he was going to have to get into that it was just simply not worth the benefit to his seedling plants to try to use grow lights at the greenhouse. And so at this time, he's stopped using the grow lights and doesn't have an intention to repeat that. You know, we've had vandalism out there. Someone drove on the wet concrete after it was poured. Some property and equipment have been stolen from site, and there have been trespassers on there, and I don't know whether any of the complainants have been on site or not, but Mr. Ecton has lost confidence that his plants and property are safe down there. And so until he has an opportunity to establish more security measures there, he just is not going to be able to keep his plants down there on Old Richmond Road. This is the third appeal, as I mentioned. Ms. Gonneau has also filed complaints against Ecton Farm with the Kentucky Department of Transportation. And this has taken an enormous amount of time for Mr. Ecton to defend. And the board's September 14, 2020 approval doesn't really address interior grow lights at all. And so Mr. Ecton's volunteering to install timers on the grow lights that he had wasn't really required. He was trying to accommodate them as best he could. Yeah, the grow lights look pretty bright when photographed at night with a zoom lens. but frankly so does Dr. Gano's house. You know, it's, you know, when you're out in the country, any lights out in the country shine up pretty bright. Ms. Winters really substantially tried to expand the light requirement from light shining on neighbors to light that can be seen from a neighbor. And in fact, any sort of lights out in the country at night are going to look pretty bright. The lights that are allowed under the conditional use, which are pole lights, which have been, you know, these, it says any pole lighting for the parking loading areas should have a maximum high of 12 feet. Well, this is talking about the kind of lights that we see all the time in gas stations. So Mr. Echtingen is allowed to install a 12-foot pole light with a box around it like you'd see at a gas station and he there's no limit to how much he's you know allowed to do that and that would be substantially brighter than these interior grow lights. As staff has indicated in their report interior grow lights just really aren't aren't regulated or or addressed by the board's condition conditions. The restriction on pole lighting does not you know limit any other type of lights on the property either outside or inside it just doesn't make sense that Ecton Farm would be allowed to use lights inside the space just not inside if there are plants also in there so right now because there are no plants in there if Mr. Ecton just left the lights on that would actually be permitted under this because they wouldn't be used to being growing and therefore they wouldn't be operating and that just doesn't seem to make sense. So while Mr. Acton has stopped using his lights at 7524 Old Richmond Road, and he doesn't anticipate using them again, there's just no provision in the board's conditional use permit that prohibits the use of interior lights. As staff has indicated, this is not something they ever have imposed on any other user. This would be a new and unique regulation by the board of adjustment that's just really not contemplated. You know, there's an attempt to say that while using grow lights is operating in violation of the, of the use for, I see the cat, Miss Whitman's cat. We do too. I hope Miss Whitman has not turned into a cat, so it's a lawyer joke so uh you know but um you know there's there's a uh you know this this idea that it's a business activity to turn on the lights inside you know i'm the one who completed these applications and i included our application with my letter which i hope the board has the application asks for um you know typical hours of operation, typical days of operation, things like that. It's not a restrictive, prohibitive kind of thing, and neither staff nor any applicants take that as requiring folks to turn the lights off at 7 o'clock or something like that. Now, I know this is a lot of lights out there, but I just would go back and submit to you that we're allowed, the applicant is allowed, Mr. Ecton is allowed to have 12-foot pole lights on the outside of this building that would be far brighter than what these grow lights are. These are 30-watt grow lights. And so, you know, what they're not required to do is be invisible to neighbors. This is an approved use. They're allowed to use it as a plant nursery. and there's going to be lights there and it can be seen just like we can see Dr. Gonneau's lights from her house from across the street. So again, I think the issue is moot. Mr. Ecton has ceased using the grow lights. He does not have any intention to use them again. I guess if he changes his mind in five years, we'll be back in front of you to talk about this. But at this point, I think the issue is moot. The second issue was landscaping plans. Now, there's an error in my letter I wanted to point out that I said that the LFUCG approved the landscaping plan in 2020. Obviously, that's not true. That was before it was approved. That was supposed to be March 8 of 2021. I just want to direct your attention to that. I do apologize. So the landscaping plan, you know Mr. Ecton on my advice worked closely with the city you know but he was advised by the LFUCG staff not the not the board of adjustment staff but the LFUCG staff that he was not required to use the actual trees that were in his landscaping plan so he