Music Thank you. We have enough folks. I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order since we have a few people who are on a time schedule. I'm going to take things a little bit out of order from our agenda today just to make sure that we get all the voting done that we need to. I want to thank you all for making the supreme effort to come today on such short notice. We did not know that we were going to meet today. And as a matter of fact, we have several of our board members who are on vacation or out of town who had already told us they would be doing this via Zoom today. So because of that, I'm going to announce, so Beth will make sure that it's in the minutes. As you all know, there is an attendance requirement in order to be on this board. And while these people do have excused absences, because they told us they were not going to be able to get back from a long way away, they have excused absences, but I also want to make it clear in the minutes that this will not count toward their attendance record. because had we been on Zoom, they would have been here. Thank you all very much for coming. And I'll call it to order. It's 3.34, so we actually started about 3.30, Beth. And today we don't have to make any kind of a legal statement because we're not on Zoom. We're here for real. I will announce that Christine Stanley and Phil Meyer and Greg Harbutt and Bo Neal all have excused absences, and this will not count against any attendance requirements. Mary Quinn will be coming. She might be a few minutes late, and some of you all have already said you need to leave by 530, so I do plan on trying to rush through this like we always do and make sure we get all of our votes done. I think Tommy and Phil both have already said you all need to leave by 5 or before 5.30. We do have some farm members who are here, and we're going to try to get to those requests as quickly as we can. And are there anything else along that line before we start? Anybody? I will say that you all notice that there are brand new screens here. and Dina has not had to work with this very often and she is filling in for us today. So we may or may not be able to use the screens. We still may have to raise our hands if we can't make these work as they should. Having said that, I'm sure that you all best did a great job of getting the minutes out to everyone via email. Has everyone had an opportunity to see the minutes on the 30th? Give me just some nods. Okay, good. And I think the only thing I wanted to add was the other council person, the 12th district, Kathy Plowman, had, as you noted from the minutes, had made comments and had attended via Zoom our last meeting, and I just want to make sure that it's in the minutes noted that she was in attendance for the last meeting. Are there any additions, corrections, or changes that anybody wanted to mention? No? If not, I'll call for a motion to approve the minutes as written. So moved. Margaret, is there a second? Second. Okay, two seconds. Hannah? Robert? All right. All in favor, let's see if we can get these to work, see if we can get them to vote. Well. Hands. No. All in favor. All right. I think it's unanimous. Still didn't, did it? I got unanimous, so we'll just. Okay. All right. All right. We're going to, you want to go ahead and just, we have a couple of things here that we can hold for now. Okay, I'll move on to, Chris, will you please pull up the packet? Okay, thank you. Let's see, is this our Lazy H? Can somebody read that better than I can? Yes, it is. I can actually read it. This is our Lazy H Land and Cattle Company. This is our infrastructure request. And while you're there, Beth, they have a request for a tenant house. This farm's on Cleveland Road while Beth rounds up some of her stuff here. The farm was owned by Sarah Asbury Sanderlin, and it's next to the Keselix that came before us last month, if you'll recall. And Richard Helm is the owner, and Barry Gash is the builder. And do we have someone in the audience from the farm? Yes. All right. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'll go ahead and go through this one. So this is- And it's in your packet, guys. Yes. This is farm 242006, located at 4098 North Cleveland Road. It is 40 acres. It's a cattle farm and Lazy H Land and Cattle Company, of which Richard Helm is the member, is the new owner. The date of the easement is June 28, 2018. The owner at the time of easement was Sarah Asbury Sanderlin. It is a federal easement with an impervious service limit of 5%. There are no protected structures and no demolition requested right now. They are requesting a primary residence with 3,175 square feet of living space, 1,638 square feet of porches and balconies, and a footprint including porches of 74 feet 9 inches by 57 feet 5 inches. They are not requesting any paving today. the aerial map and site map are attached as well as the architectural rendering of the proposed residence. Let's see. This is a permitted use in section 5B of the reserved rights of the easement, specifically reserved the right to construct a primary residence, and the primary residence was reserved in the building envelope map recorded with the easement. This farm is one of the three adjacent farms submitted to PDR by the Asbury family. Sarah Asbury Sanderland conserved her share of the family farm, then sold it to Mr. Helm approximately two months later. This farm closed under my tenure and is one of the farms funded by the 2014 Farm Bill, which stipulated that a building envelope map must be recorded with each easement. This is exciting for us as a board and staff because as you will see from the building envelope map I have attached directly in your all's memo, the right to build a primary residence of up to 5,000 square feet was reserved by the landowner, and the only thing the board must approve is the location. This right is conditioned on the construction falling within the impervious surface limit, and that is no problem as this farm's limit is 5%, and it has very little housing and infrastructure on it right now. The increased limit is a new change per the 2014 Farm Bill as well. NRCS has a formula they use to calculate the allowable impervious surfaces for each farm and it can go as high as 10% and the Rural Land Management Board voted to request up to 5%. The staff recommendation is approval of the primary residence as it meets the rights reserved in the recorded building envelope map and falls within the impervious surface limit and contingent on the approval of the location by I and young of NRCS or Charlie farmer. The location meets the 300 foot setback required in the zoning ordinance and conservationist recommendation. I've spoken with Charlie farmer. He looked at this and said it is fine. So he we have the blessing of the conservationist And Charlie does still work for NRCS part time, so he is able to make that recommendation for us. So I'll pull up the building envelope map here, although I know it's not the way, but you have it in your packets. And this is good for you all to see because I know this is the first time. But you'll see how the landowners, it shows the parcel and then it identifies in the legend the buildings that are there. And then at the bottom is where they reserve their future construction. And so you will see that this one says, subject to the impervious surface limitation and the approval of the location by the Rural Land Management Board, the landowner reserves the right to build one 5,000 square foot primary residence with two to three car garage, one swimming pool, and one pool house. And then this is the PBA report. Let's see. And there is an aerial map the landowner provided to us where you can see the current infrastructure on the property. And then the site map they provided is really helpful. And so it shows where