. Each time we have a quarrel, it almost breaks my heart. Cause I am so afraid that we will have to part. Each night I ask the stars above. Hi, I'm Amanda Mays Bledsoe, the council person for the 10th District, and today you'll find us out at Station 20. You know, fall is a wonderful time of the year. Kids are finally back in school. You feel some football and some fall festivals coming up, and it's one of the times we get to celebrate really the family and fall things. The weather is actually starting to change a little bit. You're having some outside barbecues, probably even some fire pits on the nights. I know that I certainly am. And one of the things that I love about fall is getting ready to celebrate the 150-year anniversary of the Lexington Fire Department. And today I'm joined with Chief Jason Wells. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me. And we're out here at Station 20. It's one of the largest fire stations really in the city, and it's right here on Harrisburg Road. It's pretty well known. In fact, many years ago, right after 9-11, the fire station men and women of this actual Station 20 decided to give back to the community. In fact, if you'll notice, after 9-11, many people brought treats, snacks, and gifts as thank yous, really, for what the fire department has done, certainly in New York, but certainly here as well. And the fire station said to give back. So many years ago, almost 20 now, they started putting up lights, holiday lights, as a way to give back to the community and say thank you. I know it's one of the things my kids love. I certainly have time we drive by to see it. They come up here to play some festival music. Good afternoon. Welcome to the September meeting and hearings for the Board of Adjustment. Let's see. We do or don't have any minutes? We do not have any minutes to approve. okay what i'm going to do is to go through what i usually do and that is go read through the agenda once to determine if they're how many of the applications are unopposed and we'll take care of those in short order and then we'll take the ones that are opposed or the ones that the staff has recommended for disapproval last and first we will swear in anybody who anticipates that they may testify today so all those who anticipate that they may testify please stand and raise your right hand there's a lot of people that want to testify do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you you may be seated Now I'm going to go through the agenda. The first case on the docket is PLN BOA 21-38, Corsair Thoroughbreds, this is one from last month, is the applicant present. Corsair Thoroughbreds is the applicant present. We will call you at the end of the docket again to see if anybody shows up. The next one is PLN BOA 21-44, Luftmann Properties. Is the applicant present and accounted for? Thank you very much. Is there anybody who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? I see none, so you will be on the rocket docket first. the next the next application is plnboa 21-45 jason and laura markham are the applicants present i see you here is anybody here and who wishes to speak in opposition to jason and laura markham's application i see none so you'll be next on the speedy docket the next one is pln boa 21-47 barron gibson is the applicant present i see the applicant raising in hand is there anybody here who wishes to speak in opposition to this application i see none you'll be third the next application is PLN BOA 21-49 Tony and Susan Holmes is the applicant are the applicants present you are here the staff has recommended disapproval so we will hear you after the run through the original unopposed dockets. The next is PLN BOA 21-50. Leanne and Keith Daniel are the applicants present. You're here. Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? Daniel? I see no hands raised, so you'll be next on the docket. Candace and John Setzer, PLNBOA 21-53. Are the applicants present? I see a hand or two. Applicants are present. Staff has recommended disapproval of this one, so we will hear you at the end of the docket as well. The next one is PLNBOA 21-39. The Arcadia Company is applicant present. Applicant is present. is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this mr. Miller I see I noticed that you have yes let's let's take up the continuance matter request right now before we go any further with with the rest of the call I don't know whether if the rest of the board members saw your application I I mean, your letter, you were here last month with witnesses, and those witnesses are not present or cannot be present today, is that correct? That's correct, Your Honor. We have two very critical witnesses. One is Sally Thomas. She rents a substantial portion of Overbrook. May I remove this just while I'm talking? Yes. A substantial portion of Overbrook Farm has 30 to 50 horses there at all times. Operates immediately adjacent to the location where these children are going to be. She has very relevant comments about the danger to the horses, to her employees, to herself, and to the children at the school. She's at the Keeneland Sales, and I really need her here. We do have a letter from her, but she's far more effective. And the second, equally important, is Terry Judd. He is the facilities manager at Overbrook Farm. He's there every morning around 7.15 and has very firsthand knowledge about the traffic problems. If here he would tell you there are times it would take him up to 15 minutes just to get out of the driveway on a busy traffic morning at that time of day. He has a long scheduled vacation, will be back. He also has put in and has comments about the septic tank system and has been around horses his entire period of employment and has very strong opinions about the dangers to employees at the farm and to the children. We were here and ready to make these arguments, got no advance notice of the continuance, and I pointed out at the time we objected to the continuance as a matter of fairness and to allow us to present our full case, we've asked for a continuance just for one month. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Woodall, do you want to speak? Quickly, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Miller, will both these witnesses be available in October? What's the October meeting date, Mr. Chairman? October 11th. Okay. Okay. In fairness, we asked for the continuance last time, and there was no advance notice because we frankly didn't know there were any objectors. This application is recommended for approval, but we did ask last time, so in fairness, I think the opposition is entitled to their continuance. Okay. We're ready to go, but whatever you all want to do. Thank you. What's the pleasure of the board? I'll entertain a motion. Either way. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of the continuance. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second to that motion? I second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Motion's been made and seconded to continue it to the October hearing, which is October 11th. All those in favor of the motion or oppose signify by your vote electronically. Can we do this electronically? Okay, all right. It's going to take her a minute. All right. We have a majority in favor of the continuance. Mr. Gross abstains. Motion carries. I'll see you all next month, October 11th, with your spurs on. See you then. Thank you. Thank you all. litigators like to litigate the next item on the docket is plnboa 21-46 heart family enterprise the staff has recommended postponement. Is the applicant present? Mr. Chair, you all should have received an amended staff report. The agenda has not been updated, but you did receive an amended staff report late last week. You're right. We did get an amended staff report. Did everybody on the board see that amended staff report? Did you all see it? Okay. So that recommendation for postponement is no longer in effect. Applicant, I saw a hand raised back there, a couple of hands. So is anybody here that wishes to speak in opposition to the Hart Family Enterprises application? I see no hands. You'll be next on the docket. PLN BOA 21-48, Open Door Church, is the applicant present? I see hands. Is there anybody who wishes to speak in opposition to Open Door Church 21-48? I see no hands, so you will be next on the fast docket. The last one on my agenda is PLNBOA 21-52, Judy Ray, LLC. Is the applicant present? Mr. Clendenin? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the application of Judy Ray, LLC? We have one person in opposition. I'm sorry. How many in opposition? Three. One, two. two at least okay we will hear you at the end of the at the docket is there any chance that you all can agree to this and make this have you have you discussed it between yourselves those in opposition and the applicant a little bit since you all are going to be at the end of the docket would be help would it be helpful for you all to go out in the hall and discuss it further to see if you can arrive at a mutually agreeable position so we won't have to have an extended hearing on this okay thank you we'll see you back and we'll make sure we don't leave without you Thank you. PLNBOA 21-38, are they present? Anybody present for Courser Thoroughbreds? Well, we will continue without them then. And the next case is going to be Luffman Properties. Applicant is present. Yeah, why don't you come up to the podium in case anybody has any questions? And when I say anybody, I mean any members of the board have any questions of the applicant. Staff has recommended approval. so I'll open it to the board see if anybody has any questions for you thank you very much who what's your name please my name is Brian Luffman I'm a sole member of Luffman properties Mr. Luffman anybody have any questions for Mr. Luffman Brian you want to give us a little overview of what's going to happen here certainly essentially I purchased this property last year we were going to do some internal work on it and found this found the addition which is not historic and it's not very large either to be structurally unsound so we are we applied to basically replace it and rebuild it in doing so we were asking to construct a third story on that addition which makes the upstairs usable square footage the only I think the only opposition with or not necessarily opposition but you know point of contention with the staff was just that we were adding square footage by doing that we are improving the building and the fire escape access for the third floor so I think we're improving the building significantly without increasing the footprint of the building so we worked with the Board of Architectural Review and they helped us come up with a plan that fits within the historic districts what they would prefer and that we've had we've been approved with them so with it being smaller even with the new addition to either of the adjacent properties it's still one of the smallest buildings on the block I don't think we're making any significant change to the neighborhood in any way. Okay. You're asking for to increase the allowable floor area ratio. Correct. Which is more than just the footprint of the building. This is a small building sandwiched between two other buildings. There's no side yard to speak of at all on either side of this building, is there? Not really. Okay. If there's no further questions, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLN BOA 21-44 Luffman Properties LLC's request for variance to increase allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.7 in order to construct an addition to an existing duplex within the infill and redevelopment area in historic district overlay slash high density apartment R1 zones on property located at 426 South Broadway. based on staff's three recommendations and subject to their two conditions. Thank you. Mr. Needham, is there a second? Second. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Carter. There's a second. Motion's made and seconded. All in favor, please vote electronically. Or if you're opposed, vote electronically. Motion carries. Looks like it's unanimous. Thank you. Mr. Luffman, good luck with your project. Appreciate it. Mr. Chair, I'd like to just mention that Jones voting is not working. I don't think it's not showing. We got it now. Good. There it is. Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I counted quickly. Looks like everybody voted for that one. All right, the next item on the agenda is Jason and Laura Markham. You all want to come up to the podium. Request to reduce the side yard from 25 to 10 feet to construct a new addition on Colonial Drive. Please identify yourselves. I'm Mike Markland, Jason's father and I'm here to assist in this if he needs any questions answered. Okay. Anybody from the board have any questions of the Markhams about this application for a variance? Nobody has any questions. You did a wonderful job in preparing this application nobody has any concerns so i'll entertain a motion i move for approval of plnboa 21-45 jason and laura markham's request for variance to reduce the required side yard from 25 feet to 10 feet in order to construct a new attached garage on property in a single family residential neighborhood design character overlay zones on property located at 1244 colonial drive based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the three listed conditions thank you miss Carter is there a second second two second mr. Clark seconded all in favor vote please vote electronically or opposed one two three four five six Ms. Whitmer, are you... There you go. It's unanimous. You passed. Your motion carries. Good luck with your project. Thank you very much, and my thanks to the staff for their assistance in putting this together. We all thank the staff. They do the work, and we get the credit. The next item on the agenda is 21-47 Baron Gibson. Is the applicant present? I saw a hand. Please come up to the podium and identify yourself. Baron Gibson. Mr. Gibson, the staff has recommended approval. Do the board members have any questions of this applicant? I'd just like to ask how the shared driveway would work. Can you explain that to me? Well, we were thinking of granting an easement on each property that would go between the two single family houses that would lead to parking in the rear. Of course, there would be a legal easement that would allow for that. Any other questions for Mr. Gibson? No, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLN BOA 21-47 Baron Gibson's request for a variance to reduce the minimum required lot frontage from 40 feet to 25 feet in order to subdivide an existing lot within the infill, a defined infill and redevelopment area in a single-family R1 E zone on property located at 550 Maryland Ave. Based on staff's three reasons for recommendation and the three conditions. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do we have a second? I second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. motion has been made and seconded register your votes electronically we've got six so far i'm not coming up on my screen my vote is yes okay well we will cast your vote motion carries unanimously good luck with your project mr. Gibson thank you the application of the homes has been recommended for disapproval we'll hear you at the end of the docket The next one is PLNBOA 21-50, Leanne and Keith Daniel. Applicants here, please come up to the podium. Anybody have any questions? Please identify yourself. I'm the Daniels representative. name is Avery Buckman I'm sorry your name Avery Buckman thank you miss Buckman are you an attorney or architect or I drew the plans drew the plans okay Anybody have any questions for Ms. Buckman about 21-50? You know, I had a question. Just briefly describe what is the, and maybe we should know this, I don't, the details of the design overlay for that area. I mean, anything specific? the details of the design yeah for this it just says the chevy chase neighborhood character design overlay it just kind of has to be in keeping with the neighborhood um limits to the the depth of the project and percentages of window openings things like that and it doesn't it's basically a porch that their home was built before the zoning ordinance, and so it's already encroaching, and they just want to add a back porch that encroaches. Maybe that's a question for staff, too. I was going to say, I'll add that the ND1 overlay, those are neighborhood design standards that are adopted by particular neighborhoods. There are several of them throughout the county. This is within the Chevy Chase ND1 zone, so that's an overlay zone that is basically additional design standard requirements over top of the regular zoning ordinance requirements for the zone that are particular to that neighborhood off the top of my head I don't know what the Chevy Chase requirements are but that's not something that we're really evaluating today that's more of an for informational purposes in the staff report that this does fall within the Indy one and does have to meet those requirements as far as I'm aware of this plan is meeting the the requirements and this variance does not have anything to do with those requirements um alterations to for plans that that do not meet nd1 requirements actually have to go through a zone change process um in order to get an exception from those nd1 requirements okay yeah i'm aware of that just they were they specific to this particular neighborhood typically yeah okay all right thank you i'd like to ask this it seems like to me that you're asking for a reduction to five foot on the side it looks like to me that the existing house is already at five foot is that correct yes but the lot kind of slopes in a little bit okay so it's a little it's more like four and a half where the where the outer edge of the porch will be so it's pretty much and eight feet is the required right understand so pretty much the way it is now then pretty close to yeah but the house is it's only a foot that they're asking for but they have a need for a hot tub aches and pains kind of thing and they want to be able to fit a door into their bedroom to shower off afterwards instead of having to go around and through the house so they could they could do it without the door but it would be nicer to have the door. All right, good. Thank you. I understand. Any other questions for Ms. Buckman on this application? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLN BOA 21-50. Leanne and Keith Daniel request for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 8 foot to 5 foot in order to construct an addition to an existing house and single-family residential neighborhood design character overlay in D1 zones on property located at 225 Chenault Road based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the three conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Needham seconds. All those who wish to register your vote, please do so electronically. Oh, we got them all. The motion carries unanimously. Motions approved. The project is approved. Good luck with it. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Next on the docket is 2153 and the staff has that's Candace and John Setzer staff has recommended a disapproval so we'll hear that last. next item on the docket is 21-40 six Hart Family Enterprises LLC applicants are present. Please come up to the podium if you would, and whoever's representing the Hart family, and tell us your name. Brian Weaver from ALT Architecture, working as the owner's representative. Looks like you all worked out your differences with staff. We did. We really appreciate that as well. wanted to give a lot of credit to staff for we got the notice of postponement the Friday before the holiday I spoke with autumn Tuesday morning we had a response back in by Tuesday afternoon we had a an amended staff report by the end of the week so really appreciate that given the constraints of the timeline on the project what did you do what changed we ended up taking out the good thing about working with a an owner that has a golf course they have a lot of ancillary accessory structures and so we were able to demonstrate that we can demolish one structure had already been demolished post 1996 so that was factored in the additional square footage that we needed and then we had another structure that we'll be able to remove prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued okay anybody have any questions for mr. Weaver is your golf course open the course is open this will be a nice addition to the facility for sure that makes it more of a 12-month club so it is a nice golf course i hope to play there next month any okay any of any motions retaining pertaining to this file i move for approval of pln boa 21-46 hart family enterprises enterprise llc's request for a conditional use to modify the use of an existing private club in an agricultural rural zone on property located at 2179 bahama road i'm going to switch over here based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the one two three conditions as listed thank you miss carter is there a second thank you mr needham uh motion's been made and seconded please register your vote electronically Looks like we got everybody voted. The motion carried unanimously. Good luck with the project. Thank you very much. The next item is 21-48 Open Door Church. is the applicant applicants come up to the podium and we'll see if the board members have any questions for you the uh the drawing that i that was included with the application that i have doesn't it only shows uh the reheat kitchen it doesn't show the bathroom is do you have something that shows where the bathroom is going to be or is that indoors in the shed yes sir there's an existing shed there right now I have brought updated an updated site plan with me that I could give to you guys if you if you guys want it yes we can put it up on the give it to the okay electronic communications specialist not behind you and we'll put it up on a screen how about that So, yes, you can see the new bathroom HVAC room and entry. We've highlighted where the new one will be on the old site plan. There is an existing storage room and HVAC room on the building right now. Those will be demolished, and a new one will be built in its place to include a bathroom instead of a storage room. I caught most of that. Do you enter the bathroom from inside or outside the... accessory building it will be accessed through a door from the inside right all right anybody have any anybody on the board have any questions tell me your name please sir that good francisco any questions for mr francisco or anybody else that's standing at the podium Nobody has any questions, so I'll entertain a motion. This is nice. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 21-48, Open Door Church, Inc. Request for one, a conditional use to expand an existing place of religious assembly. 