planted different trees he had a stock of other trees on hand and the person he was dealing with at the city advised him that that was okay because I think they were looking at just general the landscaping regulations and not this specific board of adjustment approval. Well, so he planted these plans and it came to light later that that was an erroneous advice. He was advised that he'd remove the trees that he had planted and he had to plant the green giant arbor vides. Well, at that point he was into winter and as you know we had some very bad snow and ice and we had nearly biblical rains at some point but he did finally get them in and in March of 2021 the LFZG certified that he had installed the plants that per his landscaping plan. Now I know that Ms. Winters showed pictures of these but these are you know these are close to six foot green giant arbor vies. They were bent over in the ice storm. Ms. Winters is not a landscaper. My client is a highly respected landscaper, and he understands what's going to be there. Should any of them die, he's going to have to replace them. But I can tell you, I have 20, I think I have 26 green giant arborvitaes in my backyard, personally. And they are 50 feet high and 20 feet wide. They grow two to three feet a year. And these arborvitaes will be just fine. And if they don't perk back up with the rains from spring and the warming weather, Mr. Ecton will go out and stake those. So they're just extremely hardy. He's planted, I believe, 23 green giant arborvitaes, two more than is required on his plan. They're exactly in the spots that he indicated they would be on his plan. And in addition, he's planted an additional 18 ornamental trees that he was not required to install, which I think are probably the ones he originally put in and just move them to a different hole. So, no one expected Mr. Ecton or Ecton Farm to plant fully grown trees. You know, the LFUG has, CGS, it's certified that they put the type of trees in that Mr. Ecton satisfies the requirements of his landscaping plan. It's going to take a while for them to grow, but I can promise you these suckers grow, excuse me, these plants grow at two to three feet a year. And as I have a bunch of them, I can tell, attest to that personally. What we have is a 10 to 15 year effort to put any owner of that greenhouse out of business. And that's just not right. my guy is doing his best to comply with the city. to jump through all the hoops, to put in the handicapped parking space, and to do everything that he's required to do. He's gotten permits from the Department of Transportation. He's gotten permissions from the city. And he's been nothing, he's received nothing but harassment. And so I just don't think that's right. And what we have here are wealthy landowners, people who own wealthy country estates who don't want agribusiness in their neighborhood. They think it's too low class for them. And that's just not right. And it's not inconsistent with the Rural Development Management Plan. So I appreciate your time. You've been here a long time today, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. And Ms. Winters, I neglected to ask you if you had any further things that you or witnesses wanted to say. I noticed that Lisa Gonneau is in attendance and has her hand raised. So do you wish to present any additional testimony before, well, what should have been before Mr. Martin replied? Yes, and actually, since we kind of passed that moment before Mr. Martin, I would like to address a couple of Mr. Martin's points in rebuttal and then present my witness, if that's okay. Well, let's hear from your witness first and then you can rebut because I don't want to do this piecemeal. I've already made one mistake by taking Mr. Martin out of order, so I don't want to compound it. So let's hear from your witness if you don't mind. Okay, Tommy. Tommy, I don't want to get us out of order anymore, but I do have a question for staff before we hear everybody. Okay. I'm still a little, I guess, confused. This is the first one I've had where there's no recommendation. And so then I'm not sure as to. You want to know what the issue is that we have to decide? Absolutely. And I'd like to know it before they keep talking. Okay. And I think, let me see if I can answer that. If I can't, staff can correct me. But I think the issue to be decided is whether or not the Department of Planning's inspector, whether his determination that as to whether, well, I think we determined whether the inspector acted appropriately in determining that that he would take no regulatory enforcement action based upon requiring interior lights be regulated. I didn't say that right. It's said more appropriately in the staff report, the board can make a determination, and I think that this is the determination, as to whether the Division of Planning has acted appropriately in its decision not to take any action regarding interior lights located within the greenhouse itself. So I think that's the question before, is did the Department of Planning expect to act it appropriately when he decided to take no action with respect to the complaint about the interior lights because the interior lights are not part of the conditions imposed when this conditional use was granted. So that's the question as I see it. Staff, you can tell me if I stated that correctly or not. Well there were two conditions that the appellant was questioning. The first was the lighting, indoor lighting. The second was the landscaping. And the landscaping, according to the staff, is moot. That issue is moot because