Everybody, just stand! Thank you. Thank you. good afternoon good afternoon everyone i'll go ahead and call the meeting to order today the first item on the agenda will be the approval of the minutes we actually have minutes to approve from july 11 2022 and august 8 2022. i'll enter if you guys have had a chance to review i'll interview entertain a motion yeah make sure you turn your mic on we're making an album madam chair move approval of july 11 and August 8, 2022 meetings. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Great. Any further discussion? All in favor? okay the motion has passed thank you the next thing we'll do is actually swear the witnesses So if there's any applicant or anyone that would like to speak, both for or against any particular case, at this time I'd like you to stand to be sworn. I'd also put a plug in for staff to make sure, has everybody signed in? Some of y'all's names are hard to spell. You've got to get it right, okay? All right, if you could raise your right hand. And did you solemnly swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth today? Good deal. Okay, thank you. All righty. The next thing we'll do is sound the agenda. What we do during this portion, I'm going to call each case, see if the applicants are here, see if there's any discussion or opposition to the case. If there's no discussion or no opposition and it has been recommended for approval, those we'll hear first. Anything that requires presentations or discussion, we'll hear those at the end of the docket. So the first item here is PLNBOA 22-32. That's Aaron and Megan Bedarian's request. Aaron and Megan Bedarian. Is the applicant present? Do we have anybody speaking for behalf in the audience? I do know that the staff would like to speak on this one as well. That will be the first item of the HERD docket. Okay. Then I have PLN, BOA 2238, Gary and Larry Hamilton, the applicant present. Is there anyone speaking here to speak for or against this item? All right. You'll be first, sir. The next item is PLNBOA 2239, Jean Mercado. Is the applicant present? Okay. And this one is recommended for disapproval, so it will be heard. PLNBOA 22-41, Charlie Williams Design. Is the applicant present? Do we have anyone speaking for or against this case? For or against? I don't know. Okay, okay. So we'll hear you today. Okay. Thank you. PLNBOA 22-42, Padovet, LLC, is the applicant present? Okay. Anyone here to speak for or against this case? All right. You'll be second on the rocket docket. Then we have PLNBOA 22-43, Kelly and Kirk. Raza. Is that correct? Raza. I tried to make it too fancy, didn't I? So the applicant's present. Do I have anyone speaking for oh, it's recommended for disapproval, so we will hear this case. Moving along. Conditional uses. I have PLNBOA 22-33, Kentucky Epsilon Phi Delta Theta House Corporation. Is the applicant present? And I understand, are we requesting a postponement today? Okay. Do we just need a motion to, they are requesting a postponement if the board would make such a motion if you're okay with it? Sure, Ms. Chair. I move to postpone PLNBOA 22-33. October 10th meeting. Any second? Any discussion? Mr. Clark, you guys remember to use your mics. We got Mr. Clark, okay. All right, any more discussion? So we'll take a vote, all in favor of the postponement. All right, motion carries. Thank you. We'll see you in October. The next one's PLNBOA 22-37. That's Chelsea of Ramberger. The applicant present. Okay. Any opposition or discussion? We do have some opposition. Okay, that one will be heard. Or discussion. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry, thank you. Then we have PLN BOA 22-40, New Pike LLC. Is the applicant present? Applicant's present. It's recommended for approval. Any discussion, any opposition? Okay. Then we'll be heard as well. All righty. Then we have PLN BOA 22-44. IVCP Athens South LLC. Is the applicant present? There aren't any gifts capsules available. Is that true? Okay. They're outside? Okay. Okay. Do we have any opposition or discussion regarding this one? It is recommended for approval. Okay. We'll put it on the rocket docket. I lost count of where we are on it. I think you're back up. Okay. I know. I'll go back and read my notes. I'll know what I meant. Okay, then we have PLNBOA 22-45 Independence Bank. Is the applicant present? Okay, I understand you may be requesting a postponement as well. Okay, to October. All right, I'll entertain a motion. and go incline this chair sure i i move to um for plnboa 22-45 to be postponed till the october 10th meeting can i get a second second and any discussion we'll we'll take a vote and i'm sorry that was miss tucker that seconded all right okay i think we got it everyone good staff good you guys keep up all right let's go Okay. Here we go. So the first case that we will hear is PLNBOA 22-38, Gary and Larry Hamilton. Good afternoon. If you could state your name for the record. Gary S. Hamilton. And the staff has recommended this one for approval for us. Yes, has been recommended for approval. Have you had an opportunity to look at the five conditions that they've cited? Yes, ma'am. Okay, are you okay with those conditions? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Are there any questions or concerns from anyone on the board? No, I thought it was interesting. I wasn't quite sure where the cell tower access was. Cell tower? Yeah, that's what it's stated. There is an electric tower that's about 160 foot tall that is behind the house bordering the railroad track. Well, maybe I read that wrong. I couldn't tell you where the closest cell tower is. I think staff reported it as a cell tower just based on our aerial imagery interpretation. Oh, okay. That's an electric line that runs along the railroad track. Do you get good service? Excuse me? tower? No, it's just an electric line. Okay. Sounds good. Carrier pigeons. All right. There aren't any questions? Well, entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend PLN BOA 2238 Gary and Larry Hamilton's request for a variance to reduce the eastern side yard setback from eight to three feet and increase the maximum front yard setback from 35 to 124 feet in order to convert an existing accessory structure into a principal structure in a single-family residential zone on property located at 684 East Loudoun Avenue based on staff's four reasons and subject to their five conditions. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Any discussion? Okay, we'll take a vote. Motion passed. Good luck with your project. Thank you, ma'am. Let's see. I think that takes us to PLN BOA 22-42. that's a head of it. Is that right? Okay. Hello, Nelson Rhodes here for part of it. Did you guys get that? Can you state your name again, please? Okay. All righty. Have you had an opportunity to see the three listed conditions? Yes. They're Roman numeral. They threw me off. In their pretty standard conditions. Did anyone on the board have any questions regarding this one? No? Okay. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend PLNBOA 2242 Petavet LLC's request for a variance to reduce the required setback from a residential zone from 100 feet to 80 feet in order to operate an animal clinic and a highway service B3 zone on property located at 2870 Richmond Road. based on staff's recommendations and subject to the three conditions. Thank you. Mr. Needham, you didn't say approval or disapproval in that recommendation. I approve. You do? A second? Second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any discussion? We're ready for a vote. Thank you. Motion passed. Thank you. All righty. One more rocket. Here we go. Oh, do you need me? Chairperson Carter, although you mentioned that IVCP 8th and South LLC was up, and I think I motioned to you that they were in the hallway, there is one person they're speaking with that would like to speak today and be on the record about this particular case. so I'm afraid they wouldn't be available for the abbreviated hearing. They would need a full hearing. So say it again. They would need a full hearing. Okay, so we'll put that at the end. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the update. Okay. Okay, we'll go back to PLN VOA 22-32. that's actually a continued case, Aaron and Megan Bedarian. And what we'll do in this case is have the staff give us some update on changes, and then we'll hear from the applicant. Hello, Megan Jennings with Planning Services. So at the August meeting, this case came before you guys. It is a variance request to reduce the side yard setback on a piece of property zoned AR at 1440 Deer Haven Lane. During that meeting, the board directed staff and the applicant to continue the conversation, try to work out some sort of agreement in the month until this meeting, and try to come to some sort of agreement. So I just wanted to update you guys on our conversation and the meeting that we had with the applicant. So we met with the applicant during the month of August and kind of discussed or reviewed the meeting, and then they brought some new materials for us to review as well. Up on the screen here is a revised site plan. The aspect I'll point it out here on the screen, they have reduced the amount of paving required to access the basement garage here. But in general, they're still keeping the same layout that was previously provided, just to reduce the amount of paving on the southern side of the property. At that meeting, they also presented a topographical survey of the lot, which I'll review soon, and then also some supplemental exhibits and a supplemental justification statement. So I'll review those in this presentation. As I stated, this new revised site plan does reduce the amount of paving on the side, but that's not the aspect of the design that staff was concerned about. staff asked the applicants to kind of review why the basement garage here couldn't be relocated to the rear of the property so that they could shift the home to the south and then no longer require a variance because they would just have the more narrow driveway accessing the home on the side and then have the wider driveway on the back. And I'll show that up here on the screen too. reduce the width here, bring it back around so that the house can shift down and no longer need the variance. To that, the applicant responded that this site is not currently connected to the public sewer system, and so they were looking at having a septic tank installed. Just with the layout of the site, they identified the rear of the property as the place that would be needed for the septic tank installation. This property, however, is in the urban services area and there is a public sewer line that runs down Deerhaven Lane that they are able to connect to. So they are not required to provide or they don't need to provide septic. They can connect directly to the public sewer line down Deerhaven. Next, I'll just move to the topographical survey really quick. As you can see here, there is some grade change from this upper left corner to the bottom right, or I guess northwest to southeast. And the applicant stated that with relocating the garage to the back of the home, it would require more excavation of dirt, which would increase their cost. In between this elevation here and this elevation on the rear of the property is a total of a three-foot grade change. Staff did not find that that was a hardship to have to excavate three more feet of dirt in order to redesign the basement garage to be accessed from the rear. But the applicant did include that in their supplemental justification. Next, the applicant did submit some exhibits of their boat in a 10-foot wide garage, which is proposed in this new home. As you can see here, it's a pretty tight fit. And they are trying to keep with the 10-foot garage door width with their current proposal. and they submitted these images to kind of support the need to more directly, perpendicularly back into the home. I have the site plan up here again just for your reference. They need this width of driveway here so that they can get the boat as perfectly aligned into this garage width as possible. So that was included in their supplemental justification and just wanted to review those with you. At the meeting, the applicants expressed that they are not willing to modify the floor plan of their home just to cost and time. They did, however, state that their proposed front yard driveway, which is up here, is about 10 feet taller in elevation than Deer Haven Lane. and so the desired paving will not have a visual impact for those driving along Deerhaven Lane. They also stated that they would be willing to install some additional landscaping in order to visually buffer the front driveway there. Staff has identified Deerhaven Lane as a rural scenic road. It is located in a scenic resource area as designated within the expansion area master plan. And these areas require that the visual impact of development on the adjoining rural road be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Hence why they are also proposing to install additional landscaping in order to kind of visually screen that front driveway. Again, the applicants did state that they did not want to detach their garage and wanted to keep it within the structure because it's in character of the single family homes that are proposed to be developed on the adjacent property to the south down here. There's a Jimmy Nash homes development down there. However, the applicant's lot is much larger than those lots, and they're only about one quarter of an acre in size. This lot is a full acre in size, and this property is actually more in character to the neighboring agricultural lots to the north, which do feature detached accessory structures. Based on the revised application materials and our meeting with them and some testimony, staff is in keeping with our original recommendation of approval so that the applicant needs to redesign their home in order to reduce the amount of paving in the front yard of the property. The revised site plan does reduce the amount of paving needed to access the side entry basement garage, but staff still has concerns related to the significant amount of paving that is proposed as a result of including both a front garage and a side entry garage. Also, as the driveways are currently designed, in order to avoid backing their boat out directly onto Deerhaven Lane, so if they are leaving the home and backing the boat down, they would have to back their boat down the driveway and then into this in order to turn around and pull out onto Deerhaven Lane. Staff believes that the applicants could end up paving more of their lot in order to accommodate that movement so that they don't have to back their boat out onto Deerhaven Lane. Staff acknowledges that the non-conforming lot size, which is well below the current minimum lot size for an AR zoned lot, being 40 acres, is a special circumstance that's unique to this property. In addition, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant due to the increased required side yard setbacks. And those have a larger impact on the buildable area of this lot because it is small. Additionally, if urban zoning standards were applied to this lot, the lot itself would meet the standards for the single family residential R1A zone, which only requires 10 foot side yards, as well as the expansion area EAR1 zone, which only requires five foot side yard setbacks. Staff also believes that the reduced side yard setback on the northern side of the property will not impact the surrounding properties as the closest