2, a variance to reduce the required side street side yard from 30 feet to 18 feet, and 3, a variance to reduce the required rear yard from 10 feet to 1 in order to construct an addition to an existing place of religious assembly in a single family residential zone on property located at 749 Edison Avenue, based on the staff's recommendation and the three conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? I will second. Thank you, Mr. Nita. Motion's been made and seconded. Please register your vote electronically. There we go. Motion carries. Your project is approved. Good luck with it. Thank you. Thank you so much. i think mr clenden and those in opposition to judy ray are still outside discussing so So I'll call Corser Thoroughbreds again. Is Corser Thoroughbreds here? No? No, Corser Thoroughbreds is not here. So we will put them again at the end of the docket. will give uh mr clinton and the opposition h3 yeah we did yeah yeah so the next one on the docket is 21-49 tony and susan holmes application and this and the staff has recommended disapproval so we let's hear from the staff autumn good afternoon it's nice to be back in front of you all at a podium last month i don't think i actually had to get up. It's nice to see your shining face in person. I might be a little bit rusty using the clicker but we'll see how it goes. So this application before you is a request for a variance to reduce the minimum required front yard setback from 300 feet to 100 feet in order to construct a farm employee dwelling unit in an AR zone on property at 6721 Russell Cave Road. This is a vicinity map showing generally where that property is located it's this lot here it's sort of an L shape so this is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Carrick Road and Russell Cave Road it contains 55 acres with an existing 4,063 square foot dwelling unit and I'll click ahead to here so that existing dwelling unit is located in this vicinity here you see some accessory farm structures back here there's the separate parcel here that's sort of cut out of the subject property and the applicant is requesting to place their farm employee dwelling unit generally in this location here so the applicants plan to construct about a 2250 square foot farm employee dwelling unit as a reminder a farm employee dwelling unit is allowed in the agricultural zone as an accessory use that dwelling unit must be inhabited by someone who is engaged in the work on the farm in an agricultural purpose and those structures are required to meet the same setbacks that a principal structure would have on an agricultural property. So again, they're requesting a variance from 300 feet to 100 feet in order to locate the farm employee dwelling unit. So again, here is a site plan that was submitted showing where that dwelling unit is to be placed. So on this portion of the property, about 100 feet from Carrick Pike, they are meeting the 300 foot setback from Russell Cave Road, which in this case would be their side street side yard. So again, that's just the zoning ordinance that we just went over. The applicant did submit some photos that I included here showing where they're proposing the entrance on Carrick Pike, what the existing property looks like from Russell Cave Road, and then another sort of version of the site plan showing where the property would be, or where this new structure would be located. again the existing house is located over here so staff is recommending disapproval of this application there are not special circumstances that justify the need for the app for the variance and strict application of the zoning ordinance would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land there are other locations on the property that they could place this structure and meet the required 300 foot setback again there just don't appear to to be any special circumstances that justify the need. Additionally, the variance request could represent a circumvision of the zoning ordinance because farm employee dwelling units are meant to be accessory to the principal agricultural and residential uses on a property. The proposed location of the farm employee dwelling unit here does not appear to facilitate a functional relationship between that structure and the operation of the farm based on the existing farm structures and the existing road that goes through the property serving those farm structures. The farm manager would instead have to exit the property onto Carrick Pike and then re-enter from Russell Cave Road in order to even get to the barn and the other accessory structures. So for those reasons, we are recommending disapproval today. And I'll take any questions that you have or… Any questions? I guess my obvious question is if they had access from that home to their main dwelling unit to the rest of the farm, would that be better? Would you have approved this? I think we would still have concerns that there were no special circumstances that justify the need for the reduction from 300 feet to 100 feet. It appears that the structure could be located that additional 200 feet back from Carrick Pike. Again, there are no topographic issues or anything like that that prohibit the structure from being located elsewhere on the property. is a 55-acre property and there do appear to be other other sites that could work for an additional structure okay thank you is the is the drawing to scale i believe it is so if it was 300 feet from that's a side yard right well it may not no it's not it's not to scale no yeah i just wonder what it would look like at 300 feet back from from Carrick Pike. It looks like this dimension here is 200-something, so it would generally be sort of behind that building that's on the other property. Autumn, explain to me the... I was trying to read and understand Article 8-1H, The exceptions to the... Right. So those exceptions are for lots which were either developed or platted prior to the dates listed in the zoning ordinance or for lots that do not meet the current size requirements for lots in agricultural zones. So, again, number one is for structures that currently exist less than 300 feet from the right-of-way. that if that is redeveloped that it would have to meet the existing front yard or 50 feet whichever is greater. Number two is for lots which were platted prior to 1995 there is no prior plat for this property and then for number three that's existing lots that are less than 350 feet in lot depth so if your lot is only 350 feet deep you can't really construct a structure at 300 feet. So those are the exceptions to the general rule of 300 feet for the majority of agricultural so exception number one lots of which have a principal permitted residential structure less than 300 feet from the from the right-of-way line that's that's this one right that's the principal structure correct there is a principal structure um that structure i believe is located um right at the 300 it may be at like 250. Okay. Is the is the proposed is their proposed farm employee dwelling would it face a front yard or a side yard I'm not sure I understand the proposed structure would front on to Carrick Pike so is that considered a front yard or a side yard it would be the front yard front yard of that accessory of the farm employee dwelling unit yes and again since in zones that have a required side street side yard that is required to be the same as the required front yard so the the distance is 300 feet from both street frontages okay so there's no difference in the distance okay all right any other questions to autumn while she's up here where would be some alternative locations i think that the simplest alternative location is to just go back the additional 200 feet um from carrick pike if that's the vicinity of the property that they wish to construct the structure but this is the entirety of the property so there would be the potential for space back here but it does appear that this portion of the property is where the majority of the farming activity is happening just based on looking at the aerial photography in your uh in your last bullet uh paragraph on in the staff report you suggest that that the desired location and proposed access appear to be an indication that the applicant desires to develop the property as two separate residential uses, but they couldn't do that because I think 40 acres is the minimum, right? That is correct. That is part of the reason that farm employee dwelling units are allowed is, again, to provide housing for individuals who are working in conjunction with the farming activity on the property. they're not just to have an additional dwelling unit for for anyone and in this case this is a 55 acre property so it could not be subdivided into two properties within the agricultural zone if that were desired so so we're limited to one principal structure and one farm employee dwelling unit okay right Any other questions? So if I'm understanding correctly, if they were to take an access off of Russell Cave, there would not, this side yard setback would have to be what? 300 feet. Still 300. Yes. Yeah. Okay, all right, thank you, Autumn. and mr and mrs holmes you're present we may have some questions for you as well so come up to the podium tony hadn't seen you in forever you still playing squash broken down old and broken down uh so mr chairman ladies and gentlemen of the board and planning staff um first my name is Sarah Holmes Dooley I am Tony and Susan's daughter and I'm gonna speak on behalf of my dad he's from New Zealand and he's afraid that you won't understand and so I'll just speak from his perspective if you don't mind first of all on him thank you for your help through the whole process and even though this is recommended for disapproval we appreciate how fair this whole process has been and the argument just there was very afraid fair to us so we really appreciate that so we understand like I said and respectfully acknowledge that the staff has a responsibility to investigate unintended consequences and we kindly acknowledge the concerns of the staff and their technical expertise we believe that the staff has however misunderstood our intent in building an entrance on Carrick and has overlooked how strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive us of the reasonable reasonable use of our land and I think going from what Autumn just presented that'll be probably our main focus point we also in addition believe this staff has misjudged a public safety issue which we'd like to better clarify here today if we didn't before so our desire and intent to continue to use our property is for its intended agricultural uses. We are certainly not trying to develop the property as two separate residential uses as the Staff Case Report suggests. One of our main concerns when deciding the best location to build a farm manager dwelling was to preserve as much pasture land as possible on our small farm in order to still have practical use of the farm. We are nearing our retirement with our hands-on involvement on the farm and therefore need to build a farm manager dwelling for our farm to continue however we have had to weigh that necessity with how much pasture land would be sacrificed in doing so as it's a small farm we could not as the cast case report suggests construct the desired structure at the 300 foot setback from carrick road as autumn just highlighted that she thought that would be the next kind of plan b to go to so i'd just like to explain how that wouldn't work for our farm in particular we would not if we did that at the 300 setback rather than the 100 variants that were we are requesting we would not still have nearly full use of that pasture that we've chosen to build in every foot of space we can maintain as is on our small farm is absolutely essential to the farm continuing to run efficiently as it is so small. To disapprove the variance would add another 200 feet of blacktop driveway and 200 feet of four board fencing on either side of the proposed driveway. We use this pasture to graze thoroughbreds of all ages year round. Thoroughbreds are a very high strung breed which some of you are probably familiar with and it's extremely important to ensure that any possible hazards are avoided during turnout as they can startle easily and quite frequently run through fences and injure themselves if we construct the farm manager dwelling at the 300 foot setback rather than at the 100 foot setback we are requesting we are essentially construction constructing a 200 foot hazard into that field as you could see with the laser pointer earlier if we built 200 feet further into the pasture it would be right in the middle of that field the 100 foot setback would allow the proposed dwelling to be streamlined into the existing shape of the pasture with three times less blacktop. So I hope you can imagine how that makes such an important difference for us, that 200 feet as far as the safety of the horses is concerned. While we could build this farm manager dwelling elsewhere on the farm and meet the required front yard setback, we would completely lose the functionality of our small farm if we build anywhere else than where we have chosen. Through a very careful and long decision making process we have decided on the best possible location to build a farm manager dwelling for our farm to continue to run efficiently we would also like to address the zoning ordinance requirement that the board shall consider whether the requested variance arises from special circumstances which I know you just asked autumn about so we'd like to respond to that as the case report states that none exist so our farm is permanently protected by PDR so we feel that PDR is a special circumstance in addition to the ones that I just explained that justifies the need for the requested variance our intent as well as the intent of the PDR is to preserve as much pasture land as possible in building a farm manager dwelling we met on the farm at the proposed building site with the PDR director Beth Oberman miss Oberman reiterated to us the importance to the PDR to preserve as as much pasture land as possible, and she highlighted that if we can avoid using much