the landscaping has now been installed. Is that correct? That's correct. The landscaping, we were notified by the Division of Environmental Services on March 8th that the landscaping requirements had been met. as far as the trees being shorter than they're required to be, that's pretty typical when trees are installed as part of a landscaping plan that they are not full size. We do typically allow for some time for trees to grow into that full size. And Ms. Wade may be able to elaborate on that a little bit more as far as timeline on growth. Well, so I guess that brings my question, or is even more confusing. So both of those issues are moot. Then what will we be voting on? I mean, what are we approving or disapproving? So an approval would be an agreement with the appellant that the Division of Planning acted incorrectly and that the grow lights are not in compliance with one of the conditions. The condition that they have asserted is that it's not within the hours of operation, that having grow lights on violates that condition. The second, if you were to approve the appeal, you would be saying that the landscape plan has not been installed correctly in accordance with that condition. And in connection with that first thing, the question before us then, as raised by the appellate, would be whether or not the use of interior grow lights are limited by the hours of operation. Yes. So I think what on that, let's kind of separate these two for a second, because I think we could vote and uphold the appeal on either or both or neither of these two items if we want to but i think i'd like miss way to discuss um a little bit about what lighting is regulated um it's and the zone because i know she is a very skillful planner um and i know i have had uh discussions with her on this particular issue especially on the pole lighting, I mean, generally speaking, you have to put a can on it. You can't just have one of those big KU utility poles out there with the light on it. But I think Ms. Wade could educate us, the board, on this is what they consider when they're looking at lighting issues from the planning staff perspective and what is enforceable and what is not. Sorry to put you on the spot, Tracy. Brandon, you're talking about the question from the code and not from the conditional use itself, right? But I think that kind of – I mean personally, I think that kind of leads into a little bit of Mr. Martin's comment of if we can't regulate an interior light so he could put on lights and pick the plants out and we'd have no reason to regulate, it seems a little silly for us to say, well, just because there are plants in there, we can say you can't do it. And so I'm interested in what Tracy has to say on that particular issue. Sure. Thanks, Bryn. One of the things that you often see are conditions the staff recommends for a conditional use to be in compliance with Article 16 and 18 of the zoning ordinance. And that's because those generally apply for development plans, but not necessarily for a conditional use application. So Article 16 deals with parking lots and vehicle areas, the number, where parking can be located, like in a residential zone, you can't have your parking in the front yard, but if a commercial can. So Article 16 covers a lot of those parking requirements. It also includes kind of a generic statement that parking lot lighting for outdoor parking lots shall be directed away from adjoining residential zones and uses. So that's not necessarily applicable in every development, but in this case, you have an agricultural use and an agricultural zone, but also residential homes in the area. So generally, when the board is considering conditional uses, we want to try to mimic some of those regulations that are in place for maybe a larger development that wouldn't necessarily kick in for a small project. So that's where you often see the staff recommend a condition that says direct lighting away from residential or agricultural uses or provide shoebox lighting, which has a, it directs it downward more than out. And then article 18 Ms. Winters referenced is another one of those articles that really only applies in certain circumstances. And unfortunately, it does not apply in a lot of cases for conditional use. So again, the staff tries to recommend a different condition that would try to mimic those requirements. And that's where the landscape plan comes in on this particular conditional use. So Article 18, although Ms. Winter referenced that and could have been in the justification from her client, is not part of the board's consideration of every case. And it wasn't in this case. That's why there was a separate landscape plan required with very specific requirements for a type of shrub or tree and in very specific areas to address those very specific needs on this site. Again, the board considers things case by case. You are considering so many different unique cases that a lot of times 18, those two articles, 16 and 18, don't apply in the best way for you all to treat the community equally. So in this case, your conditional use conditions, again, are in the staff report, and they're very specific. And so the question at hand is, is the applicant meeting, the owner, the property owner, Ecton Farms meeting those conditions? And when we received a complaint, the Division of Planning did, we reviewed the conditions and notified the complainant that the Division of Planning felt they were already in compliance with the requirements of the conditional use. and then their decision was to appeal that decision or