there is an existing residence that will serve as a tenant house and the proposed new residence. And then they also showed us the existing barn and pond and, you know, provided where Briar Hill Road, Muir Station, North Cleveland, intersect there to give you all context for that. And next we have the drawings. Let's see. Can those... Do you have the ability to flip those, Chris? To turn those to... These are in your packets, if not, but just for the anyone in the audience, we have the. Okay, that's okay. Okay. Okay. Well, that is okay. We will use, they have paper copies in their packets and the landowners are here and certainly know their plans. So that is it. That is all of my report. Again, the recommendation from me and Charlie Farmer is for approval, and the builder is here if you all have any questions. Would you like to come to the microphone? You can come up here to the podium. And you can, just for the record, you can give us your name and why you're here. My name is Barry Gash. I'm here just to represent Lazy H on this project. And I was anticipating doing this by Zoom, but reworked my schedule to make this work today. And you're the builder, is that correct? Yes. Yes. And so you've seen the plans, and you will have a copy of all this as well to keep for your records. Yes. Before they ask you any questions, do you have any questions? Anything you want to ask us? I do not. All right. Board, do you have any questions for him or about this? All right. Anything else? That's it. We need a motion. In that case, the chair will entertain a motion for approval for this request. Will? Will Mayer made the motion. Is there a second? Wake up, y'all. We're in person. Oh, okay. They're not all showing on here. And Tommy seconded. All right. All in favor, let's just raise your hand since part of them are not working. All right. Unanimous. Thank you very much. Thanks. And if you have any questions, you do have Beth's number, and you will get some of this as well. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We will move right along to the next one that is Jan Roberts-Harris is here today. That's Jan there in the front. and we will go ahead and move right to hers. Uh-oh, Chris, now we messed up. That's okay. We will use paper. So this is Farm 105-2002, located at 5758 Greenwich Pike. It is almost 110 acres. It is a horse farm. The owners are Jack Roberts and Jan Roberts Harris. The date of the easement is 2010, and they are the same owners that placed it into PDR. It is a federal easement with a 2% impervious surface limit. There are no protected structures. They are requesting demolition of a dilapidated barn and riding arena and to remove a single wide mobile home. None of those structures are historic, so I have given them permission earlier this month to proceed per Section 5K of the easement and am noting that for the record. they are not requesting any new structures they are instead expanding and remodeling an existing house and the house per the pva has 1794 square feet and they are going to increase that to 1,989 square feet let's see bring that down um with the laundry room addition of 160 square feet and the total interior of 2,149 square feet. They will also add a front porch of 116 square feet and a rear covered porch of 625 square feet for a total exterior of 741 square feet. They are requesting paving to redo asphalt that is already roads that are in existence but have deteriorated so they plan to add 950 square feet of apron radius and entry asphalt to accommodate modern truck traffic and plan to overlay an existing driveway and tenant house parking area as shown on these submitted photos and they have submitted two aerial maps one showing the paving to be replaced and the other is site map showing the house to be expanded and the farm buildings and mobile home that will be removed architectural drawings of the house are attached photos of the house and its current state are attached as well as photos of the three structures to be removed and demolished. This is a permitted use section for prohibited uses prohibits paving unless it is for agricultural use or permitted residential use. In section five, the reserve rights section C provides the landowner the right to all manner of residential use of the existing residents and the right to replace and repair with prior approval of the grantee and k provides the right to construct repair room maintain or remove pins corrals paddocks fences barns and related buildings with access roads so the other relevant information is that miss harris's daughter is interested in horse farming and is a college student i believe or grad student yes and will live on the farm so the house is being remodeled to suit her needs the staff recommendation is approval of expansion and renovation of the tenant house provided all changes receive the approval of the division of building inspection and the second is approved staff recommendation is approval of the paving and the third is permission to demolish the two agricultural structures and remove a mobile home and that has previously been approved by staff and charlie farmer did look at this and has no concerns he is fine with this um so we will there is the pva report and that shows a close-up photo of the existing house and this is a site map that is probably easier to see in your packets but um it shows so they show the tenant house to be renovated and it shows they've given the footprint as well that includes the roof overhang. They show the site of an old tobacco barn that will be demolished, the old single wide mobile home to be removed, and then the old riding arena to be demolished. and this shows the next map shows the asphalt and the paving they plan to do and then we get into the architectural drawings and you see the exterior of the house the front elevation and the back and then the interior floor plan and then they provide us an old photo of the farm and how it looked years ago and you could see the buildings at that time they're just experienced a little natural wear and tear and so they hope to start remodeling some of this and then our next show the photos of the barn that is going to be torn down and there are let's see two exterior photos of it and one interior and then the old riding arena that will be removed and it has two exterior and one interior and then the mobile home as well And that is it. So again, that is the staff recommendation and the conservation recommendation is for approval. Ms. Harris, would you like to come up to the podium? Just for the record, you can tell us who you are. I'm Jan Harris and I'm one of the owners of 5758 Greenwich Pike. and I haven't done this since I was in high school. Any type of public speaking. If I'll pass out somebody, please resuscitate me. We may do the same thing. We haven't been in this room in over a year and a half either, so it's new for all of us, and it has new equipment, some of which is not working today. You're fine. Do you have any questions, anything you want to ask us? One question I have. when I start the fencing, do sizes of paddocks or those type of things need to be approved? Any type of fencing? No. Just barns, the house, and then run-in sheds that would be in the paddock would need to be approved. Like if there was a... Anything that has a roof. Yes. Anything with a roof. Okay, but fencing doesn't count. No. But if the size of the asphalt, that was kind of an estimation at the time just because I don't have a great drawing. If that happens to change, I would need to come back in. You'll need to tell us the exact when they get ready to do it. When they get ready to do it. But you had some leeway. Yes. Anyway. Okay. Okay. Yes, you all are removing things, so your impervious is already somewhat low because since you're removing items, you'll get credited back. And