blacktop, minimal blacktop installation was important to the PDR as well, as it is to us. The case report also states that farm employee dwelling units are meant to be accessory to the principal residence and to meet those setbacks for a principal residence. So under PDR protection, the proposed farm manager dwelling will always exist as an accessory to the principal residents. In addition, half of the size is 2,000 square feet as opposed to 4,000. So it's clearly going to exist as an accessory to the main homestead. So our second main concern when deciding the best location to build a farm manager dwelling was safety. The zoning ordinance states that before any variance is granted, the board must find that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, and will not cause a hazard or a nuisance to the public. The case report states that the property contains 55 acres, much of which is served by an existing access drive, which could also provide access to the dwelling unit. So this photo clearly shows the obstructed view at the existing entrance. entrance. Using this existing entrance on Russell Cave Road would increase traffic flow from the farm manager's family, etc., at this already dangerous entry on a heavily trafficked main road and where drivers notoriously speed. If we used the existing Russell Cave entrance, we would be compromising our concern for safety. Furthermore, due to the requirements of the zoning ordinance concerning public safety, we believe this should also be of of significant concern to the board and has been overlooked the case report states that the proposed location of the dwelling unit and its access point do not appear to facilitate a functional relationship between the proposed structure and the operation of the farm instead it would result in a farm manager having to exit the property onto carrot pike and re-enter from Russell Cave Road in order to access the barn and other accessory structures in a vehicle for as long as we've owned this farm 30 years the large majority of vehicle activity on the farm has been and will continue to be with four-wheel ATVs I think that definitely comes from the Kiwi side of things so as mr. Needham said you know would it change things if we could get from the secondary residence to the farm without exiting onto the road that's what we'd like to address address here so it's always been the intent for the farm manager to use this form of transport to and from the proposed farm manager dwelling which creates a functional relationship between the proposed structure and the operation of the farm. The farm manager would not have to exit the property onto Carrick Road and re-enter the farm at the Russell Cave entrance. Instead they can travel on an ATV from the dwelling along the border of the pasture closest to the barn and to the pasture gate located directly off the driveway to the barn. Where is the barn? Can I pull up? Thank you. Let's see if we can get it up here. Yeah, you can do that. Yeah. So we have a photo, if you want to look at, that just has a rough drawing of the access path we're talking about from the dwelling to hold on a second uh let's let's let's look at the overhead and we we may want to look at those pictures but let's look at the overhead first okay so the barn is here dad turn around and make sure yeah the barn's right here right there okay yeah this is the primary residence no yeah that's right this is the primary residence and this is the barn and the intended structure would be here. What is the structure off of Russell King? It's a church. This is the church. That's the pond. Sorry to interrupt you. That's okay. Go ahead. You can probably leave that up there. I don't think we need to go back. I'll let you know if so. Thank you. So it's, like I said, always been the intent for the farm manager to travel that way year round. Also, before we conclude, we'd like to note that we're in the small community of Loredale, where there are six houses that either adjoin or are within around 220 feet of our property that have an average setback of around 90 feet. So it feels like a very similar setback in that community. The last slide is just a conclusion slide, so we'll leave that off. That's fine. Oh, you're back up. Thank you. In conclusion, building a farm manager dwelling that uses the existing entry on Russell Cave would adversely affect public safety as well as the safety of the people that live on the farm or traveling between the farm and Russell Cave Road. building building the dwelling on Carrick however with a 100 foot setback as opposed to a 300 foot setback would not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning regulations and importantly allow us to maintain efficient use of our land we'd just like to I'd like to reiterate reiterate again on a 55 acre farm that's used to make a living farming thoroughbreds that's quite small and you need every inch of space you can get so for us constructing the house The farm manager dwelling at 200 versus 100 we lose that whole field and it's just not we wouldn't be able to do it So our request for this variance for the entry on Carrick Road to a farm manager dwelling as opposed to using the existing entry on Russell cave is Simply based on our concerns to preserve as much pasture land as possible in order to continue to efficiently run our small 55 acre partner property and on an important safety concern not at all a desire to develop develop the property as two separate residential uses thank you Thank You Miss Holmes any questions from the board I do thank you that was a great presentation could we put the overhead the aerial view back up and my question most specifically is how the farm is being used currently. So the area, whether it's 100 feet back or 300 feet back, what is going on in that area right now? Sure. So that field, let's just go around this field. Okay, so let's just actually start from the beginning. This is the main driveway. Here's the house. Here's the driveway up to the barn. And then you can see, so the property is this L-shaped, as Autumn pointed out earlier. This field where we're talking about and then this field back here are the two biggest fields on the farm. You can see that this one is a lot bigger than this one. So that's why this has been chosen to build the house. We can lose the least amount of land as possible. It's the biggest field and still have pretty much full function of that field whereas if we did it on the next biggest one it's just not big enough. It wouldn't work. So what happens here as well as on any of the So in these two big fields, depending on the time of year, so mares and foals, mom horses with their babies will go out there together. And then when the babies are about six months old, they get weaned and they get turned out together in a group in that field. And then when they're yearlings, which is a year old, they'll go out together in that field. And then in some parts of the year, barren mares who aren't pregnant will graze there by themselves or in a group or pregnant mares will graze there by themselves as a group. It just depends on the time of year, but it's always a herd of one particular type of horses. And then all the other small paddocks are used for individual horse turnout or smaller groups of horses. Do you want to add anything to that, Dad? Does that answer your question? Is that okay? The only other question kind of aligned to the staff's concern is the way that you're using the ATV now. I think that really answers that question. However, their concern is probably, you know, what if you don't own the farm one day, then do we have two separate entrances? So is there an option that would allow you to, even if it were with the setback, to allow them to connect, you know, without leaving the property, regardless to what the setback is? Is there a way to connect them? Is it just that's the issue of having too much pavement is the concern? Yeah, I mean, we would do a path, but it wouldn't be pavement because you'd have to be able to use it while the horses are in the field. The horses are used to the ATVs going through the fields. It's how we feed them. You go and check on them with the ATVs. So what would happen is to go from the dwelling, which would be here. Over here, there's a little path you can go. There's a little gap in between the pond and the edge of this field here. Go through there on the ATV. All along here, like I said, without any sort of like it would just be the grass path because we'd still need the horses to be out in that field and I think that would be you have several issues one impervious surface and two fire safety those trucks have to be able to ride on something you know for example you could drive your pickup from the back of that house to the other pastures but emergency services would not accept that so you have to have a page or driveway to reach somehow reach the house which would be the driveway right yes yeah yeah in autumn is there there's no rear setback issue is there there is a rear yard requirement but that's not an issue in the proposed location okay how many feet is that I believe it's 25 You know, I'll give my quick thoughts. I don't know how the board will. Obviously, it's challenging for us, I think, to, when there's no special circumstance, which you debated that there is on your end, if that's not accepted, you know, the logical place for me would be to off kind of the existing road because then you can, you know, you save the money on, and I'm sure you've thought of this, but, you know, I'm just thinking off the top of my head, you've saved the money on the access probably a little closer to the barn if it's going to be an employee type of unit or residential unit. So that's just my thoughts. So off of Russell Cave? Well, I think you would keep the existing driveway without having, because that's a huge cost, obviously, adding 300 feet of pavement. So you have existing pavement that comes in from Russell Cave past the house back to the barn. Miss Holmes, put your pointer on the barn. Now move towards Russell Cave. Stop. Nope. Keep going back towards the barn. Keep going. There we go. I think that's where Chad's talking. Yeah, or a little closer to the barn if you could, but I mean, I think, I know you'd maybe not want residents coming by the main residence, but since it's a farm entrance anyway. But I think the 300 foot would be triggered, would it not, Autumn? On the rear? You would have to be 300 feet from Russell Cave Row. 25 feet. Oh, it's 25 feet. It's 25 feet from the other property lines. It wouldn't be feasible to do a house here. There's a gate right here, and that's where the horses go in and out of that field. There's just no way you could turn them out right to a house. It's just a safety hazard for the horses and for the staff. This is a highly trafficked area right here on this portion of the drive. There's a gate here and a gate here to these two fields. With kids playing in a front yard, it's just not on our farm. It's not a feasible. I completely understand what you're saying about using less blacktop and yes we definitely have thought of that but we've well my parents have spent months thinking about whether to do this or not they need a farm manager they're nearing their retirement they have a beautiful 1800s home that is their forever home on this farm but they don't want to sell the farm they want to continue to they want to retire from the hands-on aspect to continue the bloodstock operations so they need a farm manager, but you have to weigh that with the cost of it, obviously, with the, most importantly to them, the pasture land that's going to be used on such a small farm doing that. So they put a ton of thought into where to best do that and have landed on right here. Does your farm have any floodplain or anything else? Not that I'm aware of, no. Oh, too bad. That would have narrowed some areas where you could build. Get your hose. Would the farm manager's dwelling be fenced off from the pasture land for the horses? You're going to build a fence? Yes. You propose to build a fence down both sides of the blacktop and around the house and back out again? Yes. Definitely. Definitely. And that's why we'd like to you know that's the reason at its core is we'd like to avoid building extra blacktop extra fencing for basically a giant obstacle for the horses. More fencing to run