assessment and conclusion. Does that help? Yes, thank you very much. Okay. Are there any other questions before we go farther? Does any board member have any further questions of staff before we go farther? because I want to do this in a more orderly fashion than has been done so far. If not, then Ms. Winters, if you have witnesses that you'd like to present, we'll let you do that. I do. I just wanted to present Dr. Gonneau. She would like to give a few comments. And then when she's finished, I don't believe we have any other witnesses, unless somebody from the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association is in attendance. I can't see who's in attendance from my screen, but they, Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association is in fact the appellant in this case, not Dr. Ganoe. So I wanted to make sure about that. And then I would like to rebut some of Mr. Martin's points whenever that's appropriate. I'll invite you to present your witnesses. Okay. I'm not sure the best way to do that on Zoom format, Dr. Goodmough, is, of course, in a different location. So do you want to promote her or just have her? Yeah, we should promote her. I think because I'm going to disagree with Brandon. I think because that. My name is on the appeal letter. So I do believe that I should be heard. My name is on that letter. So I am part of this appeal. Yes. I think the neighborhood association is the appellant. The appellant can call witnesses that council chooses and council was chosen to allow Ms. Gano to testify. So we will hear from her. And so we will listen to her. But consistent with our earlier procedures, we won't promote her to the board. We're just listening to it. Well, I do believe as part of the appeal, and I have signed the letter, I do believe that I should be seen on camera. Well, that would be inconsistent with our previous. Mr. Glover, I think the minister understood me. I meant she should be elevated to talk, not to be put on camera. That was not the point. Thank you, Mr. All right. I disagree with that, but I'm ready to roll. Okay, go ahead. How much time do you need? I need five minutes. Okay, go right ahead. First of all, I'd like to address that I've always given Mr. Martin due respect. I've always introduced myself as Dr. Lisa Gonneau, and he's been very disrespectful to me in the past. So I'd like to point that out. And I'm just as aggravated as his client is as well. I would also like to say that I'm not surprised he's had trouble over there because it is right off the interstate, and we do get a lot of people right off the interstate. Any implication that anybody from this neighborhood may have gone on site is just utterly ridiculous. I have security for my place as well. I would like to say that those plants are definitely not anywhere near six feet. If I did go on the property, I'd like to take a picture next to one. You can actually see how teeny tiny they actually are. He also talked about a handicapped space, and in September, they also mentioned that there should be four other parking spaces that they'd work with traffic engineering on, and that was never done. I would also like to make the point to his speech about the rich and wealthy landowners that, as I mentioned before, I'm a single teacher, and my house is half the value of where Mr. Acton currently lives. He also has another property, and he has a staff, and he has equipment. And so, you know, let's just not even go there. So I am Dr. Lisa Gonneau, 7525 Old Richmond Road. I'm a neighbor directly impacted by the extremely bright lights coming from the translucent 6,500 square foot greenhouse across from my home and closer than 300 feet to my home. The lights continue to be added throughout the winter, and bright light has been spilling onto my property and illuminating my home every night and day for 24 hours straight for months. I've had to sleep with my bedroom door shut, and no one can sleep in the upstairs bedroom facing the road due to the brightness of the lights. I asked at the September meeting about this possibility, which can be seen on the online video, yet there was no discussion about this, and the applicant and his lawyer did not bring this up in the presentation. Other neighbors have said, surely it can be seen from space as bright as it is. And of course, it can be seen from the other neighbor's house across the road since leaves have not yet returned to the trees and there is no screening from his perspective also. Neighbors that have passed by it constantly have remarked to me about it being lit up all night. It's a traffic hazard and distraction when lit. I've had no break from the constant lights, which has had an adverse impact when home should be a refuge away from constant business activity, leaving them on further impacts my property values I've mentioned before. A lack of screening certainly contributed to the issue also. In September the applicant and his lawyer told you that you should not be able to really see the greenhouse when done because of the screening that would be added and the property would be beautiful when complete. I take great issue with the staff report which states a final certificate of occupancy was issued by the Division of Building Inspection prior to the board's meeting on December 14, 2020. Therefore, the board voted to disapprove that appeal due to the fact that the final certificate of occupancy had been issued, making the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy moot. Tracy Jones said that because the issue was moot, that no action could be taken, and