# Board of Adjustment Hearing - April 10, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 10, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5793 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5793?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-04-10 - **Last revised**: April 10, 2023 - **Length**: 33,383 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on April 10, 2023, at 1:35 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Raquel Carter presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed seven agenda items consisting of variance appeals, conditional use appeals, and one administrative appeal, resulting in seven motions and votes throughout the proceedings. Five members of the public provided comments during the meeting on various matters before the board. Of the seven cases heard, five appeals were approved, including variance requests from Tina Thomas, Jay Ingle, and Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture & Design, as well as conditional use appeals from Juan Melendez and Zion Church Builders. The board postponed consideration of the conditional use appeal by Jackson's Wine & Spirits, LLC, while denying the administrative appeal brought by Whitetail Heaven Outfitters. The meeting demonstrated the board's active role in reviewing zoning and land use matters, with the majority of applicants receiving favorable decisions on their requests for relief from standard zoning requirements. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on April 10, 2023: • Raquel Carter • Harry Clarke • Branden Gross • Chad Needham • Carolyn Plumlee • Linda Tucker • Chad Walker **Late Arrival:** • Vince Thompson No members were recorded as absent from the meeting. All eight members of the body were accounted for, with seven present at the start of the meeting and one arriving late. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered seven items during the meeting, with five approvals, one postponement, and one denial. **PLN-BOA-23-00023** [timestamp: 02:00]: Harry Clarke motioned to approve Tina Thomas's variance request to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure, seconded by Chad Needham. The motion passed unanimously 7-0, with all members voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, Chad Needham, Carolyn Plumlee, Linda Tucker, and Chad Walker. The approval included the condition that construction shall be in accordance with submitted application materials and an updated site plan depicting accessory structures totaling no more than 1,053 square feet. **PLN-BOA-23-00027** [timestamp: 06:00]: Chad Needham motioned to approve Jay Ingle's variance request to reduce the required rear yard setback and increase the allowable floor area ratio, seconded by Linda Tucker. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with the same voting members. The addition must be constructed in accordance with submitted application materials and site plan. **PLN-BOA-23-00029** [timestamp: 10:00]: Harry Clarke motioned to approve Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture & Design's variance request to reduce side yard setbacks, seconded by Chad Needham. The motion passed unanimously 7-0, requiring construction in accordance with submitted application materials and site plan. **PLN-BOA-23-00026** [timestamp: 14:00]: Harry Clarke motioned to approve Juan Melendez's conditional use permit for a home-based auto detailing business, seconded by Chad Walker. The motion passed unanimously 7-0, with the condition that operations be confined to the attached garage and enclosed at all times. **PLN-BOA-23-00028** [timestamp: 18:00]: Chad Needham motioned to approve Zion Church Builders' request to amend an existing conditional use permit and variance, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. **PLN-BOA-23-00005** [timestamp: 22:00]: Branden Gross motioned to postpone Jackson's Wine & Spirits, LLC's conditional use request for accessory drive-through facilities, seconded by Harry Clarke. The postponement passed unanimously 7-0, continuing the item for one month. **PLN-BOA-23-00006** [timestamp: 30:00]: Carolyn Plumlee motioned regarding Whitetail Heaven Outfitters' administrative appeal, seconded by Linda Tucker. The motion failed unanimously 0-7, with all members voting against. ## Public Comment Five community members spoke during the public comment period, all addressing concerns about hunting outfitters operating in the area. **Karen Monday** [timestamp: 40:00] opened the public comment session by expressing concerns about safety and the impact of commercial hunting operations on the community. **Craig** [timestamp: 42:00] followed with specific safety concerns, highlighting risks to employees and horses due to nearby hunting activities in the area. **Lisette Crane** [timestamp: 44:00] discussed ongoing issues with property lines and raised additional safety concerns related to the hunting activities affecting local residents. **Matt Walker** [timestamp: 46:00] shared a personal experience of being confronted by outfitters while driving on a public road, illustrating the tensions between hunting operations and community members using public access routes. **Carolyn Sing** [timestamp: 48:00] concluded the public comment period by expressing concern for neighbor safety and voicing opposition to the hunting operations. All five speakers focused exclusively on hunting outfitter operations, with common themes including: • Safety concerns for residents, employees, and animals • Property line disputes and access issues • Confrontational encounters between outfitters and community members • General opposition to commercial hunting activities in the area The concentrated focus on hunting outfitters from all public commenters suggests this is a significant ongoing issue affecting multiple community members in the jurisdiction. ## Contested Items The primary contested item during this meeting involved Whitetail Heaven Outfitters and alleged zoning violations related to their commercial hunting operations. **Whitetail Heaven Outfitters Zoning Violations** Community members voiced strong opposition to the commercial hunting operations conducted by Whitetail Heaven Outfitters. The disagreement centered on two main concerns: public safety issues and alleged noncompliance with existing zoning regulations. Residents expressed safety concerns about the commercial hunting activities taking place in their area, though specific details about the nature of these safety issues were not provided in the available meeting materials. Additionally, community members alleged that the outfitter's operations violated local zoning regulations, suggesting the business may not be operating in compliance with permitted land use requirements. The opposition appeared to be driven by community members rather than individual complainants, indicating broader neighborhood concerns about the commercial hunting operations and their impact on the local area. The meeting materials do not specify the outcome of this contested item or what actions, if any, were taken by the governing body in response to the community opposition and zoning violation allegations. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item discussion.* ## Variance Appeal by Tina Thomas [timestamp: 02:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.1, a variance appeal submitted by Tina Thomas. Thomas requested permission to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure beyond the standard municipal regulations. Under current zoning requirements, accessory structures are limited to 50% of a specified size threshold. Thomas sought a variance to expand this allowance to 69% to accommodate her proposed structure. During the discussion, Thomas presented her case for the larger accessory structure variance. The board reviewed the request and the specific circumstances of the property in question. After deliberation, the board reached a compromise decision. Rather than approving the full 69% variance requested by Thomas, the board approved a reduced variance that would allow the accessory structure to reach 59% of the size threshold. This represented a middle ground between the standard 50% limit and Thomas's original 69% request. The variance appeal was ultimately approved with the modified terms, allowing Thomas to proceed with her accessory structure project under the 59% size allowance rather than the standard 50% limitation. ## Variance Appeal by Jay Ingle [timestamp: 06:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.2, a variance appeal submitted by Jay Ingle. Ingle appeared before the board requesting two specific variances for his property: a reduction in the required rear yard setback and an increase in the allowable floor area ratio beyond current zoning restrictions. Jay Ingle presented his case to the board, though the specific details of his presentation and the reasoning behind his variance requests are not detailed in the available materials. The variances would allow Ingle to proceed with development plans that would otherwise not comply with existing zoning requirements. Following Ingle's presentation and the board's consideration of the request, the board voted to approve both variance requests. The approval allows Ingle to move forward with his project under the modified setback and floor area ratio requirements rather than the standard zoning restrictions that would normally apply to the property. The board's decision represents a successful outcome for Ingle's appeal, granting him the flexibility needed to proceed with his development plans as proposed. ## Variance Appeal by Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture & Design [timestamp: 10:00] The board considered a variance request from Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture & Design to reduce the required side yard setbacks for a new single-family dwelling project. The firm sought relief from standard setback requirements to accommodate their proposed residential design. Vince Thompson represented the architecture firm during the presentation, outlining the specific variance needed and the justification for the reduced setbacks. The request centered on modifying the standard side yard requirements that would otherwise constrain the proposed dwelling's footprint and design. Following the presentation and board discussion of the variance application, the board voted to approve the request. The approval allows Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture & Design to proceed with their single-family dwelling project using the reduced side yard setbacks as requested. The variance approval enables the firm to move forward with construction plans that would not have been possible under the standard setback requirements, while still maintaining appropriate spacing and compliance with other applicable zoning regulations. ## Conditional Use Appeal by Juan Melendez [timestamp: 14:00] The board considered agenda item III.D.1, a conditional use appeal submitted by Juan Melendez requesting permission to operate a home-based auto detailing business. Juan Melendez presented his request to the board, seeking approval for the conditional use permit that would allow him to conduct auto detailing services from his residential property. The specific details of his presentation and the location of the proposed business were discussed during this portion of the meeting. Following the presentation and board discussion, the conditional use appeal was approved. However, the approval came with specific conditions that Melendez must comply with in order to operate the home-based auto detailing business legally within the jurisdiction. The board's decision represents a favorable outcome for Melendez's business proposal, allowing him to move forward with his auto detailing operations while ensuring compliance with local zoning regulations and any stipulated operational requirements. *Note: Additional details about the specific conditions of approval, concerns raised during discussion, and other speakers who may have participated in this agenda item were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## Conditional Use Appeal by Zion Church Builders [timestamp: 18:00] The board considered agenda item III.D.3, a conditional use appeal submitted by Zion Church Builders. The applicant requested approval to amend an existing conditional use permit and obtain a variance for an addition to a place of religious assembly. Richard Murphy served as the key speaker presenting information on this agenda item to the board members. The request involved modifications to an existing religious facility, requiring both an amendment to the current conditional use permit that governs the property and a variance to accommodate the proposed addition. Conditional use permits are typically required for places of worship to ensure they comply with zoning regulations and are compatible with surrounding land uses. The board reviewed the application materials and heard the presentation regarding the proposed changes to the religious assembly facility. The discussion focused on the specific requirements for amending the conditional use permit and the justification for the requested variance. Following their review and discussion of the proposal, the board voted to approve Zion Church Builders' request. The approval allows the organization to proceed with their planned addition to the religious facility under the amended conditional use permit and granted variance. The successful outcome enables Zion Church Builders to move forward with their expansion plans for the place of religious assembly, having satisfied the municipal requirements for conditional use permit amendments and variance approvals. ## Conditional Use Appeal by Jackson's Wine & Spirits, LLC [timestamp: 22:00] The board considered agenda item III.D.1, a conditional use appeal submitted by Jackson's Wine & Spirits, LLC. The company requested approval for accessory drive-through facilities as part of their operations. Wes Harned served as the key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The specific details of the presentation and any concerns raised during the debate were not fully captured in the available meeting materials. Rather than reaching a final decision on the conditional use request, the board chose to postpone their determination. This postponement was specifically intended to allow additional time for further discussion between the applicant and city staff members. The outcome of this agenda item was a postponement, meaning Jackson's Wine & Spirits, LLC will need to return to a future board meeting once the additional staff discussions have been completed. No timeline was specified for when the item would return to the board for final consideration. This conditional use appeal represents a standard municipal process where businesses must seek special approval for certain types of operations that may require additional review beyond typical zoning permissions. Drive-through facilities often require conditional use approval due to potential impacts on traffic flow, neighboring properties, and compliance with local zoning regulations. ## Administrative Appeal by Whitetail Heaven Outfitters [timestamp: 30:00] The board considered agenda item III.E.1, an administrative appeal filed by Whitetail Heaven Outfitters challenging Notices of Zoning Violations issued against their operations. The violations concerned the company's recreational outfitting activities conducted within an Agricultural Rural zoning district. Wes Harned served as a key speaker during the discussion of this appeal. The outfitters contested the county's determination that their recreational outfitting services violated zoning regulations for the Agricultural Rural zone where their business operates. The appeal centered on whether Whitetail Heaven Outfitters' recreational outfitting activities were permitted uses within the Agricultural Rural zoning classification. The company argued against the validity of the zoning violation notices that had been issued by county staff. After consideration of the appeal and related materials, the board voted to deny the administrative appeal. This decision upheld the original Notices of Zoning Violations issued against Whitetail Heaven Outfitters, affirming that their recreational outfitting operations were not compliant with the permitted uses in the Agricultural Rural zone. The denial of the appeal means the zoning violations remain in effect, and Whitetail Heaven Outfitters must address the compliance issues identified in the original notices or potentially face further enforcement action. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-23-00023** — passed (7-0): Variance request by Tina Thomas to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure - **PLN-BOA-23-00027** — passed (7-0): Variance request by Jay Ingle to reduce the required rear yard setback and increase the allowable floor area ratio - **PLN-BOA-23-00029** — passed (7-0): Variance request by Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture & Design to reduce the side yard setbacks - **PLN-BOA-23-00026** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit request by Juan Melendez to operate a home-based auto detailing business - **PLN-BOA-23-00028** — passed (7-0): Request by Zion Church Builders to amend an existing conditional use permit and a variance - **PLN-BOA-23-00005** — postponed (7-0): Conditional use request by Jackson's Wine & Spirits, LLC for accessory drive-through facilities - **PLN-BOA-23-00006** — failed (0-7): Administrative appeal by Whitetail Heaven Outfitters to contest the issuance of Notices of Zoning Violations --- ## Full transcript Music Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Thank you. So fine, so fine, it's all fine Well I feel all night I say yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Well you can shake and moan and moan Shotgun dead and I come on moaning Don't stop cooking as I feel alright now Don't stop now and come on moaning Come on, yeah, I say yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Yeah, God, you may feel like a boy, like a boy, like a boy, like a boy, like a boy, but I feel all right. You're so right, you're so right, you're so right, I don't feel all right, I'm saying. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I love you, I love you, I love you, I love you. It's managers that walk alongside of you the whole way, and if there's a struggle in the relationship, we really try to mend it the best we can. We want it to be a great experience for them. I will officially call the meeting to order. The first order of business is the approval of our minutes from our March 13th meeting. Has the board had an opportunity to review? And if so, I will entertain a motion. There's no discussion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of the minutes. Second. All right. We have a first that was Mr. Clark. The second was, I didn't hear, was it, was that you, Ms. Plumlee? Okay. You guys got it? Okay. We'll take a vote. Ms. Plumlee had already made a motion. Ms. Plumlee did. And Mr. Clark, second. Mr. Clark. Okay. Sorry about that. Oh, it's okay. We'll see who's faster next time. Thank you. Okay. Okay, the motion is passed. The next thing that we'll do, and I'll actually swear all the witnesses in, so if there's anyone here that plans to speak or think that they may speak, I would like you to stand up at this time, and we will have you take oath. And if you raise your right hand and repeat after me, you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth today. You do? Okay. And I'd also at this moment like to make sure that you've signed in. You don't have to say anything else, but if you haven't signed in so we can get your name and everything spelled correctly, if you could do so in the back as well. You guys may be seated. Have you guys signed in? You signed in okay in the back? Yes, okay. Yep, yep, that's perfect, that's perfect. Thank you very much. And it is, it's always exciting when we have a large group today, but it's also important I'd like to go over just a little bit how we will move forward today so we can give everybody an opportunity to speak but continue to keep order in the process and also move along quickly because, again, we're happy to have everyone here, but we don't want to be here until tomorrow. What we'll do first is I'll sound the entire agenda, and by doing so I will call any cases. If they are recommended for approval and there's no opposition or anyone to speak upon those cases, we will hear those cases first. If there is discussion regarding the cases, either opposition or if the staff has recommended disapproval, those will actually go to the herd docket. So the quick and potentially easier ones we will hear first, and then we will do the complete docket of herd as well. Because we do have both legal representation here, and the staff will also have an opportunity to speak, any case that is to be heard, we will allow the staff to speak. We will allow the legal representation to speak. And then if there's anyone from the community that would like to speak, you will have the opportunity to do so at that time. Everyone will have a time limit from the community that would like to speak on behalf or opposed to any particular case. You will have a three-minute limit. We will have that up there on the big screen. And then there's a little red button. It's like Jeopardy or something. It's going to buzz. You'll see it going on. So you will have that. So I do want you to be very mindful of that so we can give everyone an opportunity. The only other thing that we would like to ask is that if someone before you, if one of your other neighbors or community members has already brought up a particular topic, then we would ask you not to regurgitate that same information. Whatever you have new or that you would like to add to the conversation is totally welcome. Does that sound okay? Sound like a party? You guys good? Okay. So we'll start with the first one, PLN BOA 23-23. That's Tina Thomas. Is the applicant present? Okay, Ms. Thomas. No, you don't have to stand. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? And actually, Ms. Thomas, I may have you stand up just a moment. Have you come to the podium? only because this one was recommended for approval but by a lesser variance did you have an opportunity to see that i did and i just got clarification from okay and you think you'll be okay with it yes okay so you'll be heard first you can have a seat thank you okay the next one's plnboa 2327 mr j engel is the applicant present Is there anyone to speak in opposition to this particular case? All right, Mr. Engel, you'll be second. Okay, PLN BOA 23-29, that's Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture and Design, that's at 366 Jefferson Street. Is the applicant present? Anyone representing the applicant? Okay. We'll table that a little later. Okay. So if they pop up, we'll add them to the docket. Now I have PLN BOA 23-5 Jackson's Wine and Spirits LLC. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. And this one has been recommended for disapproval, so we will fully hear that case. I'll be number one on the herd docket. PLNBOA 2326, Mr. Juan Melendez, is the applicant present? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this particular case? It has been recommended for approval, so that will be number three. And then we have PLN BOA 23-28 Zion Church Builders. Is the applicant present? Good afternoon, sir. Is there anyone to speak in opposition of this case? All right, looks like we're number four. And then we have PLN BOA 23-6-14-15-16-17. 17 and 18 white tail heaven outfitters. There's a few of you guys here. You're the applicant. Good. Some of you guys are here for this one? Yeah, okay, good deal. All right, so this one will definitely be a herd case today. I think that makes it number two on the herd docket, right? All right. Not too bad. So we will go back to the first one, PLN BOA 23-23. Miss Tina Thomas, if you can come forward. And I'll say a reminder to you, but to everyone else, when you do come up to speak or when you do have to speak, always if you can come up to the microphone, speak into the microphone, we are televised on our government TV and it is important that we record everything that's done. Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. So I do see that your request has been approved for a lesser variance and you were able to speak to staff about that and you're comfortable with making this decision? That is correct, yes. And had you also had an opportunity just to review the two conditions there? Yes, the building, the outbuilding, and then the nine foot. Yes, okay. And has the board had an opportunity to take a look? And do you have any questions to ask? If there are no further questions or concerns, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 23-23. a Tina Thomas request for a variance to increase the reliable size of an accessory structure from 50% to 59% in order to construct a detached accessory structure in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 1449 Anniston Drive based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions as listed. So move. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? Mr. Needham? Okay, we will take a vote. All right, the motion has passed. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Thanks. All right, our next one is PLNBOA 23-27, Mr. J. Engel. And if you will, state your name for the record, please. Jay Engel. Thank you. And the staff has recommended approval, and there's two conditions listed. You had the opportunity to review that? I have, and those are fine. Fine? Great. Do we have any questions regarding Mr. Engel's project? Looking forward to the improvement. Yeah. Thanks, sir. Was that the beginning of your motion, Mr. Needham? I'll make the motion. I move to approve PLNBOA 2327, Jay Ingles' request for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 43 feet, 9 inches to 4 feet, in order to construct an addition to an existing single-family detached dwelling within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 633 Bell Avenue. And those are based on staff's recommendations and subject to the two conditions. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do I have a second? Ms. Tucker, thank you. No further discussion. We'll take a vote. There we go. Your motion has passed. Good luck with the project. Thank you. And has anyone from PLNBOA 2329 arrived? 336 Jefferson Street? Okay. So we'll keep moving. Number PLNBOA 23-26, Mr. Juan Melendez. Could you please state your name for the record? Juan Melendez. Thank you. Now this is a conditional use permit that the staff has recommended approval for with several conditions. There are eight itemized conditions listed there. Have you had an opportunity to review those? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And you're comfortable with those particular conditions as listed? Yes. Okay. Now, did we say we had some public comment or? Yes, there were several letters of opposition that have been included with your packets. Okay. If you don't mind to give us just a moment, make sure everyone's had an opportunity to review the citizen comments in the packet. I haven't seen any of them. You had an opportunity to see them, Mr. Clark? I'm not worried about it. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. And it does look like it's used to do just some part-time detailing? Yes. Car detailing. And you were comfortable, I think the main concern just was regarding keeping it within the garage, not being outside of the house so that it qualifies as a home-based business, and you were comfortable with that criteria? Yes. Okay. okay that was the concern of staff did anyone else have any particular no other than to say that just you know the staff will review these once a year and if people complain they will send out someone to make sure you're following these conditions so just to make that clear for you that's fine okay thank you thank you And it does seem as we, just so you know, speaking with your neighbors, the particular comments, they were concerned you were converting it from a residence to a business. And that's not the case, that's what it looks like here, so. All right. If there's no other questions, we'll entertain a motion. I think I'll make you do all the work today, Mr. Clark. I will make a motion to approve PLN VOA 23-26, Juan Melinda's request for conditional use permit in order to operate a home-based auto detailing business in a planned neighborhood residential zone and property located at 509 Lucille Drive, based on the staff's recommendation. and the six conditions as listed. So, sumo. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, did I say? Yeah, eight conditions as listed. Thank you. Thank you. Can I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Walker. No other questions? We'll put up a vote. Thank you. So your conditional use has been approved, but just as Mr. Gross says, you are required to continue to follow these guidelines or it can be adjusted or amended by the staff. Okay, thank you. All right. All right. PLNBOA 23-28, Zion Church Builders, the applicant. Thank you. I'm Dick Murphy, representing Greater Faith Apostolic Church, along with Zion Church Builders. We have with me today Jim and Debbie Hines from Zion Church Builders. also William McGraw and Todd Ison, the pastor and assistant pastor of the church, and we have several trustees with us today. And we have reviewed the application. We do agree with the staff conditions. One thing I wanted to emphasize is that Greater Faith Apostolic Church purchased this property in 2004. Prior to that time, it had been owned by two different churches before that. And I'm saying that just to point out to you that my clients, Greater Faith Apostolic Church, was not aware of the previous conditions about landscaping. And I talked to the pastors last week and mentioned to them the requirement for a new landscape plan. They were totally in agreement and actually already have a draft of a plan done. And I told them they didn't need to present it to you today. before their building permit but they said they just wanted to have it to make sure you knew they were going to follow through on those plans that are required unlike the previous owners of this property so we appreciate the staff's recommendation of approval and as i mentioned we agree with the staff conditions on it thank you mr murphy and you took all the rest of my lines the staff has recommended approval and you've reviewed the conditions Did we have any questions regarding the project? No, I think you, you know, that was going to be one of my conditions just prior to beginning, if you were the guilty party of not doing, you know, the planning on the front end, but it sounds like you're not, so, you know, I feel comfortable moving forward. I can make a motion for approval. I move to approve PLN BOA 2328 Zion Church Builder's request to amend an existing conditional use permit and a variance to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet in order to construct an addition to an existing place of religious assembly in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 3416 Clay's Mill Road. Subject to the staff's recommendations and the four conditions outlined. I'm sorry. I see four. Is there six? Look. There's six. and subject to the six conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Did Ms. Plumlee second before Mr. Needham? We've got her there. Was that accident? Okay. Do we need a second? I'd second. Okay. Is that everybody? Who am I missing? Brandon, are you on that? I apologize. There we go. Thank you all very much. Good luck with your project. Okay, the next one to be heard, it's actually the first to be heard. It's PLN BOA 23.5. It's Jackson's Wine and Spirits. Staff has recommended disapproval, so we will allow staff to present first, and then we'll have the applicant present second. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The next item on our agenda here is PLN BOA 23.5. This is a request by Jackson's Wine and Spirits for a conditional use for an accessory drive-through to a proposed retail use at the properties at 1406 and 1408 North Limestone. So here we have a vicinity map for the subject properties. So it is these two properties shown in the center of the screen, outlined in blue, approximately 0.4 acres in size. They front on North Limestone, and so this is North Limestone just before you hit New Circle Road here. The properties are also bound on two sides by Bolzner Avenue and Bermuda Avenue here. In this vicinity, while Bolzner does appear to be sort of an alley in size, it is actually categorized kind of as a local road. But development around this property is really a mix of uses. We've got significant portions of single family along North Limestone as well as further into the neighborhood here. And kind of a variety of kind of neighborhood scale commercial uses. But looking at it a little bit closer, this aerial imagery is from early 2022. There has been some changes to the property. So subject to property here at 1406 is the current location of Jackson's Wine and Spirits, which is a liquor store with an existing drive-through component. The adjacent property next to it, 1408, and the other portion of this request previously contained a furniture store use that actually burned to the ground and has since been demolished. So this larger parcel here is currently vacant. It's the applicant's intent to consolidate these properties, construct a 5,000 square foot approximately retail liquor store use with an accessory drive-thru component. As I mentioned earlier, the site does have an existing drive-thru use that is activated and accessed from Bolser here. Here is a view of what that kind of looks like today. So here the existing structure sits. The drive-thru is on that left portion here. So in order to access the drive-thru, one must currently turn off of limestone onto Bolzner into the kind of the opposite end of traffic. So Bolzner here is actually two-way. You have to go into that left-bound lane in order to access the use here. To the left, we've got a – this is data from the State Highway Patrol. Since 2018, there's been approximately eight collision, vehicular collisions at this intersection. a phenomenon that really isn't seen with Bermuda on the opposite end. So kind of where this drive-through has been taking place, there's been kind of that vehicular crash activity. Here is what the applicant is proposing. So as I stated earlier, they're intending to increase the kind of scope of both the retail facilities on site and increasing the structure from approximately 1,500 square feet to nearly 5,000 square feet and extend the scope of the drive-through facilities on site. So under this proposal, it would be this existing structure here that's sort of located closer to the intersection of North Limestone and Bermuda. However, access to this use would be derived in the interior through the parking lot. So this would not have any direct activation of that North Limestone frontage. You would access the use through either the North Limestone, access points on North Limestone, Bolzner, as well as exiting here on Bermuda. Here we have the drive-through has been relocated from directly adjoining Bolzner interior to the site. So the customers in this instance would loop through either way, stacking vertically here or horizontally here in order to access the use. The applicant is required to provide stacking space for five cars. They are able to provide that here on Bolzner. However, there could create vehicular conflicts with the traffic backing up into parking spaces kind of closer to the north limestone edge. It is worth noting here that by relocating the drive-thru kind of interior to the site, it does put this drive-thru facility in closer proximity to residential uses. Here, the property of the south is zoned B1. However, it has historically contained a residential use since the early 1940s. This predates the establishment of the liquor store use at this location, which occurred a little bit later in the 1950s. It is worth noting that the existing drive-thru use that was established, there really wasn't any much documentation of if it was ever reviewed or approved. As prior to 2013, drive-thru facilities were considered just to be an accessory use to these retail uses. However, a zoning ordinance text amendment was done in 2013 to really take a look at some of the impacts that some of these uses may have on the adjoining properties that require kind of the larger conditional use when it's in AB1 zone. As far as operationally, this would operate seven days a week with hours of operation going as late as midnight on most days of the week. However, weekends would be open Friday, Saturday as late as 1 a.m. with slightly lower opening times on Sunday, I believe 9 o'clock p.m. The applicant has indicated that this is largely going to be a drive-through site. With the way that this site is proposed to operate, the applicant anticipates approximately 75% of the traffic that will be coming to the site and utilizing this business would be utilizing this drive-through facility here. So it's really oriented more towards the traveling public and less of providing kind of a neighborhood scale scope and business, which is sort of the character and the context of the existing development on North Limestone. Currently, this is the only drive-through use until you hit the pharmacy on North Limestone and New Circle Road. Other than that use, there is not another drive-through oriented use on this entirety of North Limestone. So this is sort of this older existing remnant that the appellate is proposing to expand. The application of the zoning ordinance, once again, a conditional use in order to establish these drive-through facilities. It's worth noting that they could establish this retail use here and redevelop the site largely as shown if the drive-thru facility wasn't present. That extra element is really what is necessitating this review. The zoning ordinance also indicates that they have to provide that stacking, which we mentioned earlier, and could conflict with certain portions of the parking area kind of as shown. It is worth noting that this subject property is also located within an area that was examined as a part of the Central Sector Small Area Plan. So this was done in 2009, and it was adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. It really looked at transforming this and dedicating this from an area that's kind of more closely aligned with a pedestrian experience. So the residents of this neighborhood and their input looked at this area and said, we would like kind of street improvements, slow down traffic, a larger pedestrian focus, and really make it more agreeable for pedestrians. Within this area, there are certain improvements to be done within the next few years, which include including sidewalks, stormwater, and some other key infrastructure that really will transition this area even further into a more pedestrian-oriented area. that really serves as existing single-family uses that have been in this area since the early 1940s. So with this, staff is recommending disapproval at this time. Staff finds that the drive-thru facility will adversely affect the surrounding properties as this drive-thru places the stacking cars and this use in closer proximity to the existing residential use to the east. Subject properties, or this proposed use, also will negatively affect pedestrian safety in the area and conflicts with kind of this planned pedestrian infrastructure that is planned for the North Limestone Corridor. This request is also out of character with the North Limestone Corridor, as there really aren't any existing drive-thru facilities until you hit New Circle Road, which is zoned B3 and is oriented kind of towards the traveling public. Finally, this request is not in agreement with the Central Sector Small Area Plan that was adopted by the Planning Commission 2009. and kind of focuses on this existing neighborhood-scale character for North Limestone. So staff is recommending disapproval at this time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have of staff. Daniel, real quick. I'm not a huge fan of the overall layout, but wouldn't allowing them to do this drive-through, doesn't it solve a problem that exists that may continue to exist with using bolster avenue as a the drive-through lane so at this point any kind of redevelopment the site would trigger that need to kind of clean up the access so currently the drive-through is on kind of that incorrect side of bolster as well as they've got traffic that kind of backs directly onto north limestone in order to redevelop the site really in any capacity those improvements would sort of be made. So this is really focusing more on the increase in the scope of the drive-thru facilities and kind of that increased traffic to the site. But this, as it stands, basically removes the conflict point from Bolser and kind of relocates it and puts it in greater conflict with the adjacent residential use on Bermuda there. If that answers your question. Well, I guess I'll rephrase it. If we were to deny this, can't the applicant just continue to use his drive-thru on yes yes yes that is an existing element yes so i guess my question is is this an opportunity to find a compromise to get rid of what is clearly something we shouldn't be doing to maybe finding a way to make this work i'm not saying this is designed to get that done but i'm just asking what your guys position is before daniel answers that question i don't we did not as a staff find any evidence that the applicant ever got a drive-through window permitted in any form or fashion. Even if it was just a permit to cut a window into the side of their building, it wouldn't have ever been approved by the city on the wrong side of the road. I'm pretty confident, like 100% confident nobody in the Division of Traffic Engineering would have approved that. So at this point, we have no evidence in our records that shows that they were granted any permission for a drive-through. Unless they can produce that, we would consider it illegal and non-conforming. So I'm not sure that they could continue. We could pursue closing that. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. So would the city consider closing it then? I mean, that would be something the city could do and would do. Certainly we could consider it with the Division of Building Inspection pursuing enforcement action against them. Let me say I was not quite sure about this one way or the other, frankly. And I thought there were some good parts of this until I drove by the site this week. and I was absolutely amazed that Bolster Avenue even has a name, frankly. And Avenue is a serious exaggeration. It's an alley, basically, a one-way alley that's not one way. And so, as we've said, this is not a good use of this space. And I think perhaps we should hear the, before I say any more, I think we should hear the applicant's words here. But I think there's some serious problems that we ought to look at as far as the existing structure and use. Well, I agree. And we can allow the applicant to speak. I would just want to mention, have we, the stacking, the issue of the stacking, have we had an opportunity to discuss that issue? Have we looked at if there were a better way to do the stacking? Because it does seem like the stacking is, they do have enough space to stack the one way, but not the second way from North Limestone. Have there been conversations regarding? So those were identified, kind of initial conversations with the applicant. the requirement is for them to provide it and it not spill over to the right-of-way. The best practices dictates that that doesn't create vehicular conflict. So it's sort of a just comment on how the site would function versus this is something necessarily prohibitive that's in a direct conflict with that provision of the ordinance. Okay. My only other comment before we bring the applicant up does have to do, and we've talked about this briefly, with the reference to the character and the nature of the area. And I take great pause when we have this conversation, and this is probably one of the longest standing businesses in the area. They go back into the 1950s, and then we developed a small area plan in the 2000s that actually referenced the character of the neighborhood. But they are the longest standing, one of the longer standing commercial business people in the neighborhood. I'd hate that we were doing something that actually moved out, that was harmful to the businesses that were already there. And that's kind of the way I was looking at it when we do want to preserve the character. But they kind of are the character. As you said, it's not in character with the neighborhood because a lot of those other businesses are no longer open anymore. So anyway, that was my stand before it was appropriate time to make that. If we allow the applicant to speak at this time, I'm sorry. Sorry, you've been visiting. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Wes Harned, I have the privilege of representing Jackson Wine and Spirits LLC in its application for conditional use permit for an accessory drive-thru facility for a new commercial store seeking to build at 1406 and 1408 North Limestone. Also with me this afternoon is John Ledford, one of the owners of Jackson Wine and Spirits, as well as Tony Barrett of Barrett Partners, our architect. And certainly, if there are any pointed questions that I cannot address, they will step up behind me and hopefully fill in the voids. But I had a little bit of an opening that I was planning to share, but I thought I might jump right in on a line of questioning that ended the staff's presentation. Of course, as Ms. Carter, as you noted, this store opened in 1953. The Jackson family opened it that year. Three years later, the current drive-through was established. So it's been 70 years ago that the store opened. and it's been 67 years since his drive-thru's been operating at this site. I think for all intents and purposes, exactly as it is today. In the year 2000, Mr. Ledford and his son purchased the liquor store. It's family-owned. It always has been. The Jacksons owned it, and then the Ledfords are the second ownership group that has owned it. And so it's a family-owned business. It always has been. And this application doesn't seek to, as you noted, bring a new liquor store into the area. It's already there. And it doesn't seek to add a drive-thru facility to the area. It's already there. This store is embedded in the fabric of this neighborhood, Ms. Carter, as you noted. and by this application we're hopeful that Jackson's will be given the opportunity to develop a new store with a reoriented drive-through that's going to do a number of things. I think address most if not all of the concerns the staff has raised and I'm going to get to that in a minute But I think it's going to refresh, revitalize, and activate this portion of North Limestone. I think it's going to reorient off-street parking. In fact, the central sector small area plan, subpart D, talks about let's eliminate off-street parking, these large parking lots right off of North Limestone. that really don't have any direction or control on traffic in that parking lot or the access to North Limestone. And this plan does that. I think that also addresses pedestrian activity in the area. And so I think that this plan and the application is going to improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation on this site as well as the surrounding neighborhood. I'll give you a demonstration of that in a second as well. It's going to provide landscaping and greenscape to better integrate the subject property with the surrounding properties. And it's going to divert, we're going to go to a couple of aerial maps. It's going to divert traffic and litter and emissions, light and noise, away from the surrounding residential neighborhoods. and as you'll see in a minute or you probably can already imagine if you've taken the time you know if you've driven by it right now the way the drive-through is oriented that traffic's going down balser and i was over there over the weekend i watched a number of vehicles drive through balser and they and they go into the neighborhood now the design of this new retail use takes that traffic interior to the subject property and controls the way that that traffic enters the property and exits onto bermuda and back over to limestone it controls the traffic and so i think this application and the proposed plan associated with it addresses almost all of concerns that have been raised in support of the recommendation for disapproval. And so let's kind of jump in. This is my aerial. I didn't have any nice boxes for you to look at, but this is our site here. It's got the red arrow here. This is the current, this I guess is after the furniture store burned down. This is Jackson's right here. And bowls are right to the side, the current drive-through right here. Of note, as Mrs. Carter, as you were talking about, businesses leaving the area, I recently learned this used to be, I think it's here, somewhere in here, it used to be Critchfield Meats. christville meets is as we all know is no longer in this area they've moved to a different part of town and jackson's doesn't want to do that it's got a it's got a customer base it wants to serve that customer base and it wants to expand its offerings and it and it wants to do all of that while improving the neighborhood in the manner that we'll tell you about in just a few slides but as i was talking about the circulation traffic cars come here into the drive-through come down boulder take a right on to jordan i think it is yes jordan and most often take a right on bluegrass and take right back to limestone i would note that boulder continues on and crosses a number of roads and even it's a brian avenue and and this is all residential back here and so i imagine that on occasion cars are leaving the drive-through right as it stands and continue on down boulder even deeper into the neighborhood areas there i'd also note the frontage here on north limestone there's no curbing you drive again as mr clark you did you said if you drive over there there's nothing controlling out vehicles back out of this pull in pull out there's nothing controlling that same over here skip that we'll come back to that and our plan improvements we'll get to the the layout in a second I've actually gone this is that this is the site with the plan for the three oriented drive-through you We would control traffic into one entrance, not an exit onto Bolzer, one entrance toward the drive-thru, one entrance off of North Limestone into the drive-thru, with an exit onto Bermuda over North Limestone and exit off. The issue here, and I suspect the question could be, why don't you just do that anyway, do all these great things of controlling the traffic, why do you need a conditional use permit? Well, the issue is that the drive-through is instrumental. It's integral to the operation of the store. We won't make any secret about it. It is a necessity from a feasibility standpoint of building a new building, of putting the resources that would be required to give this facelift to this portion of North Limestone that we not cut off most, a good chunk of our bottom line. And so the drive-through is a significant factor in being able to do this. And Mr. Gross, you mentioned could we continue operating. We believe the answer is yes. We're non-conforming use. And if we don't, you know, if we aren't able to implement something like this, we will keep you know operating the way it is and i guess that's that's okay but i believe we miss an opportunity we miss an opportunity to do all of the address all the concerns most if not all the concerns we're talking about here and do it in a way that again revitalizes and refreshes this portion north limestone and does the type of infill and redevelopment that we talk about bringing to this area of town. Again, this is the site plan that was submitted. A couple of things to note about the stacking, right? It's depicted in this way because it has to be, right? I'm told five deep at Jackson's is a very rare occurrence in the drive-thru line, and of course, stacking this way and this way is only done because I think Daniel put up the ordinance that requires us to demonstrate stacking five back from the order point, which is the window. I'll also note that there is not a speaker system that will be involved in this drive-through. It will be order at the window, pay at the window. And so you won't have the loud noise associated with people speaking into and voices coming through the speaker system. There will be, and we'll go back a couple slides. I think this is also, I didn't address, but there's a lot of landscaping, greenscape that's going to go into the development. This is a six-foot fence at the back here. Sorry. I'll come back to that because we've engaged this neighbor here and we talked to her. and she's, as we understand it, or at least what she told Mr. Ledford, he can convey her sentiments. She's not opposed to the drive-through. She was unclear about how vehicles would exit onto this road, and when she was told about the fence back here and the landscaping and the 8-foot buffer here, she was appeased, and she has no issue with the drive-through. I would also note this is about 50 feet from the property line to the drive-through window, and so it's not at the side of her house at a window, but nevertheless, the lady who lives here, again, we engaged with her over the weekend, and she has no issues with the drive-through once she understood what kind of fencing and landscaping would be going in here at the back of the property. I think her name was Liz Moody. John, you can address that if the board has any questions. Again, I addressed it. And again, this is what, at least right now, the concept is for what the New Jacksons would look like on this site. I would note that it's a preliminary concept. There's been talk about, or at least an idea floated about moving the entrance over to the corner, some design element changes. But this generally is the concept, the plan for redevelopment of this site. But again, while we're before you, the drive-through is an integral part of this redesign. Again, go back to where we are now. And obviously somebody ordering at the window. I just took a couple of pictures, kind of take a walk along how the traffic flows here. This is Bolzer. drive through the window keep going on up to jordan here take a right that's uh bluegrass down there this is actually someone who went through the drive through after i had walked down but anyway there's the stop sign in bluegrass and take a right and feed back to north limestone that's i think that's the majority of people who drive through But again, the way it sits now, the way it works or is used now, that traffic is flowing through a neighborhood, those residential uses. And the proposal here, the point of this application is to keep that traffic internal to the site, flowing through the site to Bermuda, which is a dead end anyway, and on back over to North Limestone. This is just an image of the vacant lot right now. I'd note that currently this is with your back to 102 Bermuda, looking out toward the parking lot there. And I would note that if people are parked there at a time when headlights are necessary, those lights are shining at this point into 102 Bermuda. That wouldn't happen, of course, with the new development, with the drive-thru turned around. to the back and that's just the other way facing to demonstrate it. The last point I wanted to touch on was I told you that this application for the drive-thru facility being the driver for this new development. The other issue that we talked about was improving pedestrian and vehicular circulation. I've talked a lot about the vehicular circulation, but I wanted to point out that there is control on pedestrian circulation here, unlike the way it stands now, which is uncontrolled entering and exiting from that parking lot. This would be effectively pedestrian walkway, and the entering and exiting would occur here off of North Limestone and here off of Bolser. And so I do think this plan and the application for conditional use that drives the plan would address pedestrian circulation and connectivity on the site and around the site. I've mentioned Ms. Moody and we engaged with her. We also received a couple of letters in support. They're toward the back of your packet. You can take a look at those. We understand that the staff received one letter in opposition. At least we were provided with one letter in opposition. there's a concern addressed in there about some graffiti on the side of the building. And if we wanted to better the neighborhood, we would take care of that graffiti. Quite frankly, that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to put in a new retail use. Obviously, there's some things that are out of control. We can't control who graffiti is on the side of the building. But what we're trying to do is put in a new retail use. And so to the extent there are things that can be controlled that are set forth in the one opposition letter, we appreciate Mr. Cooper's time to write his concerns down. We certainly take them into account, and we can address what we can control. The other two letters that I've submitted with the packet here in support of Jackson's and this application, again, bring us back to where we started, which is in the view of those folks, this is a longstanding member of the community, this business. It's been there for 70 years, and they're fully supportive of the application. We, sticking back with the area, the other person we engaged with is 101 Bermuda here. His name is Ricky Whited. Unfortunately, he couldn't be here today. We held a neighborhood meeting last Thursday. As you know, we're not required to do that. We want to engage with the neighborhood. Three people showed up, Mr. Whited and Ann Brown and Charles Bailey at 1407 North Limestone. They were all supportive of the application. But we did engage with Mr. Whited. He lives here. He had no issues with the application for a drive-through, with the notion of a drive-through use at this site. And so we have attempted to understand and respond to the concerns in the neighborhood as we can ascertain them. And, again, I think the newly oriented drive-through and the plan that accompanies it addresses most if not all of the issues that the staff is concerned about in terms of vehicular conflict out on limestone, pedestrian conflict, walking in front of the area, the two lots there, and certainly believe that traffic will be flowed away from neighborhood neighborhood uses under the new plan, certainly more so than they are now. And so the very last page of your packet is proposed findings of fact and conditions for approval. We believe if you look at the as you know, the law requires our zoning warrants to set forth the standards for conditional use permit and at article 7.6 A, those standards are set forth, and we believe this application and what we've put forward meets those standards and requirements. And so we propose these findings of fact in conditions of approval of PLN BOA 23-5, and we believe that all those conditions are met. Just to conclude, I would ask you to approve the application and say yes to Jackson's effort here to revitalize and refresh this area of North Limestone by implementing this new drive-through at this new retail use on 1406 and 1408 North Limestone. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you. The only comment I have is I've read through your findings and your conditions. There's not really any conditions except for number six, which is pretty weak tea. Do you guys have any real conditions that you're thinking about? I mean, in terms of restrictions on the use of what we're asking a permit to do, which is a drive-through, I think in terms of hours of operation, we've said there's no speaker system on the building. I suppose we could offer that as a condition that there be no speaker system that's implemented with the drive-through. We do believe our hours are in line with other types of retail use of this nature. I don't know if that's, Mr. Gross, if that's what you're having in mind. I was just curious. No, I just think if you guys have thought about it. um and then to me this doesn't look too dissimilar from the frank's donuts we approved on third street what was that harry two years two years ago three years ago yeah um you know it's north limestone and third are very similar so um but that's all i have right now i mean you just mentioned that you know the privacy fence some other things um but you don't have any of those conditions that you have to do they're all just kind of thrown out and normally we would see some of those items um provided as conditions understood and we're happy if those conditions are attached that's what we're proposing and so and what we fully intend to do i i you know if the board is wants to put those as conditions so that we're required to do them i you know i don't We won't have any issues doing that. Mr. Barrett can speak to that. Yeah, I want to ask Mr. Barrett too about why you have three entrances instead of maybe just two. Or explain how the operational flow is going to work with the traffic. Well, I anticipate that this is where the, the practice and the ordinance kind of come into into play a little bit I anticipate that most of your people coming into the liquor store will arrive through the the limestone entrance and not the the bowser avenue entrance so that's why i showed kind of dueling drive-through stacks if i just showed the the bowser i meet the ordinance okay i have the five cars stacking but you know in in fairness that's not how people are really going to come in they're going to come in off the north limestone so i i just wanted to demonstrate that i meet the ordinance by utilizing the boulder entrance uh the practice i think of people is going to be lamb or uh yeah limestone so i went ahead and showed kind of both uh the the practice that jackson's experiencing is that he has one two maybe three vehicles at a time in the drive-through queue the so whether they come in off of limestone or bowser they're not going to extend past really the back of the building line. So where they would come into the, where, if and when they were to stack, you know, it kind of, sure, some people were going to come into Bolser, some people are going to come into Limestone, and it's a slow-moving parking lot situation. and it's, I don't see that as a conflict. I just see that as navigating a parking lot like we do every day that we're in, that we're experiencing a retail operation. So that was why I showed what appears to be conflicting stacking. I'm showing what I have there. I have six, seven, eight, nine, ten vehicles on there. three four will be in reality in the in the drive-through queue the uh the the parking on the off of limestone on the side of the building uh i anticipate that uh that will address most of the parking requirement with the additional parking in the rear being kind of uh uh peak period need your drivers will enter off of limestone and back out and exit limestone the shoppers the inside shoppers i anticipate would would follow that flow the drive through and some of the people parking would continue around and exit bermuda so i i think it accommodates the real practice of how people will utilize the store so that's how I demonstrated it. The screening along the residents in the rear in the B1 zone, uh i'm provided the uh the required uh eight foot the newly acquired required eight foot vehicular use buffer when it could have been three two months ago or six months ago it's required eight now when i did the plan a a year and a half ago i had none of these requirements i didn't even realize i had to go to the board of adjustment i've been doing this for 30 years and i don't often do a plan that doesn't require a development plan so i didn't i was kind of chagrined when i realized i had to go to the board of adjustment and ask for a conditional use for for the drive-through so i had to kind of regroup and revise the plan to accommodate the new landscape and and traffic or parking ordinance and so i've incorporated the eight-foot vehicular use area buffer on the rear and on the bolser side increased my interior parking area doubled it from five percent to ten percent uh but what we're required for the buffer is a hedge and trees we're adding the six foot fence to provide that additional more solid i guess uh buffer which is a little bit you know i guess i guess using the same theory that i had with with the ordinance versus the practice is fair in that i'm adjoining b1 so i really have very limited uh requirement there i'm b1 to b1 in the rear but in practice that is a residence so recognizing that we went ahead and proposed the fence we're showing that so i guess that's why we didn't add that as a condition because we're you know we didn't we were just anticipating doing that anyway so that was where we were there so brandon i hope that addressed probably more than your question but well no but you answered a lot of items um i guess the other thing is is the bolster avenue entrance is it necessary To the extent that I have to have five parking spaces or stacking, yeah. Okay, I guess that was my question is. Yeah, that's where the practice versus the ordinance are a little bit at odds. So you can't round across the drive lane? well because i'm not supposed to stack and be in conflict with a parking space and if i rounded the corner and came out in that limestone i would be in conflict with a car backing out of my stack okay thank you i oh sorry go ahead mr um yeah i have some questions and uh i want to make it clear that But I think this project is a serious improvement on the corridor, frankly. And I'm not really opposed to the drive in itself. I know there's questions about that, whether that's appropriate in the area or not, but I don't really have any serious objections to the drive in. I'm concerned about the placement of the building. And I don't know that having two entrances to the stack, I think, is a mistake. And I don't think cars coming off a bolster should be allowed to join that stacking. I think that's a serious mistake, and I think the entrance should all be off of limestone. And I was wondering why some of the problems here, the fact that the stacking there coming off of limestone is actually impending the parking itself. And that's something that I think the staff has been clear about. That's inappropriate. So why wouldn't the building be better closer to bolster and not have any parking on that side of the building and have a lane just for the drive through and the stacking? That way your window would be closer to bolster and your parking then would be on the side of Bermuda and some in the back as if that was appropriate. So I was just wondering, it seems like that would be a much better location for the building. I would have a hard time approving it if there's two entrances, conflict in stacking, conflict in parking. It seems to be somewhat negative there. So perhaps you can respond to that, if you would. I think I got most of that. So when I began laying this property out, I had about five different layouts for it. And with review, with the traffic engineer, we kind of went back and forth. I think it functions fully without the bowls or entrance. So if we close the bowls or entrance and that addresses your concern, I think we'd be agreeable to doing that. And I agree, when Bolzer Alley Avenue is not a street, I mean, it's a street only by its government classification as a street. It functions, as you said, initially as an alley, and it ought to be one way. I agree with you there, too. So closing Bolzer is not a concern, a negative concern for us. we're fine doing that. I didn't fully understand your desire to move the building. How did you want to move the building? Well, you see you have parking on that side of the building right where you have stacking. Right. I suggested move the building so you eliminate the parking there and have the parking on the other side of the building. I think we had I don't know that I have room to do that. because of my geometry, because of my dimensional requirements. But I think my entrance onto limestone was too close to the intersection with Bermuda when I did that. So that's why we kind of backed out of doing that. And that had, I'm not fully understanding how that would work. A one-way in off of the left side, is that what you're saying? To come around with the drive-through in the rear? It would be like it is now, except you'd have a smaller lane for the drive-through because you wouldn't have the parking. Just take out the parking? and put it on the other side well i can't there's no room to put it on the right side i mean i have to have a drive lane i would have you would basically be adding a drive lane to the width of my frontage and i don't have a another drive lane width is what i'm saying so So, eliminate the parking? Is there any flexibility? I'm sorry. We could eliminate the parking on the side and just have a drive and everybody would park in the rear. If that's what you saw is, now that I don't have a parking requirement, I don't have to meet that at least. But I do have to meet the performance. I have to have enough parking to accommodate his clientele, which we would have adequate parking, I would think, for the most part, with just the rear parking. Or possibly even on that left side, could you have a few parallel spots, still have a couple parallel spots, either on the left side or on the side of the building? or is that yeah I could have yeah if I had a drive lane and then with parking probably either against the building or yeah just for convenience parking that we could do that yeah my other question had to do with the placement of the window itself so because you are close to I mean we're close close to five even without eliminating that all of the parking on that side so is there can the window be shifted to closer to the end of the building or i don't know what's in yeah that's a layout on the inside that creates a concern there plus i'm uh i have a grade issue uh i mean you you would think this is a flat site when you look at it but no no that's okay uh i'm I'm above Bermuda, so after you leave the drive-through lane or window, you kind of dive down to the street. So the closer I get to Bermuda, the steeper that, I mean, it's not crazy, you wouldn't, but it just gets steeper the closer you get to Bermuda. So if you close bolster and you eliminate the first couple of parking spots towards the rear, you could still have parking on that left side? If I had my first space and then my second space is an ADA space and then say I had one, two, three, four there, eliminated those two, yeah, that solves it also. Because it does seem like we have an interest in closing bolster. is that what the board thinks that's what i'm hearing well i know we we haven't heard from staff um yet but if um if this board is leaning towards an approval and the board wants to see bolser avenue closed and maybe the the internal circulation tweaked that seems kind of hard on the fly for tony to propose it staff to think about it traffic engineering to weigh in and maybe if the applicant was open to this maybe we could continue this matter for a month and give you guys an opportunity to meet with these various officials and to bring us back a proposal that may have the votes for approval. We're certainly open to meeting with staff and engaging the different folks that weigh in. There is a lot of, I think, change being discussed and I agree Mr. Gross. It's hard to certainly get that down in writing on the fly with what we're talking about. I certainly do think we're all on the same page about Bolzer and closing that off. And so if that is to become a condition, we're okay with that. I think there's enough good about this project that it needs to be considered positively. But I think there's also enough negative that I think a lot of the negative could be satisfied with a little more discussion as has been proposed. And so I really think that with some modulations to this would make a difference. As it is now, I don't think I could vote to approve it with thinking about all these different things that we need to change. but I think if those things were taken into consideration, I would have a lot more positive attitude. Could we move for a continuance? Well, it sounds like the applicant's comfortable. Is the staff comfortable? Yes. Well, I'll let the staff speak. We just wondered if there was anyone in the audience that needed to speak today. Okay. I don't think we had, was there anyone here to speak on this particular case? I don't think so. Okay. Yeah, for the record, we're okay with the continuance if staff's agreeable to it. We're certainly happy to try to talk through all these issues. It looks like they are. I'll make a motion if the chair and the board and everyone thinks that's the best idea way to move forward. I will entertain a motion. Okay, then I will so do. Madam Chair, I move that we continue PLN BOA 23-5, Jackson's Wine and Spirits LLC, as a request for additional use for accessory drive-thru facilities in order to construct a retail use within the defined infill and redevelopment area in the neighborhood business zone on property at 1406 and 1408 North Limestone to give the applicant and the various divisions of government an opportunity to sit down and evaluate some of the discussion points we have today amongst the board and our the meeting would then be set for may 8th uh 2023 at 1 30 p.m in these chambers so moved i'll second thank you goes mr clark with a second Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So the motion for a continuance has passed. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you next month. Well, we'll see you in a few minutes, but we'll see everybody else in next month. Thank you. And Madam Chair, the applicant representing the Gibson Taylor Thompson application has arrived. So if you would like to hear that before we dive into the last white tail case. Sounds great. Let's see, that's PLNBOA 23-29. And I would just like to remind you he needs to be sworn in as well as anyone else in the audience that arrived late. Sounds good. If you state your name for the record please. Yes, Vince Thompson. Okay, and if you could raise your right hand, I promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth today. Yes. Thank you. Okay, the staff has actually recommended approval in this case and there were two conditions listed. Have you had an opportunity to review those conditions? Yes. And are we okay with those conditions? Yes. I'll turn it over to the board if you've had an opportunity to take a look. Do we have any questions or concerns? Madam Chair, I move approval of PLN BOA 23-29, Gibson-Taylor-Thompson Architecture and Design. request for a variance to reduce the side yard setbacks for a deep building from five feet to three feet in order to construct a new single family dwelling unit within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a high density apartment zone on property located at 366 Jefferson Street based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions as listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? Mr. Needham, thank you. And we'll take a vote. Absolutely, your motion has passed. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Thanks. Are we done? Okay. We'll take a brief 10 minute recess and then we'll come back and we will begin PLNBOA 23, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. See you guys shortly. Stretch your legs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Oh. Thank you. The End Thank you. Okay, if I can get everyone to be seated and we'll call back to order, resume the meeting. As mentioned before the brief recess, we are going to begin the administrative appeals, PLN BOA 23, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Whitetail Heaven Outfitters. Staff has recommended disapproval, so we will allow staff to present first. Thank you. All right. Hello. I'm Megan Jennings with planning staff. So as Chair Carter said, these applications are administrative appeals which are contesting the issuance of notices of violation by the Division of Building Inspection regarding the operation of recreational outfitter or commercial guided hunting on several properties in the southeast corner of Fayette County. In total, there are six properties associated with this appeal, and so they'll all kind of be presented today in one presentation. And then because this is an appeal, the board is to decide whether or not the notices of violation, which were issued by the Division of Building Inspection, were issued in error or not. So first I just want to review the section of the zoning ordinance that talks about appeals. In Article 7-6, the board may hear appeals taken by any entity claiming to be injuriously aggrieved or by any official action, order, requirement, or decision of the Division of Building Inspection in their enforcement of the zoning ordinance. These appeals must be filed 30 days after the appellant receives notice of the action. and since the subject appeal is related to an action of the Division of Building Inspection, the Division of Planning is able to make an interpretation and a recommendation of action to the board. Therefore, my presentation today will serve as a narrative explaining the history of these properties, the actions of the Division of Building Inspection, and the submitted appeal. So first, just to orient you to where these properties are located, This is out in the southeastern portion of the county. Tates Creek Road runs here along the left side of the map. I'll point up here too for the audience. The Kentucky River runs here, here, and then the Interstate 75 is up here in the upper right corner. The subject properties are outlined in red, but I'll zoom into those in a second. I do want to point out Ravens Run Nature Sanctuary is there. highlighted in green. Just to give you a little bit of context to where these properties are located. In August of 2022, so over six months ago, the divisions of planning, revenue, and Department of Law, as well as some council members, were contacted by a group of residents about the use of these properties for a hunting outfitter operation. There are a total of six properties reported to be involved with Whitetail Heaven Outfitters Recreational Outfitting, which are outlined in red. First, I'll kind of review the six addresses. 3508 Crawley Lane, and then several on Jack's Creek, and another on Old Dry Branch. 3508 Crawley Lane is up here in the northeastern part of that or northwestern part of that map 5701 Jack's Creek is here 5725 is is that longer property kind of in the middle with 5751 being there 5837 being the largest property in the group and then 7418 Old Dry Branch Road located there I do want to talk about there were two different levels of notices that were issued to these properties, both formal official notices of violation and also advisory notices. The formal notices were sent to 5701, 5725, and 5751 Jack's Creek Pike. The advisory notices were sent to that 5837 Jack's Creek Pike, as well as the 3508 Crawley Lane and the 7418 Old Dry Branch Road. Next, I'll kind of go through each property and review their details. I'm starting on the right side of the map, making my way to, I'm sorry, left, making my way to the right. So first 3508 Crawley Lane, this subject property is approximately just over 16 acres. It's located at the southeastern corner of Crawley Lane, which runs here, and Jack's Creek, which runs here. It is owned by Joe and Cynthia Kines, and it did receive just an advisory notice of violation from the Division of Building Inspection. These three properties, 5701, 5725, and 5751, Jack's Creek Pike, all received the formal notices of violation from the Division of Building Inspection. They are all owned by McGregor Enterprises, LLC. First, 5701, which is here, is just over 10 acres. 5751, here, jumping over, is also just over 10 acres. And then 5725, which is kind of nestled in between, but here on the right image is quite long and goes down almost to the river. That property is just under 100 acres, coming out around 93 acres. And you can see here in this map, 5837 is just to the right of these properties. So they're in relation just owned by a different person. 