Okay, we are recording and we are on the air. Okay, good afternoon everybody. It's the Board of Adjustment Meeting for May 10th. I'll call a meeting to order. Our hearing is now live. Happy to see everybody's smiling faces out there. It is May after all. Let me read the statement. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150, as signed by the Governor on March 30, 2020, in Attorney General Opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. Let's see. The first order of business is approval of the minutes. There are two minutes to approve the the March 8th meeting and the April 12th meeting, have the board members read the minutes? And if so, I'll entertain a motion. If nobody's read them, I'll entertain a motion anyway. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the minutes as presented by staff for, I believe, that would be the April and the March meetings. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Is there a second? I second the motion. Let's see. I think I saw Mr. Clark's mic go off first, so thank you much. All in favor say aye. Aye. Raise your hand. Thank you very much. The minutes are approved for March and April. I'm going to change up the agenda a little bit and do what I should have been doing all along, because last week or last month I forgot. I'm going to swear all the witnesses now. I think that's a better policy. I've experimented with doing it the other way, and last month I forgot on almost every witness to swear them in individually. We're going to allow them to all speak then. We won't bring them in on video, but we're going to allow them to speak, so you'll hear them say yes. Okay, that'll be good. Let's see. We've got, is that a list of them? Is that a complete list on the right-hand side? There are 13 members of the public, and they've all been allowed to speak. Okay, very much. Everybody in the public who intends on speaking at this hearing, please raise your right hand. You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I heard 13 responses. Okay. Okay, thank you very much, everybody. What we're going to do is to go through the agenda and see which of the items on the agenda can be disposed of quickly and those that require some kind of comment or something we'll hear on the second go around. So the first go around is what I lovingly call a rocket docket. And we have, I think, six or seven cases this month. I'll go through them in order. first case is PLN VOA 21-19 Jeremy and Amber Block of applicants present yes miss Bach has raised her hand okay all right and I don't see it do we have anybody who wishes to speak either in favor or oppose to this application I don't see any hands Lisa Clark hand is raised Ms. Clark are you opposed or in opposition or in favor of this application you can unmute yourself to respond Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman I'm sorry this is John Woodall. I'm showing up as Lisa Clark. I apologize. I've got a postponement or two in a minute, but I don't know why that keeps happening. Mr. Woodall, I didn't recognize you from Ms. Clark's name there. So, fair enough. Are you in favor or opposed to this application? Oh, I have nothing to do with it. I was waiting for my postponement of the next application, actually. Okay. I don't see anybody opposed to it. So we'll put that, we'll put this in on the rocket docket, Ms. Bach, and we'll come back to you at the end of the first call. Thank you very much. The second item on the agenda is PLN VOA 21-21 Homestead Development. Is the applicant present or and or represented? Yes, Mr. Chairman, John Woodall on behalf of the applicant, homestead development and we would like to postpone this matter until the june call okay postponements are usually something we take up right away so we'll uh what's the reason for your uh request to postpone uh the staff had um recommended postponement and we're working on a revised plan right now on our roof pitches and uh there's just no way to get the plan done and have in time for staff to review it before this meeting so we just need to push a month okay fair enough anybody on the board have any questions i'll entertain a motion to postpone if anybody's so inclined mr chair sorry hit the wrong button there we go uh i move that we postpone plnboa 21-21 homestead developments request for a variance to reduce the amount of the roof surface covered at 840 Angliana Avenue to our hearing date, which will be set on June 14th at 1 30 PM. Thank you, Mr. Grose. Is there a second? A second. Mr. Needham seconds. All in favor, raise your hand. Motion carries. Matter is postponed. Thank you much, Mr. Woodall. We'll see you next month. Thank you, sir. The next item on the agenda is PLN BOA 21-22 Ball Homes LLC. Is applicant present? Mr. Nicholson is here. And he's been promoted to a panelist. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Ball Homes LLC. We would like to request a one-month postponement as well. We're going to take a look at the site plan once we got the staff's disapproval recommendation to see if there's something that we can't change up and add some supplemental justification and see if we can't give this run at the June meeting. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. I've read the application. I understand why you might want it postponed in light of the staff's recommendation. Yes, sir. Any questions to Mr. Nicholson or I'll entertain a motion to postpone. if you're all are so inclined. Mr. Chair, I think this is a good decision and I recommend postponement of PLNBOA 21-22 Ball Homes LLC request for variance to reduce the required setback for freestanding identification signs 10 to 6 feet for three signs and 10 feet to two feet for two signs at property in a planned neighborhood residential and high density apartment zones a property located at 299 squares circle and 480 squares road and postponed to the June 14th meeting. Thank you Mr. Park is there a second? I'll second. Salmon Whitman's hand. Ms. Whitman seconds all in favor please signify by raising your hand. matter is postponed to the June 14th. Thank you all. And I'm also the applicant for the next one. You represent the training center? Yes, sir. Okay. I'll call that one next. PLN BOA 21-24, Kentucky Training Center. Mr. Nicholson, you are present. Is there anyone who wants to speak in opposition to this application? Anyone in the public who wishes to speak in opposition? i don't see any hands so that will be we'll put you on the second matter on the rocket docket mr nicholson be with you shortly great thank you all thank you next matter is pln boa 21 days 13 andy's frozen custard back from last month is the applicant present Mr. Brandon Harp is present and we promoted him to panelist. There are several other people present as well. Okay. Mr. Harp. Hi, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, I'm Brandon Harp with CEDC. I'm a civil engineer representing Andy's Frozen Custard. We are here tonight with a revised site plan that does have staff report, support, and happy to present that at your direction. Okay, thank you very much. Stand by for a minute. