# Board of Adjustment Hearing - August 8, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 8, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5620 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5620?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-08-08 - **Last revised**: August 8, 2022 - **Length**: 1,765 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on August 8, 2022, at 1:33 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Raquel Carter presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed six agenda items during the session, including the approval of previous meeting minutes and consideration of multiple variance and conditional use appeals. Four motions and votes were taken throughout the meeting, with three variance appeals and one conditional use appeal being approved, while one variance appeal was postponed for future consideration. No public comments were heard during this session. The meeting concluded with a presentation of a resolution honoring retiring Board Member and Chair Thomas Glover for his service to the board. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on August 8, 2022: • Raquel Carter • Harry Clarke • Branden Gross • Chad Needham • Carolyn Plumlee • Linda Tucker • Chad Walker No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All seven members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered four items during the August 8, 2022 meeting, with three applications approved and one postponed. **PLN-BOA-22-00031** - The board unanimously approved a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from twenty (20) feet to eight (8) feet for a single-family residence at 1712 Kenning Place. Harry Clarke made the motion, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The vote was 7-0 in favor, with all members voting yes: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, Chad Needham, Carolyn Plumlee, Linda Tucker, and Chad Walker. The approval includes conditions requiring construction in accordance with submitted materials and obtaining necessary permits from the Division of Building Inspection. **PLN-BOA-22-00032** - A variance request to reduce the side yard setback from twenty-five (25) feet to ten (10) feet for a single-family residence at 1440 Deer Haven Ln. was unanimously postponed. Branden Gross made the motion to postpone, seconded by Chad Needham. All seven board members voted to postpone: Carter, Clarke, Gross, Needham, Plumlee, Tucker, and Walker. **PLN-BOA-22-00036** - The board unanimously approved a variance to reduce the side yard setback from three (3) feet to zero (0) feet for a structure at 407 E. Fifth St. Chad Needham made the motion, seconded by Harry Clarke. The 7-0 approval included all members voting in favor. Conditions require construction in accordance with submitted materials and obtaining necessary permits from Building Inspection. **PLN-BOA-22-00035** - A conditional use permit to operate a home-based beauty salon at 240 Race St. was unanimously approved. Carolyn Plumlee made the motion, seconded by Branden Gross. All seven members voted in favor. The approval includes extensive conditions requiring appointments-only operation, compliance with Kentucky Board of Cosmetology requirements, obtaining zoning and occupancy permits, and termination if the applicant no longer resides at the address. ## Appointments The board addressed one personnel matter during the meeting regarding the Board of Adjustment. • **Thomas Glover** resigned from the Board of Adjustment The resignation of Thomas Glover creates a vacancy on the Board of Adjustment that will need to be filled in future proceedings. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated heated discussion among participants. **Variance Request for Aaron and Meghann Bidarian** A variance request submitted by Aaron and Meghann Bidarian became the subject of intense debate during the meeting. The primary source of contention centered on conditions recommended by staff that the applicants found unacceptable for their project. The disagreement escalated into a heated discussion about whether the Bidarians should redesign their project to meet the staff's recommended conditions. The applicants expressed strong opposition to the proposed conditions, indicating they were not willing to accept the staff recommendations as presented. The discussion focused on the feasibility of requiring the applicants to modify their plans, with participants debating whether a redesign was a reasonable expectation given the circumstances of the variance request. The nature of the specific conditions that sparked the disagreement was not detailed in the available information, but the intensity of the discussion suggests significant differences between what the applicants proposed and what staff deemed appropriate. The outcome of this contested item was not specified in the available meeting data, leaving the resolution of the Bidarian variance request unclear from this summary. ## Approval of Minutes The board reviewed and approved minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. Minutes from the June 13, 2022 and June 28, 2022 meetings were presented for consideration and received approval from the board members. Key speakers during this discussion included Raquel Carter, Branden Gross, and Chad Walker, who participated in the review and approval process of the meeting minutes. The board noted that minutes from the July 11, 2022 meeting were not available for consideration at this time, indicating they would need to be reviewed at a future meeting once prepared. The outcome was the successful approval of the two sets of minutes that were available for review, allowing those meeting records to be formally adopted into the official record. ## Variance Appeal for Distinctive Design Remodeling