# Board of Adjustment - June 14, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 14, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5381 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5381?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-06-14 - **Last revised**: June 14, 2021 - **Length**: 7,487 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment met on June 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. via video teleconference, with Thomas Glover presiding. The board considered five agenda items and took six votes during the session. No public comments were heard during the meeting. The board approved three variance appeals: one for Homestead Development, one for Anthony and Denise Patrick, and one for Randy and Linda Deitrich. A conditional use appeal for Dunkin' was postponed. An administrative appeal filed by Rodale Properties LLC was denied. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 14, 2021: * Raquel Carter * Harry Clarke * Thomas Glover * Branden Gross * Chad Needham * Chad Walker * Joan Whitman * Tracy Jones * Steve Parker * Jim Duncan * Traci Wade * Autumn Goderwis * Donna Lewis * Debbie Woods No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **PLN-BOA-21-00022: Ball Homes LLC Variance Request – Postponed** [timestamp: 0:05:38] Motion by Branden Gross, seconded by Raquel Carter. The board voted unanimously (7-0) to postpone this variance request. **PLN-BOA-21-00021: Homestead Development Variance Request – Approved** [timestamp: 0:16:13] Motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Joan Whitman. The board voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the variance request. The approval is subject to three conditions listed by staff. All seven board members voted in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Branden Gross, Chad Needham, Chad Walker, and Joan Whitman. **PLN-BOA-21-00028: Anthony and Denise Patrick Variance Request – Approved** [timestamp: 0:19:51] Motion by Chad Needham, seconded by Harry Clarke. The board voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the variance request. The approval is subject to three conditions listed by staff. All seven board members voted in favor. **PLN-BOA-21-00029: Randy and Linda Deitrich Variance Request – Approved** [timestamp: 0:21:40] Motion by Chad Needham, seconded by Raquel Carter. The board voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the variance request. The approval is subject to two conditions listed by staff. All seven board members voted in favor. **PLN-BOA-21-00025: Dunkin' Conditional Use Appeal – Postponed** [timestamp: 0:27:03] Motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Joan Whitman. The board voted 6-0 to postpone this appeal, with one abstention. Six members voted in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, Chad Walker, and Joan Whitman. Branden Gross abstained. **PLN-BOA-21-00020: Rodale Properties LLC Administrative Appeal – Disapproved** [timestamp: 0:48:20] Motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Joan Whitman. The board voted unanimously (7-0) to disapprove the administrative appeal. The decision was based on staff's recommendation and testimony heard. All seven board members voted in favor of disapproval. ## Contested Items **Rodale Properties LLC Administrative Appeal** The administrative appeal filed by Rodale Properties LLC generated community opposition during the meeting. The dispute centered on two primary zoning concerns: the non-conforming nature of the property itself and an accessory structure that exceeded the limits established by local zoning regulations. The appeal was contentious because the proposed accessory structure's size violated the dimensional requirements set forth in the zoning code. Additionally, the underlying property's non-conforming status complicated the matter, as it did not meet current zoning standards for its district. ## Variance Appeal - Homestead Development Homestead Development requested a variance to reduce the roof surface coverage requirement for a proposed multi-family residential structure. Specifically, the developer sought approval to cover only 12% of the roof surface with a 4:12 pitched roof, down from the standard 75% requirement. **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff reviewed the variance request and recommended approval of a modified proposal. Rather than granting the full variance to 12%, staff recommended approving a lesser variance that would require 25% of the roof surface to be covered by a 4:12 pitched roof. This middle-ground recommendation balanced the developer's needs with the community's design standards. **Key Speakers** Jon Woodall and Matt Canterbury were the primary speakers during discussion of this agenda item. [timestamp: 0:12:54] **Outcome** The variance appeal was approved. The decision reflected the staff recommendation for a compromise position between the developer's requested 12% and the standard 75% requirement, settling on a 25% coverage requirement for pitched roof surface. ## Variance Appeal - Anthony and Denise Patrick [timestamp: 18:07] Anthony and Denise Patrick requested a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 8 feet to 5 feet for an addition to their existing house. **Staff Recommendation** Jeremy Dewitt presented the staff recommendation for approval of the variance request. **Outcome** The variance appeal was approved. ## Variance Appeal - Randy and Linda Deitrich [timestamp: 20:59] Randy and Linda Deitrich requested a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for an addition to their existing house. Staff recommended approval of the variance request. Jon Penn presented the item to the board. The variance was approved. ## Conditional Use Appeal - Dunkin' [timestamp: 00:25:57] Dunkin' requested a conditional use permit for drive-through facilities and sought modifications to an existing conditional use permit related to parking. Staff recommended that the matter be postponed. The item was discussed but ultimately postponed rather than decided at this meeting. ## Administrative Appeal - Rodale Properties LLC [timestamp: 28:09] Rodale Properties LLC requested an administrative appeal to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure on their property. The applicant sought to expand the structure from 834 square feet to 2,400 square feet. **Presentation and Discussion** The appeal was discussed by key speakers Scott Schuette and Rob Whalen. Staff reviewed the request and recommended disapproval of the appeal. **Outcome** The administrative appeal was denied. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-21-00022** — postponed (7-0): Postpone Ball Homes LLC variance request - **PLN-BOA-21-00021** — passed (7-0): Approve Homestead Development variance request - **PLN-BOA-21-00028** — passed (7-0): Approve Anthony and Denise Patrick variance request - **PLN-BOA-21-00029** — passed (7-0): Approve Randy and Linda Deitrich variance request - **PLN-BOA-21-00025** — postponed (6-0): Postpone Dunkin' conditional use appeal - **PLN-BOA-21-00020** — failed (7-0): Disapprove Rodale Properties LLC administrative appeal --- ## Full transcript I will call the Board of Adjustment for June 14th to order. Welcome everybody to the June 14th, 2021 Board of Adjustment meeting. I think I read every month this notice. Due to the COVID-19 state of emergency, this meeting is being held via live video teleconference pursuant to 2020 Senate Bill 150 and in accordance with KRS 61.826. I want to make an announcement to those who are watching on television. We're going to, the TV cast is going to break away at 145 for the governor's news conference, which I think is going to be in the mayor's office. Is that right? for those of you who are on zoom you will not notice any kind of interruption whatsoever but for those of you watching it on tv at home or wherever the tv folks will lex tv will break away to cover the governor's news conference and then we'll come back for those of you who watch this delayed telecast on Saturday at one o'clock or something like that on the government channel you'll be able to see our hearing in total without any kind of interruption just like those of you who are on the zoom call today so the only change will be for those who are watching it watching it on tv at home and are not on the zoom call So with that said, it looks like we've got a full board of adjustment in attendance. And what I want to do at first is swear the witnesses who intend or plan to testify at the hearing today. So I don't know the number of people, but I see a list of them there. So all of you who are on the web today watching this by Zoom and intend to testify today at today's hearing, please raise your right hand. You, Solomon, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and tell them by the truth. Thank you very much. our first item of business is the approval of the minutes for the may 10th meeting and did you all get those minutes i can't remember if i did or not did not okay uh seemed like i i never know whether i have seen them or not but uh i don't have a copy with me so apparently we didn't get them. So we will go on to sound the agenda. What that means is we will call each case as it appears on my docket here. First of all, to make sure that the applicant is present or represented and or represented. And secondly, to determine if there are any members of the audience who wish to speak either for or against the application. if there are no if there's nobody who wishes to speak against the application you will go on our abbreviated docket and we'll hear you first if we have items on the docket applications for which there are people in opposition because that will take some time we'll hear you at the end of the docket we don't have an extensive docket today so hopefully this won't take too long and the first one is PLNBOA 21 days 21 homestead development is the applicant present yes Mr. Chairman Mr. Woodall thank you very much is there anyone who in the zoom audience who wishes to speak for or against I'm sorry who wishes to speak against this application? If so, please digitally raise your hand and we'll see if there are any. I don't see any. Okay. John, stand by. You will probably be first on the docket. The next item on the agenda is PLNBOA 21-22 Ball Homes LLC is the applicant or representative present. Yes, sir, I am. And we would like to request an additional one-month postponement. We were late in getting our kind of revised site plan over the planning staff. So we think that now that they have it, if we could sit down with them over the next month, hopefully we'll be able to have an approval recommendation for you all next month. Okay, that's a procedural matter we can check up right now. uh ball homes request a you said 30 day 30 days postponement uh what's the pleasure of the board unless the staff has an issue with it staff are you okay with the one month yeah okay in that case i'll move if no one else has a comment all right so moved Second. Second. The meeting date is July 12th. And the meeting date is July 12th, but I see I was looking at stuff. That was Mr. Gross made the motion. If we have a second, who seconded it? Ms. Carter seconded. All in favor, raise your hand. Matter is postponed 30 days. See you back in July. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, let's see. Next matter on the agenda is PLN VOA 21-28, Anthony and Denise Patrick, other applicants present. I have moved to the man with five times. Hmm. Did we get a response? Mr. DeWitt? Hey, sorry. Trying to get logged on there. Mr. DeWitt, you were driving a while ago. It looks like you're walking now. Is that right? Yeah. At least I got stopped. Okay. Are you the applicant or representing the applicant in this matter? Yes. Yep. One or the other? Which one are you? I'm the applicant. I'm representing the applicant. I'm the contractor that's going to be doing the work on their home. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience on Zoom call who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? If so, please digitally raise your hand. I see none. so mr dewitt you on behalf of the patrick's will be second on the docket please stand by we'll get back to you quickly as we can thank you the next matter is uh tlnboa 21-29 randy and linda dietrich dietrich are the applicants present if so digitally raise your hand so we can recognize you. I don't see any hands raised yet. I believe Mr. John Penn is representing the applicant on this one. I didn't understand that. Mr. Johnson, who's present for the meeting. Yes, I'm here. Okay. Can you show your video, Mr. Penn? I would love to. How's that? Well, we see a wide screen. That's unusual. but typically if you see nothing or somebody's face well we'll come back to that if that's a if that's a technical problem hopefully you you can get that straightened out before we get to you but is there anybody in the zoom audience who wishes to speak in opposition to this application 21-20 or please if so please digitally raise your hand i don't see any okay mr pen stand by and we will come back to you you'll be third on our docket the next matter is PLN BOA 21-25 Duncan. Is Duncan, applicant Duncan, present or represented by council and the Zoom audience? If so, digitally raise your hand so we can identify you. I don't see any hands raised. Autumn, was there someone specific you were expecting for that particular application? I'm not sure who was supposed to be representing them today. They had indicated that they did want to postpone, but they were supposed to be here today to request that postponement. Okay. Well, we may or may not postpone it. If there's nobody here, we don't know. Actually, I'm in favor of postponing this one myself. So we'll take that up when we get to it. The next item, I'm sorry, is there anyone in the Zoom audience who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? Duncan, 21-25. If so, please raise your hand digitally. mr pen you can turn off your camera we'll get back to you you're about you're about third on the docket yeah okay i don't see any hands digitally raised uh with respect to the duncan application so we'll move on to the next and last one administrative appeal plnboa 21 days 20 Rodale properties LLC is the applicant present in the audience I believe the applicant is present in the audience and I'm representing the applicant as well okay is there anybody in the zoom audience who wishes to speak in opposition to this application if so please digitally raise your hand I think I thought I saw I just moved him in. Rob Wallen. Okay. Did I see one? Yes. Mr. Rob Wallen. Okay. He is with the applicant or is the applicant. Okay. All right. I didn't say any, but this one will be last in the docket in any event. So that concludes the call of the initial sounding of the agenda. We will now take up the first application, which is PLNBOA 21-21 Homestead Development. Mr. Woodall? Sir. Tell us about this. Okay. Mr. Chairman, this involves a property on Angliani Avenue, and this is a high-rise apartment property that with an approved development plan, one of the conditions was that we had to line out our pitch issues with the roof, which is why we find ourselves before this body today. We were originally requesting a variance to reduce the amount of roof surface covered by the 412 pitch requirement from 75% to 12%. We were on the docket actually last month and asked for a postponement so that we could work with staff on some concerns that they had. As always, staff's put together a very comprehensive report and looked at this closely. And what staff is recommending currently is that as opposed to a 75% pitch roof requirement, or excuse me 12 we we go to 25 we've looked at that closely with our design team and we feel like that recommendation is something that we can meet so hopefully we can short circuit a whole lot of this today so we're we're willing to go along with to meet staff's recommendation well that's good. I looked at this application to and your submittals. And I agree with it with both of you. So I'm glad that you all came to some mutually agreeable conclusion. Does anybody on the any board member have a question for the applicant? Either Mr. Woodall or Mr. Mr. Canterbury. Are you part of this application as well? I'm indeed I am the owner with homestead companies. Okay, thank you. Stand by. We're going to see if anybody on the board has any questions for either Mr. Woodall or Mr. Canterbury. I think the main concern was you had protected the view from the front of the building, but the staff's, you hadn't protected it from the rear to the staff's satisfaction. So I think this was this was a reason why we postponed it from last month. And it looks like the resubmitted design protects a little bit more from the from the rear view of the neighbors behind you. Is that correct? Is that a fair summary? That's correct, Mr. Chairman. The whole point is to is to shield the air conditioning condensers from view. When we place them on the rooftop, the alternative being to place them on the ground level, which we don't want to do. And so the issue is, are they going to be adequately shielded from view? And this revised variance does that. Okay. Anybody else besides me have any questions for Mr. Woodall and Mr. Canterbury? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I would move for approval of PLNBOA 21-22 Homestead Development request for a variance to reduce the amount of roof surface covered by 412 pitched roof from 75 cents and now altered to 25% in order to allow for a flat roof for one proposed multifamily residential structure within the defined infill and redevelopment area. in a high-rise apartment zone on property located at 840 Angliana Avenue based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the conditions. Let's see the three conditions listed. Thank you Mr. Clark. Do we have a second? I second the motion. Thank you Ms. Whitman. Moved and seconded. All those in favor please raise your hand. It looks like unanimous the motion carries. The project just approved. Good luck with the project, both of you. Thank you very much. Appreciate the effort of the staff. Thank you. Thank you. Autumn, thank you for your work. Thank you. Next case on the docket is 2128 Anthony and Denise Patrick. Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt, the request is for a side yard setback from eight feet to four feet to construct an addition to the house. anything you want to add to the application as we as we see it um i don't think i think you guys had everything on the paperwork i think we've covered all the bases have you uh i know there uh there was a neighbor on one side of the side where the uh addition was going to be uh built uh have you talked to the neighbor and what are they are they going to appear today or not? I haven't so far heard from any of them back after the letters were sent out. As far as I know, nobody's had an issue with it. I know that Denise and Anthony have a good relationship with that neighbor. Good. The one thing that I might mention that I learned from staff just recently was if this were a detached addition, it would it could be closer than four feet to the side so just the fact that it's an attached addition is the reason why they're in front of the board today so with that said any anybody on the board have any questions for the applicant seeing none hearing none i'll entertain a motion Mr. Chair I move to approve PLN BOA 21-28 Anthony and Denise Patrick's request for variance to reduce the required side yard from eight feet to four feet in order to construct an addition to an existing house in single family residence residential R1C zone on property located at 4998 Timebray Road based on staff's recommendations and subject to the three conditions outlined by our staff. Mr. Needham, is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Clark, seconds. All those in favor signify about raising your hand. Motion carries. Application is approved. Good luck with the project, Mr. DeWitt. Thank you, guys. Thanks, everybody, for their help. Thank you. The next matter is 21 days, 29, Randy and Linda Dietrich. Are the applicants present? Mr. Penn, I think. You can unmute Mr. Penn. Yes. This is an application to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 to construct an addition. Is there anything not on your application that you'd like to add, Mr. Penn? I don't believe there is. I think the application was fairly explanatory. Okay. Unless you have one. We'll find out from the board. Does anybody on the board have any questions for Mr. Penn about the about 2129 Randy and Linda Dietrich application? What a talkative crowd you are. I see no questions being suggested, so I'll entertain a motion from anybody on the board. All right, Mr. Chair. I move we approve PLNBOA 21-29, Randy and Linda Dietrich's request for a variance to reduce the required rear yard from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct an addition to an existing house in a single-family residence R1D zone on property located at 193 Manitoba Lane, based on staff's two reasons and subject to the two conditions outlined by our staff. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Is there a second? Ms. Carter seconds. All in favor signify by raising your hand. Motion carries. Project is approved. Good luck with that. Mr. Penn. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I noticed that it is getting close to 2 o'clock, and we may be getting our disruption soon, so it may be a good time to show on the screen the Zoom information in case anyone viewing at home on TV or live stream would like to continue watching uninterrupted. We do have a slide prepared for that. I think that Debbie or Tracy probably has access to that in the Google Drive. Let's see if we do. For those of you who are watching at home on TV, you may be interrupted. You will be interrupted if you haven't been interrupted already. But you can watch it on Zoom if you want to call in and we're going to try to see if we can give you that information on the screen before the interruption occurs. Autumn, is it under staff presentation? Donna uploaded it. I'm not sure where exactly it is. I can share the agenda that has the information. wait if you got it you got it okay thank you okay for those of you watching today's board of adjustment meeting on tv either on the lex tv spectrum channel 185 metronet channel three wind stream channels three and 20 or via live stream you'll notice a break in coverage at two o'clock when a live broadcast will be preempted by a press conference by Governor Andy Beshear. Board of Adjustment meeting will be televised again this Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1 o'clock in its entirety. If you're watching via Zoom, you should not notice a break in coverage. You will not notice a break in coverage. Is there information about how the people that are watching on TV can join on Zoom? That's what we were looking for, I think. Or no, maybe no. Autumn, did you have an agenda? We thought there was a second slide that actually had the information on it, but Hal just notified me that we have already been booted, so anyone who's still watching us has already figured out how to watch us. So we can just continue. Fair enough. Thanks. Thanks, Autumn, and Jim, and Tracy. Okay. The next item on the agenda is PLNBOA 21-25 Duncan request for a drive-through. Is Duncan present? Duncan had requested a postponement. If they are present, would you please indicate so? Raise your hand so we can identify you. Tommy, just so you know, I'll be recusing myself from this case when it gets heard. Or even on the vote for a postponement. All right. Fair enough. Thank you, Brandon. What about a motion to deny the application? Will you recuse on that as well? Yeah, that will be. I'll also recuse on that, Tommy. And any other motions you could think of in that? Fair enough. So it looks like Duncan is not here, but I'm going to recommend postponement of this. I looked at the application and I think it needs work kind of like this is the old Arby's on South Limestone. And I have the same reservations that staff probably has about it. So, but I'll entertain a motion to postpone. I move for postponement of PLN BOA 21-25 Duncan's request for conditional use for drive-through facilities and modifications to the existing conditional use for the parking within the R3 portion on split zone property located within the defined infill and redevelopment area property located at 507 South Limestone. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Is there a second? Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor please signify by raising the hand. We'll count you. That's six of us out of seven. One was accused. Motion carries. Matter is postponed for 30 days. So we'll see that applicant in July. Thank you very much. The next matter is PLN VOA 21-20 Rodale Properties. This is an administrative appeal and this was this comes back to us from being on the docket last month. So is the applicant present Mr. Schuette? I think that's you right? Yes chair and board members I appreciate it. Because this is recommended for approval for disapproval I'm sorry our staff goes first. That's fine. To the staff presentation Mr. Schuette. So Autumn, is that you? If it is, I'll go ahead and share my screen. Okay. Alright. So this application is 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 in an R1B zone at 523 Kingston Road. So this property is located northwest of the I-64 interchange with North Broadway and Paris Pike on the east side of Kingston Road. The subject property is this narrow sliver you see here. It's about one and a half acres with about 80 feet of frontage. Zoom in a little bit here so you can see the existing circumstances. This image was taken prior to construction of the new structure, but you can see that several buildings on the site as it was in 2020 prior to the construction of the new 2,400 square foot whole barn. So this request is the result of a complaint regarding construction without a permit that was made in 2020 and the applicant has since filed this application. The existing house is located here and then And there is a secondary house structure here and an additional barn here. And then the new barn is located back here. So the zoning ordinance states that accessory structures cannot exceed the building footprint of the principal primary structure. And that the total size of all buildings, accessories to dwelling units shall not exceed 50% of the total square footage of the building to which they're accessory. So in this case, the existing primary structure, and I'll go ahead and pull the site plan up here. So the existing house is 2,320 square feet. The footprint is only 1,668 square feet. So all of these other structures are accessory to that principal primary structure. Based on Article 15, the maximum total size of accessory structures should only be 1,160 square feet. So without the new structure, property is already exceeding the square footage for accessory structures by 1,328 square feet and the allowable lot coverage. An additional factor here is of course that this is a single-family residential R1B zone so the fact that there's a second house structure on the property is a non-conforming situation. So we have a non-conforming lot based on the configuration of the lot in the frontage. We have a non-conforming use due to the second house being located on the property and then we have non-conforming structures because we already exceed the amount of accessory structures that can exist on the site. So staff has recommended disapproval of this application because it would represent a circumvention of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The subject property is a non-conforming lot containing non-conforming structures and a non-conforming use and allowing the construction of an additional accessory structure on this property would be in opposition to the requirements of Article 4 which relates to the regulation non-conforming uses structures and lots and particularly in opposition to the intent statement in article four um and that concludes my presentation i'll be happy to answer any questions thank you autumn uh any questions to autumn by the board i see perhaps No. It's good. I'll listen. Okay. So no questions to Autumn. If this were an agricultural zone, the situation might be different. Is that right? That's correct. But the fact that it's a R1B zone makes it a a little tighter and it's non-conforming anyway so this presents a problem. So Mr. Schutte, we'll hear from you. What say you, how do you respond? Yes and like you said it does present a problem and this is the unfortunate situation where we're coming back after already building a structure without the permit and requesting approval or urals permission and I guess the The main benefit we see to this is regardless of whether or not this structure remains, there are going to be some larger vehicles that are stored on the property. And we believe this structure provides a little bit more aesthetically pleasing and a better environment in order to store those buses and trailers as opposed to them just laying out on the lot looking uncleanly and that sort of thing. And another issue with this property is it's so long and so tight that there really isn't anybody's view or anybody's property being affected by this in a negative way. It's placed in the rear of the property. There's no other single-family residential homes that are located in the rear of these properties along Kingston Road. directly next to the property is a church with a large associated blacktop parking lot, playgrounds, accessory structures as well associated with that church. So while it does exceed the square footage requirements, I don't believe it's grossly out of place in this neighborhood, and especially not on this lot where