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? I don't see any hands raised. All right. Mr. Harper will put you on the rocket docket as well. You'll be, I think, probably third in line and we'll get back to you shortly stand up stand by hey sir the next matter is uh rodale properties pln boa 21-20 administrative appeal is the applicant present mr scott schutte is here to represent the applicant and we promoted him to panelist okay Good afternoon, Board Chairman. This is my application. We are actually going to request a postponement as well to the June docket. We received a couple letters today and want to take a little time to review those and provide some responses to those. okay uh fair enough mr schute uh anybody on the board have any questions for mr shooting if not i'll uh entertain them let's see is there anybody in the public who is here to speak for or against this application i don't see any hands raised um on the board have any questions for mr Schuette about this application, Rodale Properties. Mr. Schuette has requested postponement, and I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll make that motion. for a post moment of PLNBOA 21-20 Rodell Properties LLC request for an administrative appeal to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure from 834 square feet to 2,400 square feet in order to allow a recently constructed accessory structure to remain as constructed in a single family residential zone on property located at 323 Kingston Road postponed to the June 14th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? Mr. Gross seconds the motion. All in favor signify by raising your hand. Motion carries. The matter is postponed until June 14th. Thank you all. Thank you. Last item on the agenda is PLN VOA 21-23 Nest A LLC. I'm sorry, Neste, Lexington, LLC, request for an administrative appeal as an applicant present. Mr. Ryan Diaz, you praise your name, so welcome to the analyst. Mr. Diaz, as you... Yes. Hello, Mr. Chair. I'm Ryan Diaz. I'm representing the interests of Neste, LLC, in this appeal. Thank you, Mr. Diaz. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? I don't see any. Yeah, but it is recommended for disapproval by the staff. It is recommended for disapproval, so we will hear your appeal at the end of the docket. Mr. Diaz, stand by. Thank you. Okay. We go back to number one on the docket, PLN VOA 21-19, Jeremy and Amber Bach. Let's promote this Bach back up. there you are you can unmute yourself as well and this is a request to reduce the front yard set back to 300 to 200 feet to construct a new house in an AR zone. Any members of the board have any questions for Ms. Bach? I see no questions. I think the staff report was fairly comprehensive, and I think we understand it. So I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 21-19 Jeremy and Amber Box request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 300 feet to 200 feet in order to construct a new house in the agricultural AR zone on property located at 3601 Lemons Mill Pike. Based on staff's recommendations subject to their three conditions. Thank you, Mr. David. Do we have a second? I have a second. Ms. Whitman raised her hand. I'll recognize her. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor of the motion signify by raising your hand. Looks fairly unanimous. Motion carries. The application is approved. Good luck with your house. I like them quick like that. Let's see. and postpone that. Okay. All right, Autumn. She's promoted to package in. Congratulations, Autumn. Next item is PLNVOA 21-24, Kentucky Training Center, LLC, request for conditional use to expand the facility and a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 222 feet to 174 feet. And Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir. I believe Jim Pendergast is also on the line representing the Kentucky Training Center. we have had an opportunity to review the staff report and the conditions for the staff recommendation of approval and we do agree to abide by those conditions you just took all the wind out of my sails I tried to good that was very professional anybody on the board have any questions for Mr. Nicholson on this application we did have a new member of the public join us is there anyone who wishes to speak uh about this uh application the Kentucky Training Center I see no hands raised Mr. Nicholson it seems like a good looking project probably much needed. It is the the existing kind of warehouse barns were built in I want to say it was 69 and so this will be a much needed kind of facelift for the property. Is this because you have several horses that they're going to be in training there and you want them to be housed a little better? I wish I could say I was a horse owner, but not currently. Okay. It looks to me like the plan of the barns is their angle to parallel the track and other than parallel bear's pipe. Is that the plan? That is correct. And it kind of, the way that they are kind of angled offsets the kind of visual impact it could have on the Parris Pike Corridor. Fair enough. Any other questions for Mr. Nicholson and his sources? I see no hands raised, so I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair I move to approve PLN BOA 21-24 Kentucky Training Center's LLC's request for a conditional use to expand the training facility and two a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 222 feet to 174 feet in the AR zone on property located at 3380 based on staff's recommendations for approval and the three conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do we have a second? I'll second. Mr. Clark seconds. All in favor, signify by raising your hand. And the motion carries. Thank you all so much. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Good luck. Next item on the agenda is PLN BOA 21-13, Andy's frozen custer. Mr. Harp, we will bring you back up. And is there anyone else? I think we had two people speak last month that we would want to. There were members of the public who spoke on this application last week. Is there anybody who wishes to speak with respect to this application this month? I said last week. I don't see any hands, Ray. We do have one. Brandon Arnold, is he with you, Mr. Hart? Yes, he is. Okay, good. Part of the application. so Mr. Sorry. Mr. Arnold. Okay. So if we have anybody on the board have any questions for Mr. Harp with respect to Andy's frozen custard. I don't have any questions per se but could Autumn or somebody throw up the plan? I don't think I got the link today to the Google Drive. and it's hard for me to see. It looks like, I just want to, I'm curious about what, it looks like there's like, the seating is going to be between Broadway and the building, which I think I like the design of this better, but I'd just like to kind of get a closer look if I could. Sure, let's pull that up. Let me pull that up real quick. Thank you, ma'am. And quite frankly, I looked at it as well. I compared it to last month's submittal, and this one is. So this is the original submittal from last month that we saw. Here is the revised site plan. Let me make this bigger. Oops, that's not how you do it. Here's a new one. This is the new site plan. Here's a little bit of a zoom in on that. So yes, the seating is in this area here. This is where that canopy that they referenced is now. And then they've got seating here with benches. way up here. I think this is a much better plan for safety and for the use. So I'm glad that the applicant and staff was able to come forth, come together and put something together. Is the circle going to be kind of a green space inside the drive lane circle? Yes, it is. Okay. Yeah. I think this is, I like this. I think that for safety purposes, this is a better design because it, rather than the cars wrapping around the building, they only go on one side of the building and the pedestrians are on the other side. That seems like a safer, a safer design and staff has also recommended approval. So any questions either for Mr. Harper, mr chairman i did have one question uh regarding the recommendations um number one of the recommendations says that uh which is very a typical comment but i had a follow-up question to it says the construction operation the restaurant drive-thru facilities shall be in accordance with the submitted amended application materials and site plan which is the one that you have in front of you my question is and maybe it's more for autumn um if we do pursue as we mentioned at the last meeting, going through and trying to get a rezoning just to work with that south parking lot and drive-through, et cetera. Does that rezoning then override this, or do we have to come back to this board for some type of variance request? That would essentially be the new plan at that time if you were to go through the zone change, as long as you were not changing anything about the operation of the drive-through or the layout of the drive-through. If you were to change the drive-through itself that would need to come back before this board. Okay. But you're just talking about changing the zoning for the parking lot. Is that right, Mr. Hunt? Correct. And that was something that this board had mentioned, if you remember, at the last meeting about possibly doing that to allow vehicle access from that parking lot into this drive-through. and it is set up where that could happen with very minimal changes to the site plan as shown and actually the drive-through lane on the commercial piece that we're getting approved today would stay the same but we could potentially get if we got the rezoning approved we could potentially get access from the east or i'm sorry from from the west to also serve the building not all come off the same street. That change can be done with your zone change. Okay, thank you. Other than that, we have no concerns, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Mr. Harp, this is Mr. Clark, and I have, I really like it. It's so much better than last month. I have one small concern, and just want to ask you about it. Cars exiting the drive-thru have to cross in front of cars that are entering the drive-thru. Was that on purpose, or is there some way to adjust that so you wouldn't have cross traffic there? You see what I'm saying? I do, yeah, and as you know, the city's ordinances require five cars after the menu board, which would meet that requirement. You know, a traffic study was not required as part of this. We did put the stop bar, the stop sign there. So the cars exiting the drive-thru would stop and wait for the car to come in. And then we striped out an area, but do not block area. So that car could always come out of that drive-thru and get back out on the public street. So we're thinking that will function pretty nicely. And we did get input from Mr. Parker, a traffic engineer with the city. and he liked this kind of circulation concept as well. If we were to petition for the rezoning and use that residential parking lot to the south and rezone that commercial, we could potentially increase those stackings and change that circulation a little bit, which probably could help. But again, we're asking for your approval on this plan today. But that was discussed with city staff and I think the site is small and this is what we have to work with, but we are aware of that. That's why we put the stop bar on the stop sign, the do not block area, so we can make sure that movement continues. Good. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. I think what Mr. Harper, I think what Mr. Parker is suggesting is, rather than passing on the left, he's wondering if perhaps, if you gave any thought to entering and exiting, passing on the right, cars passing on the right. In other words, reversing those errors. I don't know that we're against that. It's obviously opposite of what the general public typically views as staying on the right side of traffic. But if it's okay with you, maybe we can work with staff on that, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I think that'd be fine. And I would rather you talk to Mr. Parker about that or Autumn about that. And I don't think our motion today would prevent you from doing that. Thank you. We might want to... Mr. Parker is here, but we might want to add to condition number one, or as amended by the planning commission. If Mr. Hart and his group do plan to go to the planning commission through that process for zone change, then there would be a development plan on the site and they would likely amend the circulation for the drive-thru. I mean, that would be the whole purpose of the zone change. And so as Autumn said, if you're not amending the drive-thru portion, then the board adjustment decision would control the site. But if you are going to the planning commission to revise the drive-through and its circulation, then I would think it would go to the planning commission for review as a development plan and then forever be reviewed by the planning commission. Yeah, and we