neighboring principal structure is over 150 feet from the proposed residence. While the property has not been rezoned in accordance with the expansion area master plan at this time, it is located within an area for which EAR1 zoning is recommended. While that zone would require a lesser side yard than one is required under the AR zone, The property is located as a rural scenic road and within a scenic resource area, which would require any structures to be located at least 200 feet of the right of way from Deerhaven Lane if it were to be rezoned. The EAMP defines scenic resource areas as lands along scenic roads which are sensitive to the density of development and the design and location of structures. Additionally, within the community design element of the EAMP, principle number four states that existing rural roads within or adjacent to expansion areas should be protected from incompatible development. Due to these recommendations, it is especially important that staff consider the overall visual impact of the proposed project on the scenic rural roads view shed in this location. So staff is maintaining our recommendation of approval of the variance with a condition that the proposed paving be reduced in the front yard. And the recommendation would allow the applicant to provide a great deal of paving to the south of the residence here in order to allow the maneuverability of their boat into their desired basement level garage. Such expansive paving here would not be feasible in this location without the desired variance. Therefore, it is reasonable for staff to request that the proposed additional paving in the front yard and the desired front facing garage be relocated to allow for a consolidation of paving in one portion of the property to the side or rear of the home, as this will reduce the impact of the paving on the character in the general vicinity. So these recommendations, these details have not changed since our last presentation, so I won't review them in detail with you. But if you have any questions about our meeting with the applicant or the new information that's presented to you today, please let us know. I do have a quick question. On the allowable amount of pavement, I mean, what is the guidance on how much pavement is acceptable or not? Is that specified in the regs? The standards state that a maximum amount of paving per lot is 50% of the lot coverage, which this application does not come close to 50%, but given the other information that I just covered about the scenic resource area and the expansionary master plan design considerations, staff is rooting our recommendation of redesign in those. Will we estimate what percentage of, do we have an approximate? I don't, the applicant did not provide dimensions for all aspects of the site, and I don't have the technical skills to be able to calculate the area. They've labeled the width of both of the drives, but those are the only dimensions I have. May I ask this simple question? I think it's simple. Based on your recommendation of approval, it depends on moving the front garage to the side or the rear. Is that correct? And eliminating the driveway in the front of the house. The staff is just concerned about this paving, and we would like to see that eliminated. the applicant is able, we would grant the variance so that the applicant can do the basement level garage here on the side for their personal cars as well as the boat. Or, as I stated before, they can redesign the basement of the home so that the boat garage can be accessed from the rear, allowing them to shift their home a little further to the south. Yes, thank you. That's what I understood. Mr. Needham, did you have something? Oh, no. I just was, yeah, nothing's really changed since the last time. We can have the applicant come up and address any other questions. Okay. Mr. Bedarian. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Do you have any questions for me at this time? Anything you want to add or respond to from the staff? Yeah, a few things. First, Megan identified there was a sewer line running down Deer Haven, and I could use that instead of a septic. I would love that. But my conversations with the sewer department, multiple conversations, is that is a forced main that runs right down the road, and I cannot tap onto that. The property that was on this piece of land in the past had a septic, and that's what, from what I understand, be my option moving forward based on I can't tap onto the forced main that runs down Deerhaven. Um, also, I definitely appreciate the planning department's concern for the look of the general area. And obviously that was appealing to my wife and I when we decided to buy this property and build our forever home on it. We feel our project is meeting or exceeding the surrounding aesthetic. Two properties down is a Christmas tree farm that has a large gravel parking lot right off the road there off their detached garage. We fill with gravel, our blacktop in the neighboring property that exceeds the surrounding aesthetic. I did include the pictures of the Christmas tree farm at the end if you wanted to show it. Okay. Yeah. There's pictures, she said, attached of the Christmas tree farm. I got a Google Maps photo that shows the size, the overall size and dimensions of their gravel. This is, never mind, that's fine. That's it right there, the Google Maps photo. It shows the overall scope of their gravel parking lot. And so we're just, on our opinion, we think we're exceeding the overall look of the surrounding area having a paved blacktop. We reduced as much as we could and even proposed putting landscape in as a buffer to further enhance the aesthetic of the surrounding area. We really want to build on the property. We love the house or the neighborhood and the surrounding area. And we're trying everything we can to work with the planning department to reach an agreement. it. It's just redesigning the house totally. We picked that house plan for a reason and redesigning it like that would just wouldn't be an option in our opinion just based on the amount of money and everything we're putting into it. We would hope to build it to our specifications if possible. One more thing I would like to ask maybe planning. Would the current driveway layout be an issue if there wasn't a variance requested? No, if there was not a variance needed, the paving would not be an issue, but you need the special permission for the side yard setback. And so staff was able to request that in their review of the variance. So I understand it as our current design is not exceeding any restrictions currently. So I just don't understand if there's a variance or not, you know, that the current design doesn't break any restrictions or rules. um that's about all i have thank you guys for your time does anyone have uh questions of the applicant yes i have a question i kind of a minor point i guess but i don't understand there was some reference that you'd be backing the trailer out onto the deer haven that seemed to be incorrect yeah i i forgot about that so when i'm back into the garage right i wouldn't be backing it back out on the road i i didn't know if planning misunderstood obviously yeah i don't know how that works but i would hook up to the boat and pull it out right i don't have to back out i understand yeah that was one thing i appreciate you understand so mr mr you you would not agree to the conditions that staff has recommended for approval. Is that correct? Is that your position? That's correct. Just redesigning the entire house is just not an option, in our opinion. That's why I ask about if the current driveway design would be an issue if the variance wasn't requested because that's what we've talked about in my life and I. We've talked about if we didn't get the variants approved, then we would just build it to the current standards. So really the issue in front of us today, really the only issue is the variants itself. I mean, if you weren't asking for a variants, there would be no issue. Right. And that's how I understand it, too. And that's why I don't understand why there's an issue. If there's not, it just doesn't really, it's not clear to me if there's a restriction. I understand, but. Well, there is an issue. The issue is the variance. Yeah, right. Correct. Could staff ask a question of the applicant? Can I see your pointer really quick? Well, I guess, could you show with the laser pointer how you can pull the boat out and down the, it's the. The red mark's kind of running off. Just how you would be able to pull the boat out from the garage and make it down the driveway without having to turn around, considering how much paving is required in order to back it in. In order to come out of the garage and turn right to go down the driveway, that's a much sharper turn. You don't have as wide of a turn radius, and I'm just, staff is just curious how you're able to do that, and yet you need so much paving to back the boat in. I'm not sure I understand the question, but okay, so the process would be pull the boat in. When I return home, pull it in. My pointer is the truck, the front of the truck. Pull it here, back it in the garage, detach from there, pull my truck into this garage. When I go to pull the boat out of the garage, come back down here, back up to the garage, hook up, and then pull out. Just swing it a little bit wide right here and then pull out onto the road. Staff is just curious why you need such a wide turn radius to back the boat in, but you don't need that same turn radius to pull the boat back out. It's just harder to back it in than it is to pull it in, pull it out. That's all. I would have to agree with that. I've seen that. That is a lot more difficult to back in than it would be to just pull straight out. It wouldn't be that big a deal. Maybe one of these days I'll have the skills to do it, but not right now I don't. Do we have any other questions? It's a question for staff, actually, regarding the gravel Christmas tree area. Yeah, it's on. The gravel Christmas tree area and the concrete around your house. I think when we do developments, we try to use impervious surface as much as we can. And I think that, in my mind, is a question here, too, that the concrete is impervious. So the Christmas tree farm to the north has just an existing nonconforming gravel lot that services their structures. Not sure if you're correct in that our current regs require driveways to be paved and impervious. Did that answer your question fully? I'd just like to make a statement again. and this is probably the same as last time, my concern is the amount of pavement currently is well below their allowable amount. So it just brings me pause to not look for a way to maybe just landscape or also handle our concerns of the scenic view. Instead of scratching the plan that is actually already allowable, we're really hung up on this pavement piece, and the pavement piece is not the piece that's before us. Before us is the variance that we're willing to approve if they change something that's not before us. And not that we haven't done that before. I'm just, you know, I'm uncomfortable now. So what's the amount that will be acceptable? Is it 10%? Is it 20%? 30%? With it being well below the 50% allowable amount, how are we making that assessment for each individual case, particularly from a sketch, a drawing, which very well can look different in practice and actually being completed. I would be more comfortable with maybe some more landscaping requirements or that type of thing if someone makes such a motion, but that's my opinion or my stand on it. Anything else? If there is nothing else, I would either entertain a motion or if anyone feels the need to talk with legal, if we want to make any adjustments or changes to the conditions, speak now. I'm just going to make a motion. I move to approve PLN BOA 2232 Aaron and Megan Badarian's request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet in order to construct a single family residence in an AR zone on property located at 1440 Deer Haven Lane. Based on staff's recommendations and their three conditions. Do I have a second? Ms. Plumlee seconds. I will open it up for any discussion, any further discussion. I'll just state again the condition of the three conditions actually means you can't do it. So that's where I am. I'm not making light of it. And Steph and I have discussed it as well. But that condition in itself is really a disapproval. It means you can't move forward with this project. So I'll vote with that knowledge. We'll take a vote. Sorry, it seems that the motion has failed. Okay, one question, if I don't utilize the variance, I can build the house to the current design? Yep, scoot it over. Yep. Okay. Excuse us, does not appear that Mr. Clark, okay, no. Oh, I'm sorry. My math was bad. So the motion for the variance. The motion passed. For the variance. To allow for the variance upon the three conditions that were proposed by staff. That is correct. That is correct. Thank you. Thank you. So next one up is PLN BOA 22-39, Jean Mercado. It's recommended for disapproval, so we'll hear the staff first. All right. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The next item on your agenda is item BOA 2239, Gene Mercado. And this is a request for a variance in order to reduce the side yard setback for an accessory structure that projects between the principal structure and the side lot line from 25 feet to 20 feet for the property at 7959 Old Richmond Road. So here we have an aerial of the subject property shown, outlined in blue. It is located on Old Richmond Road, in the near vicinity of the interstate in the southeast portion of the county. Here we have a closer view of the subject property. It's approximately 1.8 acres in size and contains numerous structures. So there are currently, shown in the photo here, are four structures. We have an existing residence here, as well as three accessory structures. This site does have an extended history with zoning compliance and zoning issues. Several of the uses on site, so this site is currently zoned agricultural rural AR, which allows for agricultural uses, single family residential uses, and a very limited number of commercial uses. There's been a history of nonconforming uses on this site going back as far as the 1950s. This structure here was used as a grocery store in the 1950s until 2004. From 2004 on, there was a number of businesses that were non-conforming or just not permitted at all, including auto repair, truck terminals. There was a case in 2015 where an administrative appeal was requested in order to permit an animal adoption and truck terminal use at this location that was denied. The applicant was granted a certificate of occupancy in 2021 in order to utilize this structure here as an office for his business. strictly as an office. He was not allowed to utilize the rest of the site for storage of materials or equipment in association with his business. It was an administrative office only. The applicant has constructed a new structure on the property, approximately 2,800 square feet in size, in the rear portion shown here. This was done without permits, and when he was alerted to that, he applied for building permits with building inspection. This ran into several issues within the building plans themselves. They were shown to be include commercial space so there was a space that was used for things other than just accessory storage to the use on site. When confronted with this, the applicant since revised that, removed the portions that were sort of commercial in