so if you'll just let us know how the paving would change, I do not think it will hit a limit that would require board. And if you go over existing pavement that's already there, is that something that you need to meet about also if you're going over something that's existing? That's already been calculated. Yes, so you could just tell us about that. Okay, but make sure that you've been emailed and approved. Yes. Thank you. Now, do any of you board members have any questions for Ms. Harris? No? All right. Then the chair will entertain a motion for two things. That's the approval of the expansion and the renovation of that tenant house, And she does know that she'll have to get an approval from building inspection to get that. And the approval of the paving, some of which already exists, but you'll be adding some new. So moved. Margaret has made the motion. Is there a second? Will and Hannah? All in favor, please signify by just raising your hand. All right, unanimous. Thank you. Thank you for coming and good luck on this. And I will note as Beth's already pointed out, there are some things that Beth can approve. One of which was she already has told her they can remove the dilapidated mobile home or if you have barns that are falling down. There are some things that Beth can just approve without our voting on it and she has given her that approval. All right. So you are free to go. you are welcome to stay but you are also free to go and i will um send you an email and send it to building inspection as well that says you all have permission okay thank you um we don't need to vote on this but you want to just we can go to tom wilms okay all right him. And we have some unfinished business, then we'll go. Yes, okay. So our next one, we will go to item, let's see, under unfinished business, item C, Farm 9-2004, Ashland Stables, Inc. Housing and Infrastructure Request. Tom Wilms is here today, And you all will remember this is the historic house that Tom came to us a couple of times last year about with renovation plans. And I actually met with them. The owners are still, they were still have been changing. They changed some things. They did not take action on what was approved last year. and I think with COVID and everything they kind of rethought things and they had some family staying with them and kind of how they wanted to change the house so I went out and met with them and with Tom on August 12th and it was nice they were able to show me around the house and get a good idea of exactly what they're doing so they have come to us with their new plans and I will just go over that and a lot of it you all are not going to need to vote on because you've already done that. So I tried to narrow it down and only include the things that you still need to, that you will need to vote on today that have changed. And we will just, some of these we will just amend. But so for the record, I will go back through this. So this is farm number 92004, located at 3184 Newtown Pike. It's called Ashland Stables Farm. It is approximately 113 acres. It's a horse farm owned by John Flesh Hacker. The date of the easement is April 1st, 2005 and the owner at the time of easement was Cobra Farm. It is a federal easement. It has an impervious surface limit that was established by the board in 2013 of 3.83 percent. It does have three historic structures or protected structures including a historic 1813 pleasant retreat house which is the house we will discuss today an historic hemp house and stone entrances the renovation being requested is the landowners are returning to the board with revised plans this paragraph essentially says what i said in the beginning so we will skip to the existing footprint including the detached garage right now is 4,439 square feet. The proposed footprint including the attached garage is 5,516 square feet for a net change of 1,077 square feet. The owners previously requested to remove and replace the two side additions on the house and the garage and the board approved both requests. These requests are being amended as noted in the board action listed below. The paving, they are requesting paving. Um primary residence to be removed to construct new driveways, walks and patios with a net add of 1336 square feet was approved in December of 2020. And that will just be changed. We will need you all will need to vote to change that increase that to from 1336 square feet to 1543 is what they are requesting. They have provided a site map, building plans, and photos from architect Tom Wilms. The protected and permitted use for the historic 1813 Pleasant Retreat House is protected in three separate sections of the easement. Page one of the easement where the conservation values of the easement are listed in the baseline documentation is noted. section one the purpose of the easement and section three the grantor's affirmative obligations section five of the easement and reserved rights item b provides the right to construct or maintain one primary single family detached dwelling and necessary tenant housing and then the other relevant information is this farm was on our july 29th 2020 and december 16th 2020 agendas with request to renovate the historic 1813 Pleasant Retreat House and remove and replace its existing garage. The landowners have not yet taken action on any of the board approvals and have revised their plans so they are returning to us for approval of the revisions. I have included the board action from July and December minutes and indicated in red whether the landowners wish to proceed or change the approval action so that repetitive votes will not be needed the following action was taken at the july 29th 2020 meeting and is documented in the minutes board approval to remove the two side wings on either side of the house which are not original to the structure per architect whims so the update for that is the landowner will proceed with removing the left wing addition but will not remove the right wing addition they wish to instead leave it there and expand on it so they will just build out on that right addition action number two in july 2020 board approval to remove the sunroom on the rear of the house they will proceed with that action and that is not original to the house um board approval to number three is board approval to remove the existing three car garage they will proceed with that action. Number four, unanimous consent by the board that the landowner is required to retain the palladium window on the second floor of the left side of the house and there's no action needed on that. Number five, board approval to remove the porch on the front of the home and return it to the style shown in the 1975 photograph provided Mr. Wilms and that is in your all's by Mr. Wilms and that is in your all's packets today. The landowner will proceed with removing the porch, but the design plan for the new porch has been updated. So the board will need to vote on the new design today. And then those next two were things we addressed in December. Number eight, unanimous consent by the board that the landowners required to retain all four chimneys and keep them visible on the exterior. Item nine, board approval, though with two nay votes for the request to remove a portion of the back wall of the historic house in order to create an opening in the kitchen. You all might remember that. That was a big discussion. They were going to tear that wall down and crease it, and I think there was going to be an oval-shaped, or I mean, sorry, a half-moon-shaped window, yes, that looked out. They are no longer going to do that. They are going to work within the frame of the kitchen, so that one, and Tracy can advise us whether you all need to take any action on that once we get to voting. Number 10, board approval to construct a right side addition to