through. Horses notoriously get spooked and run through fences. So if we could streamline, if the boundary goes like that rather than like that. I don't know if you could make any sense of that laser movement. But for the safety of the horses, that's really, and the use of the farm is really what we're after. Yeah, I do. I mean, I tend to agree that it is somewhat a unique circumstance in that you don't want to sit the building right in the middle of where you want the horses to go. I know it seems like a lot of space. I get that, too. That was my thought initially. Like, you had all that acreage, just put it somewhere else. But I see what you mean as to. And 55 acres, you know, seems like a lot, but for a horse farm with 30 horses on it, 30-odd at any time, it's a really small farm. So that's why this is such a huge importance. Like I said, they've had to weigh that with the necessity to continue to live on that farm, operate that farm, but to retire from the day-to-day activities, build the house, but then you have to weigh losing the pasture land. so it's definitely been a weighted process for my parents as well okay this is just out of curiosity more than anything but you said you spoke with miss overman has pdr pre-signed off on this i know it's a chicken and egg situation but um she seemed to think there wouldn't be any problem dad's spoken with her so maybe i'll let him since there's only Come up to the podium if you would. She didn't think it would be a problem just because there's only one homestead or one residence. So, and she looked at the site, we went over everything with her and they seemed to be totally on board with it. Yeah, she said she didn't imagine there being a problem. Right. and she has been there they walked out to the field together and looked at the proposed site any other questions for the applicant or for staff we need to resolve this matter so we can get on with the two remaining cases i'll entertain a motion if somebody has a motion i guess my question more specifically was is would we need some type of findings in the event that we're not in total alignment with staff looking at tracy's behind you yes we would need findings and conditions ms carter i'm sympathetic with the applicant would it be helpful for us to take a 10 or 15 minute break to consider the board's options on this application let's do that we will stand in recess until Five minutes to three. Thank you. minutes to figure something out so are there any other questions of the applicant or staff before we proceed hearing none i'll entertain a motion i move for approval of pln boa 21-49 tony and susan holmes request for a variance to reduce a minimum required front yard setback from 300 feet to 100 feet in order to construct a farm employee dwelling unit in agricultural rural zone on property located at 6721 russell cave road based on the following findings one there are special circumstances due to the 55 acre size of the farm and the need to preserve adequate pasture land for the safety and grazing acreage of thoroughbred horses two due to the fact that this 55 acre farm also has a pdr conservation easement on the property limiting impervious surface and preserving pasture land is a special circumstance on this property required and encouraged by the pdr restrictions and three granting of this variance does not circumvent the zoning ordinances due to the special circumstances on the 55 acre subject property at 6721 russell cave road also subject to the following conditions. One, construction of the FEDU shall be done in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. Two, all necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from the divisions of planning, building inspection, and traffic and engineering. And three, all construction must be approved by the Rural Land Management Board. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Clark seconds. All those eligible, please record your vote electronically. The motion carries. Your application is approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Okay, we lost one member of the board, but we still have a quorum. Mr. Clendenin, did you and your opposition work out any compromise or do we have to have a hearing? Come up to the podium if you would. Sorry, I believe we worked out an agreement, Mr. Chairman. Oh, good. So tell us what it is. Okay, well, probably best first, I'm here with Mr. Boone. He is a member of Judy Ray, and Mr. Trevisano is our sound engineer on the project, so we brought them just in case. Our agreement is this. We agree first with the five staff conditions as recommended by Ms. Gutterweiss. Do you have my phone? Okay. I can this will help me if you don't mind mr. chairman okay these are the recommended staff conditions most of these were part of also conditions that were requested by mr. Bryce's client mr. Hodge who's a a neighbor on the surrounding property. They wanted these additional conditions that we were willing to agree to, which is we're limiting, in addition to the staff conditions, we'll limit the hours for the permit from 5P to 9P. All trees having a caliper of 4 inches or more that are located along or adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the property shall be preserved except for any dead, damaged, or diseased trees. There is a group of trees along a fence line that are fairly large, and we've agreed to make sure that we maintain and preserve those. And another condition that my client's willing to agree to is that this permit be specific to Judy Ray or Boondogs. Boondogs is the owner of the business. Judy Ray is the owner of the property. Now, I'm sure these are conditions and Mr. Bryce can verify those if we agree to that. These ladies are neighbors of Mr. Boone's out there at the property. They had two specific conditions. The main one was the sound. And after some explanation from our sound engineer and listening to their concerns, I think that if we look at number four and number five, that addresses their concerns, that we're agreeing to be in compliance with the noise ordinance, and that we're going to have the amplification located right approximately on the stage area it's facing downward and our sound engineer has done everything that we possibly can do to reduce the noise so that it does not go beyond to any great extent beyond the property limits this is for the outdoor entertainment it'll be piped into the building and then projected downward in a way where people who are at the venue outdoors can hear it very well but beyond that it really doesn't carry mr trevisano can come up and explain that to you better than i could if you if you'd like to hear from him their additional concern and we'll have to hand write this I suppose is about the parking we have to as part of the staff conditions we have to pave the existing parking because right now it is some pavement and some gravel We're going to have to have it paved and striped and measured out in accordance with the zoning ordinance. And I think based on my count, we would need to have 41 spaces in order to conform to B1. I think based on what I'm seeing is we have room for around 44 or 45 spaces there once this gets paved out. But we'll have to get a sign off from traffic engineering. In order to minimize parking off the premises where people who are just doing it, parking where they shouldn't be, we've agreed to have an agreement with a church that is located across the road. staff that will be limited to staff and people who are employed by the operation will park there on outdoor entertainment days if you will and then my client has agreed to limit the number of cars and patrons to the available spaces on his property as opposed to people parking across the street and fields and things like that apparently that's a concern and has been an issue out there mr clendon for that last one i think we'll need to talk with possibly staff and the only reason being is we want to make sure whatever conditions we approve can be verifiable by code enforcement when they come out to make sure there's compliance and that's one in which it can be very difficult to enforce. I'm agreeable to whatever you guys are agreeable with vis-a-vis the opponents. That's one concern I would have on that last issue. We may need to have a break to hammer that one out if that's going to be a condition added. Is that an additional condition? That's an additional condition that we've agreed to is to limit the parking plus there is some an additional request that we've agreed to to place some parking cones to limit people from being able to go across the the street the issue is is that it's Jack's Creek Pike it's the corner this property is located in Jack's Creek Pike and Old Richmond Road. It's a very busy intersection and we want to, and I think these ladies have a legitimate concern we don't want to add to the traffic issue out there. If we're attracting a big crowd and having parking issues and it's an entertainment venue and a restaurant, we don't want to create a bigger problem than is already there. So your concern, Mr. Gross, is how how we enforce the staffing auxiliary parking agreement. Okay. And only because I think, and Autumn, you can speak to this. I mean, because I think generally when we have these things, they're usually kind of measured that are easy, and you either violate it or not. But I'll let Autumn, if you don't mind chiming in on some of these conditions. I have a couple of concerns about about adding a parking condition because parking is not allowed as a use on any of the agriculturally zoned property so I'm not sure if this is a situation I'm not sure where this additional parking is occurring if it's something your client has an agreement with an adjacent landowner if they own additional property outside of the boondogs property where they're letting people park currently I'm not really sure exactly exactly where this issue is coming from, I guess. And then my second concern is that if there is offsite parking, we need to be sure that it's occurring in a location where it can occur in accordance with the zoning ordinance. And you mentioned like putting cones up and I don't know if we're talking about putting cones up on your property or if we're putting. The cones would be on the Judy Ray property. The if we had a reciprocal party of parking agreement and We do have an agreement in general, in theory. We've asked the property owner for permission to do that. It is a church that is existing. I believe the church is in an existing B1 zone. I believe that it is. So it would be a reciprocal agreement with that church. Here's a thought. does the existing parking comply with the requirements of the ordinance? We are adding the condition that some of the existing parking has been paved, but not all of it. I'm not really sure how that occurred during the initial permitting process. Mr. Clendon may be able to speak to that. It may be that enough required parking spaces were paved, but they do have additional parking areas that are currently gravel. But since they're asking for this intensification of the use, staff is recommending the condition that the additional gravel parking be paved um any parking beyond that um i don't think there's room on this site to add any parking um well i think i mean in in condition number two you've got to get permission from traffic engineering to i mean you got to get their approval in any event so i'm comfortable with with entrusting it to traffic engineering to have you all if you comply with their request that's sufficient. I don't think we need to get beyond your private agreement with the church across the street to park your staff. I mean I think that's up to you. I don't think that needs to be a part of this application but if you work out an agreement with church that's fine. But I don't think if as long as you meet the minimum requirements and traffic engineering can determine that then we don't need to concern ourselves with your additional parking issue now I do want to hear from the opposition mr. Bryce are you representing the opposition or is there take your mask off so we can hear you because I can't I'm not sorry John sorry mr. chairman I only represent Jim Hodge and Mary Ann Delaney and we proposed a set of additional conditions as Mr. Clint Denon has indicated they've agreed to incorporate those in final approval but I don't represent