nature and the plan sort of resumed the review process. During the review process it was noted that the current accessory structure where it was constructed does not meet the side setbacks. So when there is a principal structure, in this case the residence on the property, even though it is smaller than the other structures, it's considered to be the principal structure. In this case, this accessory building here has to meet the side yard setback for the AR zone, which is 25 feet. So as constructed, it is five feet too close to this side property line. We do have photos of the structure as it exists currently. It consists of an enclosed portion as well as three separate bays with garage-style doors. The zoning ordinance, like I said, in instances when you have these principal structures and accessory structures between them, they have to meet the full 25 feet that is required by ordinance. Within the letter of justification, the applicant notes, as I go back to the site plan, that somewhere in between the home itself and the accessory structure, there is a septic tank. He's not exactly sure of the exact location. However, within the letter of justification, did not respond to why he could not either reduce the structure and size in order to meet the setback. So reducing the length of the building by five feet to accommodate that, or moving it further back in order to get it fully behind the structure where this provision wouldn't apply. So with that, staff is recommending disapproval of this request. that the applicant has not provided any indication that there's unique circumstances that apply to this property, and the applicant has the ability to have this structure without a variance by modifying either its location or its size. And then third, that the approval of this variance is an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance because it was constructed without a permit, and he is now seeking to approve it after the fact. Staff would be happy to entertain any questions you have at this time. It's the side yard setback, not the rear. You know the rear looks closer to the... Yes, yes. So in this instance, it is the five-foot difference between the required 25-foot setback and the applicant's constructed structure at 20. So yes, it is the side yard setback that is the cause of the need for the variance today. And then all of the, you know, what the uses for the... I mean, it does have a commercial feel. I think that's a challenge of this thing over the years. What is the use? Are we good with the use in this AR zone? So based on the applicant's revised information, this would be a residential accessory structure, so this structure would not be able to be used in conjunction with that business. If it was, in fact, used in such a way, that would constitute a violation of the certificate of occupancy that was granted for that, and then would be subject to zoning enforcement action. More specifically, we're saying that the use of this structure could only be stuff that was secondary to the residents, you know, like yard stuff, that type of agriculture equipment type thing? Yes, but equipment or materials for the painting business that was given a CO would not be within that purview. So this is secondary and accessory to the existing residential use on site. Yes, ma'am. Could we add another condition that it not be used for commercial purposes? The current recommendation is disapproval. Okay, but just for future. I think it might have been a paint service or something in business now. and that, well, just according to 8, 1, E, 4, and 13, we could say that property shall not be used for retail sales or services, wholesale warehousing, or storage of materials for a business, including overnight storage and business vehicles. So that would take care of something that might occur in the future on this property. Yes, ma'am. Could we add that? I'm sorry, could you repeat that last section? Could we add that as a condition? So the conditions would only apply if this was recommended for approval. If this was disapproved, I don't believe that there's a mechanism to add conditions. It would happen during the building permit process. There could be conditions listed in our approval of their building permit with building inspection. and we would include that it's not allowed for the commercial uses that have existed previously on site. Thank you. Any other questions of staff at this time? Okay. Thank you. We could hear from the applicant, please. And please state your name for the record. Jean Machado. Actually, Machado, no Machado. Good afternoon. I would like to make a few corrections to the planning staff report. First, all of that history and misuse of the property, it was prior to my acquisition of such a property. Okay, so I became the owner of that property in February 2021. So all of that history of misuse of the property, as in the past, was all the owners. I understand some concerns that the staff can have about it, but here I can show where I moved my business and my office. I moved it to 371 United Court. It's an industrial zone and here is the contract. So my business is no longer located at that property. So there's not going to be a commercial use on that property as long as I am the owner. So about the commercial use for that property, yes, but I would also like to show even the bill that I received from Lake Surf highlighted here says commercial. So I'm not doing any business there anymore, as I just said, but it's not a concern. I'm not gonna use it for commercial purposes or something. Now, I would like to make another thing about that building. I made a mistake. Everyone that I have spoke to from building inspection, from the planning staff, from everybody there, I said I made a mistake. I constructed that building because I trust, I trusted the builders that I hired. It's a pro-cost in construction. It's an Amish owned business. And they said, you don't need a permit to build this building in an eight-yard zone. I made a mistake. I should have called the people, the city, and I should have made sure that I had a permit before I constructed it. But that building was not built after the planning, saying the violation or something. It was way before. It was finished in March 24, and the violation was sent on July 17. However, during the history of the application for this building in order to get the permit, I received in April 26 an email from Stephanie Cunningham and it was sent to me and to Megan Jennings senior planning for the city. In that email it says, Jean several of the planners in our office discussed your site plan this afternoon. That was on April 26 at 222. And we determined that your accessory building is allowable within 15, not 20, 15 side and rear yards as shown on the plan. You emailed me earlier this morning. I am fairly new to my position and there was a provision in the zoning ordinance that applied to your site that I did not believe was applicable in your situation, but it is. I have added my approval to Accela and moved your plan forward in the workflow. Thank you for your patience and willingness to work on a solution. So this was sent on April 26th. And according to this email, several of the planners, not only her that was new in the staff, but several of the planners. They agreed that there is an allowance that permits the building to be within 15 feet where it is. Now, on April 26, I received another email that was sent to me from Stephanie Cunningham. It says, Gene, as long as you are using the proposed building to store agricultural equipment like mowers, etc., is it definitely allowable? I will, however, need you to upload another site plan that shows that building labeled barn or farm equipment shed or something similar that clearly designates it for agricultural use. If you can let me know when you upload the new site plan, I can go ahead and approve it. In the record of these site plans, it's showing that on April 26th, the plan was approved by the staff. However, a little after that, some point in May or early June, it was reviewed again. And then in June 21st, it was approved again. July 17, so we have this disapproval notification from the staff. So this is just a sequence of what happened here. And also I would like to mention that granting the variance would not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the general vicinity, nor alter the character of the general vicinity. The reduced side yard setback will not visually impact the surroundings properties as the variance is needed for only five feet. It's only lacking five feet after the staff changed the name of the building, same building, same size, same location. They just changed the name and now it falls into another category. I'm not an expert. I'm not a specialist. There are hundreds of regulations I don't know. The reason why I'm applying for the variance is because I cannot just move the building from where it is right now and move it five feet. I cannot do that. That's why I applied for the variance when they said that it had to meet the 25 feet. I know I made a mistake and I take responsibility for that. I have told that everybody that I do whatever I have to do to get this fixed or something. But this is what I'm doing. This is what I have to do. Now, the state building was approved like I said. Now, a strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant due to the required setbacks being more restrictive on the subject property. Accessory structures typically are permitted to be located as close as 1.5 feet from site property lines. And I'm not saying that. It just says right here in the staff case report, 1.5 feet. Mine is 20 feet apart. Neighbor, the neighbor on the right side of the property, they're present here in this hearing, and they have expressed verbally that they are not affected by that building. I don't know if they want to talk, but if they want to be heard, you can call them here to the stage. I would thank you so much for your time. This is all I have. I also want to apologize. My English is not perfect. It's not my first language. But if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer that. I would like, and thank you, Mr. Machado. Thank you. What is the intended use of that 2,800 square feet building? Well, right now I moved everything. I don't have a big business or something. I just have three banks, a few ladders, sprayers, or power washings that I moved everything to a new location that I'm renting, and I plan to be there until my business is running right now. I don't have nothing like that in the business, but in that property, but while I have it, it's just regular things that anybody can have in their house. A couple ladders, power washing, a sprayer, or whatever. But like I said, right now, there is nothing like that. There is no vehicles or equipment or material or anything in there in that property right now. And I can use the building of the property. I have lawnmowers that I use to mow the lawn or something. I'm a hard worker. I like to do stuff myself. And another thing that it was not said in the history of that building since February 2021, that property was a junk yard. Violating all the zoning ordinances was a junk yard. junk vehicles, semi truck trailers, junk. It was used as a landfill. You know, you can see like mountains of trash and everything in there, and I have cleaned that property. Also, I did get a permit to put a fence on the front and the side because that place, that location was used for violating the law for everybody that drove by. For example, they stopped by to urinate. urinating in public is legal. Also cars overnight, they stay there to do couples, to do stuff in there. So right now because I have worked real hard and I put lights in all of that properties and I put the fence on all of that things, that people don't do that anymore. And then also what I have done in that property, it will help the whole neighborhood to be a little bit cleaner and to look a little bit better. Anyone else have questions of the applicant? Mr. Mercado, have you talked to the staff and got their reaction from the emails that you've discussed with us? And what was their reaction? I called when I mentioned that they said well those email apply to another type of building but that doesn't apply to the to this specific building and I said well it's been the same building all the way along I mean all the time it's been the same building I don't know if you can call it barn storage shed equipment storage, commercial building, garage. I mean, I don't know the name, but it's been the same building on the same size and on the same location all this long. Yeah, thank you. Staff, staff has any reaction to that? I'd like to hear where we are on that, if you don't mind. Is it just the purpose of the building itself? Is that the main? So when the applicant first applied for building permits after he received his notice of violation for constructing the building without permits, he filed for a commercial accessory structure permit with building inspection. As a commercial structure, it does have different setbacks requirements, and that is why we had previously signed off on the commercial building. we had said we would approve the structure as approved as a commercial structure. Upon further conversation with building inspection, we came to an agreement that it needed to be transferred to a residential accessory structure, just given the history of the use and that it does need to stay residential, not commercial. And residential accessory structures have that special provision where if it projects between the principal residence and a side lot line, it needs to meet the side yard setback. Because this is zoned AR, it needed to meet 25-foot setbacks. It was built at 20, and so as a residential accessory structure, it needed to file for a variance to reduce that side yard setback. So it's kind of a weird situation there where the building permit was transferred from a commercial accessory structure to residential, and then it had to meet different setbacks as such. So that's kind of our review and review history of the building permit for this structure. So when did that designation change then? It changed about in June. It did take quite a few weeks for building inspection to transfer that application from a commercial accessory structure to a residential accessory structure. But it was about in June. Any other questions of the applicant? Did we mention there was someone in the audience here to speak for or against? Okay. All right, if you can go. Mr. Machado, if you give me a moment. Thank you. And you were sworn in in the beginning? Yes, ma'am. Okay, if you state your name for the record, please. Brian Erickson. We are the resident adjacent to his property on two sides. The one that is actually one for the variance and then also on the back side of the property. We have no issues with the variance approval because it's not affecting our property in any way. And what he has done with the property since he bought it, it's night and day, ma'am, compared to other properties in the vicinity that look like junkyards. He's cleaned it up so well, and I like looking at it now, if that means anything. Thank you. Thank you so much. Do you have any questions? Yes. No. I appreciate it. Thank you. Any other questions? You know, my only comment is that it is difficult sometimes to determine the legalities of a residential accessory structure versus a commercial. And, you know, I'm leaning towards, in this case, we've done a lot of stuff, Mr. Machado, on having people take down