would appreciate any language that would allow that to happen so we would not necessarily have to come to the Board of Adjustments and just deal with the Planning and Zoning Commission. That's fine. We can add that OR language. Tracy, what did you... It would just be OR as amended by the Planning Commission because they would adopt a new, basically, site plan or development plan. Okay. that's just be an addition on condition number one did the board members understand that okay i see at least one nod any other questions for for mr arville mr arnold no i i just want to say this is better and i appreciate you guys uh taking the extra month and working on it. I'm a big fan of frozen custard. And the family enjoys it as well. So we'll try to be a customer. I had one question for Autumn. Autumn, what is the, on one of your bullet points, and this is kind of the first time I've seen it, or maybe we've seen it, we just haven't dealt with it. What kind of what, when do we start looking at developments like this obviously you know we'll prove a drive-through here it looks like but you know in the future when you reference uh you know sustainability policy number five and then and then you know which is really more important or greater or the intent of a b1 so the the sustainability policy is from our comprehensive plan that is a guiding document for basically everything that planning does um so i yeah i don't think that point has come up previously with regard to drive-throughs specifically because that is part of the the most recent comprehensive plan the 2018 plan so that is something that we will need to be continuing to look at as we move forward I think that sort of the the sentiment drive-throughs is a little bit different than it has been in the past and there are more concerns about sustainability and traffic impacts and pedestrian facilities and that sort of thing so we are taking a little bit more critical look at them. And I think that goes pretty well hand in hand with the character of the B1 zone and the desires for the interior redevelopment area to be our more urban, pedestrian friendly zone. So I think those things are all kind of shaking hands. And they're things that we need to look at individually. I don't know if that answered your question. Okay. How about that? That's fine. We'll look at it at another time and another place here. Any other questions for Mr. Harper and Mr. Arne about this application? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to move for approval of PLNBOA 21-13, Andy's Frozen Custard, request for conditional use for drive-through facilities within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a neighborhood business B1 zone on property located at 1200 South Broadway, based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions listed in condition number one, with the addition of or as amended by the Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Clark. We have a second. Second. Mr. Needham seconds. All those in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Looks like the motion carries. Application is approved. Good luck, Mr. Harp and Mr. Arnold with the project. Thank you very much. We really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Rodeo was postponed. And so the last item on my agenda is PLN VOA 21-23 Nest A Lexington LLC request for an administrative appeal to allow construction of an addition to a legally non-conforming single family house near the training center that we approved a short time ago. No. No. No. Near the community center. That was the one that postponed. I'm sorry. With so many on the docket, you can see how it would be. Okay, Mr. Diaz, the staff has recommended disapproval, so our typical procedure is to allow staff to go first and present us with their reasons for disapproval. And so, Autumn, you're up. All right. All right. This is a request for an administrative appeal to allow construction of an addition to a legally nonconforming single family house within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone at 862 Angliana Avenue. And as you mentioned, we did have another application that was postponed today that was at 840 Angliana. So we did have two in pretty close proximity there. So this is just southwest of the intersection of Versailles Road and Angliana Avenue. This lot is one of about 10 that contain single-family dwelling house-type structures in this area that is overwhelmingly categorized, characterized by warehouses and industrial uses. But this does contain a single-family dwelling unit that is being used as such. Let's see. Click through here. So, oops. I think my... Sorry, I'm having a little bit of difficulty going backwards here. Okay. So here... All right, it's going to jump around on me. Here we go. So this is 862 Angliana Avenue. This is the property that we're looking at here. the existing single family residential structure. And I did want to share with you the zoning of the area so we could get a little bit better idea of what's going on. You're probably aware that further south on Angliana Avenue, there's been a lot of new development of apartments, primarily for student housing. So there have been several zone changes in the area to an R4 or R5 zone. This is 840. This is the property of that other application that was postponed until next month, just to kind of orient you. But the area that this existing non-conformity is in is zoned B4 and then across the street there is I1 and I2 zoning and then we've got some business zoning up here along Versailles Road. So there is a pretty good mix of things going on in this area. Here's a Google Street View that just sort of shows this is the subject property here. And again, you can see the warehousing and industrial uses on the opposite side of the street. And another little street view there. So the applicant is requesting an appeal to add a new bedroom and bathroom to the structure in the attic. And staff does occasionally see appeals regarding remodeling or constructing additions to non-conforming single family houses that are in non-residential zones. So Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance is the article that deals specifically with non-conformity. So that's non-conforming uses structures and non-conforming lots. So with the specific language of Article 4, staff determined that this proposed addition is in conflict with several of those requirements. So staff is unable to support this application because it would represent an increase in the nonconformity of the property. Yes, it would still be a single family residence, but they would be adding a new bedroom to a portion of the house that was not designed for that type of use. So floor