5837, which the other three properties are just to the right. And then Old Dry Branch Road is located here. 5837 is owned by Harry Moore Whitman Jr. Trust. It is 363 acres, and they received an advisory notice. And then the last property of the group is 7418 Old Dry Branch Road. It is just under 45 acres in size, and it is owned by Christina Burton. location wise Dry Branch Road runs on like the far western edge of the property and then old Dry Branch Road actually kind of bifurcates it here in the middle. Next I'll kind of just review a timeline of everything leading up to today. LFUCG staff has been investigating these properties since the early fall of 2022. Throughout the fall staff was gathering information related to the extent of the purported operations on these properties. In November, Building Inspection formally opened the investigation within zoning enforcement and sent out notices of violations to the properties owned by McGregor Enterprises. Later in December, Building Inspection issued advisory notices to the other three properties, and then the appellant submitted their official appeal letter just before the holidays. So the appeal was first slated to be heard at the February BOA meeting, but requested postponement at both the February meeting and then subsequently at the March meeting, and that is how we got here today. So a more detailed overview of the things taking place throughout this process. In the summer of 2022, planning and building inspection, as well as the council members, received complaints from neighbors about illegal hunting activity on these properties. The complaints concerned trespassing on third-party private property, bullets crossing third-party property lines, multiple hunting stands being constructed, spotlighting, shooting at night, several hunters on one property, and utilizing residential structures that were on these properties as overnight accommodations for the hunters. In September of 2022, the Division of Building Inspection sent a letter to the property owners of the subject properties, to Whitetail Heaven Outfitters, and to Whitetail's legal representative, requesting more information regarding the scope of the reported hunting operations in Fayette County. Then later in October, the Division of Planning sent a second letter requesting the same information. In November, building inspection formally opened the investigation of the zoning violation complaint. The director of building inspection, Dewey Crow, is present here today in case the board has any questions. Later in November on the 13th, the Lexington police responded to an incident in the Jack's Creek Pike area. This report summarizes the police officers' interactions with hunters crossing property boundaries to retrieve a deer, as well as conversations with an individual who identified themselves as a Whitetail Heaven Outfitters Guide. The police officer who responded to this incident, Officer Nally, is present today, and I would like for him to kind of come up and share some of his experiences from that day. How are you all? I'll give a short, concise synopsis of what we encountered on the 13th of November of 2022. officers were dispatched to the area of Ravencrest Lane around 3 30 that afternoon for shots fired with people cursing and screaming. Um, they sent two officers. I jumped the call. The deer season had just opened, so I assumed someone had probably shot a deer and we'll just go out there and see what's going on. So as I'm responding, I contacted the complainant, which was uh karen monday i believe she's present today uh talked to her on the phone and route to the call to find out some more details about the nature of what she heard she explained to me that fish and wildlife had responded earlier that day there was two officers from that division of law enforcement that spoke with several hunters on site from that point forward there was really no other information from miss monday so i contacted uh fish and wildlife got in touch with the conservation officer that did respond. She provided a couple of names for me. There was a complaint that I guess a black pickup truck with an enclosed trailer had been seen around the shots fired and the screaming and yelling. As I arrived on to Ravenscrest Lane, I observed that vehicle, turned around, got a traffic stop on, talked to those individuals, identified them, didn't see any kind of evidence that would sustain that there was any kind of wildlife that had been harvested in that vehicle, so we let them go. We took their information and passed it along to Fish and Wildlife so they could follow up with them at a later date. While I was on scene with them, Fish and Wildlife advised that they were going to respond again a second time, and then we got an update from dispatch advising that the complainant had visual of a subject out in the field with a deer that was down on Raven's crest. So after letting the occupants of the vehicle go back on their way, myself and the other officer responded back to Raven's crest where we're flagged down at the dead end of Raven's crest and made contact with the complainant and several other neighbors in the area. While I was there I could see someone in a field at an adjacent property with a deer that was down so we made contact with that individual that was a hershel morris he went by joe he identified himself as a whitetail heavens outfitter he kind of explained to me what his purpose was as an outfitter and how they harvested the deer the deer had been down for an extended period of time to let it expire that way it wouldn't continue to move about he was there with me i advised him that fish and wildlife was coming he said he spoke to fish and wildlife they had checked his credentials and everything was fine He wanted to take the deer and bring it back onto his property. And at that point, fish and wildlife regulations are kind of not something that we typically deal with a lot of. So fish and wildlife responded to assist us with that. I told him just basically hang tight until we could get more information from someone who has more expertise on the matter pertaining to wildlife regulation. Fish and wildlife did respond. Through our investigation, we could not get in contact with the owner of that property. There was no house on that property. We tried contacting the owners through several different means, looking up phone numbers on the internet, trying to contact these people. That way we could get the deer back to Whitetail Heaven, but unfortunately we were not able to do that. And Fish and Wildlife advised them that they were going to be trespassing in lieu of getting consent from the landowner to retrieve the deer. So the deer was advised to remain on that property, and Whitetail Heaven agreed. They went back to their property, and then we left the scene shortly thereafter. At that point, I was reached out by my agency to fill out a memorandum of my encounters with the company and what I observed and what I did, which is what I've explained to you today. Thank you. Does the board have any questions, officer? Thank you. Thank you for your time. You're welcome. Thank you. So the incident that Officer Natalie just summarized occurred on November 13th of last year. Later on November 18th, the Division of Building Inspection then issued their first notice of violation to the properties owned by McGregor Enterprises, one of the properties of which were involved in that police incident. Then later in November on the 21st, the Division of Building Inspection received a copy of a letter that was sent from McGregor Enterprises, the owner of three of the properties on Jack's Creek Pike. The letter was addressed to Whitetail Heaven Outfitters, notifying them that they are to cease use of the McGregor-owned properties for recreational outfitters. On December 5th, the Division of Building Inspection sent advisory notices to the three other properties, 5837 Jack's Creek Pike, 3508 Crawley Lane, and 7418 Old Dry Branch Road, which were purported to also be involved with the Whitetail Heaven Outfitters use of the properties. On December 8th, the Division of Building Inspection sent a second notice of violation. And in this letter, they mentioned the letter that they had received from McGregor Enterprises. Also on December 8th, the Department of Law here at Lexington Fayette County Urban Government received a letter from the state's Department of Fish and Wildlife saying that they were opening an investigation into the use of these properties as recreational outfitters. Then later on December 19th, the appellant mailed in their letter formally appealing the issuance of these notices of violations for all six of the properties. The filing date of their administrative appeal met the 30-day appeal window, which is required by Article 7 of the zoning ordinance and also KRS 100.257. they were first slated to be heard at the february meeting but requested postponement at the february meeting as well as the march meeting and so they are here on the agenda for today's meeting within the appeal letter that they submitted they purport the or i guess they They assert the following three things, which backs up their appeal of the issuance of the notices of violation. First, they argue that the zoning ordinance does not mention the word hunting. Second, they opine that the term recreational outfitters is vague, overbroad, and therefore invalid and unconstitutional, since it fails to specifically enumerate or construe hunting as a prohibited land use. and third, that the appellant has leased subject properties prior to 2016 when the use recreational outfitter was officially listed as a prohibited use within the AR zone. First, I just wanted to review state statute which discusses hunting. This is in the general provision section 255A. this states that private hunting by the property owner family members and or guests are is allowable by right however the very last line here states that the regulation of commercial activities is up to being regulated by localities so within our local zoning ordinance we define recreational outfitter as an establishment that provides equipment and supplies for the pursuit of recreational activities such as canoeing, hiking, fishing, trail riding. Recreational outfitters may offer services for outdoor tourism including guide services and transportation services. That is the definition in Article 1 of the zoning ordinance. In Article 8 of the zoning ordinance which specifies what uses are allowed within the AR zone, recreational outfitters are listed as a prohibited use. While the definition of recreational outfitter does not explicitly include hunting as an associated activity, the activities listed like canoeing, hiking, fishing are others that are elsewise principally permitted by right activities to be enjoyed by property owners, family members, and or guests. While these are by right activities, the provision of services like guide services for these activities is considered a commercial operation of these uses. Based on Kentucky state statute, when hunting is operated as a commercial use of property, localities are enabled to regulate them within their own ordinances. In 2016, the Tourism and Recreation Zota occurred and officially listed recreational outfitters as a prohibited use. this ZODA, the intent of it was to expand recreational opportunities and tourism in Fayette County. In general, the text amendment process identified a number of recreational uses, most of which were not being addressed by the zoning ordinance at that time. After identifying those uses, the work group that was working on this ZODA established definitions for these land uses. and all of which were related to ecotourism and agritourism. And then those uses were assigned either as principal uses, accessory uses, conditional uses, or prohibited uses in virtually every urban and rural zone. So it was an overhaul basically of the entire zoning ordinance and the uses allowed there. It was during this process that recreational outfitters were formally defined and assigned as prohibited within the AR zone. During the workgroup's process, land uses were assigned as either principal, accessory, conditional, or prohibited uses in order to control their appropriateness and compatibility within the urban and rural zones for Fayette County. Recreational Outfitters in 2016 were included as a prohibited use because they were found to be inappropriate and incompatible with the intent of the AR zone. The business Whitetail Heaven Outfitters is based in Jessamine County and offers hunting experiences throughout Kentucky as well as several other states. According to their website, they provide guide services for whitetail and turkey hunting. They offer weekend packages that include overnight accommodations, meals, and guided hunting services. Testimonials and reviews of their business, as well as details from the police report, make it clear that they offer commercial guided hunting services on the lands that they lease and manage. When reviewing the administrative appeal that was submitted by the applicant, staff found that there's not sufficient evidence that the use of the properties for recreational outfitting existed before 2016 when this use was formally prohibited in the zoning ordinance. staff is recommending disapproval because there is sufficient evidence to confirm that the use of the subject properties for recreational outfitters is happening by whitetail heaven outfitters. Today, what the board must decide is whether the issuance of the notices of zoning violation to the subject properties leased by Whitetail Heaven Outfitters for the operation of recreational outfitting was done in error by the Division of Building Inspection. Should the board rule in favor of the appellant by finding that the notices of zoning violation were issued in error, the subject property and other properties related to Whitetail Heaven Outfitters could continue their operations. Should the board rule against the appellant, the decision made by the Division of Building Inspection to issue the Notices of Zoning Violation would be upheld, and Whitetail Heaven Outfitters would be required to cease all recreational outfitting services in Fayette County on the properties in question and any other property in the AR zone. I am here if the board has any additional questions. Hey, Megan, real quick. I just want to get right to the issue. If we were to uphold the staff's zoning violation notices, essentially what we need to find is that hunting is a such as, which then makes it a recreational activity since it's not listed. Is that right, Tracy Jones? I believe so that it would be a related. No, what they were cited for is guided hunting in the AR zone, which makes them fall in the definition of a recreational outfitter. And recreational outfitting is prohibited in the AR zone. So that's what the violation was issued for. Yeah, but hunting is not listed, so we wouldn't have to find that hunting falls within the definition. Is that what we're asked? Well, I mean, you'd have to find that, you have to believe that. Okay. Based on what you hear. Okay. Regardless of whether they're hunting or just giving a tour, it's still considered, it's the same, is that correct? Well, I mean, the ordinance itself talks about guided tours. And so, I mean, this is the definition. So, yeah, I mean, obviously this is written or the notice is written to accommodate directly what they were doing, which was hunting with guided tours, but yes, to answer your question. Good. Okay, we'll give the applicant an opportunity. If you would, just please state name for record again. Thank you. Sure, thank you. Good afternoon again. Wes Harned on behalf of the applicant, Whitetail Heaven Outfitters. If you will indulge me for a second. I again have some handouts. I don't know if we're doing one record or six. Do you want to give some? I've got plenty for everybody. I just want to make sure there's more. Thank you. Again, good afternoon. This is Whitetail Heaven's administrative appeal. As a party injuriously affected or aggrieved by the notices of zoning violation at issue in each of these cases, I'll spare us with having to read through those cases again. It's the six administrative appeals we're here for. Whitetail is in the business of providing hunting opportunities to members of the public on private property. It owns or leases not only in central Kentucky, but in various states in the country. And that includes, within central Kentucky, the subject properties, with an exception, and I'll get to that in a second, is 3508 Crawley Lane. And Mr. Kynes is here today. He will testify with respect to 3508 Crawley Lane. And we'll flesh that out in just a second. But with respect to the other properties, Whitetail provides its services on those properties. And it's charged with violations of Article 8.1E.26 of the zoning ordinance, which again prohibits several uses. The vision of building inspection has identified the recreational outfitters phrase at the end as being what has been violated here. And Mr. Gross, I think your question drives to the heart of two of the three of our bases for appeals, which is an interpretation of this zoning ordinance in light of the definition of recreational outfitters. Now, to be clear, we have three, there's three grounds for our appeals. Number one is that Article 8-1E26 of the zoning ordinance, informed by the definition in Section 1-11 of recreational outfitters, does not prohibit or include within its prohibition the activities, the hunting activities. And the phrase commercial-guided hunting services has been used in the report. I would submit, and we'll get into it in a little bit, you've got to read that into the ordinance to find that the ordinance prohibits that activity. And so that's the first ground for the appeal. The second ground for the appeal is if recreational outfitter is read or interpreted to include hunting or hunting services or commercial guided hunting services, then it is void because it's unconstitutionally vague. And a statute or ordinance is unconstitutionally vague if it doesn't give the public reasonable notice of the activity prohibited and doesn't set guidelines for the government to enforce that ordinance. We will talk a little bit more about that ground in just a few minutes. but by reading into the ordinance you leave open the back door of anything being forced into that definition under any given circumstances. And again we'll get into that in just a little bit in terms of the interpretation of the ordinance. But our third and final ground for appeal is based on the legal principle that when an ordinance forbids the use of property previously permitted and conducted on the property, a use in existence prior to the adoption of that disowning ordinance under which is prohibited will be exempted and deemed a pre-existing non-conforming use. And all of these principles are set out. They're somewhat out of order, but tab two, or the second part of your packet, is a memorandum that sets forth our legal argument as to each of these grounds for appeal. But put into practice, that third ground is that You will hear evidence shortly through testimony of several of the property owners and also Whitetail Heaven and folks that work for Whitetail Heaven that these activities that Whitetail Heaven was engaged in will predate the 2016 enactment of this zoning ordinance. and are therefore, as I mentioned, exempted and deemed a preexisting nonconforming use with respect to the recreational outfitter definition and the addition of that in Article 8.1 E.26 as a prohibited use, which again was adopted in 2016. So to jump into our first ground for appeal, there are several legal principles that underpin the first and the second ground for appeal. And as you know, zoning ordinances are, we call, inderogation of the common law and therefore have to be strictly construed. Any restriction contained in the zoning ordinance may not be extended to include limitations that aren't clearly prescribed in the zoning ordinance. And this is, again, these are principles with case sites in the second part of your handout. And these are principles our courts have put down in terms of interpreting and implying prohibitions in zoning ordinances. Further, a statute and ordinance does not provide fair notice to the public that certain conduct is prohibited and minimal guidelines to aid officials in the enforcement of that prohibition, that statute of ordinance is void as being unconstitutionally vague. And again, there's a legal case site for that principle in our papers in the second part of our handout. Now, with that as the backdrop, looking at the ordinance that is being relied upon for these violation notices, Article 8-1E26 prescribes as a prohibited use, quote, commercial hiking, bicycling, zipline trails, tree canopy tours, canoeing, kayaking, launch sites, or recreational outfitters. And again, that last phrase, recreational outfitters, was added in 2016 when that definition was adopted in the zoning ordinance. You have to go to Section 1-11 for the definition of recreational outfitter, which is defined to mean an establishment that provides equipment and supplies for the pursuit of recreational activities, such as canoeing, hiking, fishing, or trail riding. Recreational outfitters may offer services for outdoor tourism, including guide services and transportation services. Now, building inspections position, I think what staff presented is somewhere in there is hunting. the difficulty though i think is that what we heard is a is a winding road to finding from this state statute and and this other part of the zoning ordinance that's not at issue here that you if you put all these things together that somehow hunting is, or even their phrase of commercial guided hunting services is now manifested within the definition of recreational outfitters. I would submit to you that if you construe this prohibition strictly, as the law requires us to do, you can't read or imply that into the zoning ordinance. It must be explicit. It must be expressed