replace the addition being removed per item one. An amended, so the revision is an amended plan to retain the addition and expand it has been provided today. Again, they are no longer asking to remove that right side addition. Number 11 was board approval to construct a left side addition to replace the addition being removed per item one. The landowner will proceed with this action but has updated the previously approved design. So the new version will need to be approved today. Number 12, board approval to add a second story addition to the rear of the house. The update is that the landowner will proceed with this action, but the design has changed and reduced in size. So the new plan will need to be approved. Then we move on to the board action taken at our December 16th, 2020 meeting that is documented in the minutes on a motion made by Elizabeth Jensen, seconded by Hannah. Board voted unanimously to accept the master site plan and we have a new site plan that we will adopt today. Number two, agreed by unanimous consent to approve the proposed garage as described and included in the board's packets. The approved garage was a two-car garage. They are changing that to a three-car garage, which is what it is now, so we will just need to approve the new plan. Number three, agreed by unanimous consent to approve the proposed breezeway to the garage as described and included in the board's packets. The landowner will proceed with constructing a breezeway, but the new design will need to be approved. And then number four, on a motion by Margaret Graves and seconded by Christine Stanley, the board voted unanimously to deny the landowner's request to remove the two front doors and replace them with one door and that issue is not being revisited um so the staff recommendation i have our votes listed here 10 that you all will have to will need to take with these updates and we can with any questions you all have or anything mr wilms may want to add we can make sure that i have covered everything and then the conservation recommendation um charlie farmer reviewed the previous request for renovation to this house and did not object um since all construction was in an area already dedicated to the homestead and i shared these revised plans with him and he is um has is agrees with those as well he has no concerns so we will go on to the photos and maps they provided so the first photo in your packets is of the pleasant retreat house um an old let's see my oh 1975 and you can see there was no right side edition and it is our understanding the left side edition that was there is not original and then if you go to the next page they provided four photos where they made notes in red that they are proposing removing the existing porch and patio keeping the double doors they'll have a new mud room addition that is the right on the bottom page on the left hand side on that photo that is the right side had a side of the side of the house and they will just build onto that to do a mud room and then the top of the next page that is the sun room to be removed which is not original to the house and then the next photo is remove the existing garage and then the final photo of the house is that is the left side of the house and remove the existing wing and porch and other i can't tell what that says additions oh the addition's not a later addition's not original and tom one question i had and i think it has changed but when you and i when we looked at the house the spot that if you all see there on the house this area kind of shows up in white there used to be a window there yes and they filled it in but i think now and so you all were going to put the window back yes i think now the new edition covers that is that right no the new edition comes over and okay surrounds it it doesn't cover over the top of it okay so you will be still be putting the window like to put the window that was there originally back yes okay all right and And you can see when you're there in person where it used to be, and they filled it in with newer bricks. So they're actually restoring it to how it used to be. Yes. And then we will move on to the front elevation of the house and the rear elevation. And let's see. And then the next is the existing front elevation and existing rear elevation. And then the next photo shows the first floor plan. And then they provided a site plan for us that shows the proposed, how the house will look from an aerial view in the different dimensions. And then they provided a master site plan. And over on your left, it's actually the small part with the red around. That is the house that we are discussing. So it's close to Iron Works. They're at Newtown. And that is all and I'm sure if you'll have any questions for Mr. Wilms he will be happy. You want me to state my name for the record? Okay sure. If you're recording. I'm Tom Wilms, Wilms Architects representing Ashland Stables. We're the architects on the project. Thank you. And Beth, you did a good job of representing that. I would like to say to the board, I know we've been in front of you three times now, and I appreciate your patience with us. As Beth said, for various reasons, the owner, some things internal, some things, just for whatever reasons, started to rethink their needs. and actually we distilled it down to what they really felt like they needed. And the result of that was we greatly reduced the amount of square footage and the additions and the second floors that we had previously had approved by this board. So I hope you all find that as an improvement, that we're keeping more of the existing and keeping all the existing of the historic part, but not cutting through the walls and not doing as many second floors on the new additions, et cetera. Not doing any more second floors except a little dormer out the back for a bathroom. So I hope that you... Anyway, thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Board members, you have some specifics? Yes, Robert. You said the bathroom on the second floor is the only addition or change from the previously approved? On the bathroom on the second floor? We had the bathroom on the second floor already, but over that sunroom on the previous one that was approved, we had a whole wing coming out where the dormer is now. That dormer extended out and became a second floor, a story and a half, if you will, over the top of the sunroom. so we've just eliminated that over the sun room and just stopped it as a dormer instead of a second story addition thank you okay thank you and i think tom one thing i can clarify that may help i believe that one change was when you were going to do that addition the master bedroom was going to be on the second floor and it's now going to be on the first floor is that right Well, the one that was approved previously, the one that was approved previously, the original house, before we did any planning, the master bedroom was on the second floor when we got involved, where it was originally, I don't know, but that's where it was. so that bedroom is still staying there the only thing on the second floor that we did differently is where that addition went out we now pulled it back to a dormer and so we're just adding a proper master bath upstairs our bathroom that was and we were going to just do that as a bedroom and leave that and we weren't going to do one i'm just giving more history than you want now but we weren't going to do the bedroom addition which you had already approved the previous approval included the master bedroom addition on the first floor we had considered not doing it but it became apparent that uh she's dating somebody if children or things come along that they need a first floor master bedroom for the house we don't have one right now we have a small bedroom that could be a nursery but we don't have a