The Board of Appeals reviewed case PLN-BOA-22-00031, a variance request for Distinctive Design Remodeling to reduce the rear yard setback requirement at 1712 Kenning Place. The applicant sought to reduce the mandatory twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to eight (8) feet for a single-family residence project. Key speakers during the discussion included Brandee Smith and Charles Penn, who presented details about the variance request and the specific circumstances of the property that warranted the setback reduction. Staff had conducted a thorough review of the application and recommended approval of the variance request, contingent upon certain conditions being met. The conditions were designed to ensure the project would comply with other applicable zoning requirements and maintain compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood character. The Board of Appeals ultimately approved the variance request, allowing Distinctive Design Remodeling to proceed with the reduced eight (8) foot rear yard setback instead of the standard twenty (20) foot requirement. This approval enables the single-family residence project at 1712 Kenning Place to move forward with the modified setback parameters while adhering to the staff-recommended conditions. The approval of this variance demonstrates the Board's consideration of site-specific circumstances that may justify deviations from standard zoning requirements when appropriate conditions can be implemented to protect the public interest and neighborhood compatibility. ## Variance Appeal for Aaron and Meghann Bidarian The Board of Appeals reviewed case PLN-BOA-22-00032, a variance request from Aaron and Meghann Bidarian for their property at 1440 Deer Haven Lane. The applicants sought to reduce the required side yard setback from twenty-five (25) feet to ten (10) feet to accommodate construction of a single-family residence. Staff had previously recommended approval of the variance request but included specific conditions as part of their recommendation. However, the Bidarians indicated they were not in agreement with the proposed conditions attached to the approval. Both Aaron Bidarian and Meghann Bidarian participated as key speakers during the discussion of their variance appeal. The disagreement over the staff-recommended conditions appears to have been a central issue preventing resolution of the matter. The Board ultimately decided to postpone action on the variance appeal rather than proceed with a decision during this meeting. This postponement allows additional time for the applicants and staff to potentially resolve their differences regarding the conditions of approval, or for the Board to gather additional information before making a final determination on the setback reduction request. The variance, if approved, would allow the Bidarians to build their single-family home with a reduced side yard setback of ten feet instead of the standard twenty-five-foot requirement, providing them with additional buildable area on their lot while maintaining what staff determined would be adequate separation from neighboring properties. ## Variance Appeal for Burr Oak Capital The board considered variance request PLN-BOA-22-00036 for Burr Oak Capital regarding a property at 407 E. Fifth St. The applicant sought to reduce the required side yard setback from three feet to zero feet for a structure on the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Chris Clendenen and Jeff Moore, who presented details about the variance request and the circumstances necessitating the setback reduction. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval of the variance, though their recommendation included specific conditions that would need to be met. The nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available meeting materials. The variance request involved eliminating the side yard setback entirely, which represents a significant deviation from standard zoning requirements. Such requests typically require demonstration of hardship or unique circumstances that make compliance with standard setback requirements impractical or unreasonable. Following discussion of the merits of the application and consideration of staff recommendations, the board voted to approve the variance request. The approval allows Burr Oak Capital to proceed with their planned construction or modification at 407 E. Fifth St. with the reduced setback as requested. The approval of this variance enables the applicant to utilize their property more fully while presumably meeting the conditions established by staff to ensure the development remains compatible with surrounding properties and zoning objectives. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Conditional Use Appeal for Carmah Lewis The Board of Appeals reviewed case PLN-BOA-22-00035, a conditional use permit application submitted by Carmah Lewis to operate a home-based beauty salon at 240 Race Street. Staff presented their analysis of the application and recommended approval of the conditional use permit with specific conditions attached. The proposal would allow Lewis to conduct beauty salon services from her residential property. Carmah Lewis spoke in support of her application during the public hearing portion of the meeting, presenting her case for why the conditional use permit should be granted for the home-based business operation. The board deliberated on the merits of the application, considering factors such as compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood, potential impacts on traffic and parking, and compliance with zoning regulations for home-based businesses. Following discussion and consideration of the staff recommendation and public input, the Board of Appeals voted to approve the conditional use permit for Carmah Lewis. The approval allows her to operate the home-based beauty salon at 240 Race Street subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The approved permit enables Lewis to move forward with establishing her beauty salon business while ensuring compliance with local zoning requirements and addressing any potential neighborhood compatibility concerns through the imposed conditions. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Presentation of Resolution to Retiring Board Member/Chair Thomas Glover The board presented a resolution honoring Thomas Glover for his twelve years of dedicated service on the Board of Adjustment. Raquel Carter led the presentation, recognizing Glover's significant contributions to the board during his tenure as both a member and chair. The resolution acknowledged Glover's long-standing commitment to the Board of Adjustment and his leadership role in guiding the board's decisions over more than a decade. Thomas Glover responded to the recognition, though specific details of his remarks were not captured in the available meeting data. This was an informational presentation to formally recognize Glover's service as he concluded his time on the board. The presentation served as an official acknowledgment of his contributions to the board's work and decision-making processes during his twelve-year tenure. The agenda item was ceremonial in nature, providing the board with an opportunity to formally thank Glover for his years of public service before his departure from the Board of Adjustment. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-22-00031** — passed (7-0): Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from twenty (20) feet to eight (8) feet for a single-family residence at 1712 Kenning Place. - **PLN-BOA-22-00032** — postponed (7-0): Variance to reduce the side yard setback from twenty-five (25) feet to ten (10) feet for a single-family residence at 1440 Deer Haven Ln. - **PLN-BOA-22-00036** — passed (7-0): Variance to reduce the side yard setback from three (3) feet to zero (0) feet for a structure at 407 E. Fifth St. - **PLN-BOA-22-00035** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit to operate a home-based beauty salon at 240 Race St. --- ## Full transcript No, we would probably have to sell the property, ditch the project. I mean, I don't know. I'm kind of, normally I would say we should have a right to do it every moment in the land, but you're asking us to give you a variance. So when we give you a variance, we're saying you can based on this condition. You're not willing to accept that condition. So, you know, that's where it sits for me. I mean, if you're willing to give, I think we're willing to tell you what we think. If you're willing to ask for a variance, we're willing to give you a... one point to that is in in the paper in the notes here it says additionally if urban zoning standards were applied to the subject property the lot would meet the standards for a single-family residential zone which only requires 10 feet setbacks as well as the expansion area residential zone which only requires five so if if the property was were in those zones i wouldn't need a variance chad just i think and i'm not speaking for the applicant what we are asking them is to do a different plan so if this garage is moved they will they have to go back and do a different plan because it does have upstairs downstairs that is part of the roof line in the frontage so it's not a minor years into this project i'm fine with it if we i mean if that's what we're saying but it's not a minor adjustment it's a starting over on a floor plan adjustment so Anything else from the board? Questions of the applicant or staff? Well, I guess between the applicant and the staff, is there any chance that they could meet over the next 30 days and talk through and maybe come up with a solution that makes you both happy? I'm not sure what the vote will be today, but i'd say it probably wouldn't hurt to do a continuance for 30 days let you work with the staff maybe you guys could come up with a different design i'm just concerned that if you're turned down today you'd have you can't come back um so i don't know what the rest of the board feels is that a motion well i mean i want to make sure that they even want to go through the exercise of meeting with staff and trying to come up with a compromise um i recommend it but that's just me yeah i really don't know like like my wife said we're two years into this project um just just the main thing that sticks out to me on this is like i said we wouldn't need a variance if the we're in the zones in the surrounding area for one and two as the playing department said earlier we're not breaking any restrictions with the current design so i want to make everybody happy and i want to abide by the rules that's why we we did the formal process into this you know well before we started and before we even got the building permit it's just in our opinion that we're within the regulations currently well could a continuance also give you some time to get that engineered correctly so we could be making a decision on exactly the way the driveway would be and the space that's needed for the driveway instead of the the guesstimating of it we could do that yeah I think that would be a good idea if that's the when we might be fighting over this and this is not exactly the way you're gonna have it I understand well with that said madam chair I move for a continuance of PLM BOA 22-32 regarding 1440 Deerhaven Lane, which would be until our next meeting, September 12, 2022 at 1.30 p.m. in these chambers. So move. I'll second. Any other discussion? Okay, we'll take a vote. All in favor? Uh-huh. It looks unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So the next case is