buildings that are built without permits. And, you know, it kind of circumventing the structure and what we do here for the city. And I think, you know, in my case, based on this specifically, I'm probably leaning more towards accepting and giving him the five feet as long as it stays. Obviously, it's important that it stays a residential in nature use. And I think having your neighbor come and say that that's, it looks a lot better. And the fact that he feels good about it, I mean, that speaks a lot. So that's probably where I'm leaning. Well, I would agree with that. I'd like to make this possible. I think there's been some confusion that really no one's to blame. It's just that it just kind of happens, and we're in a position that we can either say, well, we need to give a little bit here. We need to give five feet here when, in fact, we are sworn to follow the law, so to speak, or the ordinance. But I think we also are in a position where we can forgive a mistake in a particular situation, an exceptional situation. And I think we have this here. And I think we should take that into consideration. So if we, oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Plummer. I may have missed it, but this is not, he's not living there now. Or does he plan to? Yeah, we are existing as a residential unit. But you are not living there. I'm not. So the staff has recommended disapproval. So if some of the board members are leaning towards approval, I think we would need to get with legal to have appropriate findings to make such a motion. So we should take a 10-minute recess? Okay. To call order back to the meeting, if everyone could be seated. Okay, thank you. I'm ready for a motion if someone has one. Yes, Madam Chair. I move to approve PLN BOA 22-39 Gene Machado's request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback for an accessory structure that projects between the principal structure and side lot line from 25 feet to 20 feet in order to construct an equipment storage shed on an AR zone on property located at 7959 Old Richmond Road. And this is based on the following recommendations by staff. First, due to circumstances creating confusion as to whether the building was a residential accessory structure or a commercial accessory structure, the setbacks were unclear. When building inspection changed the building to a residential accessory structure, it created a hardship on the applicant that he built the structure without the appropriate side yard setbacks. And B, approval of the variance will not cause and it will not adversely affect the health and safety. I'm sorry. The approval, let me restate B. The approval of the variance will not cause an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the general vicinity. And this is all based on the following three conditions. The structure shall not be used for any commercial purpose. Only residential and or agriculture items may be stored in this location. Two, all necessary permits and approvals shall be secured prior to use of the structure. And three, use of the property shall be in accordance with the submitted application material and site plan. Do I have a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? I would just mention I am empathetic in this case. It was very confusing, but I would like to say my vote would be to stay consistent. We have not normally gone back and forgiven such a large mistake in not applying for a building permit for such a large building. So more of the process is my concern than the individual project. with that being said Madam Chair I'd like to suggest that maybe we ought to ask the applicant if those three conditions are acceptable to him that is correct yes that is correct thank you would those conditions be acceptable yes that will alright I'll take a vote all in favor oh i forgot we were electronic oh sorry okay motion has passed okay so next we have believe it's plnboa 22-41 charlie williams design the applicant you can come forward please this one was recommended for approval is this one we had audience we do have an audience if you would would you like to discuss your plan first and then sure i'm charlie williams design from louisville kentucky oh i'm sorry i thought you said something okay oh the pointer so uh yeah we are we need a side yard setback for for the width of this garage carriage house and i believe it's required eight feet it's going to 1.75 or something like that we're getting fairly snug but we do have an existing brick wall that already is on the property that's just about that that distance so rear setbacks staying six foot as required and this has been through the historic review so we've gotten approval on them any questions of the applicant yes I have one question what what do you plan to use the area over the garage that's playing for his home office or a possible studio use at this point so we're okay I lied I have two questions is it gonna have heat no it's gonna have heat it's got plumbing in it and you know and I know you're all zoning is a little different from ours in in louisville they're you know promoting additional dwelling units and i know you all aren't doing that yet but in the future if the zoning changes it could possibly be a little teeny studio apartment or something like that but at this point no thank you thank you if you'll have a seat for a moment if who wanted to speak yeah if you could please and please state your name for the record i am k anderson and i live next door to 606. i actually shared the wall we share a wall my concern and it has been alleviated was the alley that it backs up to we park in the garage off of the alley and there was some confusion as to whether the structure sure was going to be right at the alley or if there was going to be a curtain, you know, six and a half feet. It says six and a half feet. So, you know, my objection is null and void. I think it would enhance the neighborhood and I'm certain that folks will do design it, build it in very much style that we're used to. So I have no opposition. Thank you. We have no further discussion. I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move for approval PLNBOA 22-41 Charlie Williams Design, Inc. Request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback for an accessory structure that projects between the principal structure and the side lot line from eight feet to one and three quarters feet within the defined infill and redevelopment area and a historic district overlay in a high density high density apartment zone on property located at 606 west short street based on the staff's recommendation and three conditions as listed. Thank you Mr. Clark. I should mention again I forgot to ask the applicant that are we okay with the conditions as listed did you have opportunity okay thank you and do we have a second thank you chad okay any other discussion we'll take a vote Good deal. Motion has passed. Good luck with your project. The next up is PLN BOA 22-43, Callie and Kirk Rasa. It has been recommended for disapproval, so we will allow staff to present first. All right. Daniel Crumb, planning staff again. The next item on the agenda is PLN BOA 2243, Cali and Kirk Rasa. This is a request for a variance in order to reduce the required setback for a six-foot-tall fence within a side street side yard from three feet to one feet. for the property located at 150 Old Cassidy Avenue. So here we have the subject property outlined in blue. It is a corner lot located at the intersection of Hart Road and Old Cassidy. Directly across the street is the Cassidy Elementary School. Zooming in a little closer, you can get an aerial view of the subject property. So the home itself is located here. And historically, the subject property has contained a six-foot-tall brick wall located at the property line here, approximately one foot off of the property line. This was continued. Adjacent to it along Hart Road was a fence that ran more or less level with it and connected to the rear property line there, providing visual screening for that rear yard. The applicants have since removed that existing shrub and hedge and have replaced it with new fencing without obtaining a permit. So they took the existing fence line, which was located at one feet, and extended it out with a new six-foot-tall solid fence that was a combination of brick as well as wood, and extended it the length of the property line here. under the current zoning ordinance the minimum setback for probably right away for a six foot tall fence is three feet so the applicant constructed the new addition or the new section at one feet so this is increasing the scope of that non-conformity the existing brick wall you know predated the zoning ordinance and was allowed to remain the new construction is not in line with the ordinance requirements and so the applicants were notified that a fencing permit it was required and are now applying to you to have that reduced to allow it to remain as currently constructed. Within the letter of justification provided by the applicant, they note on the aesthetic improvement of the property, but they don't particularly note what would prevent them from constructing the new fencing in the current style at the required setbacks or reducing the height of the fencing to below four feet to allow it to be located where it is currently located. And so with that, staff is recommending disapproval of this request. They have not demonstrated that there's a specific condition or unique circumstances that apply to the property. There's sufficient space on the property to construct the fencing, and it would allow a circumvention of the zoning ordinance because they've constructed this prior to obtaining a permit. The applicant could reduce the height of the fence or relocate it in order to accommodate it as currently allowed. Furthermore, that its location in regards to the elementary school best practices when it comes to sidewalk design is discouraging these tall fences, giving them that additional space in order to encourage a safe pedestrian environment. So for all the reasons stated above, staff is recommending disapproval of this request, and I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have at this time. Not a question, but could you go back to the picture of the completed fence? Yes, ma'am. Can we make that larger? Can they do that? Good question. Maybe they. That's okay. I was just having trouble determining. We're going to bring it up on the, yeah. Alright, shifting it over. Yes. So the old fence is this brick section here, and then it's this corresponding section on the lower thing. If we could maybe adjust the lighting just a little bit to get a little bit better view on the picture. I've got the brightness on the way up. Okay. Okay. Technology. Do we have any other questions for staff? Thank you, Daniel. If the applicant could speak. Please state your name first for the record. Michael Strutz. Say it one more time. Michael Strutz. So what happened to the permit? Well, yeah, we weren't trying to circumvent you all. What happened was that fence with the ivy and honeysuckle with the wire in it was actually over the sidewalk, and they'd been cited several times, and their neighbors had also come to them. So in the process of removing that, the fence was taken out, and we thought we were just replacing it. And when I went over to look, the guys had already started the post, and so I called the permitting and said, you know, is this a replacement? And he said, no, since you're doing the post, it would be considered a new fence. And so I said, okay. So I started the – we stopped the wall, and I started the process of permitting. And then he came back and said, well, at this height, if you're going to match the old brick wall, you would need a variance request. And I said, okay, well, at that time they were having security issues with their dogs and kids. And so I called the inspector back and said, we need to put a permanent fence in. Is there any regulations on that? And he said, I don't determine the difference between a permanent or a temporary. So we built the cedar columns or the cedar panels in a way that we could modify them or move them at a future date, depending on your recommendation. So we weren't trying to circumvent you all. We were just trying to do something that was the most cost-effective way to move forward where we could change it or leave it. We've got the homeowners here as well. Yes, please, please. Hi, I'm Callie Raza, so my husband and I are the owners of the home. We moved in there about six years ago, and as you can probably see, if you can pull that picture back up, that hedge was very hard to maintain, and we tried to cut it back, and it just was nothing that could be taken care of. And so when we went to fix that problem, we wanted to preserve the historic nature of our house in our neighborhood, and that's why we originally were trying to keep that same fence line, as you'll see with the original brick, and where we just place that in there. We've set it back as much as we could to stay in that same fence line as before, but we're hoping that that can be an understanding. That hedge before had poison ivy and would just crawl into the sidewalk, and it needed to be taken care of. Sorry, I'm Kirk. Hi. If you've ever been around Honeysuckle, even when we have it trimmed back, the honeysuckle like poked people walking by so it's very different from right now purely from you know a site aside it's a lovely upgrade but the even the safety with the honeysuckle it just poked people it was not great and poked our kids on the other side in the yard so from that perspective it's it's been a massive upgrade and for what it's worth we've had a lot of neighbors that we haven't even met in the surrounding area just very complimentary of the just the aesthetic upgrade you know having that I mean suckle hedge removed and I'm thankful so any questions no thank you and I think we have another person wanting to speak my name is Matthew that's my brother-in-law Michael okay I built the fence okay but good job oh thank you thank you the the existing structure was I mean there was metal there as well and so we had to kind of act on that to get rid of the present circumstance but we ran that line exactly as the existing fences and so those columns that were built with the cedar planks are within the same I know that the you know the footage is according to the code according to the law is off by what two feet potentially but it's within the same symmetry in line as the existing fence and so thank you thank you anything else from staff so I just I want to state that the hedge that was there previously hedges aren't regulated like fences are they're allowed to be as tall as they need to be or as they can grow I guess or want to be maintained as and then from our ability to look at what was existing before we look to Google Street View and it's hard to tell because of the projector but the the metal fence that was there before with the hedge kind of growing around it was only about two feet tall from what we can tell and so the the new fence is definitely increasing the nonconformity of that brick wall and in order for it to be compliant with our current regulations does need to be set back three feet from the property line especially with six foot tall fences staff is just very cognizant of the pedestrian experience along the sidewalk this fence does come up directly to the sidewalk and with the context of the elementary school right across the street a six-foot tall fence kind of acts as a uncomfortable barrier for