master bedroom so we so we're keeping what was previously approved on the left hand side Let's go through these one at a time like we did before since there are a whole lot of changes. The first thing in your packet that Beth went through was some of the existing pavement is going to be removed, and they're proposing new pavement, and the net change from the pavement will be a difference of 207 square feet. So the chair will entertain a motion about the addition of the paving as shown on the plans. Do I hear a motion? Can I ask a question first? Of course. Do we need to go through them one by one? Are there any that anybody objects to that we could maybe take one off? If not, we could do them all at one time. The only reason that we were doing them is some of the things are only amendments. We're not, I don't know. Tracy, some of the things are changes that we definitely need to vote on. I think that, well, I'm looking at the list, and my pages aren't numbered from when I printed, but in the report where it says staff recommendation and there's 10 items listed there. Correct. But if everyone is in agreement that you are okay with all of those, you probably could adopt, you know, vote on all of those at once. than if there are votes that need to be taken separately from those 10 things. You probably do need to rescind your vote since on the record there's an approval to take out the back wall that's not going to be done anymore just so that the record will be clear that that was given approval, but then the owner decided not to proceed with that. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I'm not trying to suggest something. Sure. If it works. I mean, in order to expedite it in terms of your time, could you just reference the plan as per plan? We will need to reference the plan because there are some changes from the plan. If you agree to the things we want to change and then reference the plan, does that cover everything? Because these would be the plans we have to abide by. It would already show those removed. But you're also... Well, that's number 10 on this. 9 and 10, yes. But if you, if Beth, if that encompasses everything that's being asked for, that would be, that would be. Well, that's the house part, but that doesn't deal with the paving. Or the three car garage going from two to three. Our plan shows a three car garage. We're talking about the house plans, the drawings. But I mean, if you took, if everyone is in favor of all 10 of these items, you know, in other words, if there's not going to be a no vote, then I think you could, in one motion, vote to approve all 10 of the items listed in the staff recommendation, which would include the paving, it would include adopting the architectural drawings, and it would include adopting the master plan. And if you think there's going to need to be some differentiation between any of those 10 items or discussion and different types of votes on different items, then you're probably going to have to take them individually. And we can also make note in that motion, I suppose, that it is from previous votes, there are amendments and to include the changes and amendments as part of that. You could do that. I can. All right. so so tracy the motion would be to approve the 10 items recommended by staff within the report right and then we'd have a second vote on the rescinding of the um the approval of the opening in the kitchen yes i think you can do that as long as you all don't have any reservations about any one particular one of those 10 items that you would want to pull out and vote or discuss differently. Is that okay with you? Works for me. So I'll make a motion to approve this ten items lifted as staff recommendations related to the amended plans submitted by the landowner. And based on the drawings which the new drawings which have been included with the changes and the amendments? Based on the new drawings and changes that have been requested. Does everyone understand that is there a second all right several seconds mary quinn any any questions before we move on everyone's clear all right all in favor please raise your hand if you can't make your things work okay unanimous thank you do you all need to vote on something else yeah i'll make a motion to rescind the board's prior approval of the removal of a portion of the back wall of the historic house in order to create an opening in the kitchen as as has been presented today and in the new plans as presented today and in the new plan is there a second second robert seconded tommy seconded any questions about that all in favor all right we're good got that i do appreciate your time and i'll try not to be back Thank you, Tom. You want to give us an update because this does not require a vote? Okay. Do you want to just... Which one are we? We have our way. Okay. Do we have anything else that requires a vote? Well, I'm going to go to that, but they need to be. We'll put that at the end and then we'll go to closed session. Okay. Do you want them to do to approve the road, this corridor? Well, we'll have time, I think, to maybe look at that. We're trying to make sure we get everything in that we need to vote on or update you on before we have to change here. And Beth has a couple of things she can just tell you where the vote's not required yet. That will be in the unfinished business. yes so item b in the um unfinished business the update on farms 5 2001 and 60 2002 jackpot land company llc that was the um request that we heard in june and they were adding they had the two adjacent parcels and wanted to consolidate those and our law department and john watts tracy worked with john Watson, they determined that since it was increasing the size not decreasing, they could do that. The landowners have decided to hold for now, which also puts on hold the fourth tenant house they requested because it was approved contingent on consolidating. And so they are on hold with that for now. And that is all I have on that. And then our Our next item that is only an update, let's see, number under new business item C, the NRCS funding update. NRCS, we have, so in 2020, we submitted 13 farms on our federal application, eight of which have been approved so far. And then we submitted one more in early 2021. one and so we have a total of six that are pending funding funding with nrcs and they did not expect to receive funding this year because a lot of money has been transferred nationally to a wetlands project out west that nrcs is working on but they called us about two weeks ago and said we've gotten funding for two of your farms and but the landowners have to fill out paperwork within 24 hours And so our landowners, we had the help of Margaret and Elizabeth and Gloria helping us reach one of the landowners, and they were able to get their paperwork done. And so we think that we are going to have funding for two additional farms. And those two farms were ranked at the top. There are 18 farms pending with NRCS, only six of which are ours for easements across the state. And our two ranked at the top. so they got money for those too um hopefully gloria will get to sign that paperwork before our next meeting but we wanted to let you all give you all that good news so and thank you to elizabeth and margaret and gloria who all helped um with contacting those landowners and getting that done and i believe that is it on just updates as far before we're trying to skip around so that that we can do our closed session and get things done before people have to leave. I do want to say about them providing the funding to us, across the state of Kentucky there are more people applying for this money. When this program started 20 years ago, we were kind of it. But now there's a lot of competition. I think that speaks very well of our program that the feds