it's located on Kingston drive and we think it would create a much larger burden to require this building to be taken down as opposed to keeping it as is and as far as the other existing um accessory structure besides the guest house we are open and agreeable to taking that down as a condition of granting permission for this new structure with that i'm open to any questions that the board may have thank you mr Does anybody on the board have any questions to the applicant, Mr. Chudy, about this property or anything else, Mr. Clark? I was wondering about the business that's operated here. Well, I believe per the staff report, that was investigated and determined to not be a business. I believe it. Quote, unquote, false report. I don't think anything came to fruition on that. Autumn may have a little bit better clarification. All I can speak to is that the complaint was investigated and that there was no business found to be operating on the property. Um, I would think that the applicant would be the best person to answer that question. That is correct. It was the best gate and there was no, no operating business to be found. So it's true that there is no business being operated on the property. Mr. Schroeder. Mr. Whalen, can you verify that fact? But as I know it, yes, there is no operating business. Okay. That is correct. What kind of vehicles are being stored? I've got a 40-foot RV that's there. My father lives in the guest house. I'm not sure. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I'm not sure who we're speaking to. Yes, Chair, this is Mr. Rob Wayland, who is the applicant on behalf of Rodale Properties LLC. He is the individual property owner. Mr. Layland, could you turn on your camera so we can see, or are you calling in? Well, I've got a camera. I'm just, for some reason, I can't get it to come up, which it tested good, but now I can't get it to come on. Okay. I'm sorry. That's all right. Go ahead and answer the question. You said you had what kind of vehicles? I've got a 40-foot RV that I was wanting to try to get inside. And then my father lives in the guest house, and he has a pull-behind camper. And that's what the building was put there for, was to be able to put those inside and keep them out of the weather. okay what other structures are on the property i saw from the uh i saw from the map or from the overhead that there was some there were some other structures that looked like they were temporary structures yes i i have some i have some storage containers set there right now that's got the remaining parts that I need to get the building finalized in it. And those would be gone if I can finish up the building. What is the building made of? It is metal. Okay. Is it a prefab metal building? Yes, sir. They shipped it to me and then we had to piece it together. I understand. And what are the dimensions of the building? It's a 40 by 60. Is this fully enclosed or is it more like a shed? Well, the front is not on it at the moment where the doors go, but it is intended to be fully enclosed. It would be fully enclosed. Yes, sir. Okay. If I can. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, I'm going to quit. This may, Autumn, I may have just missed this. I guess was one building already taken down off this property? Yes, there was a small building that we did tear down. I believe, is there still the other barn, the 1,500 square foot barn? That's correct. It's still there. There's the main house, the guest house, and the 1,500 square foot existing barn. Those three buildings are still there. One of those is the one that we've discussed that we would take down if the newer barn was able to remain. The existing barn that's 1,560? Yes, ma'am. So this is the guest house, I believe, and then this is the second, the first barn. yes a 1500 square foot barn uh-huh yeah gotcha i thought that was i thought that second building was a house with the dormers on it it's up to see it on that aerial with the with the shade from the tree and see the first house i have trouble seeing it as well yes and they and they were built i think in the early 40s so that's why there's so many on the property Autumn, what does that math work out to if they do take that building down? Since they were already over on square footage with the existing accessory structures on the site, they would be able to, if they took that barn as 1,560 square feet, so they could essentially replace that barn at 1,560 square feet and not increase their nonconformity. so they would still have a non-conforming amount of square footage but it would be the same amount so that it would be acceptable and so they and so they'd be wanting to trade uh taking down a 15 60 square foot barn for a 2400 square foot bar new barn is that right Correct, Chair. I got you. Well, Autumn, my math doesn't work out the same way. So the existing house, that square footage is 2320? Yes. Okay, so even the new existing structure, the new structure is 2400, correct? Correct. Yeah, larger than the existing house. So even by removing the existing barn. We're already open. Even if no structures are removed right now and the new barn wasn't placed on, we would still be over. Right. So they would normally be allowed to have... Sorry. The maximum size of accessory structures should only be 1,160 square feet. That's what they, according to the ordinance, should only have that. So without adding the 2,400 square feet new barn, they're already over by 1,328 square feet. since that was an existing circumstance they would be able to tear one down and replace a light structure essentially so if they i was going to say but it's a but it's it'll be more still right because we're talking new structures 2400 right old non-conforming was 1560 so we've got 840 additional square feet that would be nonconforming. Correct. Okay. I thought we were saying that they were netting out, but they're not netting out. We'd be increasing the square footage of nonconformity. Right. We're netting out total