the pedestrian experience which is why we usually keep fences that close to the sidewalk or the property line at a maximum height of four feet so I just wanted to kind of add that into context with our current standards and regulations thank you and unfortunately we have fences often and so it is one of those things that is pretty frequent in the corner the side lot is is the most common thing we see you guys agree yeah okay I'm sorry you had something else the existing wall I think it's been there since the 30s but it's five and a half foot tall and that's what the the new fence is I mean the columns are matched up with that brick wall but the actual fence is set back another I think it's 20 inches or so off the sidewalk so there there is actually quite a bit of room especially from what was before and the issue if I'm correct staff the the fence could stay in its location if it's four feet or if it's large anything taller than four feet it's got to move back the two feet that is correct and that is including the columns itself not just the the wall face okay okay and I don't know how to get that to match the existing wall yeah I don't think it's gonna gonna match and that's the challenge here is what you built makes logical sense but it's just unfortunately sometimes a hard lesson learned and and you know we get these a lot you know the neighbors have you know when i looked at it on google maps i think it was three feet uh maybe three and a half four feet or whatever the neighbor's picket fence was on the left side a little closer to chino or to to um to tates creek or High Street you know I don't know if we I kind of I'm kind of stuttering here but I think that this kind of thing comes up a lot we've been pretty consistent especially on on corner lots that it's you know important that if this is built out of out of size that we kind of have to stick with stick with what the zoning allow you know allows us to to work within and we have you know these are precedent setting sometimes kind of examples that we try not to get into. So as much as I would like to say, you know, I think it does look great. And, you know, the whole pedestrian experience being a little taller, you could argue that what was there prior, you know, was an even worse experience. However, you know, it was a hedge. This is hardscape. And those are just kind of the guidelines we have to work with. So, you know, I probably have to agree with staff on this. Any other discussion? I'll entertain a motion. If not. Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. I move for disapproval of PLNBOA 22-43, Cali and Kirk Raza, request for a variance to reduce the required setback for a six-foot tall fence within a size street side yard from three feet to one foot within a neighborhood design character overlay in a single-family residential zone on property located at 150 Old Cassidy Avenue, based on the staff's recommendation. And that is not part of my recommendation. I say I hate to make that motion. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Needham. If there's no other discussion, I'll take a vote. We're very sorry, but thank you. No, that's okay. Two feet. We've got a two feet differential on here. Yeah. Or reduce the height to four feet, and then you could plant hedges on the inside of that fence to get you added vertical privacy. Okay, the next case to be heard is PLN BOA 22-37, Chelsea Ramburger. Yeah. The applicant, please. This has been recommended for approval. Did we have someone here in discussion? Yeah, we had two, one for approve and one disapprove. Okay, okay. Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project first? So my goal is to work for my house. I have two little ones, so I'm trying to stay with them a little bit more. I've been a dog groomer for a little over 11 years. I kind of want to do just one-on-one dog or cat grooming out of my house. The traffic flow, it wouldn't be affected at all. They maybe would be there parked for maybe five minutes for drop-off, come back later, five minutes for pickup. The owners would not be allowed in my house, just the animals. There is certain breeds that I would not be allowed to do under my insurance. So like bully breeds, aggressive breeds, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Chows, Akitas, dogs and that nature, I would not be allowed to do with the current insurance that I have. They'll be getting me a full list in the next week or two. It will also be done in my basement. I've done a few little trial and errors with my own dogs and some neighbor's dogs to try to test the noise out. You can't really hear anything. When the dogs are down there barking, my own personal dog is very talkative. You can't really hear him. That's pretty much about it. There were also five conditions that the staff gave. Have you seen those? I haven't. Okay. Yes. Great, great. Well, did we state your name for the record? Chelsea Aroundberger. Thank you. I'm trying to keep it in order. I'm trying to keep it together, you guys. If you could sit down for a moment, we'll let the audience speak. Who did we have that wanted to speak for or against? Okay. Please come up. Hello. Good afternoon. State your name for the record, please. my name is shirley williams and um i live two doors from where she wants to has applied for the conditional um whatever it is code to open the business officially and um i've been there for 30 plus years and we are zoned our 10 residential single family residential area and we basically would like to remain that I totally understand she's a new neighbor she hasn't been there but not quite a year um they're wonderful neighbors she has two wonderful sons and we all are older members of the community and in discussing it with the rest of the residents that are right there where she is um we just all feel like we just don't want to open the door for a business to be operated out of a home. And we feel like if we open the business for one, we would open it for anyone else who felt that need. We totally understand. Like I say, she's a good neighbor. And the opposition is not because, selfishly, we don't want her to do it. It's just that we want to remain in our one residential neighborhood that we have lived in for many years and have felt very secure. So basically, that's my opposition. And the other neighbors that we shared together was emailing some things in. I don't know what happened, but I'm here as a speaker on behalf of the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. thank you miss williams sir afternoon good afternoon my name is martin sullivan i leave immediately to the right-hand side of that picture it's 601 lynn wall road uh shelley miss williams lives two doors down as you can see the red car in the driveway or just above that okay which has been there for 10 years but But anyway, that's another problem. I've known this young lady since she's moved in with her two kids and her husband. Okay. I actually run a business out of my home. I repair computers. Okay. Electronics. I also do woodworking. I don't advertise. It's normally word of mouth. I've gone and looked at her facility because my neighbor used to live there. It was an elderly woman. We used to help her take care of her house. okay excellent setup downstairs with the dog grooming station as a matter of fact she has groomed my father-in-law's dog who lives on parish pike this has caused no traffic issues whatsoever as i mentioned earlier the car has caused more issues in our neighborhood than any traffic coming and going uh at any one time there is only two cars at that house she has had people drop off dogs leave come back and pick them up they are not heard they are not seen and it's very cordial the timing of these deliveries and drop-offs i found out are scheduled to a point where it does not cause an overlap and i've been watching this because i'm a nosy neighbor okay as a matter of fact at the top of my driveway i can see down the entire court both left and right of the street so i'm in support of this especially since covid was going on and she had to leave the position she was in and has moved into the residence this would have burden on her and her family and I felt it best that I come in here and give her the supporting word that I believe she needs. Thank you. You're welcome. I was looking at the packet here from the staff. We did have another letter of opposition. Do we need to add that to the record or it already is? The packet that you have in front of you is already submitted in the record so those are the emails that we have received in opposition or support for every case. Okay. okay do you mind just reviewing the the small businesses that are allowed in this new as a conditional use in small businesses just so we have a list And at what point did this get updated? In the last couple of years? No. Especially with COVID, we did recently increase the permissible home-based businesses to allow for home-based salons, including estheticians as well in that definition. So you've seen a few of those cases already. Currently, in Article 3 of the zoning ordinance, actually, the definition of home-based business is the better way to go. A home-based business means a gainful occupation or profession carried on in a residence that involves customers or clients coming to the residence and or the use of materials or equipment that are potentially disturbing to surrounding properties due to noise, odors, flammability, or some other risk factors. Examples include, but are not limited to, individual music instruction, athletic training, counseling services, upholstery work, and firearm repair. The term home-based business shall not include offices for escort services, massage parlors, automobile or small engine repair, medical or dental offices, palm reading or fortune telling, home cooking and catering and other uses other than upholstery, which are first permitted in the B4, I1 and I2 zone. That was the whole definition for home-based business. Thank you, Mr. Needham. So that is helpful for the residents. Conditional uses are already allowable in the residential zone, but there are limited amount of businesses that are already spelled out by the ordinance that would fall into those categories. So it won't open you up to just any business being able to open within that area. All right. No further discussion. I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve PLN BOA 22-37 Chelsea Ramberger's request for conditional use permit in order to operate a home-based dog grooming business in a single family residential R1D zone on property located at 605 Linwall Road based on staff's reasons for approval and the five conditions. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Clark, thank you. There's no further discussion. I'll take a vote. Thank you. Thank you. Motion's passed. Good luck with your business. All righty. PLNBOA 22-40, New Pike, LLC. Is the applicant present and can they come forward, please? Good afternoon. Jake Michael here on behalf of the applicant, New Pike LLC. Good afternoon. This has been recommended for approval with several conditions there. Have you and the client had the opportunity to review the conditions? Yes, we have and we are in agreement with those conditions. Did we have someone else here to speak on? Okay. Would you like to tell us a little bit about the project first? Yes, and I'll keep it fairly brief. This is an application for conditional use permit to operate an extended stay hotel at 1432. Newtown Pass, which is in a development at the corner of Citation Boulevard and Newtown Pike, this is a P1 zone lot where an extended stay hotel is a conditional use. This is a four-story hotel with 114 units. We think it's in a perfect location to serve the high-end uses that will go into Coldstream, the Horse Park. It's in proximity to downtown. There's a need for this type of extended-stay hotel. And I would emphasize that we're not in a position to identify the brand, but something like a Hyatt House or an Element by Marriott or a Homewood Suites or a higher-end establishment that would attract a higher-end clientele. In turn, it would have enclosed hallways. It wouldn't be a motel or that sort of thing or be geared towards transient. It would be geared more towards sort of white-collar office users and people of that nature here on business and things like that. So beyond that, I think it's fairly straightforward. We think it's a good project and a good space for it, and I will go ahead and let the other folks in the audience have a moment to speak. Michael? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Stumbo, and I represent the 47 residents of the Newtown Springs Homeowners Association. we have a petition stating our opposition to this project one of the things i wanted to point out is the staff recommended for approval saying that they didn't think it would adversely affect the subject or adjoining nearby properties and we don't necessarily agree with that we bought our properties with the understanding that this was designated p1 and we don't like the condition the conditional use that's being proposed here. Our concerns are security concerns with the extended stay hotel. The lighting that would be on 24 hours a day, even though there are 12-foot lights and supposedly projected in, it would still have a constant lighting situation directly across from our properties. We're concerned about long-term state clientele, what that might bring to our neighborhood being directly adjacent. We have concern that there's already 10 hotels in a two-mile radius, and does this need to be constructed right there in our backyard with that type of hotel availability already in place? We're concerned about the potential for abandoned cars. the city of lexington allowed amazon to be built in our front yard basically and tore down a very nice forest to allow that to happen one of the side effects of that is constant traffic on citation seven days a week and it's been an adverse impact on our neighborhood we feel like this would only add to that with additional traffic coming in and out of the area and Newtown Pike is already very heavily traveled. It would add to that. We're concerned about the residents, the temporary residents in this extended stay hotel, what they would be doing in and around the area. If they bring pets, will they be bringing them into our yards to create messes that we would then be left to clean up? We don't think that it will have a positive impact on our value of our homes with that property being right beside of us. So we would ask that you consider not approving this project. Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak? You got it covered? Does the board have any questions, comments? The staff has actually recommended approval. what i would like to see if staff could i know i don't know if this is possible or not but i would like to see the the location of this property as related to the homeowners is that possible the area is a little hard to see but the applicant did provide a screenshot of the parcel layout if that would be easier but as you can see the townhomes are directly to the east of the subject property and it is presently zoned P1 and this use is allowable conditional use within that zoning when this site came through with their big zone change and development plan it was called out for these townhomes for the P1 and the associated other commercial business uses surrounding it. Any further questions? Oh, I'm sorry. We have someone else like to speak. Yeah, just one. I'm sorry, we'll have to come. Thank you, Mr. Michael. State your name for the record. And you were sworn already, correct? I'm sorry. Were you already sworn in? Were you sworn in? Yes, yes. Okay. I'm Susan Peters. I live at 1310 Russell Springstripe. And if you look at the red line on the right, see those trees? Are what looks like right there. That's where I live. What I'm going to look out my back door will be the back side of their motel. You know, Amazon took out all the sources of trees in the area. You know, you're asking us, the people who bought our houses, knowing that they would rise up in value, and now you're going to lower it by probably $30,000 per unit. 47 different units. You're asking us to just give up equity into our home. For something that's not needed, there's 12 hotels, each one having more than 100 rooms. Why do we need more? I mean, three of them were just built over there by the Cracker Barrel at Newtown, just in the last couple of years. Why do they have to keep doing it? You know, we moved in with the understanding that we would be having professional doctor's offices, some buildings like what's on Darby Creek. They look like little townhouses, but they're actually business. Now you're wanting us to have a 24-hour light shining into my back door. Across Newtown Pike is Eastern State and the Central Kentucky Recovery Center. Their people are allowed to go anywhere they want. Where are they going to go? To a place where they can hide out in the back parking lot and use their drugs. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate it. Anything else? There's no further discussion. I'll entertain a motion. four again the current recommendation by staff it is approval with six listed conditions so if we're looking to do something different from that if i may just in response to a couple of those questions thank you with respect to the buffer and access you know we're very cognizant about that and spent a fair amount of time out in the hallway during this hearing with these folks and we are very sensitive to this project and have given them our contact information plan to go to their next homeowners meeting having spoken with them about that as far as a buffer and i would just volunteer it wasn't brought up but we had agreed that the staff had recommended a or i shouldn't say the staff the fence typically that would be required as a buffer is six feet and we had discussed with them that we'd be willing to to build that at eight feet and so between that the trees that are there the road that is in between the house and the fact that actually most of those closest houses appear to be oriented with their front and garage towards this use we think that there's a very adequate buffer and we're committed to making sure that there is that that distinction there and you stated earlier in the project it's more of a professional extended state it will be a higher end establishment yes okay and that the access points would not there would be no need to access through or even pass that that development the residential development okay thank you may i ask a question about the shared parking that that confuses me how can you have shared parking when two different properties are using it at the same time it would just part of the party will be located on the adjacent parcel and be actually available to the hotel user via easement which is a pretty common arrangement and commercial developments all over town and at the end of the day you know the two the two uses this is the first one the other lots undeveloped will just be constrained by you know the remaining parking that's available but it's it's via easement that'll be put in place by the the mutual owner of the two lots good thank you Yes, I understand this is B1, is that correct? P1. Yes. So I certainly empathize with the neighbors. I can see their point exactly. But B1 means there's going to be something more of a commercial degree on that property. So it's kind of a case of pick your poison at this point. so that's that's just the way I feel about it now thank you oh I'm sorry we've already closed the public comment but thank you Madam Chair, I move to approve BLMBOA 22-40 New Pike LLC request for a conditional use permit to establish an extended stay hotel in a professional office zone on property located at 1432 Newtown Pass based on staff recommendations and subject to the five conditions. Six. Added six conditions. Oh, you got five? There is a formatting issue on the staff report, but the agenda has the correct numerical list. There are six conditions. Sorry, Alamond, based on the six conditions. A second, please. I'll second. And no further discussion. We'll take a vote. Thank you. The motion has passed. And Mr. Michael, I'm sure you guys will work hard to do a great project the neighbors will be happy with. Absolutely. Thank you all. Thank you. Okay, next case PLN. Okay. Oh, you need a recess. Okay. If we could, we'll take a quick 10 minute recess. Is that- I think we're ready to call back to order, please. everyone can take a seat. Thank you all. Thank you to the viewers as well out there for being patient. This point we will call PLN BOE 22-44 IBCP Athens South LLC. If the applicant i didn't understand that i don't like that thing if the applicant can come forward please and this the staff has recommended approval but i also understand we're working diligently together on several modifications to the condition so do you think it makes sense to just go over the conditions now. Do you want to present a presentation, please? I'll make my presentation brief. Okay, great. Madam Chairman and members of the Board of Adjustment, my name is Steve Rochelle, and along with Sheldon McCoy, our firm represents the applicant IBCP, Athens South LLC, who is the current landowner of the property. We intend to... lease this property to Lexington Sporting Club, who is the tenant on the property. Vince Gabbard is here on behalf of the Lexington Sporting Club and would be happy to speak, but he said if it's not necessary, he will not speak. But I'll know a couple of new members to the Board of Adjustment and would be glad to make a two or three minute presentation if I ask. Representing the applicant is Steve Dahl here and Josh Lewis, and our engineer is Brad Boaz. We have worked very hard with the staff on the conditions, but for three of them, we are in agreement with the conditions. And I think we have just worked out two additional or two of those conditions, and maybe we can discuss those now. But we very much appreciate that recommendation of approval and hope that it will be approved today. Megan? So after discussion with staff and the other divisions, we are recommending amending condition number 7 and number 10 as follows. So this deals with the temporary access drive as well as the review of the conditional use. So amending condition number seven to state the proposed temporary access drive shall be constructed and sealed with a chip and seal surface. Such temporary access drive surface shall be maintained free of fractures, potholes, and failures. and to amend condition number 10 to state there shall be a review of the conditional use one year after the approval in order to assess one, traffic impacts, two, lighting impacts, three, stormwater management, and four, stability of the temporary access drive. So those are the two conditions that we are recommending amending. So that would take care of two of the three issues we have. I would like to say, and I'm pleased to say that the revision to item 10 includes lighting impacts and storm warmer management. And that has been at the request of Fayette Alliance, and we have reached an agreement and have agreed to do that. one year. The only other issue, and it's really not an issue, is on item number two regarding development plan and the staff has agreed to this. We would like to have a minor development plan inserted instead of a full development plan. Guys, for something I've worked so hard on, it's hard to believe I'm almost finished, but maybe I should be. So just give me a second. Well, I have no further comments. Our client would ask for your approval and we will abide by the conditions as modified by the staff. And with that, we'll give the podium to anyone else who needs to speak. There is my understanding that Tom Miller representing a landowner wants to speak. And are you on this matter? Okay, so we only have those who would like to speak as well. And Fayette Alliance may want to speak in support of this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rocha. So who would like to speak first? The mic is yours. Remember to state your name for the record. I'm signed in. I'm Tom Miller. I represent 5075AWHP, LLC, a thoroughbred horse farm, which is adjacent to the property. I wonder if the staff could put up a map of the property. Thank you. We've been in discussions with Mr. Rochelle about concerns we have and talked about some possible concession on their part. I haven't heard back yet. Do you have the development plan? Okay. I need the pointer. Thank you. And if you do, there's a projector up behind you that the board can see. Okay. Am I doing this right? Yeah. There's a projector back behind you that the board can see. Oh, I see. Should I put it up there? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I was at this property on Sunday and walked all of it. There's a little short street here, Dole Run. And what they're proposing is this long semicircular roadway. And here are the soccer fields. My clients are here in the back of the soccer field, and we have two residences on there. And you see there's a lot of open space here that is not immediately adjacent to our client's property. And these two fields are right over the fence line. So to tell you something about the farm that's adjacent to this property, it's 183 acres. They have 52 horse stalls and two main residences. It employs up to five people. They're typically 60 to 65 horses boarding on the farm. One of the co-owners, the Adamses, Robert and Pam, are here with me. And they have a house on the farm that they use. There are many mares and yearlings on the farm. The mares are pregnant or they're there to breed when it's the appropriate time of year. Some of the horses come from the auction sales in Lexington and are in quarantine for shipment overseas. The traffic, number of people, noise, and lights that will be part of this facility being proposed by movement. Movement will create a very disruptive event for the horses on the farm. As you all know, the thoroughbreds are fractious animals and they live on a routine. The night lighting, these are 80-foot-high poles with light. They are proposing that the light illuminate toward the fields, and we appreciate that. But we're concerned about how the lighting at night will create a tendency among the mayors that are not pregnant to have an artificial ovulation cycle that disrupts their breeding schedule. They've referred to the economic benefits to the community for having the soccer fields. We understand that, but when you compare that to the horse industry in the state, it's insignificant. The horse industry, according to Lexington Visitor Center website, identifies 61 reasons Lexington is the horse capital of the world. One reason it is considered the capital is because more money changes hands over the sale of horses in Lexington than any other place in the world. That source estimates the economic impact of the horse economy is about $4 billion annually. It's the number two agricultural crop in the state. I'm sorry, I've done something wrong here. Can you switch? You should be able to go back to the media. Yeah, sorry. You see all this open space here. we think that the soccer complex should go in the open space, which is immediately adjacent to the commercial property here, rather than putting it over here by these residences and by the horse farm. I just looked on the LISA website today. I'm in favor of soccer. I coached Mr. Rochelle's son in soccer a long time ago, and I have a son that's a soccer coach. All my children have played Lysa. We're big supporters of it. There are currently 23 Lysa fields that are on their website. And for that reason, don't see why there's a necessity of 10 extra fields at this point. and that doesn't even count Cardinal Run, which I know was being considered as a primary site for Lysa soccer. I understand this is a different organization, and I presume they are swallowing up Lysa, but for the same reasons that Lysa doesn't appear to need more fields, neither does this new professional soccer group. I can tell you when I, even on Sunday, when I went into the site and then tried to get back on Richmond Road, which is, and it was late in the afternoon, so it should have been a low traffic time of day, you're really taking your life in your hands when you try to turn left out of this site onto Richmond, onto Athens Boonsburg Road to drive back to Lexington. And I think they would have the same problem trying to turn left if they came from the interstate and were coming to Dole Run. My clients are real horse farmers. They do the work themselves. They've been in it for generations. And if this property is not usable as a horse farm, they'll have to move. and whether they could afford another facility is unknown. What we would like and what I've been talking with Mr. Rochelle about is we would like to see a security fence, the entire boundary here. And that would be approximately a six-foot-high fence. We've talked about where to locate that, and he suggested that if they approve, he hasn't said they agree to it, but if they agree to put in the security fence, we would like it to be six feet high, and although we would prefer there be trees between our board fence and the security fence, that if it was preferable for the developer if they were to put in a fence immediately adjacent to the four-board paddock, four-board fence, that we could tolerate that. that would hopefully minimize the possibility of injury to kids or kids trying to pat the horses, climbing over the fence. They have young grandchildren just like I do, and it's a concern to make sure that they stay away from the animals so the animals are not hurt and the children are not injured. and minimize the possibility they'll be throwing something at the horses. And in the fields immediately adjacent to where this property is being developed, there are bulls. They have cattle on the farm from time to time, and they do have bulls. and the children would be particularly endangered without a security fence. So in the event that there is an approval of this property, we would ask that my clients and their horses be fully protected, and it would also protect the children to have an adequate security fence and we would ask also that they have full screening between the soccer fields and my client's property. Anything else? Thank you very much. Madam Chair, do I have some bottle time? Yes, please. Daniel, could you put up the area? Is that good enough? Yeah, exactly. It's a little bit of the very top. No, not that one. It's right below this kind of goes across. As you can see, I'm technologically challenged. We don't believe that a fence is needed. The staff doesn't believe a fence is needed. In the one area where they thought the fence was needed, they have required a 50-foot planting area here, 50 feet wide. And you can see there are no trees there. But along this property line and along this property line, there are significant tree lines. And we will agree not to remove any of those trees because we want to be a good neighbor. We want the horse industry to be