notified us. this time saying that part of the money they thought was going out west for grasslands to improve hunting and that sort of thing did not get used for whatever reasons and that some of the money was going to then come to Kentucky. And they picked us. And I think that speaks very well for this program. I think that's a very positive thing for us. They picked two of the best farms we had, a lot of acreage. But the tragic part was they had to notify Washington that we and these property owners would accept this, and we had like 24 hours to make sure that everything was signed, the property owners knew about it, that they agreed that they were next on the list and that they would be funded. So it required some shuffling and scuffling and hurrying around to make sure everything got done so that we could get the money. And we felt like it was really worth it to do that because it was like 200 more acres for us that they recommended to us rather than us usually being on bended knee asking for this. So I think we should feel really good that out of these other applications across the state that they picked ours as being some of the top ones. And they did. These farms did rate really well, and they were next on our list as well. So I think that's a good thing. And having said that, I guess the next thing on our list that we wanted to touch on quickly is, since our last meeting, you have all kinds of maps that, and I don't know if you all did or did not know about this. And Tracy's been working, you all had asked back in June for a barn dominium definition because Beth's already had a couple of applications for that. If we have some time later, Tracy, I'll get you to sort of update us on that and then bring us up to speed on the ADUs. But this has some time constraint. The State Department, unbeknownst to us, just stuck in the mailbox for some property owners, was a card that says they were going to have a study about quarter improvements and quarter connections between Jesmond County and the southeastern part of Fayette County to I-75. Part of the property owners did not get them at all, and they were just stuck in the box, didn't have an address on it, it just said to property owner. and so a lot of the property owners started calling saying what is this some of the people who have our easements they had one meeting it was on july 22nd i could not attend my husband's brother only brother had died and we were out of town but some of the people who have easements in in that part of the county did attend this meeting. And apparently when you get online, and Beth has forwarded that to all of you all, which we just got, it was interesting, I noticed, when you pull up the website and you look at the individual maps, one of them says public feedback from fall of 2020. And so I asked some of the property owners who got this yesterday, actually after Beth sent this, if they had gotten anything in 2020. No one knew anything about this. So when you look at these maps, GIS, Beth had them try to put together a quick map for us using what the state had done. When you drive out on these roads, Jack's Creek and Old Richmond Road, you will notice there are stakes. They've been doing some surveying with pink markers already on them. But even where the stakes are on the people's property, they knew nothing about it. In fact, just sitting here, I just got a text from one of them who said, you're right, there's a stake on my property, and I have no idea when they even came to do this. I think what we need to do is at least send a letter letting them know that we literally, where they have the yellow line and the green lines drawn on part of this in the study area, we do have, Beth and I added yesterday, in this part where they're doing the study area, we have thousands of acres of easements already. and Margaret's here, some of the property owners also have easements with the Conservancy on there. In this area is also Raven Run and is Mary Wharton's Nature Sanctuary at Floracliff, which is now a state nature preserve. So they need to be aware that we have a lot of easements, that the Conservancy has easements and that we are most concerned that we do not want to lose these easements or do anything that's going to have a negative impact on those. And the next meeting, there is a, and I'm not sure, but the next meeting or the public input that they want is just a couple of weeks away so we brought this to you now because to make a comment or send them a letter informing them of this is before we would meet again so i would like comments and that i'd ask you to send this map and information to ashley noel of the conservancy because i'm not sure that they're aware of it and it does directly impact several easements that we have We haven't had time to do all the research because Beth and I did notice on the map that GIS got for us that some of our recent properties are not on here. And the ones that we're going to be talking about and some of the closings we're getting ready to do also are not on here. So we have a lot of acreage and easement that's not on this map, actually. But before we send a map to the state, we will make sure that it is updated and accurate with all of our properties on it. Gloria, if I'm understanding, both either of these proposed roads would dump out onto Overton Road and then down to 75. I didn't attend the meeting. Some of the people in your neighborhood did and copied some of the things. There is more to it than is even on the yellow line or green line, apparently, that they discussed in the meeting. Because they do want to perhaps take it through there to exit 104, as mentioned, and exit 99, as mentioned, or perhaps two new entrances, one on Athens-Walnut Hill and one on Richmond Road that they're also perhaps considering. So I guess the yellow line and or the green line could continue on to Athens-Vinsborough Road or the interstate. And if I told you any more than that, I'd be telling you more than I know, which I don't want to do. We'll just have to get some more updated information before we have it all. And I noticed that what Beth sent us yesterday in the plan that I downloaded, printed some of those, were things that they did not show in that meeting on July 22nd that the neighbors copied the maps for. So there's apparently more out there than you see here. Well, I think it would all require eminent domain. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. When you read what's online, which we just got, Beth managed to get yesterday, it has some specifics about things they would like to do, like widening some of these roads and adding drainage and doing turn lanes. And there's a whole lot more that you would. If you look at what Beth sent you yesterday, if you will go to that Jesmond County study, and if you pull that up, there are a whole lot of little blue ovals in there. And if you go to each one of those, it's an individual map or an individual listing that has more details. And I can send all of this that's printed here because I was able to get this from the Metropolitan Planning Organization staff person yesterday. I can send this out to you all electronically with those links too. I will tell you that your council person, Kathy Plowman, when she was contacted about this when some of the note of the postcards came out, knew absolutely nothing about it. Some of the neighborhood association presidents out there contacted their state representative who knew absolutely nothing about it. Apparently the only people who knew very much about it were the Metropolitan Planning Organization in Jesmond County. So if we told you any more, we'd be telling you more than we know. But I would like permission from you all to send a letter with a map with all of our, and a letter saying that, you know, we have parks there, a state