area is defined pretty specifically in the ordinance. And if you have a height of at least seven and a half feet in an attic, that can be considered as floor area. So there would potentially be room for them to finish out some of the attic. But what they're proposing to do is to add this dormer to increase the amount of space that has that headroom and in order to add the additional bedroom, bathroom and closet. So the portion of the zoning ordinance that addresses these are is highlighted here. 4-2 is the intent statement for non-conforming uses, and it states that the zoning ordinance's intent is to permit the non-conformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. And it also is intended that they should not be enlarged or extended beyond the scope and area of their operation. And then in 4-3, it goes into this a little bit more detailed regarding how non-conforming uses should be regulated. So no non-conforming uses shall be enlarged or extended, nor may the building it occupies be enlarged, extended, or rebuilt so as to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the date of this zoning ordinance. It can also not be altered in any way that would extend or enlarge the scope or area of operation. So while in this case the footprint is not being enlarged, so it's not occupying a greater area of land necessarily by adding the additional bedroom that is increasing the amount of living that can happen in this structure essentially. So it is expanding the scope of the operation. And then item G also is relevant here and discusses that non-conforming uses can be extended throughout parts of a building that were arranged or designed for that use at date of the zoning ordinance that it cannot be extended to displace then another conforming use or to occupy land outside the building again. So in this case again this area in the attic does not have that headroom to be considered as floor area. They want to add a dormer to allow that but that would not meet the intent of this as an area a part of the building that was arranged for that use. So those are the reasons that we have recommended disapproval today and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. I have a question. Just off the top, I struggled with the reason to disapprove this. I get the letter of what we're reading right here, but in looking at that street, they are all residential houses on either side of it and as you mentioned we're actually discussing i know it's postponed but we're discussing a large the large residential development that's already there this is a total of 46 square feet and i don't see it i mean i i i see what you're saying but i don't see it as an expansion it may be a more comfortable use they're they're using it for the same thing they just get to have another bathroom and be more comfortable. So I struggled with, I just struggled with this, especially because of us knowing the nature of that area is changing. I think that's important. That's sort of the key thing is that that area is changing, but that this zoning has not changed yet. It is a non-conforming use in a warehouse zone. And while warehousing may not be the future of that, of Angliana Avenue, it is currently what the zoning is and it would perhaps be more appropriate for a zone change to happen in this location to allow for residential development here. But the language in the ordinance related to non-conforming uses is pretty specific about not continuing the non-conforming use beyond its existing capacity. So that's the board is limited with what it's allowed to do related to non-conforming uses. But on our statement too, for the reason for disapproval, you know, where we're saying it's not appropriate at this location, I just don't feel that we could make that as an accurate statement. We're saying that we have to close our eyes to what is actually occurring in that area. And it is true that much of that corridor is developing as residential, but as you can see, there is still a fair amount of warehousing and industrial use that's happening here. And further down as well, but there are warehouses directly behind it and across the street and these industrial uses. So it is, we're still looking at this current context of what's here now. But 846, 848, 850, 854, all the way to 876, those are all residential properties right now. Is that correct? They are all, if these are being, I'm not sure if all of these are being occupied as residences or if there could be businesses operating out of some of them. They're all little single family They are single family houses in appearance. Yes. And likely several of them are operating in that way. Again, is that legally non-conforming use? Okay. All right. You know, Autumn, I'm intrigued why, how long has that whole area been before? I know R5's changed, but have all those single-family homes been B4 for a long time? I'm not sure of how long exactly, but I would imagine it has been quite a long time. Yeah. It's odd that they would have zoned all those residential homes before. Well, I think from a historic perspective, the homes were probably built before zoning or very near that time. And they couldn't have provided employee housing in this area. But Angliana historically has been warehousing for tobacco. In fact, there were three or four very, very large tobacco warehouses in that area. And that was the dominant use until about 10 years ago when the early tobacco industry changed and the buyouts were gone. And really the only the one you see in this photo that Aubyn has up, that's really the last tobacco warehouse in that general vicinity. But the zoning of the industrial and for the eight or nine houses has been there, I would guess, back to at least 1969 when they did the comprehensive zoning for the town. And this question may be more for the applicant, but I did just want to confirm, are we really talking about 46 square feet? Yes, that is correct, Mr. Carter. It's a very small dormer. It's also facing the rear of the property, which we further believe doesn't really kind of interrupt any sort of the business aspects in the area. but the total square footage of living area that it's adding to the property is 46 square feet. How many square feet is on the first level? The first level, I believe, is about 1,200. He's doing the math. Doing the math, Raquel. I was. I was. Again, we'll move on. Any other questions for Mr. Diaz or any questions for staff? Mr. Diaz, tell us about this project. Are you the owner of it? No, Mr. Chair. The owner is Jeffrey Moore. I'm the site planner that represents his interests. We do recognize the board's assertion that it's largely characterized by industry, but our line of thinking is more