buildings. The number of buildings, okay. Still a problem. as I see it because, well, if they were to take down that 1560 square foot barn and put up one with the same footprint, would that be permitted? That would be permitted. Okay. But the fact that it exceeds that barn by 840 square feet, that's the principal problem. Correct. Then the issue was also there wasn't a building permit before the purchase. I mean, before the construction, correct? That's how it is. That is how this came to our attention. And we will say, as to that, none of that was done maliciously or with an intent to deceive the city or try and get around the permitting process at all. And if it was, we probably wouldn't be here today and it would just be torn down and we'd move along. But it was an honest mistake. And unfortunately, it's put us in this position now. And that's why we're here. Autumn, how much of the structure could be left and not torn down right now? Right now none of it because that existing barn has been removed but if the plan is to remove the existing 1,560 square foot barn, they could construct the new barn could be reduced down to 1,560 square feet. Okay. Is the roof allowed to remain? I do not think so. I think the roof, since it would be an enclosed structure and the roof would count for the total square footage for the accessory structure. I think what she's asking is could the roof remain the same and you just take down the walls for that 800 square feet and essentially make it like a patio. Yes, correct. Thank you, Brandon. Right. I don't think that that would be allowed. That would essentially be like a carport situation and those do count as accessory structures as far as the square footage. And do you measure that by the footprint or by the roof area? It would be by the area under roof. Area under roof, OK. So that's still a problem. Any other questions to either Autumn or the applicant? Are you ready to decide, Ford? Any other questions or suggestions? If the board would like, one thing we could look at is a resubmission with a new site plan kind of showing the new square footage and taking the existing barn out and kind of talking through that with staff to see if that would change anything if you wanted to bring it back up in a month. I'm sorry, explain that again, Mr. Shooting. Just to kind of maybe even clarify on the site plan and the letter sent in to kind of highlight if we remove the existing barn, the 15-6 square foot barn, to highlight that on the site plan, if that would provide you all any more type of clarification or guidance on that issue, we'd be happy to do that and come back in a month or you all can vote today. Let me ask you, this is a prefab building that you construct on site. I don't know how, it's been a while since I've dealt with prefab buildings. I've seen quite a few and I've been involved in some litigation involving them as well. But I don't know whether they can be modified at all. And I don't know what brand this is or anything like that. So I don't know what, Mr. Schutte, I don't know what good it would do to try to reconfigure the barn. In fact, I don't know whether you could build this prefab barn to make it small enough so it fit the existing footprint of a 1,560 square foot. Is that why you're asking for more time? I'd say you're probably more likely than not correct that the prefab building would likely not be able to be altered. Rob, do you have any clarification on that? Yeah, I don't believe it would be possible to be able to do that. Yeah, I mean, these come with specific and sometimes fairly detailed instructions on fabricating it on site. And I've never seen one that you could alter either the footprint or the walls or anything like that. They're to be built as planned. So it continues to be a problem. Any other questions for the applicants on the board members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I move for disapproval for PLN BLA 21-20 Rodale Properties LLC's request for 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 523 Kingston Road, based on the staff's recommendation. And the testimony that we've heard today. The testimony from today. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Is there a second to that motion? Ms. Whitman second. All those in favor, raise your hand. Motion to disapprove the application carries. Application for this administrative review is denied. So sorry about your luck, Mr. Chudy and Mr. Whalen, your applications denied. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Okay. That concludes the agenda that I have on my docket. Is there any matter that the board wishes to bring to the attention of the board itself? Any other matters the board wishes to air, discuss? Any staff items that need to be presented at this time to this meeting? Chair, Jim Duncan, Director of Planning, joining your meeting. Yes, sir. I wanted to, when you're ready, Mr. Chair, I'd like to provide an update to you and the board about the status of our future meetings and in-person meetings. Well, good. I will hear you now because the last item on my agenda is to announce the date of the next meeting is July 12th. And I think that this is something that's related. So, Jim, go right ahead. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. The mayor has cleared our boards and commissions to start meeting in person. Our offices are open now to the public again, so you're certainly welcome to visit us in our building, and our staff is fully back in the office. So we have, to all intents and purposes, returned to pre-pandemic processes in our work. And so what we wanted, but some of those announcements were coming out late and breaking. So we had already made arrangements for the July meeting to be held via video teleconference, just like we're doing here. And when I say arrangements, that's the instructions that we had given our applicants for them as they were preparing their notification letters. So that's the information that was prepared and is being sent to those concerned about the July meeting. So at this time, just as the chair was about to say, we will continue with our VOA hearing on the next meeting, was July the 12th at 1.30 through Zoom video teleconference, just as we have been doing for the past year. We propose, if you all are ready to do so, for the August meeting that we would return to in-person meetings, which means we're meeting in the council chambers that were live on GTV3. We no longer will receive any of our applicants or any of the citizens through Zoom video teleconference. So everyone who participates in the meeting, once we go back to in person, will have to be in the council chambers just as you were before. That hasn't changed. And we are proposing to start that for August, which would be Monday, August 9th at 1.30. That same week, the council returns from their break, although council has already been meeting in the council chambers, but they will be returning from break and unless something changes we'll be fully engaged in the in the council chamber as well. So you will be our first board to return to the council chambers. Later that week we'll have the first planning commission meeting back in the council chambers. But Mr. Chair I wanted to bring this to your attention and just to see if there are any questions about that particularly since we weren't going to be going back in person for July just because of the timing of the notifications we feel it would be best to kick that off and get plenty of time to promote it for the August 9th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Director. Any questions, Brandon? Well, Tommy, if I could, and Jim, one thing that, you know, during the Zoom period, I think that's been helpful, and maybe helpful going forward, would be the ability of John Q. Public to somehow be able to attend meetings in Zoom, not the applicants themselves, but possibly neighbors and other citizens who, to be honest with you, taking off, you know, one to three hours on a workday in the afternoon is difficult, especially when they're only going to be speaking for three to five minutes normally. on an application. So I would suggest maybe that's something that City Council Planning Commission and or staff discuss on whether or not we could allow some way for the public to participate through a Zoom process to allow them greater access to our body without them necessarily needing to take off and come downtown for it. Just a comment. Mr. Chair, Mr. Gross, I couldn't agree more. And I will tell you, before we even heard of the word pandemic, this was a priority for the staff, was to identify a new way that citizens could participate in meetings, that citizens could submit comments in advance so that the board members could review them and wouldn't be trying to go through sheaves of paper at the meeting. And there are other states that have these processes in place. And we were working on that pre-pandemic and that kind of got sidelined. There are some statutory restrictions to us having this so-called hybrid model where we are in person and then receiving comments from without the body. But I do know, Mr. Gross, that the council has raised this issue as well, knowing that it does accrue a benefit to citizens to be able to participate in democracy. without having to take a day off or having to drive to an unfamiliar part of town and all the expenses associated with that. And I do believe that the council will continue to look at this and we will certainly continue to bring this up because we believe we agree with you. There is a benefit to the citizenry to be able to broaden the way they participate in these public meetings. But at this moment, Mr. Groves, that is not an option, but it is something that we are still interested in and we believe the council is as well. I appreciate that, Jim, and I wholeheartedly support your guys' efforts. Thank you. Mr. Duncan, if that was true for one board, it would have to be true with all meetings like this. Isn't that not correct? Yes, Mr. Clark. I think that the focus will certainly be as far as having us back live will be to the statutory boards. And that is the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission, because you all exist because of a much larger issue, not just Fayette County. It may very well be that some of our non-statutory boards will continue to meet by video teleconference. We even provide staff to two of those ourselves. I'm sorry, three of those. And so some of those will probably continue on. But they also are the kind of boards that don't generally draw as many individual applicants and certainly not as many interested citizens. So it seems to be a dichotomy, doesn't it, that the boards that draw fewer participants are going to be able to allow to meet in the broadest way of participation. But that's kind of the way we find ourselves, just the way the statutes are written and the way that we understand that we can hold open meetings. But, Mr. Clark, you may notice that some of our other boards that we support will continue to meet by video teleconference. And it will really be at the decision of the board, what they decide to do. But it is going to be our recommendation, the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment return to be fully in person in August. Thank you much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Given the professional expertise of the planning office, it doesn't surprise me that you're all way ahead on this and have already thought about this, even though it's something that may or may not occur down the line. I do understand that because of the long lead times, you can't meet in person in July, so we'll try to look forward to our August meeting. Our next meeting is July 12, 2021 at 1.30. And unless there are any other questions or comments from the board or staff, I will declare this meeting adjourned. Well, I wish everyone a happy Independence Day in a few weeks. We'll see you next month. Got it. Thank you.