preserve there, all of our easements there. And I think that it's obvious when you look at the map, some of these would go right through part of our easements, literally through our easements. And part of those, in answer to what you said, Elizabeth, that if they send that out to Old Richmond Road, whether they either send it north to Athens-Boonesboro to hook on at 104, or if they go south to hook on at 99, they would have to affect. Most of that road is eased with either PDR or Conservancy easements already. And it is, and Beth says, and it's a Kentucky Scenic Byway. One of the neighbors who did not receive a car and was most upset about this also made note that the properties were National Register, which I guess would also kick in a 105. So it would require a lot more than I think they realize. and we probably should also add to our letter that a lot of that is National Register and Scenic Byway. So we need to move on because we have a closed session, so the chair will entertain a motion about sending them a letter making them aware of this. Mary Quinn and Elizabeth seconds it. All in favor? Okay. we won't have a treasurer's report because phil was going to zoom and he's not here and i don't have a report except that there's been a lot going on and we've all worked pretty hard trying to make all our ends ends meet and get everything done on time um and uh it's now 436 and it's time to call for a motion to enter into closed session. Will has made the motion is there a second? Elizabeth all in favor? All right unanimous again and we'll need to shut the door and yeah you Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. We'll be right back. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, let's go. Thank you. ¶¶ It is. We're coming out at 4.59 from closed session. and the chair will call for a motion to return all in favor please just all right and we have some possible motions and votes to be taken the chair would entertain a motion to authorize an offer on farm 1 2020 is there a motion So moved. Margaret's made the motion. Is there a second? Dennis, second. Several seconds. All in favor, please signify by raising your hand. All right. And then the chair would like to have a motion to authorize an appraisal for Farm 10-2020 upon receipt of NRCS matching funds and authorize an appraisal for Farm 1-2021 upon receipt of the NRC matching funds. So moved. All right. Robert's made the motion. Is there a second? Multiple seconds. All in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you. All right. And we'll go back to just catch up on a few things. we had asked Tracy to look at a barn dominium definition and the ADUs and she's going to give us an update on both of those. I'm going to start with the ADUs. You have information in your packet. Yes. And this was presented by the Division of Planning as an update to the council. the council's planning and public safety committee, and that's where it has been sitting for the last, oh, I don't know, several months, over a year. That committee did something a little unusual in that they were getting a lot of input from the public about ADUs at the committee level and lots of emails. So the committee has scheduled a special meeting, and I think they've picked the date of September the 14th. It's at 5 o'clock. Is that, Beth, what you've been? That's what was related to me, too. And it's going to be a, they're calling it a public meeting, or it's like a public forum of sorts, but they're going to actually take comment from the public about the ADU ordinance that they have in committee. because they didn't want to make any recommendation and move it to the full council without hearing more from the public. So that's not always what happens in the committee process at the council, but that's what's going to happen with this one. So I expect, depending on how that goes and what they hear at that meeting, it may get moved forward or it may get tweaked. I'm not sure. So that's kind of where that is for now, but they did not move it out of committee. So it's still there, but it does have that public input session scheduled. On the barn dominiums, I talked to planning, and planning had talked to the Division of Building Inspection. As you know, we don't really have a definition for that anywhere in our zoning ordinance. And I'll be honest with you, I'm not really sure at this juncture that we're going to get one because there's some issues that building inspection raised about having what's sort of a mixed use or commercial type barn where you have different types of fuel, potentially different, maybe depending on what type of farming you're doing at the barn, attached to a house, they would have to permit that a little differently. It wouldn't just be able to be permitted as either a house, which wouldn't be required. they wouldn't have to give a permit necessarily for just a house in the AR zone this but or possibly a barn but when you combine them together there they have concerns about firewalls they have concerns about and that they can't I mean they have to honor the building code so I would the best thing I could tell you about it is probably an ongoing endeavor because it raises some issues that involve more than just the type of use that might go on between the two, but also some things that we can't necessarily just bypass in the building code. So that's kind of where we are on that. I guess my question is, Tracy, for the ones who have come and have asked to do that, do we just tell them no? I don't know what they would tell them. they would probably try to figure out the best closest thing we have that that they could tell them right now and what building inspection told us is that would probably be some type of a mixed use you know commercial development type thing to address the more so than the housing part of it but the farming part of it because you're going to now have things attached to a house that you don't normally have. So when you combine the two it creates some different standards for building. So I can't tell you that they would permit it but they would have to be looking at a combination of what's the closest thing we have at this point. And, you know, it's going to take some more work both on their part and it's not just a planning question at this point as to whether or not that's even something that they want to move forward. just because there, I can tell you, this building inspection absolutely isn't going to do anything that doesn't comply with the national building code they have to follow. The only one I know about, I think the people came and said it was a barn. And my concern is if you go to building inspection and say you want a barn, you don't have to even go to building inspection to get a barn permit. They only have to sit back 50 feet from the right-of-way. But if you want a house in the rural area, you have to get a building permit, and they're supposed to be back 300 feet. Now, the one I do know about that the neighbors complained about is not back 300 feet, and they are living in it. Well, and if that's the case, you know, that may be or may not be, I don't know, a zoning violation. You know, if you built a barn and so you set it back 50 feet, but you're actually living in it so it's a residence, then you're not compliant with the zoning ordinance. So I don't know how they're going to handle that, to be honest. I mean, it's still in discussion because a number of issues came up. And, you know, I tell you building inspection is very concerned about it. in general just because they feel like it could present some really unsafe conditions if they don't define and regulate it accordingly. And they're also be honest with you their first question was why would anyone want to do this? And I'm like well you know I'm not I'm not explaining that I'm just asking