in line with Mrs. Carter's. Looking back to the street, a few photos, I think you can kind of see that the area does still operate as a, it operates as residential in nature, at least for that contained section. So I'm, I'm in thinking with Mrs. Carter that, you know, this small addition is not really actively encouraging any use that it wasn't already intended for, which was as a single family residence. It's not an addition that's adding, we're not adding an extra driveway. We're not increasing the footprints. We're just, you know, there's already repairs in progress, which, you know, are well within enforced code and regulations. So this small addition we feel is sort of just, you know, it's adding to the health of the residential part of that section of the neighborhood. And as I said earlier, the dormer is to be built into the rear roof plane of the home, the windows to be oriented to the back of the property, which is facing away from the business side, if you will. Like I said before, the footprint, we're not altering that in any way. We're just doing repairs within the home to kind of get it up to date. And as Ms. Carter said, to make it more comfortable for the occupants. We feel that the attic is very close to being a space to be appropriated comfortably. And so we feel that just this little addition here would make it function better as an extra bedroom and an extra bath. You know, like Ms. Carter said, our thought is just that it's a very small addition and that it's not changing the home in any way. And how many bathrooms do you currently have? I'm sorry, Tommy. Go ahead, Raquel. How many bathrooms are on that first floor? There's just one bathroom currently. You know, here's some things to think about. We can't expand a non-conforming use. It appears to me that the use is residential, even though it's in the B4 zone. the use of this particular piece of property is a residential use. If we were to approve the application, you could make an argument that neither the use nor the scope is enlarged. That's one way of getting around a portion of the zoning ordinance. and we're not displacing the use so as to occupy the land outside the building. There are probably some other arguments that can be made in favor of this application. I'd like to kind of take a temperature of the board and see what you all think about this. I think this is an interesting case. I hesitate to endorse it because it may set a precedent, but I'm sympathetic to Ms. Carter's characterization of it and the applicant's description of it as well. Anybody else wish to comment? I'm sympathetic to Ms. Carter. I would say, Tommy, that, I mean, yeah, the thing I wrote down right when I read this was it's challenging because a lot of this street is going residential. And, you know, these seven, eight homes in a row probably are mostly residential. I haven't driven by it, but I would assume they are. They don't need to be, but I assume they are. And they were built, obviously, for that. So because the neighborhood's moving residential, these are built to be residential. You know, I know it says very clearly no nonconforming use shall be enlarged or extended. So, I mean, you know, I feel like we've got sometimes our hand tied there. But, you know, again, it seems a little counterproductive or counterprogress if the whole street's moving that way, if that makes any sense. Well, it's a legal question, Brandon. You can chime in if you like, or trace in either one. It's by allowing the expansion of the house itself, we're not enlarging the footprint, we're not changing the use of the property. We're not expanding this. I'm not sure how you define scope, but we're not changing the use because the use is residential, even though it's in a B4 zone. So I can see the arguments on both sides, actually. There is an alternative remedy for them to expand. I know the board doesn't necessarily like to encourage it by its own terms. that would allow them to be in a residential zone and be able to expand to fit that zone as opposed to continually non-conforming status. The other argument on the side of the staff is that are we going to set a precedent by allowing somebody to amend a legal non-conforming piece of property to expand the interior space, even if it's only 46 feet. And the precedent that that may set for other applicants who come to us with similar applications but are not so compelling as this one might be. Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Mr. Diaz. If I might, is this currently a rental property or is it the owner living there? No, Mr. Clark. I believe previously it was owned by a person, but my Jeffrey Moore, he is going to be operating as a rental property. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions for Mr. Diaz or Ms. Goddardwis on his way? Anybody want to ask any other questions? Are you ready to proceed? Can I ask one more question? Tracy, so if I heard you correct, so if they did a zone change to a, what would that be? To R3, R1? Either R3 or R1 zone. that would enable them to do this. Yeah. Yeah, well, I would say thousands of dollars a month later, yes, they could build their 46 square feet. I mean, Mr. Diaz's boss was I hope aware of the zoning that he purchased is right. Yes. Yeah, of course, we were aware of how it was zoned. That's why, you know, we wanted to put it through all the correct channels and put it to the board and hear what their opinions were. And, you know, we absolutely do respect what the board said as far as, you know, the how the nonconforming use in the area in which it's in. Our main argument was sort of just in line with Mrs. Carter's that it does function as a residential property. you know, for the comfort of the tenants. And I don't feel that the residential nature of it is going to be going away anytime soon. In fact, I feel that other parts of the area will catch up to it before it would turn to a business use. And to the best of my knowledge, all the houses on that street are being used for residential purposes. I don't think there's any like, you know, barbershops or anything over there. It's kind of just like, like you said, it was probably worker housing, you know, once upon a time. And I think that that's, it's sort of maintained that function. So, so yeah, we absolutely do understood what zone it was and we understand where the board's coming from. I would, again, I don't think it, for me, it's not a consideration of who owns it currently or if it's residential or if it's, you know, owner occupied, I still think of the expansion or whether it really is an expansion of use. I get it's maybe I can't get over the 46 square feet differential, but I also am looking here at it's a three bedroom