so no vote was taken, as you recall, after I waited five and a half hours to present, and of course, today is much longer. as revealed right after that meeting on December 17th the applicant did not plant what was required by the BOA so the certificate of occupancy should have never been issued and as one of those emails stated it was because the neighbor was complaining and I was correct at the last meeting that they were trying to help him complete that the applicant was given two additional deadlines and still not planning what he should have and there's still nothing screening me from the greenhouse is almost most of the very small and already dying and bent over plants are on the opposite end of the greenhouse not directly across the road from me enforcement should be taken and the dying plants removed when the correct ones planted according to section 18 requesting a performance bond which was required would have allowed planning to make sure the correct plantings were complete the city approvals for landscaping should provide the name of the inspector and whether the inspected they inspected in person or the through photos supplied by the owner it's way too vague but maybe that's the purpose. The staff's report also notes the board is not authorized to add additional conditions or modify existing conditions for a condition of use after such use has been approved unless the operator brings forward a new application to modify their use. The certificate of occupancy should have been revoked and be invalid due to the conditions for three chances. After all, the owner is a commercial landscape business owner and certainly knows the difference if he does it every day. Section 18 of the zoning ordinance states, the board shall have the power to revoke conditional use permits for noncompliance with the condition thereof. The December appeal should have been acted upon by the BOA for a vote, yet planning denies you that right. The use of the lights certainly impacts the neighborhood and should be restricted now and as long as the accessory greenhouse is in operation. It needs to be written in there clearly. This should not be an issue since it's not the principle of proved use. Although hundreds of plants, not trees and shrubs, have been trucked in and have been removed from the greenhouse since mid-March, those were not planted outside of the plant nursery as described in September. Don't say it's a moot point just because he hasn't been engaged in using the lights for a week leading up to this meeting. He's had a couple of months to be working on it. What happens for the next growing season, tomorrow or beyond? I don't want to keep coming back. Just uphold and enforce the conditions, including screenings, hours of operation, and the use. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Dr. Gonneau. Ms. Winters, do you have any other people who want to testify? I see hands raised. Mary Diane Hanna is also listed as the president of the Old Bridge-Termon Neighborhood Association and chief in the attendees section. we ask if she wants to speak. Ms. Winter, do you have other witnesses? Yes, sir. The only other one that I would want to invite to speak would be the president of the Neighborhood Association, since I'm representing the Neighborhood Association today. And I will just say that I believe earlier in the day when applicants had witnesses to share with the board that the witnesses that they were sharing with the board, their faces were seen as part of the presentation of the principal case. For instance, applicants who were represented by attorneys, their attorneys showed their faces and were able to talk, and then the applicant themselves showed his or her face and was able to talk. And so I would echo the objection of Dr. Gonneau to the fact that she wasn't able to share her face with you all to be able to raise their concerns to you directly and I would request that the Old Bridge Road Neighborhood Association president who's present be permitted to speak directly to you as well. Well part of what you said is not true. We even during the last case before this one the attorney for the Neighborhood Association we didn't even have him on screen we just heard from him. So we typically allow attorneys representing or the principal representing themselves, if not represented by counsel, to appear on screen, but witnesses, we don't. But we will hear from Mary Diane Hanna, if she wishes to speak. We can listen to her, listen to the testimony that she has. Hi, yes, I would like to speak. thank you i'm mary diane hannah president of the old richmond road i'm sorry how long do you anticipate speaking until i'm finished probably a couple of minutes well it won't be an hour and it won't be a half an hour and if we quit asking questions probably about five minutes i'll give you less i'll give you five minutes start go ahead okay mary diane hannah old richmond road neighborhood association 6398 Old Richmond Road. First of all, I would like to say to Doug, we are not a bunch of rich landowners out here who have fought this conditional use for 30 plus years. We have fought this use as poor landowners for as long as it was instilled in the first place or allowed to be a conditional use. because most of you know this conditional use was never in compliance with the rules at the onset because it doesn't meet the correct size for the space and it is way out of compliance with the setbacks. So it has never been anything that has been legal if you went by the rules of the city ordinances. Second, Dr. Gonneau's house is far