anyone else okay all right thank you real quick mr. Bryce which two new ones that are the two that it's the three that I'm Chris's. I actually have a list that incorporates all of the conditions. Okay, we can put them up on the screen. Yeah. Well, I don't have a... No, no, John, they can. Oh, you can? Yeah, they can, yes. Okay. Okay. Yeah. We still keep the technology for our more senior. Well, you know. All right, barristers. Yeah, essentially it was number four, having the entertainment only between the hours of 5 and 9 p.m. Number six, all trees, the tree requirement, that the trees be maintained and removed only if they are damaged or diseased. And then the last one, to make it private to Judy Ray and to Boondogs, LLC. And if they cease to operate the business or cease to own the property, then the conditional permit expires. Mr. Bryce, I have a question about seven. This is Judy Ray or Boone cease to own the property, or should? What if Boone Dogs closes and Judy Ray brings in somebody else? They need to come back? They need to come back, yes. Yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bryce. is there I see one lady who is in the opposition do you wish to speak to us? Tell us who you are My name is Brenda Addington and I live at 6020 Old Richmond Road. I'm the property that is just past the Boondogs place and the parking issue that we were speaking to is that our concern is that we have live music and we've talked about the noise issue. I think we're in agreement as long as the noise issue is remedied, we're okay. But the parking issue, the business being generated from all this is an expansion of their business. And so we feel like the parking needs to be confined to the Boondogs property and not other properties. So when we were talking about this, our agreement was is that if they could secure permission from the Baptist church that is across the street, their employees could park there and the people who are doing shows or whatever could use that parking space if they have a reciprocity agreement. And then that would reserve their parking that is already there for the patrons of their business. Our issue is that they need to confine their business to the property that they have, not the adjacent properties. that's been the issue and like the cones that we were talking about the Alami property that is on Jack's Creek right before you get to boondocks the problem has been the parking there that people have just kind of parked over there there's nobody on that property and they're just using that and it's a AR zone it is not be it is not B2 or B1 I can't remember all those but they have been parking there and it creates a traffic hazard with that entrance being right there at jack's creek we're just worried that there will be some accidents congestion people coming across the street so again the remedy for that was having the staff park across the street and then that would free up more parking so they could contain their business to their property thank you miss haddington i think you explained it very well i appreciate that so autumn what about that my concern with that is that if there's parking that's happening on someone else's property that should not be happening um yeah i don't know if if those property owners have concerns that that that parking is occurring they could perhaps work something out with boondogs to establish a sign or something like that but i don't think that we can place a condition on someone else's property if that property owner is not here today you know to say that they're not going to allow that parking to occur yeah i agree uh it sounds like uh it sounds like you have an agreement and you have a good idea about getting permission from the church for parking staff off the property that uh that is uh we we are on the record today and so if that is the intent and we understand that it is we think that's a good idea but i'm not sure that it needs to be a part of the uh conditions i think the seven conditions that we've got are sufficient to take care of it And there's a question from the audience. I'm Diana Hagerty. I live down Jack's Creek Pike. I come out Jack's Creek Pike to Old Richmond Road all the time. I'm sorry, what? Tell me your name again. Diana Hagerty. Anyway, we live down Jack's Creek Pike. Jack's Creek Pike and Old Richmond Road is a very congested, very busy intersection. It's a bypass. It's on the road for the bypass. People go to 75 there all the time from Nicholasville. Getting out of Jack's Creek Pike, whose entrance is right next door to Boondog's entrance, is very tricky. You have to sit there for a long time to decide who's turning in where. There's already been multiple wrecks missed there. Our concern is that people all the time were pulling off the side of the road, not even parking on people's properties, just pulling off the road and straddling the road so that you couldn't even turn down Jack's Creek Pike because they were parked along the roadside and somebody coming out of Jack's Creek Pike is straddling the middle line and you're stuck out on Old Richmond, not able to turn in. We love having the restaurant there. We all eat there. But it's a very busy place. A lot of times there's overflow because there's not a big parking lot. And so that's when we came to the agreement that if the church, who in the past has said they were possibly open to people parking over there, they might allow that well then you've got five to nine music it gets dark people are drinking it's a full bar we didn't want people trying to walk across the road of old richmond road where people are going 65 you know it's just it's a very congested very tricky intersection and there's going to be a massive wreck there at some point if something doesn't get done so that's why i suggested putting cones along their fence line so people cannot just pull off the road because when they pull off the road they can't get all the way off the road and if you've got people on either side of the road pulling off there's nowhere for people to get in and out of jocks creek pike i know there's no there's no traffic light there there's nothing is there a yellow light or anything like that there's nothing just an intersection it would be helpful if there was it would be wouldn't it? Is there a curve in Old Richmond Road at that intersection? I can't remember. A curve? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's our concern. Yeah. And it's a proper concern, I think. I'm not sure. It may be something that traffic engineering can address when the applicant meets with traffic engineering to discuss their parking issue and ingress and egress from the property and things like that, perhaps that can be a traffic, they're the experts, we're not. So perhaps traffic engineering can assist with alleviating some of the concerns about that excess parking and parking off the street. Cones might be a good idea. They may have other suggestions that might be better. I don't know. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Haggerty. Mr. Chair, I'd like to express my concern about exactly that. And I'd like to ask, if somebody could answer the question, what kind of live entertainment? I think that's a key because if it's, you know, minimal, a DJ playing, or if it's a major act that comes into this location, I would be very concerned about the kind of traffic and people, particularly for people parking across the street at the Baptist Church, crossing the street on a busy road like Richmond Road is. I have some concerns. And so can somebody tell me what kind of entertainment we're talking about? Because I think that makes a difference. Yes, sir. What I think is in mind is small acoustic type bands, two, three, at the most four people playing genres of music might be some classic rock, some blues, country, bluegrass, that type of stuff. It's not going to be a live Aerosmith rock show or anything like that, or lights or anything like that, but some pretty, I don't want to say subdued or boring, but stuff that you'd find at an indoor entertainment venue that might have live music, it would be similar. It would just be outdoors with the music piped into the indoor structure and then made available for people outside where the deal is, where the outside portion of the property is, where they sit at picnic tables. Does that help? Yeah, you have a way to control the crowd of how many people can be there? well again the way that the crowd can be controlled is this and this has been a topic of discussion here there's only so many parking spaces okay and I think our compromise about using the church parking lot with the agreement for staff and operations people to park there based on again just a preliminary in my head looking at it we may be able to get 45 maybe 50 spaces and and cars you know apparently I'm what I'm hearing is at times there have been people who parked on the road or next to the road and things like that different that you know we're not going to permit that I've spoken to my client about that people can't just trespass and park their cars wherever they want so it will be controlled once this once the church parking lot spaces have been taken with staff and then once all of the other parking places have been taken by patrons and customers that'll be it so I mean they'll I've talked with my client that will be supervised by the staff there there won't be people and and then And if they have to, unfortunately, they'll have to call the police if people insist on parking cars where they can't park. Yeah, that was my question. That's really the only assurance we can give. Yeah, who's going to enforce that, I guess, would be my other question. Well, I guess the urban county government police would have to. I don't think the police are going to be there to enforce that. Somebody else is going to have to do that. The restaurant owner and his staff will have to enforce it as best they can, and they'll have to involve the police if necessary. All right. Thank you, sir. I hope that that's not necessary ever, but that's what it would come to. Any other questions I can answer? Thank you, Mr. Clendenin. Any other questions from the board to anybody about this application? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'm not making the motion. I'm asking the question about the additional conditions. So we have five previously listed, and we're going to put the other couple up here because they had several. I feel like I should put those back up. Do you have those in writing? if you do we probably need to have a copy so we can or that's yeah John bring that up and we can get it a little bit clearer Go ahead. Oh, you want me to make a motion? Sure. Okay. I guess I'm... I hereby approve PLN BOA 2152 Judy Ray LLC's request for conditional use for live outdoor entertainment in a neighborhood business B1 zone property located at 5902 Old Richmond Road based upon the staff report and the testimony we heard today and subject to the five conditions set forth in our report plus numbers 4, 6, and 7 as shown on the screen. So moved. Mr. Gross moves to approve the application. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Carter seconds. All those wishing to vote indicate your vote electronically. The motion carries. Good luck with your project. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on our dot the last item on our docket is PLN VOA 21-53 Candace and John Setzer. The staff has recommended disapproval and so we will hear from Ms. Midyatt. application is a variance to reduce the required side street side yard from 30 feet to 6 feet in order to construct an in-ground swimming pool in a single family residential R1D zone at 857 Sunny Slope Trace that property is located generally southeast of the intersection of Manowar and Boston Road at the intersection of Holly Berry Lane and Sunny Slope Trace so we've got Sunny Slope here Holly here and this is the subject property that we're looking at right here it is a corner lot it's just under a quarter of an acre and contains a single-family dwelling unit with an attached garage the applicants would like to install an 18 foot by 32 foot in ground swimming pool and they do plan to install a six-foot privacy fence to enclose the pool as you can see from their site plan here let's see the applicants have asserted that they believe the pool should not harm the public health safety or welfare since it will be six feet from the sidewalk and will not be accessible except through a locked and gated fence however swimming pools are considered structures and do have to meet the setback requirements for a structure so that is why the swimming pool would have to be located 30 feet from the property line in this instance because that is the required side street side yard for any structure Additionally, the Kentucky Residential Building Code does require that swimming pools not encroach into any front or side yard required by the governing zoning laws, and that any pool cannot be located less than 10 feet from a street property line unless the rules of the jurisdiction say otherwise. However, the intent is that the public health and safety aspect, that a pool should be at least 10 feet from a public right-of-way. so this photo here just shows the side street side yard of the property so we're looking at at the property right here and they do have a back deck and stairs here so this is the yard situation so staff is recommending disapproval of this application because there do not appear to be special circumstances that are unique to this property that justify the need for the variance this lot is a very typical corner lot it's similar to other lots in the vicinity it's a typical rectangular shape there's not any unique characteristics that make it an unusual a lot that really justify the need for the variance staff has concerns that granting this variance could negatively affect the public health safety or welfare because it is closer than 10 feet to the public right-of-way and does not comply with the Kentucky residential building code this board cannot vary the Kentucky residential building code and then finally we recommend disapproval because disapproval the variance will not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land or create an unnecessary hardship swimming pools can be customized and it's possible that the applicant could construct a smaller swimming pool that would not require a variance or could require a lesser variance so for those reasons we are recommending disapproval today I'm happy to answer any questions that you have any questions thank you miss mid yet we will we can hear from the applicant mr and mrs setzer come on up and Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon. I'm John. It's my wife, Candace. Hi. How do you? Welcome. Thank you. We have some pictures to kind of better explain the property. The aerial view, it does show the lot. It is a typical rectangular lot. as Autumn mentioned. There's a couple other things that we feel make the property a little bit unique in that we wouldn't otherwise be able to fit a pool. If you look at the picture on the screen now, when we moved in we had to replace the deck. It was not in good shape and we did add a small section to the deck at that time over four years ago now, almost five years ago. And so it It did, at that time, reduce the size of our backyard a little bit in order to be able to build a pool. However, just a few feet off the deck, I think it's 14 foot from the backside of the property line, there's a sanitary easement there. So we are having to work around that. We understand that. We've checked into that. And so that does limit where in the yard we are able to place the pool. so the plan is to come three feet off the back side of the house three feet off the side of the deck and then we'll get as close to the easement as allowed so we're gonna be very constrained there on where we can put that how deep is that easement yeah I think it's 14 14 okay yeah and the next item there is the grade change if you look at the property from the front you don't realize the it has a walkout basement because that side yard is very flat. However, if you see the second picture there listed, it's got quite a slope on that side of the yard. We really don't use that part of the yard very much currently because it is so sloped. We have a four-year-old and a seven-year-old and it's just we play out front, we play in the field across the street, we we do throw ball on the side of the house but we don't use the backyard as much because of the grade change that occurs right there under that square part of the deck if you notice right here there's actually three windows right there as well underneath the deck so we do have to be and then just past the three windows is a door so in order to move the pool essentially down in the yard maybe take part of the deck off it would be it really wouldn't be an option for us so where we're looking to place the pool is the only place in the yard essentially that we'd be able to do that we are going to add fencing we don't have any fencing right now we've already talked to the fencing building inspector I guess they're not building inspector permit permit group they've talked to us about the proper spring-loaded gate system that we would need and the locking and that sort of thing so we would be adding a six foot privacy fence we are our 1d zoned lot so it would be three feet off of the sidewalk as per the requirements and the proposed what we're proposing here is the pool would have three foot of concrete between the fence and the edge of the pool so it would be six foot from the sidewalk and essentially about 16 feet from the roadway so there are a couple trees here in the roadway as well there's one right here and there's a tree right here as well that could potentially guard the pool i guess a little bit per se from traffic flow in that event or anything like that so as far as that goes we feel like we are off of the roadway enough to not harm anyone or cause any negative effect on public health in the area anything you want to add on that? I don't want to. Okay. And then here are the pool size. I know the committee recommended that we maybe resize the pool. Like I mentioned, we are on a steep grade here. If we did bring it in, it would be a 10 by 18 pool. It would probably cost almost as much as what we're going to be spending anyways on the pool size pool. To do it, we would still need a retaining wall based on the slope of the yard. it really wouldn't be worth it to us to build a pool 10 by 18 feet. It's just a super small pool. So we are asking for this variance to allow us to have more usable space. This would essentially break our backyard into two separate areas. You would have the pool area, which would be flat, and then you would have some steps down into the other section of the yard, which would also be fairly flat as well. So reducing the pool size would not make a lot of sense for us, and it wouldn't really be feasible to do. And then the last one, we actually found a pool here in Lexington that has done this, and this is essentially what we're looking to do. It does look like their fence goes all the way up to the sidewalk as opposed to the setback, but this is what we're proposing to the committee is to have the pool just set off the side of the house a little bit so that we can fully utilize our backyard and our side yard as well. We also have a letter from the HOA president and board. Because we did run this by them to make sure we We have a new board in our subdivision and we ran all this by them, explained the situation to make sure there was no issues on their part and they actually wrote a letter in favor of the project as well that it would help the area. I have some additional copies. We have several copies. There should be enough for everyone. Thank you. I'm kind of interested in the similar property that they've got up on the screen 4701 Carnita Woods Way. Is staff familiar with this piece of property? I'm not familiar with this property, so I cannot speak to whether or not this was permitted. I know that it did not receive a variance in the last five years, but that's all I can speak to. I did look up the property on the PVA, and it was built in 1998. I'm not sure when the pool was constructed, but the house was built in 1998. Have you all had an engineer or a contractor talk to you about building this pool? What's the? We reached out to a pool company. They are also a landscaping company, and we've gotten quotes from them and talked to them. They've talked to us a lot, obviously, about the retaining wall and some of those requirements and so forth, but a lot of people don't really want to move forward until you get approval from here, which I understand. Any questions to the setters? We also, as you all probably already know, we sent out letters to everyone within 200 feet of air property. and all the responses that we have gotten from our neighbors is you know they're perfectly fine with it and they would be happy to see us do that because it would increase the value of their property as well the staff has recommended disapproval of this we've heard their reasons and I I usually like to have a good, strong reason to go against staff's recommendation. I'm not really persuaded that there are special circumstances that justify granting this variance at the distance that's requested. Have you all talked with staff about some kind of compromise distance, a lesser reduction to the side yard variance? We have not. It might help you to do that, quite frankly, because I'm not sure that the, and I can only speak for myself, but i i have a sense i have an innate sense of what the board uh prefers and it might be helpful for you all to take some time to discuss with staff other options rather than the request for the six foot uh reduction because i'm not sure that that i'm not sure that that's going to get passed the board and if it and if your application fails then you can't come back with an additional you can't come back with the same application for a year so it might behoove you if you think it would be helpful to discuss with staff if there are any other if there if there's any other setback that might accommodate you to build a pool that would be acceptable with the staff and I can't speak for staff either I can't I can neither speak for the staff or the board but that's my suggestion to you and if that and if it if you agree to that then we would have to continue this hearing to a later date to hear some compromise that you all might come up with between now and then but i have a sense that your application will not be approved if you require us to go to a vote today okay is there any other questions from anyone on the board that we have any other questions or follow up on miss whitman has a comment yes i well i have a question i'm looking at the picture of your house and do you have a patio and a deck there it looks like there's two different so what's on the back of the house on the back here let me get this view here it's a little bit bigger so this is a deck and this is actually there's a little tiny step up right here onto another section of the deck so it's just an addition onto the original deck that was on the house we just added a small section because once again in that section of the yard it is extremely sloped and we knew we wouldn't be using the yard as much when we were replacing the original deck that was on the house we decided to expand it a little bit to give us more room there's a patio underneath the original section so under this square right here there's a patio underneath a poured patio poured concrete patio so it's the slope of your yard that's keeping you from moving the pool yes from from the corner of the house here to the edge of this deck I think it goes an entire level you have a photo yeah it's a pretty steep slope there because on the side it doesn't even look like we have a basement if you're coming from the looking from the front but on the back this middle section right here it actually has three windows right there in the house that you can see out so it's a pretty drastic change in the grade from just right here to right here. Well, if you moved it over, part of that pool would be actually above ground, I guess. Yeah, possibly. Part of it would be below ground, part of it would be above ground. Yeah. Also the slope. Okay. Yeah. And our plan is to essentially make the pool in this area here all one level, and then we would have a retaining wall that would come out right here that would section the yard, the pool section and then the flat section there at the bottom. Which you still could do if you moved your pool over into that area and had your retaining wall. You