with one bath. Adding another bath doesn't mean, you know, you're expanding. It's almost bringing it to a normal, the normal residential. as well. It's a bedroom and a bathroom. So the additional bedroom allows for additional people to live there. And that's the expansion. Or your kids don't have to share a bedroom anymore. It's such a minimal amount. In my mind, I get it. I do get it. But is that also the intent? And I don't know. My concern is whether or not, one of my concerns is whether or not this is the nose under the camel's tent, the camel's nose under the tent. It's a small, he's proposing a small addition, but the decision of the board, if it goes against the intent of the ordinance not to expand a non-conforming use, even illegally non-conforming use, are we setting ourselves up for applications down the road of a similar nature? So the precedent setting potential is something that we as a board should consider. I agree, Tommy, and I know we get into that scenario. Again, it's just that they are all single family houses right now in that stretch. It was just enough things added up together that just caused me pause in the disapproval. I get it in each situation would be differently, but how many are going to come before? It's usually when we have a non-conforming use, it is kind of a standalone, something that's been grandfathered in. There's not houses there anymore or our business is there anymore. And we're trying to discourage the continued use in that conditional use because that is not what's in the neighborhood and that's not what's going on. But we do look at this segment and that is what's going on. Looks like that's what's historically gone on for some time. And maybe it was zoned incorrectly and we don't have anything to do with that. But I wonder about the applicant having to take on that burden too. So they have to do this. And then what about the eight houses on either side of them? Ms. Carter, I don't disagree with you. And quite frankly, I'm not so much, not as concerned. I don't think that the potential precedent setting nature of our decision is necessarily a disqualifier for approving this application. But because we are a board of adjustment, because we have some say-so, because we're not just a rubber stamp, either for applicants or for the staff, we do have the ability to use our own judgment in every case of the force. And every piece of property is unique. So I'm not scared about precedent setting. I'm just raising it as an issue for something that the board to consider. Like I said, originally, I'm sympathetic to this application. You know, Brandon or Tommy, what, what legally, how would you not make that precedent setting? Well, you'd say the property is unique for one thing, and different from all of the pieces of property. You'd say that the, you'd say that the, I want Tracy Jones to weigh in on this, but you'd say that the. You'll use the, how about the word special? was it equally special to the other eight houses? You know, quite frankly, if all eight houses were coming before us with this same, I'm not sure that it would change the argument either for or against. So it's just the nature of this particular strip of houses in this particular B4 zone is odd. It's unusual. If it would help to provide some nuance, I could talk about a couple of the calls that staff has made on some semi-similar situations if you'd like to go down that road. I can think of a few examples of sort of similar things where we've looked at really whether or not the non-conforming use is being expanded and have made determination in-house and I can differentiate how this is a different situation. Sure, go ahead. this case, since there was a new bedroom being added, we really leaned on that as being an expansion of the use because it is increasing the number of people who can live there comfortably. Some other examples that we've seen have been that a house where they wanted to do a change in the roof pitch in order to allow a double height ceiling in a living space. In that case, we determined that that was not an expansion of the use because they weren't expanding the rooms or anything beyond just having a taller ceiling. So that wasn't increasing the area where someone could live, basically. Another situation was an upstairs bedroom where there was an escalated roof situation. Again, they added some height to the ceiling, but it was still not expanding the footprint of that bedroom. And then a third one that I can think of is an instance where there was a single family residence in I think a B1 zone that had, they wanted to add additional access from the second story. So basically a porch with stairs exiting the rear of the structure. And that was not determined to be an expansion of the use because, again, it was just providing a new access point. So the difference here, again, is that they're adding that new bedroom and bathroom and it's expanding the amount of space within the structure that the family would occupy. Autumn, I have a question. if this application was not expanding the square feet, if they didn't want to build a dormer, but they just wanted to add a bedroom and bathroom, if that was their plan, would they need to come before us? Would they need to come before the board? Since they wouldn't be increasing the amount of floor area as defined in our ordinance, they would not have to come before us. Okay. And on the convert? that category of expanding within the portion of the building that was just designed for the use because it already meant the definition of floor area. So the reason they had to come before the board is because they're expanding the floor area or they're adding 46 square feet to the property. Correct. Regardless of whether or not they're going to build a bedroom and bath or not. right so if they're uh so if they were just going to add the uh 46 square feet and not plan to build a bedroom bathroom that would you'd still have the same objections right yes so basically um autumn you what we're saying is what you're saying is you can raise the ceiling but you can't raise the roof and that's basically what this application's about Not exactly, but again, it's pretty nuanced as to whether or not the use is being expanded and whether or not it's being expanded in ways that meet those requirements in Article 4 that say that it's an expansion of the use or if it's just the use that's occurring in a part of the building that was designed to occur in but has not until now. I truly understand that. So if it was just the bathroom up there, would we have the same concerns? Is it because of the bedroom, meaning we could add an additional person? It's the dorm room. It's the combination of