the question you know. They're actually very popular and right I mean they're They are being built. And there's also a difference between just a barn, you know, like, for example, if you're an HGTV person and you like Chip and Joanna Gaines, well, their barn dominium was a barn conversion. It was a barn that was made into a residence. It wasn't a barn. But the idea of that, that is a residence. So that's going to have to be permitted and zoned, you know, comply with zoning accordingly if you're converting a barn into a residence. But the idea of an actual barn being part of the structure with a home, a residence attached to it, that's a whole different animal. So that's another issue that may seem to be confused among different people, you know. The person, I know that Tracy Wade in planning talked to one of the people who has come and asked about it, and they're talking about a barn attached to their home. And so that's different than taking a barn and converting it into a home. So there's a couple of different things going on there. So we'll just have to keep talking about it. But I don't know that, I'm not sure where it's going to go right now, to be honest. Well, it would be nice if we can get ahead of the game instead of wait until there's a problem. Because I know somebody called Beth wanting to ask about building one on one of our properties. So right now we just tell them no, right? Well, I don't think we tell them no. I think they're going to have to go to building inspection, and this board would have to decide, too, if we think that's compliant with what's in their deed. To be honest, in a literal interpretation, it's probably not, because no one contemplated when it says I'm reserving the right to build a single-family residence, that it was going to be a residence attached to a barn. I mean, so yes, it is something, I don't know, you know, we may already, it may already be out of the, not to be a pun, but it may already be out of the barn door. And so we're trying to, you know, catch up with it. But I mean, it's, I don't know the answer to that question. But building inspection would, when people come to them and ask them now, what they do is they look and see, is there some definition or some structure that we can permit right now that we think this falls into? And if they can come up with that, they will, and they'll put the requirements on the permit that are required by whatever that is. if they think it is completely outside of all of our ordinances and all of the building code, then they'll tell them no. So that's probably where it is right now. Where it goes in the future, I don't know. And that may require some decisions by building inspection, by planning, and maybe by this board in terms of what we want to define. that would really be building inspection and planning, but this board as to what we want to consider in our easements, and I don't know where NRCS comes down on that either. I mean, if we're getting their funding, I'm assuming they want to have a say in what kinds of residences we're reserving rights for in our easements. Are there questions of Tracy or comments? Anybody? I'll say that I was on a trip yesterday and I believe I saw one of these which could colorfully be described as a single family residence with an attached garage. only the garage was a four bay truck garage with 24 or 20 foot high garage doors on it and i think that as we consider what character we want our farms to take it'll be important to get get this sort of hammered down a little bit before before you know we have a bunch of applications before us for these constructions One of the ones... I don't know that it would necessarily make any difference from a building code aspect. I mean, obviously they're concerned about preserving the safety of the living quarters being connected to a barn. but at the same time, I have no doubt there probably are any number of barns throughout Fayette County that have some kind of a tenant or some kind of person that works on the farm or whatever, whether it's sleeping quarters or it's sleeping quarters in a bathroom or more than that, that are going on, and it's very likely that they may have been built as a barn and nobody necessarily knows it's even there. that's probably happening. I was just telling Will one of the ones that I know about is very it's in the neighboring county but the fellow who's built it and living in it is either a current or recently left a state representative and that's probably oh I'd say a good eight ten thousand square feet very large two-story house and probably has 12 stalls down the side of the huge yeah and I you know you can probably understand the the concern that building inspection had I mean planning has some as well just for but you know built I mean things like having fuel and which all barns have you know fuel and and and hay or whatever that are combustible items you know there's a whole different requirement when it's going to be a residence and or a home so that that's what they're trying to wrestle with right now so um we'll have to continue looking at it and it may take some time because as you know there's some other things percolating like adus right now so um but i think they're trying to figure out what it is and what it could be. And we have one other thing that's not on our agenda that Robert wanted to inform us about taxes. Briefly, the state is recently changing their sales tax exemption process for farmers. A lot of inputs that farmers buy in the area are tax exempt. Unfortunately, a lot of horse farms can't take advantage of that. But if you're a neighbor or yourself, if you have filled out a tax exemption form before, you can now go to revenue.ky.gov and download the new application form. Basically, you'll be given an account number. and then when you go to a retailer anytime after that, you present them the account number and you no longer have to fill out the form that you did previously. When is that going to be a statement that you need that number? So far as I know, it will be January 1st. And if you're going to apply, I recommend doing it quickly because they will probably be behind. I believe there might already be an extension where you can still fill out the old form, but best to get on top of it, really. Anything else since we've met in person that anybody would like to mention or bring up? I'm happy to see your faces. Yeah, sort of. Semi. Well, they said if we were speaking, we didn't have to have the mask off, and that we were several feet apart, so we were okay. If there's nothing else, I want to thank you again for, on this short notice, coming, because we did have some business and we did have some things we needed to take important votes, so I'm really appreciative that you all have made the effort. I think they are going to give tokens for the parking garage. Or validate. Validate, stop downstairs. stairs and also I want to remind you again that anything we discuss in closed session is not to be discussed anywhere else and that whereas so many of us know so many of the people in the farmers in the county you may know who some of these farms belong to but we do want to always refer to them by number and not by the names of the owners so please remember anything we discuss in closed session is not to be discussed any other way uh having said that um the time is 5 19 and i'd like to call for a motion to adjourn the meeting and to remind you that we will have one next month i don't remember the date off the top of my head right now september 25th 29 29 sometime in september We'll let you know closer to time. But I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. No move. Perry Quinn, Dennis. All right. Is there a second? Lots of seconds. All in favor, raise your hands. Great. Thank you all very much. We'll be right back.