could level that out. We would have to remove part of the deck. We would have to remove this whole section of the deck and possibly even a little more to fit in there, more than likely. and it would it would block the windows here as well more than likely to I guess with the windows there I would say being a safety concern with you know we have two small children so we are obviously very worried about the safety piece of it too so we're not trying to do anything there's basement windows under the deck there is the three windows right here there's three similar windows right here underneath as well yeah so the pool will be built on the level of the ground floor not the basement floor yes it would say just a little bit lower than the first level of the house but yes it would be higher up and then have the retaining wall and steps leading down so so you'd fill up you'd fill in some of the slope yes yes is there any way you could you could make up an L there that would push push it back toward the house some and then then it rather than a rectangle it would like be an L shaped and we you'd have a longer section that that goes goes behind the deck and fill in that part I mean I'm just I'm just thinking just thinking how can we help you our initial thought and the L shape pool was actually something that we had first considered and our initial thought was to bring it from here and wrap around and not have to go as far out but to be quite frank it's a lot more expensive to do an l-shaped pool there's a lot more and you're not going to be able to get that wide there and it's going to be pretty shallow you were talking about coming here and going this way correct i was thinking about going behind the deck there's an easement there and we can't okay okay it's hard to swim laps in an l-shaped and I need laughs yeah yeah we're a little landlocked there on on options in order to get a decent size pool in be able to enjoy so yeah my my comment is I can't support the application as presented and so I think that if you want a pool and not every yard in lexington can have a pool quite frankly but if you want a pool I think it will have to be something different than what this application is what that might be is between you and whoever and perhaps the staff so we can I mean we can take this to a vote now and see how it goes or you can ask for a continuance of the hearing to sometime when you work out a different application that's your choice what would you like we will work with the staff and see if we can come to some sort of agreement upon a better setback and okay so would you like to continue this case to a future date yes please sorry yes October 11th is our next hearing date would that you think that would give you enough time that's yes okay that's a calendar month away but maybe not 30 days completely but yeah we will okay well we will yeah entertain a motion I move that we continue this case BLM BOA 20-53 until our next meeting which will be held October 11th, 2021 at 1 30 p.m. And one thing I will say is do we have any indication on whether we think we will continue to be in person given the new state law that's coming to effect? Autumn? I really can't predict at this point. I don't think what we will be doing. As far as I know, we are continuing to meet in person, but that... Okay. So for now, we'll be here. And if it changes the Zoom, you'll get notice of that. thank you all thanks all right motion to continue has been made we need a second a second thank you miss Whitman indicate your votes electronically staff I mean board members the okay this matter is continued to the October hearing thank you we'll see you then and the last item on our docket is I'm gonna call them one time. Courser Thoroughbreds? We have not heard from Courser Thoroughbreds. PLNBOA 2138. Autumn, have you had any? Donna just stepped out and gave them a call a little while ago and we were unable to get an answer. I remember last time, last month, they came in, they didn't know that. They did, yeah. And then there was a potential buyer who was upset, I believe. Right. This one, there was opposition here last time from the neighboring property. They had plans to construct a house. My understanding, I received a phone call shortly after that meeting that they had talked over with the applicant and that the opposition may be withdrawn, but I never heard anything back from either of those parties, so I don't know if that is true or not. And the applicant is obviously not present today, so I'm not sure if they wish to continue with their application or not. So I guess the best thing to do would probably be to go ahead and continue that again to next month, and we'll continue to try to reach out to them. Okay. There we are. Sorry. I'll say with the postponement, we don't need to do anything. That's my phone, yeah. Do we? I think we postponed it from last time. Did we postpone it last time, or did we continue it last time? I think we heard some testimony last time, so I think it was a continuance. Continuance. So we would need to continue it again. So we need a motion to continue it again. Mr. Chair, I move that we continue PLN VOA 2138 Corsair Thoroughbreds LLC related to 4422 Bryan Station Road until next month at our regular meeting on October 11th. Thank you, Mr. Gross. No, second. And Mr. Clark seconds, so register your vote. All right, that matter has continued to October. So that concludes the call of the docket. Are there any matters the staff wishes to bring? I do have one staff item. There was a conditional use application from 2017 PLNBOA 17-00076, conditional use permit for Continental Properties Company, Inc. This was for a temporary leasing trailer for an apartment complex. that conditional use was one of the conditions was that it shall be in place for no more than 180 days beginning approximately three months prior to completion of the clubhouse and ending within 14 days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the clubhouse. That trailer was removed in accordance with that condition and the other conditions here however that property owner would like to have that certificate of land use restriction released and they have drawn up a document that our legal department has taken a look at and is agreeable with I think if you all are agreeable with releasing that land use restriction we would be able to sign that document today and Tracy may be able to explain that a little bit better than I just did yeah I'm with releasing it but this is one thing as the members of the board know I'm a an active real estate attorney in town and it would be nice if we had a process because a lot of times i get a title examination and i have one currently that has like five old condition use permits that are no longer applicable and it'd be nice if we we did have as a city a process of just make a submission give us a check we'll review it and then to have approval for releases so i'm interested in here miss wade and autumn i'm supportive of us doing that um you're correct we don't really have a process and lots of times and particularly in this circumstance where the permit the conditional use permit itself says that it's going to terminate in 180 days we talked to this landowner about you don't really you know you don't really need it to be released because technically it's not valid after the 180 days but they were rather insistent because they just didn't want this land use restriction to remain in the title on the property. So we looked, we went back through our records, we went back through some different, as much as we could find, and we couldn't find any particular indication, any recent time where we had done this. So what we asked them, because I think they are trying to retain this for some type of financing situation, was to provide us what they believed that they needed in order to accommodate their interest because, you know, we could draft something, but if it's not what they're really needing in terms of whatever they're doing. And they provided this, and it's a pretty standard release. I mean, it's going to get filed in the clerk's office. It'll be in the chain of title. It'll just alert anyone who, well, first off, they would have to be looking at these. As you know, every title attorney doesn't, but if you did look at it, you would have already seen that it had expired, but there will also be this additional document in there. It is something we could explore or potentially use. We don't have the requests very often, but I guess there are circumstances where financing institutions or other entities that really need some kind of release of these things in order to move forward with whatever they're trying to do on the property. What I see in the market is usually it's a national lender, potentially, or maybe a national investor, and they generally want everything released, and then we've got to get on the phone, and then we talk with them, and then by the time it's all said and done, thousands of dollars have been spent trying to convince people that we don't need to do this. and so it would be nice if we had a process that you know the city could you know for a fee or however um i know that a lot of you know practitioners would utilize that if the city had some kind of process for it we we can certainly look at that if if you all were you all would have to adopt it if we were going to do it and um you know what i what i told autumn when they continued to contact her and then they contacted me was that you know i you all would have to vote to do this today because you know if we're going to issue a release of a permit that you all put in place then we're going to have to have your all's approval to do that um and that's why she attached the restriction so you could see what what you're releasing but i mean effectively it's already not valid anymore, but this, I guess, will serve their purpose. Yeah, and I think I'm going to vote for it today, but it seems to me to be something that's even ministerial. Could we delegate that to the staff in the future? Yeah, that was going to be my recommendation. I'm not sure that we, if it's something that expires of its own accord, then we're no longer involved. It seems like it does seem like a ministerial function. I think it could be a ministerial function, but we probably should adopt some type of policy or otherwise because there may be. Well, that's what I mean. We can adopt a policy that delegates the ministerial nature of it. Because there may be instances where it's not as straightforward as this and they're trying to get a release and we would want you all to act on it. Like I said, right now I've got a property. Ms. Whitman's working on it with me. We've got three or four of these that I know they've expired. I'm comfortable with it. But it'd be nice if there was a way for me to get them released because then if the property's ever sold in the future, like I said, it is a cloud on a title that has to be explained the way each time you sell or refinance the property. Yeah, we can certainly look at that if you'd like for us to. I think that'd be helpful. Thank you, Tracy. What's the name of the company again and the number of the? Case number. Case number. um the well i'm gonna let autumn tell you because i think it's plnboa 17-00076 continental properties company inc um you may make a motion yeah mr glover um i hereby move based upon uh the testimony of staff and its recommendations and uh miss jones in relation to the case that she just read that we approve a member of staff or the law department or whomever else they need to sign on our behalf to release that old lane use restriction motions made by mr gross is there a second ms carter seconds all in favor signify your vote electronically motion carries so we will hear back from you I think when you have a policy to present to us thank you are there any any other matters to be presented from the board members to the board I would like to mention there is a good chance I will not be here next month so you guys need to show up so we have a quorum I've called it first i can tell you i will not be here next time my son's getting married in brooklyn i think i probably ought to be there instead of here i think that's a valid excuse thank you mr clark okay there being no further business the next meeting date is october 11th and the board is adjourned. I have this damn...