the two. We're looking at the full plan as submitted. So in that case, it is adding square footage. It's adding usable floor area, which is an expansion of the non-conforming use and is an expansion of the area that's being used. but it is also adding that bedroom. So that is, is more of a question of scope if the structure is being enlarged and the scope is being enlarged. So we're looking at both of those things. So I still end with the same conversation. Yeah. And we can decide which way to go. I don't want to belabor it, but we're taking a 1200 square foot property that's being used as a single family residence with a conditional use. And we're making it a 1246 square foot property. Well, it's 1,200 square feet finished on the first floor, so that number is not counting the attic space that would be finished in addition to the 46 square feet, just to clarify. But that addition will be on the 46 is what we're saying already because the headroom, it could be finished and would not constitute an expansion of the non-conforming. And just to clarify the record, this is not a conditional use. Okay. It's a non-conforming. I'm sorry. It's a non-conforming. I'm sorry. okay i kind of i kind of want to ask joan what what what the workaround would be joan you know i i look at all the things that we do within fill and redevelopment and all the things that have come before us and then i think about 46 square feet on on this and we're not changing the footprint and i think that's the big thing is that we are not changing the footprint. I have a difficult time turning this down over 46 square feet and no change really in any of it. It's residential. It's been there. You can tell by the houses that they've been there for years and years and years. and the PVA's records aren't always clear on a house this old but it lists it as 1930s it looks like it's a kind of a craftsman-y type house which would have been popular you know still during that time period so we're potentially looking at a house that's been there for almost 100 years any other questions or comments or ruminations observations explanations i have full faith in tommy and miss jones and raquel figuring this out for us giving us a good motion you know this when i met with staff last friday i predicted that this is one that was going to have most discussion on before the board because of the nature of the application and what was being asked. So my prediction looks like it was correct. If they're the next procedural step is to ask the board if they would like to make a motion. And so that is my request. Does anybody on the board have a motion to make? and if so let's hear it if you need more time we can take a short recess and permit you all to think about this or devise some other process if you like what's your pleasure if there is no other motion on the table I'd like a recess I can get with Tracy and move from there let's do that Rachel, that would be good. It would be good. I see several nods. So let's take a 20-minute recess. We'll come back at 3 o'clock. And that should give you all at least enough time to think about it. And so the board will stand in recess until 3 o'clock. Tracy, I'll call you. Let me call you. You're muted, Tracy. Tracy, wait. Is there any way you can put Raquel, myself, and maybe you and Autumn in a separate Zoom? Fancy. Like a breakout room. Technology is great. I will put you on out. That just might be easier than trying to do it over the phone, I was thinking. It may take more than 20 minutes. I'll say, Tracy, you know how to do a breakout room? I say that sounds like a how question. I wasn't thinking of it. I was just thinking all separate Zoom personally. You can just leave this one back. I'll let Tracy figure that out. We'll stay in the recess till three. And I'll wait here till you tell me where to go. We'll send you a link, Raquel. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. Okay, we are back in session, although we're not on the air. This portion will be a part of the replay that will occur on Saturday at one o'clock. So if anybody wants to see this in its entirety, you can tune in on to, I think it's 185, channel 185, Spectre, Saturday at one o'clock and watch the whole thing from the beginning to the end, including this portion right now. So we were in recess for a while. It's been 30 minutes since we promised to be back. I apologize for that. So does Lex TV and we blame it on Windows update. So we're back in session and we're waiting for, I guess, a motion to be made with respect to PLNBLA 21-23. Wonderful. I have such a motion. I haven't forgotten yet. So anyway, I moved to approve PLN BOA 21-23, Nest A, Lexington LLC's request for an administrative appeal to allow construction of an addition to a legally nonconforming single family house within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone on property located at 862 Angliana Avenue based on the following reasons. One, the non-conforming use is not being expanded or enlarged because construction of a dormer to the second story of the house will not occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the date of adoption of the zoning ordinance. Two, the nonconformity of the use will not be expanded in scope or operation because the structure was built as a single family residence and will continue to be occupied as a single family residence, despite the number of bedrooms or bathrooms within the home. And three, the change to the non-conforming use will not have an adverse impact because the portion of Angliana Avenue has been utilized for single-family residential land use since the 1930s, and the use will continue in the same manner. And based on those reasons and subject to the following conditions, that all construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. And B, all necessary permits and or approvals shall be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction and occupancy. Thank you, Ms. Carter. We're putting it up on the screen so members of the board can read it as well. I second the motion, Tommy. Thank you, Joe. The motion has been made and seconded. All in favor signify by raising your hand. Motion carries. The application is approved. Mr. Diaz and Mr. Moore, good luck with the project. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Board. Okay. That takes us to the end of the docket, And does any board member wish to present anything or be heard of any matter at this time before we adjourn? I see none. Any staff member wish to present or be heard at this time? Nothing at all. Our next meeting is June 14th, at which time we'll take up both new and postponed cases next month. So meeting is adjourned. See you next month. Bye, everyone.