successful, and we want to be successful. Now, Lexington Sporting Club is a whole new type of soccer for our community. And in fact, it includes Lysa, it includes several other of the leagues that have grown up over the years. It will be one unified league which will have enhanced training for the soccer players and so forth and so on. We will continue to use the soccer fields at Sayre School, Madison Station, the Christian Academy, and one other. And the Horse Park. We have 1,400 families, and the cream of the crop are going to be the ones that come here and train, whose parents want them to train in our new facility. So we believe the staff has protected the neighbor with the 50 foot planning requirement here. We believe that nature has protected them here. And with that, are there any questions of the applicant who's here by the way? Thank you. Just for my knowledge, what is the distance between the soccer field and their property line, the closest soccer field? Is that 10 feet of trees, 20 feet of trees? It's hard for me to make that out. I'd like to introduce Brad Boas of CMW Engineers to answer those questions. Good afternoon, Brad Boas of CMW. Chad, could you please repeat the question? Sure. I was just wondering what the distance is from the closest soccer field to that fence line. From the actual field line of the soccer field to the fence line is 170 feet at the closest point. So 170 feet of really dense trees is what is going to exist? Where the trees are not present now currently, that's where we're going to add the 50 foot of additional evergreens. I didn't think that was their property line. I thought their property line was just towards the back. No sir. Their property line is sent from here? Correct. I got you, okay. Okay. Okay. So you're going to tree, obviously, the vacant, the treeless area, you're going to put a buffer. We're going to put a barrier as recommended. Okay. So I guess back to my question, the buffer from that back fence line, I guess if we're looking north is up, south would be down. the south fence line is that buffer would be how many feet? A hundred foot tree buffer? A hundred feet at least. Yeah, 200 foot tree buffer. Okay. That's very, very dense vegetation. Okay. That was my only question. Thank you. Could we show Mr. Adams' farm on there so I know what I'm looking at? Mr. Miller is representing the property owner here. Their parcel kind of wraps around here. I think on the site plan you can kind of see the edges some more. It cuts off here where the subject property kind of has this little corner. it comes up here to about the edge of the 50-foot buffer. So the highlighted portion there is the western property edge. Yep. And then the lot also goes on the right side of the site plan to the south of the subject property. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions? These speakers, I think we have someone else to speak. I promise I'll keep it brief this time. That's okay. Thank you, board of justice members. Brittany Rothmeier with the Fade Alliance. As always, Fade Alliance remains concerned about what type of uses are permitted in the agricultural rural zone outside those that go towards the specific intent of the zone, which I know we've talked about, which is specifically to encourage production agriculture and protection of our rural area and rural character of the bluegrass. We think it's always important to reemphasize the uses outside of the ones that support that basic intent of the AR zone. It should be done thoughtfully and very carefully. The right questions should always be asked and considered, as we're seeing here today, to ensure that permitted conditional uses don't undermine the intent of the zone, don't cause irreparable harm to the uses that the AR zone was made for, our agricultural businesses and our rural identity, and then any adverse impacts proposed are mitigated or prevented by very carefully written conditions. And as such, as much as we may want a given use in our community, we still have to ensure it's done responsibly and with much care. We understand planning staff's recommendation for approval is a conditional one. Conditions are opposed on the use. It specifically states that this use can be appropriate at this location if specific conditions are imposed upon the use. And if those conditions are not opposed upon the use or if any are contemplated to be removed by the board, Fate Alliance would question if this was still an appropriate use at this location. As such, we request that all the staff's 16 recommendations and the modifications that were presented by Mr. Rochelle and agreed to by the applicant be adopted with this proposal. These are extremely critical, I think, to ensure that there's a reduction in adverse impacts to the agricultural rural zone. I was not aware of the conversations that were ongoing with the adjacent property owner, and I think that those are critical to understand the impacts of as well. So again, not here to support nor oppose, but wanted to make sure that we voice those concerns on the record, as I think they're always critical as we think about allowing conditional uses in the agricultural rural area, in which those uses are specifically supposed to be limited. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further from the board? Yes, I'd like to just clarify for my own sake, and I think this is important. I think the concerns about impact on the farm and the horses is important, And I'd like to have some assurance by the applicant that there will be sufficient barriers to keep any kind of impact on the horses based on the obvious very intense use of the fields. And if you could assure me that there will be something there that will afford a barrier to maintain the separation, that would be very helpful. If you can speak to that, Mr. Urshel, or whomever. Mr. Clark, we will agree not to disturb more than necessary. this wooded area, and we will put in the 50-foot buffer as a condition and recommended by staff, right along here. If that doesn't work, then I think the door is going to be open for us to talk, Tom. And if additional barriers are needed, we will certainly do that. Because we want the horses to be safe. We want our players to be safe and their families. But I think when the staff looked at this, they thought that that was appropriate. It's not 50 foot. It's 50 foot wide. I understand that. It's probably a couple hundred feet long. And what is that barrier? Excuse me? What is the barrier? It's – yeah, go ahead. Yeah. It's a double row of evergreen trees planted 30 feet on center. In addition, as you saw maybe in the report, taking special care of the sports lighting to ensure that it does not spill on the property. That those lights are directed down toward the field only. In addition, the existing tree line, in addition to the improved tree line, That would help with sound as well as preventing or trying to prevent kids from moving back and forth. So there are no trees there now? There are trees on the property line. On the property line. Yes, sir. There are trees on the property. Of course the problem is you plant the evergreens, you're going to plant small evergreens, and they won't be much of a buffer for how many years? But I appreciate that. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to address the conditions. I congratulate the staff on the conditions that we have already. I think they are appropriate. But I also think that there needs to be a little more strength within the conditions that the staff had presented. And I'm not addressing what you just said in your conditions. It might be easier if I could just put these up on the overhead. Could we do that? Thank you. Again, these will be just meshed with what the staff has already suggested. And it's just adding a little more strength to what is already there. Number three would read, all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Division of Planning, Inspection, and Engineering prior to construction, and shall have the approval of the Kentucky as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any construction. Number five would read, a sewage treatment system shall be installed in accordance with requirements of department of health and the state of kentucky standards for sanitary waste disposal number seven would read the proposed temporary access drive shall be paved with asphalt or concrete and include pedestrian facilities and will be paved within three years even if the business portion of the property is not developed the design of the off-street parking internal circulation and access to the site shall be subject to review and approval by the Division of Traffic Engineering and excess or overflow parking shall be prohibited on public roads. Number seven, instead of just one parking lot, the parking lots, it would be more than one lot, shall be constructed of pervious materials number 10 there shall be a review of the conditional use one year after approval in order to access traffic impacts septic disposal stormwater drainage and lighting impacts number 11 existing vegetative areas in the south and southwestern and west portion of the site shall be preserved by a 50-foot minimum buffer to maintain screening adjacent properties number 12 loudspeakers and restaurants or food service are prohibited including no portable food vehicles on site and i i think those would strengthen what the staff has already said that and make this a site that we would be proud of in years to come. And I have more copies that people need to. So I may check with legal here, so there's no motion in place. This is just discussion of additional conditions that. I'm sorry, Mr. Rochelle, I'm still a little new here, I need direction. Answer her question. Okay, Tracy. I mean, right now there's no motion in place. She's presenting these to you, but there can be a motion made about these. I would encourage you to have some discussion about them as well. Okay. And we can answer questions if you need us to. Okay, thank you. Mr. Rochelle, would you like to comment on some of these? I would. Thank you. Thank you. Let me review my notes just a minute. Thank you, Ms. Plumey, for your exhaustive list. We could not agree to number three in the addition. And the reason is, could I have the development plan back up? And I think you'll understand why we can't agree to all those conditions prior to construction. There is a temporary road that we've discussed. It's 3,600 feet long. And why in the world would we want to do that? Put temporary road. The reason is, is between the extension of Doe Run Trail to this property, which will eventually be constructed. there is a very sensitive environmental area here that can be constructed on, but only with special permits from FEMA and the various departments that you've mentioned. And that process takes up to sometimes a year, and I'm involved in one right now. It's 18 months to get these permits from FEMA and or the Corps of Engineers. So that's why we could not agree to that, and that's the reason this road is here. Until we get these permits, this road will not be built. And the temporary road would necessarily then have to become a permanent road in the future if we can't get those permits. But we intend to file for those permits tomorrow if this conditional use permit is approved. And so that we need these at least four of these fields to come online next spring. And we're going to construct that as quickly as we can. And they're going to be sports turf. It will not be grass. It will be rather sports turf. And this road is necessary in order to do that. But we cannot agree not to begin construction this road until we have all the permits you mentioned, which would probably be a year or so down the road. And so we would have to respectfully reject that, agreeing to that. And what is the next one? Or excuse me, could you? So the only addition there is, and the state of Kentucky standards, is your only language that you've included there? Additional language? Ms. Plumlee. I don't understand your question. Well, we have agreed to this, but you've- You're talking about number five? Number three. You've put that additional language. Do you have any problem with that, Steve? Yeah. It's adding the Kentucky standards. Right, the Kentucky standards. And we would agree to that. On number seven, do you have any problems with that, Mr. Dahl here? Which one? Yes. Number seven? Seven is the temporary access one I think you just addressed. Yes, it is. Yeah. And it has a three-year limitation. Yeah, that's that's what we just that's what we can't do. We can't do. We just work through that issue. Because I think, um, Mrs. Plumlee that that has been dealt with with the revised notes today. Yeah, all I'm asking is that it'd be paved even, you know, even after three years has gone by. Even though you don't develop the front part. So do you mean that it will have to be paved within three years? Yes. Okay. Do we have any problem with that? That's beneficial. That's not what that says. That's not what that says. Should we get it? It says it shall be paid for asphalt or concrete. And it says and it will be paid within three years. So as long as it's, if it can be clarified that the intent is that, that if the temporary road is still in use after three years, that it be paid. As paid. that's the intent then that's that's agreed if the intent is that it be paid and then repaid within three years or if i'm reading that correctly that's that is not the at least that's not our intent was that is that well i just think that the road that the temporary access should be paved within three years. The plan is that temporary road to go away. Yeah, but we have a certainly wish for years. Yeah, even though you're not doing the front of it. Even though you haven't developed the front of it. It's going to be, I think, I mean, I think the language that was agreed to the staff is that the roads, the temporary road will be assessed within a year. Okay. The shipment seal. Okay. The type of roading will be assessed within a year of now, which I think is more stringent if this intent is that it be paid in three years before we're still using it. And you go along with the pedestrian? Oh, I'm sorry. Our mics aren't that good. Our mics aren't that good. Sorry, I was just listening. I'm Josh Lewis, iVisionary Capital Partners. And Josh Lewis, iVisionary Capital Partners. And I was not sworn in because I was outside in the hall. I don't know if I need to be as the owner, but if you need to. Yes, please, if you could raise your right hand. Happy to do so. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Absolutely. So it is our intent, sincerely that there will be a permanent road installed at this location well within a three year period of time. And that the temporary road would be vacated and removed. And so I think the language that staff has proposed and we've agreed to would meet your condition. Actually exceed your condition. The challenge with number three, the necessary permits should be obtained by the Division of Building Inspection and Engineering. The challenge we have, I think the last condition that staff has, the last two conditions, do cover the requirement for U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and I think those are covered within that, so I think this language would be due to that language. I guess staff could agree or not agree with that? We can review all of Plumlee's suggested revisions at one time if you want to keep addressing the rest of hers. Okay. So I think that's probably duplicative. But that being said, the challenge we have, it's our intent to start mass grading on this site. And we believe, or actually we know, and Brad Boaz with CMW can attest to this, that there are not going to be any required nationwide permits or fish and wildlife approval necessary to move forward with mass grading on the site in the back where the soccer facilities are going. And so the challenge we have with this language is that I don't believe any of these approvals are necessary to begin construction. And so as long as we're okay with that, I just wanted to address that issue. Let's see. Brad do you have a comment on number eight? Yeah I think I did that. You're okay with that? Yeah that's fine because we're not going to have any over full parking on public roads. Okay. But nine is a problem. And okay number nine yeah the construction of pervious material I'm not sure how that's possible. parking lots are going to be asphalt parking lots? Can you describe what you mean by pervious parking lots? Are you okay with gravel parking lots? I would refer to traffic and what they approved for pervious as someone from staff. Steven? There's not going to be allowed. Which would qualify as pervious? This seems to be going down a tricky path. I think we're trying to accommodate all this. And this isn't something that the board is requesting. This is something that you are asking for. And I wouldn't vote for the majority of these because of redundancies. So I don't know where to go on this. I mean, we're basically interjecting these things. but it's not something that we're you know we've we've had a discussion about right right this is just what what i came up with okay and this is what if i were to i i understand i i wouldn't have any problem with not having pervious surfaces or anything like that i would also like to see a little bit of strength in the conditions that's that's all i come up with i think um procedurally we'll just let them address you know the uh someone on the board has made a comment or had some issues like questions and we'll let the applicant address it to get the board members concerns then but until it's more like conditions yeah yeah i understand i understand so then until we have a motion with the conditions on on board it's was just a discussion opinions and feedback. Okay. There's a number of options when it comes to porous surfaces. There's pavers. There is porous concrete. There's a number of items that can be used for parking lots, and typically we let the design engineer for the project determine that, and it would be part of the calculations submitted to the Division of Engineering as part of the retention calculations. Okay, were there any other questions or concerns? I had a couple of questions. Since this is in the AR zone, if you all decide that you don't want to move along with this, in three years, the soccer fields or whatever, what happens to the property at that point? If the property is ever used for anything other than what you hopefully approve today, it would revert. It would revert back to the AR zone. Now, that is not to say that Lexington Sporting Club will operate this indefinitely. It is our plan to do it indefinitely. But the property may be sold, but anyone would want to protect these soccer fields over time. We're talking about a multimillion-dollar project. But in my interpretation of the conditional use law is that if it's used for any other purpose, then it reverts. Tracy, would you agree? Well, the conditional use doesn't change the zone. It's still an AR zone. So once a conditional use is granted, then it has to be used based on the terms and conditions that you all impose on it. And the only way that it disappears is if somebody else comes in, wants to ask for a different conditional use or to expand a conditional use, or if it's abandoned. And there's, you know. That was my concern was the abandonment. It has to be abandoned for a period of time and there has to be no effort to, you know. And then it can be brought back to you all for you all to take some action on that as well. But it doesn't change the zone. This is a conditional use that if you all approve is allowed in an AR zone and the zone stays the same. And then the only other thing that I had was with the buffer. Simply because I've seen athletic fields before and I've seen cattle and I've seen horses and I've seen kids go through the buffers. I've also seen a lot of people, I love dogs. I love dogs. But I've also seen a lot of people bring their dogs off athletic fields. The dogs get loose, dogs, cattle, and horses can get along, but they don't always. So I don't think that the trees would be a deterrent to keep the kids and anything else that might come up away from the horse farm. All right, did staff want to weigh in on any of the issues or concerns brought up? So looking over most of Ms. Plumlee's suggested revisions, I believe there is some redundancy in the verbiage in that they're either addressed in other conditions or they're already addressed in other regulations or how things are permitted by other divisions. So earlier we did present an amended condition number seven, which is conflicting with Ms. Plumlee's number seven revisions. We had provided that the temporary access drive shall be constructed and sealed with a chip and seal surface. And such temporary access drive surface shall be maintained free of fractures, potholes, and failures. So that was verbiage that staff worked with the applicant and other constituents on to provide to you here at this meeting. So it does conflict with Ms. Plumley's. If her intent with number seven is solely to have it paved within three years, I think we could maybe work on the wording there to bring within three years up to the front of the sentence, comma, the proposed temporary access drive shall be paved with asphalt or concrete and include pedestrian facilities. I think that establishes the three-year timeline up front rather than having confusion over the and part later in the statement or in the condition. I guess I can kind of go through Plumlee's revisions one by one. number three we do cover the u.s fish and wildlife service review and approval later in condition number 15 so i believe that that is is covered there number five I would say adding the state standards isn't needed because our local standards should reflect state standards. If anything, they'd be more than the state standards. So I'm not sure that that suggested revision is needed. And I don't believe staff has an issue with number eight at all. Thanks for catching our typo on the singular parking lot. I will say that the final cross section for the paved road can be discussed whenever the development plan is amended. Later down the road when the applicant returns to the planning commission to update their development plan. So they can definitely address the on-public road parking that's addressed in number 8. So with your concerns in number nine with the pervious materials of the parking lot, With any impervious surface, stormwater management has rules for the volumes and quality input, I guess pre-development and post-development. I'm not an expert on their regulations, but stormwater management will have some review of the stormwater aspect of the parking lot and the impervious surfaces there. Okay, so earlier we also, staff also provided an amended number 10 condition, which states There shall be a review of the conditional use one year after approval in order to assess traffic impacts, lighting impacts, stormwater management, and stability of temporary access drive. We left out septic. Yeah. Yeah. The health department will require the review of how septic is handled on site when they permit the facilities to begin with. so our number 11 covers the preservation of the existing vegetative areas to an extent the board could add a dimensional aspect to that but I think staff is comfortable moving forward with our original condition there. And then number 12, food trucks are not permitted on the site to begin with. So that's kind of included in the food service aspect of our original condition. I believe that covers anything, but Ms. Plumlee, if you have any questions or follow-up comments. So on number the staff number 12 it doesn't mention food trucks so can't we mention them? Food trucks are just included in in food service and are usually also related to restaurants which restaurants themselves aren't permitted in the in the zone so I think that would be covered. I understand what we're voting for. Well, I think maybe we should have a motion first, and then we'll break for any necessary, or we'll have any necessary discussion following then. Okay. If anyone is prepared to make a motion, I'm sorry, should I? Any additional comment, rebuttal? One on number 12, and thank you, Megan. We would request that there be no language concerning portable food vehicles on site. They may be temporarily necessary, because this site is almost 1,000 feet away from the Super America. And until we get a restaurant built on the B5P property next door, we need somewhere for the kids to be able to get a Coke and a hot dog. And so we would ask that that language be removed, that it be temporary. If we would like to save for after two years, we would close the portable food vehicles on site, no longer beyond that period of time. But that could cause some real problems and some safety problems for young people walking down to the Super America. So, thank you. How many of you have a response to that, please? We have a moment. We're waiting on legal. The staff appropriately limited the use of this property. So if you have hot dogs, you got wrappers, you got little packets of ketchup and mustard, you have a lot of litter all over the property. It's going to be blowing all over the place. It's going to end up on my client's farm. With the fence, Ms. Tucker, I totally agree with you. Dogs, kids can get through the plank fences. I've raised three boys. You look the other way, they're gone. While you're watching one kid play soccer, the other one's gone. And this is going to be a magnet going through the woods and seeing the horses. And that's why we believe, Ms. Tucker, and agree with you, that there has to be an adequate screening to protect the kids from the cows, from the bulls, and from the horses. We are very much opposed to the concession stands on the property. Thank you. Thank you. I think we'll close the public comment. Do we have anything from... One brief comment to correct my friend Tom. We're not asking for concession stands. We're asking for a food truck to come during a game to supply whatever they supply. So it's not a concession stand, Tom, per se. But my understanding is the staff said food trucks would be included in the food service comment. It may be, but we don't want any particular. But then we need to decide whether it is or it isn't. Don't you think we need to decide whether food trucks are okay or are banned by the use of the word food service? We need to know what that actually means. We would ask that portable food vehicles be included on a temporary basis. On a temporary basis, not permanently, but on a temporary basis, say for two years. On a temporary basis. Thank you, Mr. Miller. The zoning ordinance, the way it's worded, does give itinerant merchants some flexibility. And specifically with food trucks, they're typically allowed anywhere where a restaurant might be located. So that generally is like business zones. with the food trucks that obviously they're mobile and they drive around our community every day. So there's really nothing in terms of the zoning perspective. Well, it would be very difficult to prohibit Joe's barbecue from driving out there and serving lunch during an event. Just like it would be difficult to not allow maybe a taco truck to go to some of the horse farms during the week and serve lunch. So I don't necessarily think we should over restrict the applicant from allowing their normal activity to occur, which could include events for tournaments. And that would generally, compared to national practices, include some sort of food. I think we've told the applicant we don't think food trucks would be an issue for them to have a food truck at the site. Okay, I think we're safe to close for public discussion currently. If we'd like to, if someone's ready to make a motion, we could do so and have some discussion. If anyone thinks they need more time with legal, we could do that as well. I'm ready to make a motion, but if I just say based on the following conditions, they've been kind of adjusted here. So I just want to make sure with legal that we have the right conditions identified and approved. I think as of right now the revisions are just suggestions. They have not been proposed as new conditions. Although I know Mr. Rochelle, you guys agreed to, because I'm looking at some, I mean I think that was number 10. Let's see. 7 and 10. Number 10. I just want to make sure I get it right. Let me see if I can help you out here. Okay. The staff has come back to you after the break and recommended to you that their conditions that they proposed 1 through 16 be amended. Number 7 and number 10. And so the staff is now proposing that to you as part of the conditions that they are recommending. What's on the board right now, although some of it is similar to what's on the page in your report, are not exactly the same and there has been no formal motion to adopt those. So right now you've got 16 conditions with some revisions to 7 and 10 being recommended by the staff. And two would have meant the minor. Oh, and two about a minor plan. So, you know, it's not to say you can't do anything else, but that's what you have right now. Okay, well, I'll just make a motion. I feel good about the conditions as they state. So I recommend approval of PLNBOA 22-44 IVCP Athens South LLC. Sorry. Request for a conditional use permit for outdoor recreational facilities with outdoor lighting in an agricultural AR zone on property located at 5354 Athens Boonesboro Road. And those are subject to staff's recommendations and the 16 conditions. Maybe you should state including the modifications for 2, 7, and 9. Okay, including the modifications for number 2, 7, and 10. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Now, is there any additional discussion? I would like to see us mesh a little bit of our discussion with the conditions I suggested. I think the applicant even kind of agreed with a couple of them. Is there a particular one we're discussing? Because many of them staff thinks we're redundant. Yeah. No, Mr. Rochelle, I'm sorry. I think this is the board discussion currently. I'm just looking for the list. Okay, that's okay. No problem. I think it would be appropriate to meet with legal and see if there was anything remaining that we could salvage. Yeah, I would just like to vote on this. I think that most of what you've proposed is very similar to what we have already. I withdraw my motion. Well, we only have one motion on the floor right now. I suggest. Okay, okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. We are open for vote currently. We should take a vote. Look, I got the Tracys looking at me. Is that appropriate? Okay. We're just waiting. Okay. Okay. Okay. It looks like the motion has passed. Thank you guys and good luck with your project. I'm sorry, I think that's it. The last one was postponed. Are there any other board items that the board needs to discuss? Any staff items? No? No? All right, so our next meeting will be same place, October 10th, 1-30. And if there's no further business, we are adjourned. Thank you.