PLNBOA 2236, Burr Oak Capital. afternoon madam chair i'm chris clinton and i'm here on behalf of bur oak this is jeff moore he's the principal with bur oak okay okay did we get chris's name did you get okay okay good deal thank you so this plan has been recommended for approval and there are two conditions listed are your clients seen and okay with the conditions my client agrees to the conditions madam chair okay okay any questions from the board okay I'll entertain a motion Mr. Chair I recommend approval for PLNBOA 2236 Borough Capital's request for variance to reduce the side yard setback from three feet to zero feet in order to construct additions in an existing legal non-conforming structure within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood R3 zone on property located at 407 East 5th Street based on staffs for reasons and subject to their two conditions. Second. Any discussion? all in favor oh yes we'll take a vote all in favor it's unanimous so hard without my buttons very good thank you thank you all project all right alrighty we have PLN BOA 2235 Karma Lewis Hello. There. Please state your name for the record. Karma Lewis. Okay. The staff has recommended approval. There are two conditions. Have you seen those? Four conditions. I'm sorry. Have you had a chance to look at the conditions? Yes. And are we okay with those conditions? Yes. All right. Do we have any questions from the board? Any? I just want to congratulate you on a charming structure, and if we vote for you to proceed, I wish you success. Excuse me, what's the last part? I missed the last part. And if we vote to succeed, I hope that you have much success. Thank you so much. How kind. Thank you. is that a motion miss palmer i move to approve pln boa 2235 karma lewis for a conditional use permit in order to operate a home-based beauty salon within the defined infield and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential r3 zone on property located at 220 race street council district one and that would be with the staff recommendations for the approval based on the two conditions and just for the record it's 240 ray street i think we read it okay okay so we have a motion and a second any discussion all in favor you guys are all unanimous today good luck thank you thank you so are there any other items before we get to the fun part does the board have anything to to okay I'm showing off for mr. Thomas Glover we've got a special presentation for you but I've been trying to break records on how quickly we can get through a board meeting but that's okay I understand next month I probably won't be able to do the same so it's okay okay so if we could do a special presentation you guys come down front Thank you. Right here in the middle. Yes, I understand. Thank you. I'll take the credit for that, for sure. Good deal, good deal. Well, thank you, Mr. Glover. We do have a resolution for Thomas Glover, whereas we, the members of the Lexington-Fade Urban County Board of Adjustment and Staff, acknowledge the conclusion of Mr. Thomas Glover's term of service to the Board of Adjustment, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Glover for his valuable service to the Board of Adjustment, having served on the board from August 2010 to July 2022, whereas the Board of Adjustment members and staff feel that the service given by Mr. Glover will be greatly missed. Now, therefore, be it resolved, we, the members of the Board of Adjustment and the staff, express our deep gratitude to Mr. Glover for his service to the board and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County. And we, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustment and staff, do hereby wish for Mr. Glover much happiness and continued success, and ask that he continue to give valuable guidance to members of the board. and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Glover and also spread upon the minute book of this body, dated at Lexington, Kentucky, this eighth day of August 2022. Thank you, Mr. Glover. There was something in there that said that you want me to continue to give valuable guidance to members of the board. So you want me to call you when you're doing it wrong? That's that's the way I heard it. I'm not sure Yeah, I've got everybody's number yeah Yeah, yeah If I was caught well if I was if I'd called you every time you do it right I'd be on the phone all the time because it's been my privilege and pleasure to work with actually over my 12 years probably a couple of dozen members of the Board of Adjustment and and I learned a lot made a lot of friends I had a good time and I think that each member of the community that serves on the Board of Adjustment has a best interest of the community in their heart and does their best to make the right decision on every single case that comes before them and that includes every member that's ever served from the Board of Adjustment so I want to thank them and you all for for your service and and I'll especially want to thank the staff the planning staff because without them of course as you all know perhaps nobody else knows as well as you do that you couldn't do your job without them and I just want to extend my appreciation acknowledgement of the work that they do and the planning staff and legal and all the people that are involved in the presentation of of the cases before the board what a wonderful job you all do so thank you very much They will. Are we adjourned? Not officially. I think we're through. We're through, but we're not adjourned. Now, with that presentation being complete, I'm sorry. Apple is out. Linda. So with that, we'll just announce the next meeting date is September 12th at 1.30, same location here in council chambers. And if there's nothing else, I'll officially adjourn the meeting. Thank you. so