less lit up than the greenhouse. This greenhouse is amazingly bright. Her house is lit up like any other house when you have the lights on, and it's not lit up when her lights are off. So I take offense at that situation. Our basic thing is that this has never been in compliance. You all finally revoked the conditional use permit a number of years ago, and then you allowed it to come back into compliance illegally because it has never met the right things that go with the ordinances of the city. That's all I have to say. Okay, thank you very much. Let's see. We've heard from applicant. Ms. Winters, you said you wanted to rebut something that Mr. Martin said. What did you want to say about that? Thank you for the opportunity just to close up here. I did want to echo what the witnesses have said. there was an insinuation that neighbors have vandalized the property it's completely unfounded the neighbors would not resort to any of that sort of action with regard to this property they have only availed themselves of the spectrally provided mechanisms for challenging development in their neighborhood that they believe does not comply with the zoning ordinance and is adversely impacted in their neighborhood. And so, you know, they've only taken the steps that they're legally entitled to take, and that should not be held against them in this context. I want to back up a minute. When you think about when the disconditional use was proposed for this property, the neighbors came forward and they were very concerned about the impact that the operation of a greenhouse would have on neighboring property units and in discussions with staff and in from the DOA it was determined that one of the ways that the impact on the neighbors could be ameliorated was through the imposition of a condition on the issuance of the conditional use that limits the hours of operation to specific times of day okay and it's not like we're dealing with like a store that's open to the public. So the hours of operation will be the times that its doors are open to the public, the time that people will be coming and going. That's not this situation because this business was never proposed to be open to the public. So a restriction on the hours of operation in the context of this particular application and this particular business means the hours that the facility will be being used for the business purposes for which it is being used, which in this case is growing plants. And I understand that typically, you would not control interior lights. Typically, interior lights are not a part of the operation of a business. They're on when the business is open. They're off when the business is closed. They may be on occasionally during the night, stopping or whatever in the context of a store. But this, the use of the lights is the operation of the business and we're not dealing with just basic indoor lights if someone needed to go in and grab some plants out or do some work after hours these grow lights are throughout the the entirety of a 6,500 square foot greenhouse and they are cheating right I don't know if you guys got that from the photos I was trying to show but this is completely different than a few incidental interior lights being left on after the hours of operation at a regular enterprise. So I think that in this particular case, which you guys decide cases on a case-by-case basis, because of the nature of the building itself, which is constructed with transparent materials, and the business operation that is taking place on site, which is the growing of plants, the use of the grow lights continuously, 24 hours and day seven days, it does violate the restrictions that were placed on the hours of operation, which were intended to ameliorate the impact of the operation of this greenhouse on the neighbors, because the operation of a commercial greenhouse is not permitted in an AR zone. It's not, unless there are very particularly enumerated circumstances that are met with or not met in this case, which is why the applicant termed his business to be a plant nursery instead of a commercial greenhouse. And I won't get into why it doesn't qualify as a plant nursery because that's on appeal up to the fair and start the court right now. But, you know, the plant nursery, the greenhouse, any greenhouse component of it is supposed to be an accessory use. So how can you say that it's okay to have grow lights and an accessory greenhouse structure on 24 hours a day, seven days a week when the hours of operation have been specifically limited to reducing the impact of members? So that's that. And then in rebuttal on the landscape plan, the landscape plan that I showed you that was approved specifically states that the installation of six to seven foot arborbed eye trees is required to satisfy the landscape plan. Okay, that means that they have to be six to seven feet when they're installed. And that's what the landscape plan says. And that's not what has happened. So we're just asking that the landscape plan be compliant. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms. Witters. Mr. Martin, I'll hear from you since Ms. Winters spoke. Do you have anything to add before we cut this off? I just want to say that we agreed to try to cut them back. Now we've agreed to stop using them. I think it's telling that that doesn't stop this. What they really want to do is put my guy out of business like they've done the predecessors on that property. So my guys has agreed he's not going to use the grow lights. and he's installed the landscaping plan exactly, exactly like he said on the landscaping plan. So there's not really much more than we could do. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. The board has heard, what's left of the board has heard from the witnesses and the applicants and the owner. is there any questions that the board has for either counsel for applicant or counsel for the appellant any questions you understand do you all understand what the issue is before yeah i think you do and the issue is whether or not the uh the inspector was proper and what he did or didn't do okay uh we will uh entertain a motion and the motion will be whether to approve the appeal or to deny the appeal i will entertain that motion i move to deny the appeal appeal and boa 21-12 the old richmond road neighborhood associations request for a third party appeal regarding the enforcement of conditions of approval associated with the conditional use in an AR zone on property located at 7524 Old Richmond Road. And I'm not actually sure if I need to base it on. I think you base it on the staff report and the testimony we've heard. Okay, based on staff's report and testimony heard today. All right, Ms. Carter, thank you for that. Do we have a second? Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor, raise your hand. Five in favor. There's no opposition. The appeal is denied. Thank you very much, everybody, for your participation in this long, but not the longest hearing that we've had. It's only 832. I hope we don't have any more than it is length, but it's certainly not the longest one this particular board has had since having an office. so I appreciate it ending early for your service all of you I had a few late ones on council but we didn't have very many zoning things so I think I dodged the bullet on most of them are there any items of the board member wishes to present yeah Tommy I would I'd like to discuss a little bit about our while we're doing these zooms are, I know we've talked about this prior and I can't recall exactly the 100% reason why, but you know, why, I'd like us to talk about allowing witnesses who have access to use their cameras during this if they so choose. I'm not 100% certain why we would deny that. The problem is to be consistent because not every witness is going to have the access, the visual access. You're saying that those that do should be allowed to appear. That's just my feeling on it. I think what I did today was based on the fact that we had approximately 37 witnesses on the last application, which was an inordinate amount. The logistical problem of putting them up and pulling them down was going to be significant here. Certainly wouldn't have extended the hours of operation of this board adjustment on today's hearing. So that was a judgment call by me. I do understand why you'd want to have, you want to see witnesses, but it's, we're all operating under a hardship. That's my. When we started doing this, the Division of Planning made this a rule essentially for all of our hearings for the Planning Commission and for the BOA that non-applicants not be seen on camera. I think at the beginning that was due largely to the transition to using Zoom and concerns about privacy issues and seeing things in the background with individuals who were not. These videos are going to be around for forever. And we wanted to be sure that we were being conscientious of folks' privacy. So we only allowed for applicants and their counsel to be seen as well as heard. and that was sort of the original impetus behind that and why we've been operating in this manner. Of course, I think now it's a year later and folks are a lot more familiar with Zoom, so there could be reason to look at that again, but that was a planning-wide decision. Well, I'm glad to hear that was consistent with my decision today because I didn't realize that was a planning decision. Oh, yeah, no, we've not been doing that the whole time, Tommy, but I would like that to be looked at a second time. Okay. Well, staff can, yeah, maybe staff can look at that and report back to us next time we meet, which will be. And real quick, Tommy, just to say, if we were not allowing, we're not allowing applicants or their attorneys either to be on camera. No, we are allowing applicants. Oh, I know we are, but I think I think it's, you know, I don't see where an applicant has any more rights to have their face on the screen than does the basic public. So I think I would prefer to be consistent. Either we let everyone or we let no one. But I don't I don't like to split. So that's just my opinion. But I understand. I disagree with that. I think the applicant has their application is at stake. members of the public may have a public interest, but the applicant has. It's like the pig and the chicken contributing to breakfast. I think the applicant has more at stake. The applicant is the pig contributing to bacon. The chicken's only contributing to the egg. I think that may be a crude way of saying it, but that seems to be the difference. And it worked today, and I'm not sure that we stepped on anybody's right by not or that we got a misimpression or misinterpretation of testimony that was given by not having witnesses on camera. Hopefully this will all be moved because I understand that the council is taking the position that they're going to go back to in-person meetings sometime this summer, August. So maybe if the council does it, we can do it. And if they do, and if we do, I'll be happy. Any other items for the board? Yeah, I hate to let you go so soon, but I'll declare this meeting adjourned. Great. Thank you.