in the zoning order. And there's a canon of or a rule of statutory construction when you're looking at state statutes that says or there's a principle that, you know, if the legislature or the legislative body wanted to say it, they would have said it. They had an opportunity to say it. And in fact, hunting and hunting services are, well, hunting is mentioned other places in the zoning ordinance. And so we know that our legislative body is well equipped and able to add hunting into a definition or a, as a prohibited use. And what we have here is that's not in this ordinance and that's not in the definition of recreational outfitters. And so that's the legal problem with interpreting this zoning ordinance, this prohibited use section of Article 8.1 of the zoning ordinance to include hunting or hunting services or guided recreational, excuse me, commercial guided hunting services as a phrase used in the staff report. That's the problem with reading that in. You can't do that if you strictly construe the terms of the zoning limits. The second basis for appeal is kind of a sister concept to that principle, which is if you apply it in that manner, if you say we're going to read in to the definition of recreational outfitter, hunting or hunting services or commercial guiding hunting services when the legislative body didn't place those words in that definition, then the question becomes, does the public have reasonable notice as to what that ordinance or what that section of article or what that part of Article 8-1 actually prohibits? If we can say we're going to interpret recreational activity, to mean not only what, excuse me, recreational outfitter, to mean not only what it says on paper, but also to be these other things. I think the question is, is that fair notice to the public of what's prohibited? What conduct is unlawful? I think the answer is no. And I think that ties back and circles back to the first principle, which is you have to strictly construe these restrictions in the zoning ordinance. And I believe that, and I would submit to you, that's because you have to give fair notice. You have to allow the public to understand what is prohibited conduct. It also, I think, doesn't put up appropriate guardrails for enforcement. of something that can take on different meanings depending on who's looking at it that's the second factor that that goes into whether or not an ordinance like this is is so vague that it's void that is those are legal issues that we've raised and again they're set forth in the second part of your packet a little out of order and I apologize for that. And again for your use and review also just to create the record on those issues. But the third ground for appeal as was shown in the staff presentation is that these activities that Whitetail Heaven was engaged in and serve as the basis for the notices of zoning violation at issue will predate the 2016 enactment of Article 8-1 E-26 and the adoption of the definition of recreational outfitter. And again, in your handout, the second part, we've cited a legal principle that zoning ordinance necessarily implicates constitutional protected interests. This is particularly true when an ordinance forbids the use of property previously permitted and conducted on the property. Therefore, a use in existence prior to adoption of a zoning regulation under which it is prohibited will be exempted and deemed a preexisting nonconforming use. And we have, I'm going to begin calling in just a minute, witnesses that will explain to you that the activities on these properties will predate the 2016 adoption of the recreational outfitter definition and the addition of recreational outfitters to this prohibited use provision under Article 8.1. Before we go there, though, I want to make a couple of notes. First of all, you'll hear from Mr. Kynes. He is the owner of 3508 Crawley Lane. Mr. Kynes will tell you that Whitetail Heaven does not use that property for these activities. I'm not sure where the mix-up was, but we will be asking for that notice of violation to be withdrawn, set aside, rescinded for the simple reason that 3508 Crawley Lane is not in use by Whitetail Heaven in the manner in which it is alleged in these notices of violation. The other one, and I don't want there to be any confusion about it, one of the Jack's Creek Pike properties, that's 5837 Jack's Creek Pike. That's owned by the Whitman Trust, I think. We won't present any evidence that there was activity prior to 2016. In fact, that is not used. It's kind of the same thing as Crawley Lane. It's not really used for the activity that's alleged here. So that basis of appeal won't stand, that third ground for appeal won't stand as to 5837 Jacks Creek Pike. But the first two will. We still submit that with respect to all of these properties, the zoning ordinance being relied upon does not prohibit, strictly construed, does not prohibit the activity that is alleged to have occurred out there. So I didn't want there to be any confusion about Crawley Lane and the 5837 Jax Creek Pike. With that said, I'm going to ask... Mr. Harned, real quick, what about the McGregor properties? Sorry? The McGregor properties, there will be testimony that the McGregor properties hunting activity, In fact, your first page there in your packet is a written lease from McGregor on 5725 Jack's Creek in Lexington, dated back in 2008. Just to kind of demonstrate that this activity dates back in time, our witnesses will testify in terms of their personal knowledge about the continuous use of those properties predating the 2016 adoption of this. And so, yes, the McGregor properties are included within the third ground of appeal because we will have testimony that the activity in question has been continuously engaged in on those McGregor properties since well before 2016. If there's no other questions, I'll call my first witness. Yes, please. Joe Kynes. sir would you state your name and address for the record joe t kines jr 3508 crawley lane lexton i'm just going to ask you if you own that address or own that property at 3508 crawley lane i do Okay. Has Whitetail ever used that property for hunting operations? No. So a notice of violation about Whitetail using that as a hunting operation would be just plain wrong? Correct. Okay. Do you own other properties in the AR zone near to 3508 Crawley Lane? Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. Has Whitetail used those properties for hunting operations? Yes, sir. Okay. To the best of your knowledge and belief, does whitetail's use of those other properties for hunting operations date back to prior to 2016? Considerably. I'm sorry? Considerably. Okay, considerably. And whitetail has consistently used those other properties dating back prior to 2016 for these operations? That's correct, yes. And you agree and permit whitetail to use those properties for hunting operations, is that correct? That's correct. Does Whitetail pay you to do that? No. And isn't it true that you let Whitetail use that property because your son knows Tevis McCauley? Yes. Okay, and who is Tevis McCauley? He's the proprietor of Whitetail Heaven. Okay. And also you let him use the property out there, your other properties out there, which you use predates 2016, because it controls the deer population on your property. Yes, that's correct. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Were there any questions of the witness? Thank you. Thank you for your time. The next person I'll call up is David Gordon. state your name and address for the record please david gordon 1580 balmont road nichols kentucky mr gordon are you familiar with the address the property mr gordon i'm sorry could you speak more into the microphone? Just state your name and address again. David Gordon, 1580 Beaumont Road, Nicholson, Kentucky. Sir, are you familiar with the property located at 7418 Old Dry Branch Road in Fayette County? Yes. Okay. And what is your connection to 7418 Old Dry Branch Road in Fayette County? My grandfather took care of it and And it was left to him in a trust, which my mother gained control of that. And that was around 2008, 2007. Go ahead, finish it. Is your grandfather still alive? No, he passed away in 2013. Okay. And do you take care of the property at this point? Yes. Okay. Was, at the time your grandfather passed away in 2013, was Whitetail leasing the property for hunting operations? Yes. To your knowledge, was Whitetail leasing the property for hunting operations prior to your grandfather passing away in 2013? Yes. I did not know Whitetail Heaven existed, but through my grandfather. But since you've sent your grandfather? Since that is how I learned Whitetail Heaven before 2013. And upon your grandfather passing away in 2013 and you beginning to take care of the property, has Whitetail leased and used the property for hunting operations each year since? Yes. Does Whitetail pay to lease the property for its hunting operations? Yes. And again, that's 57, I'm sorry, 74, 18 Old Drive, Branch Road in Fayette County? Yes. Okay, that's all the questions I have. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Thank you, sir, for your time. Next person I'll ask to step forward is Sam Burton. Sir, if you'll state your name and address for the record, please. Sam Burton, 1580 Beaumont Road, Nicholasville, Kentucky. Sir, are you related to David Gordon? I am his stepfather. The gentleman just spoke? Yes. Are you familiar with 7418 Old Drive Ranch Road? Yes. Okay. Are you married to his mother? Yes, I am. Okay. Did you know David's grandfather before he passed away in 2013? Yes, I did. Okay. Are you familiar with Whitetail Heaven's lease and use of 7418 Old Drive Branch Road, both before and after David's grandfather passed away in 2013? Yes. Okay. And so you have personal knowledge that Whitetail Heaven used before 2013? Yeah. Have you ever talked to or been approached by any neighbors out there in the Dry Branch Road area about Whitetail and its use of the property? Yes, I have. By phone, and they was trying to lease the property, but I wouldn't take it away from Whitetail since they had it 10 or 12 years or whatever it's been. So I wouldn't take it away from them and give it to the neighbors. So neighbors were actually trying to take the lease? Right. Okay. Do you have any idea, did you get the identity of any of those folks? Yes. Can you name any of them? Falcone and Todd Jenkins. This Falcone, he owns a property that borders this property up near, is that Jack's Creek? Yeah, he's north of the property, I think. Okay. So he's one of the ones that called you and asked to take the lease away from Whitetail? Yeah. Did he want the lease? I presume, yes. Okay. All right. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Next person I'll ask to step forward is Tevis McCauley. How are y'all doing? Please state your name and address for the record. Tevis McCauley, 2047 Hall Road, Nicholasville, Kentucky. Are you the proprietor of Whitetail Heaven Outfitters, sir? Yes, sir. And how long have you been the proprietor and operated Whitetail? Over 20 years, since 2002, 21 years. Okay. Today we're discussing six properties in Fayette County, the addresses of which have been put up on the board. But 3508 Carley Lane, 7418 Old Drive Branch Road, 5837 Jackson Creek Pike, 5701 Jackson Creek Pike, 5725 Jackson Creek Pike, and 5751 Jackson Creek Pike. Are you familiar with those properties? Yes, very familiar with all of them. And with respect to Crawley Lane and Old Dry Branch Road, you were here in council chambers and present for the testimony of Mr. Kynes, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Burton. Is that true? Yes, sir. Okay. And would you agree with Mr. Kynes' testimony that Whitetail does not use 3508 Crawley Lane for hunting activities, but has used other of Mr. Kynes' property with his agreement and permission for hunting services dating back well prior to 2016? Yes, that is true. And you would agree with Mr. Gordon and Mr. Burton's testimony that Whitetail has leased and used 7418 Old Drive Branch Road since well before 2016? That is correct. Is that also true that Whitetail Heaven has leased and used 5701 Jackson Creek Pike, 5725 Jackson Creek Pike, and 5751 Jackson Creek Pike owned by the DeGrego Interprises since before 2016? Yes, sir, that is correct. How long before 2016 can you recollect whitetail engaging in hunting activities on what I'll call the McGregor properties prior to 2016? It's close to the early 2000s at least. Yeah, so we've been written ground off an owl and the McGregors for a very long time. I'm going to point you to the first page of what I've handed around. Sir, I'm going to show you a document that is in our record as Exhibit 1. Take a minute and review that document and tell me what that is. That is a lease agreement that was entered into in 2008 by Al McGregor on the properties that we're talking about there on Jackson Creek Pike. And that was just the oldest document I could come up with, but I feel like I rented this ground prior to that even. So it's exemplary of your testimony that your use of the McGregor Enterprises properties, again, 5701, 5725, and 5751, Jackson Creek Pike, well predates 2016, correct? That is correct. That's all I have right now. All right. Hold on just a second, Mr. McCullough. Any other questions? Next, I'll ask Joe Morris to step forward. Sir, please state your name and address for the record. Joe Morris, 2075, John Watch Road, Nicholsville, Kentucky. Thank you, sir. Are you affiliated with Whitetail Heaven Outfitters? Yes, sir. How are you affiliated Whitetail Heaven Outfitters? I'm a hunting guide. You've been here for the prior testimony about Whitetail's lease and use of the six properties being discussed, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. I want to focus with you on what I'm going to call the McGregor Properties, 5701 Jackson Creek Pike, 5725 Jackson Creek Pike, 5751 Jackson Creek Pike. Are you familiar with those properties? Yes, sir. Have you taken whitetail clients hunting at 57, 58s? Strike that. Have you taken whitetail clients hunting on the McGregor Enterprises properties since prior to 2016? Yes, sir. Based on your recollection and knowledge, how long before 2016 can you recall taking clients hunting on those McGregor Enterprises properties? Since early 2000, you know, it's been way before 2016, several years. And is it, based on your personal knowledge, is that use for hunting activities, the whitetail having used for hunting activities, been consistent year over year since that time frame? Yes, sir. Okay. Up until present? Yes, sir. Okay. That's all I have. Next person I'm going to ask to step forward is Rick Abbott. Please just state your name and address for the record. My name is Rick Abbott and I live in Plymouth, Massachusetts at 20 Craig Street. Sir, you affiliated Whitesail Heaven Outfitters? Yes. And how are you affiliated Whitesail? A hunting guide? Yes, sir. You've been here also for prior testimony about whitetails' use and lease of the properties being discussed, correct? Yes, sir. Again, with you, I want to focus on what I'll call the McGregor properties. Do you know what I'm referring to when I say that? Yes, sir. Okay. Have you taken whitetail clients hunting on 5701, 5725, and 5751 Jackson Creek Pike? Yes, sir. Does that activity, based on your personal knowledge, dated back to prior to 2016? Yes, sir. What is your recollection of how long prior to 2016 that activity has been ongoing? I've been with Whitetail since approximately 2009, late fall 2009. Okay. And you've been in since that time frame, late 2009, Whitetail has consistently been using those McGregor Enterprises properties? Yes. Yes. Yes, sir. That's all in. Next, James Mulcahy. Let me state your name and address for that. James Mulcahy, 3804 Brookdale Circle, Lexington, Kentucky. Are you affiliated with Whitetail Heaven? Yes, sir. And how so? an employee but not a hunting guide. Okay and what is your role or title? More bookkeeping, administration, stuff like that. You interface with clients? Yes, tons of them. Like the others, you've been here for the testimony about the properties at issue in these appeals? Yes sir. Like the others before you, I'm going to focus on the McGregor Enterprise properties. Are you familiar with those properties, the McGregor Enterprises properties? Yes, I am. Okay. Are you aware, based on your personal knowledge, are you aware of Whitetail clients hunting on the McGregor Enterprises properties dating back prior to 2016? Yes, sir. Okay. That's all I have. I'm going to spare you hearing any more of the same testimony. I would submit to you that you're not going to hear anybody to tell you a negative, that they weren't doing those things prior to 2015 because the testimony, I think, is incontrovertible that they were. I would also submit to you that, and if you may remember the last time we were here and we were continued over to today, there was mention of gunfire or gunshots from the Crawley Lane property. I learned after that meeting and wanted to express to you all that I think there's a great deal of confusion in terms of what goes on out there. Mr. Kynes is certainly permitted to fire his own rifle on his property. And in fact, I believe that's what happened. And a lot of times, at least in this instance, I think as the allegation was made the last time before we continued, that it was Whitetail Heaven operating out there. And I think you've heard from the testimony today from Mr. Kynes that that's not correct with respect to Crawley Lane. Again, I would request that the notice of zoning violation as to Crawley Lane be rescinded, set aside, whatever disposition you'd like to make of it in that nature. because I think the testimony is uncontroverted today that there's been no activities or disputed activities or the activities in question we're not being engaged in on Crawley Lane. With respect to the remaining properties, I've gone through with you our two legal grounds for the interpretation grounds for our appeals. I would request that each of the notices of zoning violations be rescinded, set aside, what have you, based on those two legal grounds, the interpretive grounds. I would request that the notices be rescinded, set aside, dismissed for the Old Dry Branch Road and what I've called the McGregor Enterprises properties at 5701, 5725, and 5751 Jacks Creek Pike. based on the third ground for the appeal, which is the activities at issue that Whitetail Heaven is engaged in out on those properties has been continuously ongoing and predates the 2016 adoption of the definition of recreational outfitter and its inclusion in Article 8-1 E26 as a prohibited use in the AR zone. And with that, I will field any questions if you have them. Madam Chair, I think it would be helpful for me because there was a lot of testimony. If we could, if I could just go through real quickly. So for 5701 Jack's Creek Pike, 5725, and 5751, you're stating that the evidence provided says those were all legal nonconforming preexisting uses? Yes, those are what I've referred to as the McGregor properties, the McGregor Enterprises, yes. And the activities in question have been continuously ongoing on those properties since well prior to 2016. And then that also includes Old Dry Branch Road. That's correct. Okay. And then for 3508 Crawley, your position is it's not been used for hunting activities. That's correct. I think something was lost in translation on that one. I don't think there's any activity being conducted on that property that's in question. By white tail heaven. Okay. So they're doing no activity on that particular. That's the evidence that Mr. Kynes presented and Whitetails confirmed it. Then 5837, that's the one that maybe it started after 16? If it occurred, yes. There's no argument that any activity to the extent it was engaged in prior to 2016. However, and I probably could have articulated it better, our first two arguments still pertain to the 5837 Jackson Creek Pike, our legal. Yeah, I'm just focusing on your testimony. Yes, yes, but that's correct. There's been no testimony as to 5837. Okay. That helped me. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you. What we'll do is take an opportunity for community input. We'll do that. I think that we do have several folks that have legal representation, and maybe we'll allow Mr. Woodall to speak first, and then we'll line up individually. After we do legal presentation, each individual will have up to three minutes to give any additional, I don't want to call it testimony, I feel like a judge, additional information to be heard. We'll do that as quickly and orderly as possible. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. May I approach, Madam Chair? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the board, I appreciate your indulgence today. I wasn't really sure where this is going or was going in terms of their testimony, so forgive me if I jump around just a little bit. I have the privilege of representing several landowners in the Jack's Creek Corridor. I am also a lifelong hunter and fisherman. My children have been raised in it. I graduated from Tates Creek High School, have run these roads since I was a kid, so I didn't take this representation. I didn't undertake it lightly. Nobody's really explained to you how the business of guiding and hunting outfitting works. don't have any problem, and my clients don't have any problem with guiding and hunting and outfitting in the right context. But this is the wrong context, and we made that decision as a community several years back in terms of guiding. I'll go through some of my exhibits with you, and I'll explain to you why they're there here in a second. But essentially what happens is, you know, a guide or someone like Mr. McCauley or Whitetail Heaven Outfitters, you had an opportunity to look at their website and so forth. It's very well done. Great marketers. And what they do is approach people that own rural land, so to speak, that have good hunting opportunities. Why is this area so sought after? Well, because of the Raven Run Nature Preserve is why. There's a whole lot of what we call trophy deer grown in and around that property. And during hunting season, they'll come off of it. And that's why some of these adjacent properties are so sought after. My clients are land owners in this area. They've invested money. We're not lessees. And most guiding operations, there's only two ways to do it. You either own the land and bring folks to it, or you lease the land and bring folks to it. And I can tell you from experience when situations like this, where you got folks coming from out of town, and we mentioned the 5837 property. That's the Whitman property. It's 363 acres. To my knowledge, no hunting activities have ever gone on there. They use that, because Mr. Whitman's got a really nice cabin there, and he leases it to them to use for their accommodations. So folks coming in from out of town, they've got a nice place to stay. They don't know anything about our community, for the most part. But it's a nice place to stay, and that's what they've used it for. And I suspect that's why it was cited. But to my knowledge, there isn't any hunting that goes on there. They'll use it for the deer season or turkey season. But in any event, there are pretty hefty fees paid for the right to hunt. I think they will get a couple thousand bucks for a firearm deer hunt. Here's another important thing about firearm deer hunting in Kentucky that separates us from, say, Illinois. We're what we call a center fire rifle state. You can use in our state, no matter where you are, as long as you're in a legal hunting area, you can use a high-powered rifle. Now, a young lady about a month ago put a bullet on a 70-inch target at 2.4 miles. Now, was that a competition? Yes, it was. Was that a highly skilled shooter with a darn good rifle, custom-made? Absolutely it was. The point is, they go a long way. Some of our adjacent states, Indiana, Illinois, their shotgun slug only. A whole lot different in terms of velocity and travel. So if I'm in a flat area, there's a reason Illinois doesn't allow and Indiana doesn't allow rifles. We're in a flat area, safety is a big issue. that's why it's that's why folks want to come here and if you look at mr mcculley's website and if you look at the photographs they've been successful and when folks pay that kind of money they expect to be successful and they get mad when they're not and when they are they want to come Well, what it leads to is bad interactions with the neighbors, okay? And an over taxing of the resource, here being dear. I understand what Mr. Kind said. He wants, he's a farmer, I ride my bike by his farm all the time. He wants to control the population. My clients do too, but it's in a little different way. Let's talk about, here's what I've been confused about. There's a couple issues, get straight to their defenses. Who are we talking about? Whitetail Heaven or Mr. McCauley? Because in 2007, October the 15th, Whitetail Heaven filed its articles of organization to be an LLC. With Secretary of State, Commonwealth of Kentucky, this is all public record. On November the 1st of 2008, it's about a year later, they were administratively dissolved. No longer a viable limited liability company in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. They were not reinstated by the Secretary of State until April the 27th, of 2021. So for that 13 year period, including 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky didn't even recognize them as a viable entity in our fine state. They were not reinstated, like I said, until April of 21, and they were dissolved again in October of last year. And they haven't been reinstated today. I suspect they tried to try to cure this little problem, but they haven't been able to do it. Here's the other important fact. Fayette County requires me, you or anybody else who wants to carry on business in this county, to register. Well, guess what? We did an open records request. There has never been a Whitetail Heaven or any other name registered to do business in this county. They have never paid taxes in this county, either Mr. McCauley or Whitetail Heaven, for any guided services. Now, in order to be a nonconforming use, that use must be continuing. I will agree with that, what Mr. Harned said there. It has not been. We did an open records request, and I'm sorry this isn't in my packet, I didn't know we were headed here, with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Want to know, when did you register to be a guide? Because guess what they have over there? They want to know, they being the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, who I think is one of our finest agencies in the entire state government. They want to know who's taking people hunting. They want to regulate that. They charge a fee for it. Well, according to those records, and we asked for both, Mr. McCauley and Whitetail Heaven. They registered in January of 07. They registered in January of 08. But nothing. No registration from 08 to 12. They registered in 12 and 13 and 14. Didn't register in 15. Then again in 16. Not in 17. And then they had a guide license from 18 through the 22nd. So not only were they not a viable entity, they've not paid taxes here, they've not registered here, And there's a breakup in the registration sequence when this person was a lawful guide. And I submit to you, there's no way then to sustain non-conforming use status when you hadn't been a viable entity with the state or locally. And not one now. Now to talk about what's going on on these particular properties, I've addressed the nonconforming use aspect. Nothing's happened on the McGregor properties right now, as the letter said, it's in the record. And in your packet that was given to you by Whitetail Heaven, this was a lease. It was dated November of 4th of 2008. Well, as I told you, Whitetail Heaven wasn't even a viable entity at that point. This was entered into by Mr. McCauley back then. You can't mix and match. Who are we talking about? Talking about Whitetail Heaven? Or are we talking about Mr. McCauley individually? If you look at the applicant's memorandum of appeal in support of appeal, it starts off. Whitetail heaven outfitters. Whitetail is in the business of providing hunting opportunities. Not in this state it's not. And it sure is heck in this county. and as far as the how the statute um or the ordinance reads i agree can you believe it you know why it reads the way it does because there's not any problem with hunting if it was just mr mccauley or his friend or whatever on these properties themselves that's how I got into hunting. I didn't, when I started, I didn't own any property unless my grandpa took me. So we leased it. There's nothing to prevent anybody from leasing any of this property to hunt for themselves or with their children, with their friends. What you can't do in this county is charge for it. And you can't charge for it and take all the folks you see in those photographs. I get that's fantastic marketing. I get it. But that's what the ordinance was designed to prohibit, commercial outfitting. And that's what this is. There's no way around it. I don't think they hide from the fact that they're a guide. Probably a pretty darn good one. This gentleman's got all these guys here that support him. I get it. Just in the wrong county. As to the photographs that you have, once again, I don't begrudge Mr. McCauley or his friends or his employees or anything else for trying to run a business. But as I said, it is a business. And if you want to learn about marketing, talk to these guys because they know what they're doing. And there's a reason you put some of these photographs on the website that shows the number of deer they're putting on the ground. Because frankly, that's what those of us that are looking for, outfitting services, that's what we want to see. But it creates bad interactions with neighbors. You saw this gentleman here? Based on information and belief, he's the cat from South Carolina that killed the deer that jumped the fence and took it. They went and got it at dark and took it back to South Carolina or wherever it went, probably on the wall. I would have mounted it. But that's what we're talking about. It's the interaction with neighbors. And I know the argument of I've been in this area and grew up all my life. And who are you to come in and tell me I can't hunt here or there? Well, unfortunately, as a community, it may not have started out about hunting. It was about Boone Creek, but we retooled our zoning ordinance over this stuff, folks. We came up with a whole new area in the AR zone called AR Natural Areas. Staff will correct me if I'm wrong. To address this kind of stuff and to put it where we wanted it in terms of tourism. We don't want guided hunting, recreational outfitting in the AR zone. That's what we decided. With that, as to Mr. Kine's testimony, I certainly understand that apparently it was a mix-up on Crawley. But as they admitted, this activity is going on on other places on Crawley. And if we're talking about controlling the deer population, we could do that without guided hunting. But those properties need to be brought into this one way or the other, so we deal with this all once and for all. I know there's others that want to speak, so I'm going to sit down. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Hello. Yes, state your name for the record, please. is karen mundy 4413 ravens crest lane here in lexington i live in the neighborhood that is contiguous to the mcgregor property so the property line that goes along we start the timer you got it okay the me the eyeballs okay the property um line that goes along our neighborhood is contiguous to the mcgregor property we have one neighbor who has three small children who from from September to Christmas, we'll not let them play in the yard. Because he dug a bullet out of the side of his house, a high powered rifle bullet. So we started trying to get into things, what's going on and so forth. We found out that we have next door to us and on other surrounding properties, we had hunting outfitters. As some of you know, I served on the planning commission for eight years. I remembered that hunting outfitters were not to be allowed in the AR zone. So I started doing some research, started meeting with some neighbors, we started talking about this. This is where this really pretty much culminated from, is from our getting involved in it and finding out, number one, here's a small business and I'm happy for them and they seem to be very successful. They are operating though in Fayette County. They are not paying taxes to Fayette County. They are not licensed in Fayette County. But I also believe that since I've lived there and moved there in 2015, I can tell you right now there are 19 new homes between Old Richmond Road and where I live on Jack's Creek, which is prior to Ravens Run. That area is not as rural as it used to be. They're bringing in hunters from, we have pictures of license plates from New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, other places, other states. They don't know where my house is. They put them out in a deer stand and the trajectory on those high powered rifles could end up anywhere. The city is on notice now that there is an issue with this. If I get killed, my family will be after you, I promise you. If my dogs get killed, if another neighbor, I have one neighbor who called me one morning hysterically crying because her dog had gotten away from her and she was horrified she could hear shooting. I go out walking my dog, I don't want to walk my dog in blaze orange. I shouldn't have to do that. I live on 18 acres, and I should not have to see truck lights in the woods behind my house dragging deer out just after dark. I shouldn't have to say to the gentleman who found the deer that he couldn't take it because it was on private property. It's really scary. The first weekend of hunting season, it was like a war zone. Bullets were flying across our houses. So I just ask that you look at this very seriously because it's happening on other properties in Fayette County as well. Thank you. Hello. And we'll ask you to please state your name for the record. Sure. And again, we'll try not to be repetitive, so if you have some new information, we'd appreciate it. My name is Richard Shadwick. I live at 5421 Jack's Creek, Pike. Thank you. I agree with Karen that Jack's Creek area is not the Jack's Creek it was in 2002. But more importantly, I ran into, so my security cameras went off one afternoon. I was home. And I saw a white truck come in my driveway. I'm like, who is this? Well, the camera picked them up going up to the barn. So I got dressed, I grabbed a firearm, and I went to the bar and I thought somebody was stealing. I encountered the gentleman in the blue shirt there on the front row, Joe, with two hunters with shotguns, youth hunters. They were turkey hunting and trespassing on my property. Okay? I wish I had called the police and documented it. I did not. But I think Mr. Morris got it clear that he was trespassing on my property and I didn't want it to happen again. So I don't know why, what, but it's fact. And that's what my experience is with the local guy there on Jack's Creek Pike. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And if we do have other people that want to speak, if you want to come up and get in line, that will help us move smoothly. State your name for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Matt Falcone. I own 6169 Jack's Creek Pike. It's 260 acres. I've owned it for 15 years. I've had numerous encounters with this group, Whitetail Evan Outfitters. None of them have been positive. There's not a positive thing about it in our neighborhood. it. I have encountered hunters that had no idea where the property line was. I've had them with high-powered rifles pointing at me, facing me, 30 yards off my property line. Get out of here. What the hell are you talking about? Get out of here. We're hunting. Okay. You need to get with your outfitter and find out where you're hunting. This is my property. Okay, I shouldn't have to go down my property line and have that kind of harassment. I've had one of their outfitters stop me on the road and ask me if I had dogs. I said, yeah, I've got three of them right here in this, my bird dogs. He said, well, if we catch them on our property, we're going to shoot them. I said, partner, these dogs are always with me in close confines. They're not going to be in front of your hunters. He said, well, I'm just telling you now, we've shot 13 dogs this year. I've told my guys, my hunters, shoot them. What are we talking about here? I mean, we're talking about, you know, this wonderful outfitting group. Let me tell you about outfitters. I've used them all over the world. And there are certain types of outfitters. And they're reputable. They won't allow their people to do that. And they control their people. And what I mean by control them is they just don't say, hey, go take this address, and the hunting stand's somewhere down in here, and leave them astray. And they have no idea in the dark, when that daylight breaks, and you get excited, and you see this big buck, and you fire that rifle off, you have no idea Karen Mundy's house is maybe 100 yards, 200 yards, 300 yards. Doesn't matter. That rifle will go 1,000 yards. So I'm begging you guys to hear our case. And let me tell you, outfitting is hunting. It's very clear. There is no prior to 2016, these guys weren't even licensed. So as a taxpayer, a businessman here, a property owner here, I beg you to make sure that this doesn't happen in Fayette County. Gloria Martin herself told me, when this ordinance was put in, It was put in to prevent this kind of activity. There are too many folks that live here, they have children. Please hear our case, thank you. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else that'd like to speak from the audience? Hello, good afternoon. My name is Craig Hanman, I represent 6174 Jack's Creek Pipe, which is directly across the street from where they hunt. directly next door to Ravens Run and on the Kentucky River. We have approximately 200 head of horses and some 30 odd employees that are in fields starting around 7 a.m. every day. We can, in fact, see their deer stands from our property certain times of the year. Since the foliage has come in, we cannot see their deer stands any longer. So we do have a fear for the safety of our employees and the safety of our horses. This is, in fact, the horse capital of the world. So we're here strictly from a safety standpoint to protect our employees and to protect our horses from stray rounds. Thank you, sir. My name is Elizabeth Crane. I'm at 6301 Old Jack's Creek Road, which the properties between Dry Branch Road and Old Jack's Creek Road almost butt up at the back ends because of the way the roads go. We have another property that's next to us, and the numbers on my road do not go in order. So the property that's next to us at 6305 actually goes back on a road to another 11 acres that's back there. So this is very rural. And on top of that, there's 40 acres behind there. Well, all of a sudden, about two years ago, we had a deer stand that the neighbor went on a hike to go back on her property. that has access off of ours on her property and reported to me that there's a deer stand back there. Yes, occasionally we get neighbors that go hunting back there, but those neighbors come and knock on the door and ask. And usually it's only bow and arrow that we allow to go back there. They know where the property lines are. They grew up in that area. Recently, we've had nonstop shooting that we hear. And I know when it's from the guy that has the 40 acres that's directly above us on the bluff. Because he leaves the gate open and I can see it's him. The rest of the time, who knows where it's coming from. I don't mind. They own the property. They paid for it. If they're crossing on our property, they request permission. One of the neighbor kids, this is a 17 year old, well he was 17 at the time, was hunting down on their property down the road, further on down on Jack's Creek Pike. Their families lived there for years. They came, he has enough sense that because they were chasing a deer that had been flooded that ended up on our property and asked if they could go across our property to collect the deer. Well, yes, I know you. I know who you are. I know what you're doing with a rifle or a gun. They're not high-powered. They know where the houses are. It's not an issue. It's not a hunting issue. It's a problem having people out there that don't know where they're going, that don't know property lines, and you can't just get the property lines from the PVA out in that area and have a little nice rectangle drawn. There's a lot of property, because I've actually looked this up, that says you go from the oak tree that's at the corner of so-and-so's property to the elm tree that's down over here. And people that live out there, we learn where those property lines are. But those trees aren't even there. So I'm going to tell the guides know where the property lines are to keep people in the right areas. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate it. We have one more. Good afternoon. Matt Walker, 4105 Kentucky River Parkway. We've come to this party a little bit late. We just moved into the neighborhood a couple of years ago, so we didn't have any idea what we were moving into. We knew we were moving into a beautiful section of Fayette County. and we feel very fortunate to have found the neighbors that we've found and the neighborhood that we've found. I can only count one interaction that I had with the Whitetail Heaven crew. My wife and I, the first year we were there, we were out driving around. It just so happened to be that it was deer season. I didn't think about it. I'm in Southern Fayette County, didn't realize this was a very big part of our neighborhood. There are a lot of deer hunters around there. There are a lot of deer hunters, not just the outfitters, but the landowners. But what I will say about the outfitters is this. As we drove down Old Jack's Creek, I'm sorry, Dry Branch, and we were coming up to Old Jack's Creek, there's a junction. We were met by outfitters who told us that we couldn't proceed down Dry Branch. Well, my wife and I had looked previously at a property down there prior to buying our current home. The gentleman met us, and he was very aggressive. He was very angry. He was carrying a firearm. I'm not saying that he was aggressive with the firearm, but what I am saying is there was no question that we were not passing. We had to turn around on a public road because the outfitters, we've got hunters out there. I couldn't go to my friend's property. I couldn't go down to see the neighbor at the end of Dry Branch. I was told that I needed to turn around while my wife and I were out for an evening cruise. So, as I say, came late to the party. Love where we're living. It's a wonderful place. awesome group of people out there. It's just a shame that you can have a group that is operating in just such an aggressive nature despite the law being violated, the ordinances being violated. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Anyone else? I'm Carolyn Singh. I live at 4109 Kentucky River Parkway. I would just like to ask everyone who is opposed to this idea, please stand. Ma'am, I'm sorry. Really, you should just speak. Excuse me, ma'am. Ma'am, you have to speak directly to the board. We can't get the audience involved. I'm sorry. I just asked everyone who was opposed to this proposition to stand. These are all my neighbors. I love my neighbors. I don't want any of them hurt, and somebody's going to get hurt, because these people do not behave like an honorable hunter would behave. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate it. I think is it all from the audience? We'll give the applicant an opportunity. Thank you, Madam Chair. We appreciate the community feedback. This is a proper forum for it. And we've listened. There are things, and for the reasons I'll discuss in just a few minutes, We're going to push back on some of the testimony. But largely these issues, while not diminishing them, are not – they don't drive to the heart of the – this is our appeal. And these issues, many of them, most of them do not drive to the heart of the bases for appeal. and so while we will counter some of them and I'm going to ask Mr. McCauley to come back up in a few minutes and address some of the statements that have been made but before I do that I want to, Mr. Woodall is a good lawyer and he made fine arguments about the status of a company with the Secretary of State's office and about business permits and about registering with the fish and wildlife folks and about taxes. And none of that really hits home on what the issue is, which is a nonconforming use. The notice is a violation here, say Whitetail Heaven Outfitters. Nearly every witness or every member of the public that just came up in the last 20 minutes referred to this group as Whitetail Heaven. And so I get the argument. I understand what Mr. Woodall was trying to establish. But the violation notice has identified Whitetail Heaven. Whitetail Heaven is an identified group among all of these neighbors. and again though we're talking about a non-conforming use and the testimony here today, in fact, the members of the public we just heard speak almost confirmed that this use has been going on for well prior to 2016. And so again, I told you earlier the testimony that we presented would not be controverted about the use of this property being consistent, notwithstanding administrative dissolution or taxes or permits. I understand the argument. I do. And I appreciate it as a good legal argument. But the fact is we're talking about nonconforming use. And the testimony we presented is still uncontroverted, that this use has been continuing and has been continuous since well prior to 2016. Mr. Woodall also argued that this ordinance that we're talking about, this prohibited use, was adopted for this very purpose or something to that effect. It's not in there. That's Mr. Woodall's interpretation of what recreational afters is. That's the problem with a statute that doesn't tell you, or at least an interpretation, of trying to fit something into a definition or zoning ordinance that isn't expressly stated. And again, we have to interpret this ordinance and these prohibitions strictly. When it comes down to interpretation, reading into what one thinks subjectively is meant by a term, that gets really, in fact, I'd submit it gets all the way over the line of arbitrariness. There's no guide rails for applying that definition within that ordinance that prohibits uses of land. That is in the realm of arbitrary. When the meaning of a word or a phrase or prohibited use is left to the eye of the beholder, that is an ordinance and a definition within an ordinance that is so vague it's void. And that's the second of our arguments about why if this ordinance and the definition of recreational outfitters is read to include commercial guided hunting services, which phrase could have been added, hunting could have been added. If this was what this ordinance was geared toward, I would submit the legislative body was enabled and certainly capable of putting that language in the ordinance that's not there. And that's the first basis for our appeal, as I've mentioned. Going back to the third, though. Again, I'm going to ask Mr. McCauley to step forward one more time. and rebut a little bit of a few of the statements that were made with respect to Whitetail's operations on these respective properties and push back on some of those issues or some of those statements. But again, I would submit to you that with respect to the grounds for appeal, I don't frankly think that these points squarely address the grounds for appeal. Before Mr. McCauley stands up, because I don't want him to have to answer something that somebody didn't say. With respect to a couple of the comments or the last comment about somebody telling that gentleman to turn around on the road, again, I didn't hear him to even identify who those folks were with. I was listening very intently because most every person who stepped up referenced Whitetail Heaven, and that's what everybody's identifying the offending party as, contrary to Mr. Woodall's argument. And I was listening very intently, and that gentleman did not identify Whitetail Heaven. But I don't mean to diminish his experience or the sincerity of what he said. I just wanted to point out that along the lines of what I talked about Mr. Crawley, or Mr. Kynes out on Crawley Lane, And I think there are some feelings against Whitetail Heaven Outfitters that have swelled among some in attendance. And, you know, when you talk about something that's happened, you don't identify Whitetail. I've got some concerns. After everybody else has pretty much identified all the activities out there as being Whitetail. But Mr. McCauley, step back up. Again, state your name for the record, please. Tevis McCauley, 2047 Hall Road, Nicholasville, Kentucky. Mr. McCauley, there were some comments made about bullets flying around certain properties. I didn't follow exactly which properties they were. People crossing property lines and being confrontational with some of the folks that spoke. but also some comments about people coming from out of town and not knowing where property lines are and being misinformed about where they were on certain properties. My question to you, sir, is there a time when your clients ever move on a property you're hunting without a guide, without a local guide? Absolutely not. All of our hunting is done from tree stands, so there's no walking around or anything like that. And very rarely are you shooting. When you shoot at a whitetail deer, generally you shoot one time and it's over. Now, I'm sure I hear a lot of shooting during dove seasons and squirrel seasons and rabbit seasons, various other seasons that do extend the entire length of the fall. But the rifle season in the state of Kentucky is only 15 days long. Okay. Last question. Has your group had interactions with Mr. Falcone over time? I personally have not. I really don't know him. although I know that I've had a lot of complaints from where he is a neighboring property landowner that he does drive up and down the road a lot and shoot a lot of guns and hoot and holler and do various things to try to make it to where our hunters don't have success. Thank you. The only last point I'll make is it was in my comments. Mr. Burton actually testified that Mr. Falcone had reached out to him and tried to get the lease taken away from Whitetail. I'd ask you to consider that when you're weighing comments on either side. The last thing I'm going to say in summary is the very last part of your packet that I handed to you earlier, and that's Exhibit 3 in the record, is our – I went a little bit beyond proposed findings. fact, I also included conclusions of law because there are some legal bases for the appeals in this matter. I felt the need to preserve those for the record. And so in addition to making those legal arguments in my memorandum, I also proposed not only findings of fact pertinent to these appeals, but also conclusions of law. There are no other questions. I thank you for your attention this afternoon. Thank you. Hold just a moment, Mr. Harnett. We're going to have staff come back up lastly, But does anyone have any questions of the applicant prior to staff wrapping up for us? No? All good? Thank you all. Okay, thank you, Mr. Harnett. Chair Carter, before the staff comes back up, we would just ask for maybe five minutes to convene amongst ourselves to discuss the points we'd like to present to the board. Okay, we'll take a brief five-minute recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Okay. Okay. If everybody's ready, we'll get back in our places and finish up. Okay. So first, I would just like to address the two properties that the appellant stated are not being utilized for hunting. Those two addresses are the 3508 Crawley Lane and the 5837 Jack's Creek Pike. The appellant stated that both of those properties were not being utilized for the outfitting recreational use. Because of that, they are able to withdraw. They are two administrative appeal applications because the notices that were sent to those two properties are just advisory notices. They are not formal notices of violation. So they are able to withdraw those two applications so that the board doesn't have to make a decision for those two properties. Which two are those again? The 3508 Crawley Lane and the 5837 Jack's Creek Pike. Megan, I don't mean to interrupt, but on 5837 Jack's Creek Pike, I don't think they said there was not any activity going on. I think they were agreeing that there was hunting activity, just not prior to 2016. Okay, I had misunderstood. So just for clarification's sake, the appellant is saying that hunting was taking place on 5837 Jack's Creek Pike, but not prior to 2016 when it was listed as a prohibited use. Is that correct? That is correct in my notes. You weren't using the prior to 2016 argument in that particular case. I'm sorry. It's okay. I asked the question. Yeah. There are three grounds for appeal, right? So the first two are the interpretation and application of the zoning ordinance. We'll address that. I'm sorry? We're just asking which properties. I should have started. I don't want to withdraw any appeals because our appeals stand on the interpretation and application of zoning ordinance with respect to all the properties. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I'm not going to withdraw any appeals. With respect to the ground that there was nonconforming use that preexisted the adoptionist ordinance, to that extent, we are not arguing that Crawley Lane, well, on Crawley Lane, we're arguing there wasn't any activity anyway. And Wes, it's okay, Wes. We just want to, I'm sorry, Mr. Harnett. I just wanted to, I didn't want the staff to state it incorrectly. So it's fine. What I would say is I'm not going to withdraw my appeal. I'm asking that there would be a finding made that the notice of violation was improper. What was the notice of violation? An advisory, the notice. Okay. What brings us here? Okay. That's my position on Crawley Lane. Okay. With respect to the other, I'm not going to withdraw any appeals. Gotcha. Okay. I just wanted to make that clear. Okay. I'm sorry about that, Megan. I'll let you finish through yours and then. I want to interrupt now. And so I guess we'd like some clarification from staff if you're saying this is advisory notice and therefore it's not an appeal, then. Well, let me see if I can clarify, okay? First off, let me say the situation is confusing and the circumstances have made it more confusing. So that's where we're starting from. There's a difference between an advisory letter and a notice of violation. A notice of violation is something that can, if upheld by you all, go on to produce civil penalties and other things. An advisory opinion, which was issued in this case because there were multiple properties where this stuff was going on, multiple addresses to say to the landowner, who by the way, as you may have gathered, is not the outfitter. I think that was pointed out, they're leased or allegedly leased. But those advisory opinions or advisory notices are to put them on notice that, hey, this is being reported to us and we need some additional information. which, by the way, we didn't get. So that made it more difficult to ascertain exactly where things were. However, those don't typically produce civil penalties, an advisory opinion. However, if the appellant who filed the appeal and filed across the board on everything, I'm sure to protect themselves because that's what lawyers do. So if they don't want to withdraw it, then you can make a decision on whether or not the advisory opinion is issued along with the notices of violation as we go through this. And then we'll go from there in terms of the advisory opinions. But a notice of violation that is upheld then is found to be a notice of violation and is subject to further appeal or potential civil penalties, if that makes sense. Yes. So what we're saying is on an advisory notice, you're being put on notice that these things are being alleged on your property and they would be prohibited. But that by itself is not going to produce a civil penalty. Whether or not it produces a further appeal, I guess we'll see. We'll be left to the lawyers at a different place. But I'm just telling you, so what the staff is saying is on those, if you're saying here, and you have evidence that you believe that those, okay, you sent me this advisory notice, you said these things are going on, I'm telling you, and I have proof that they're not, then those things could be withdrawn, presented to building inspection, and that addresses it. But if the appellant does not want to handle it that way because this is an unusual circumstance, then we can just go ahead and decide on all of them. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Jones. Thank you. So next I would like to address the lease that was presented as an exhibit by the applicant. Reading through the lease, it was made with the property owner at the time to Tevis McCauley, not specifically to Whitetail Heaven Outfitters. And then if you look at line 12 in the lease, it states that the premises are to be occupied only as a residence. From our initial just reading through and understanding of this lease, it is for a residential lease between the property owner and Mr. McCauley. Second, Mr. Woodall mentioned that the Whitetail Heaven Outfitters LLC was dissolved, and I would just like to submit into record a printout from the state secretary's website with the dates of when their articles of organization were established in 2007 and then were administratively dissolved in 2008 and were not reinstated until 2021. So I'd just like to submit that into the record. And then I also have a copy of the letter I mentioned this in my presentation. It is a letter from the McGregor Enterprises, Jeff McGregor, to Whitetail. And C. Seed was Whitetail's personal attorney, Nick Wallingford. And the letter states, to whom it concerns, you are given notice that you are prohibited from guided hunting on all of my properties. This letter is dated November 21st, 2022. So I'd just like to submit that into the record as well. Regarding the other statements that Mr. Harnon made regarding the uses and the interpretation of the zoning ordinance, our law department is prepared to answer those. Any additional questions for staff before I sit down? Okay. So we're going to address a little bit, because this is a little bit of an unusual circumstance. You're usually hearing about facts, and the staff has given you those. But since you've also had legal arguments made to you about things that we want to address with you from our viewpoint and how we interpreted those and how we would interpret them going forward for your all's benefits. So the first thing that I want to address with you all is the argument that the ordinance is not specific enough and doesn't include hunting. If you look, and this is not an uncommon process in the zoning ordinance, you all probably know this, but every section in the zoning ordinance, and there's a lot of them, does not include its own definitional section. So it is not uncommon that you will see a section in the zoning ordinance and then you will have to refer back to the definition section in order to be able to know exactly what that means. It doesn't mean it's vague and it doesn't mean it's overly broad and it doesn't mean it's just wide open to interpretation. It means that you can't put everything in every section. So, specifically, under Article 8, 1, E, 8, let me make sure I'm saying this right, because this is why we do this, right? Because there's already so many sections. Under Article 8 in the AR zone, when it lists prohibited, what things are prohibited. 26 specifically says commercial hiking, bicycling, and zipline trails, tree canopy tours, canoeing, and kayaking launch sites, or recreational outfitters. Does it say hunting? Nope, it doesn't. But if you look up in the definition section, what is a recreational outfitter? Because you're going to have to do that, right? Because it's defined. And so that's not an uncommon practice. A recreational outfitter is an establishment that provides equipment and supplies for the pursuit of recreational activities such as, it doesn't say only, It gives you examples, which is also not uncommon, such as canoeing, hiking, fishing, or trail riding. Recreational outfitters may also offer services for outdoor tourism, including guide services and transportation services. You have heard repeatedly today that there are guide services provided for this hunting operation. So clearly that falls in this definition for guide services that are provided for tourism and as a recreational outfitter that includes those services. So I don't think that's unclear, I don't think it's vague, but if you thought it was, commercial recreational uses are also a problem and a problem and prohibited in the AR zone unless they're specifically allowed. So the fact that recreational outfitters is listed as a prohibited use, the definition of recreational outfitters included guide services, and the testimony that has been given today is that that is necessarily a commercial activity because it's being paid for in multiple ways, for the service, for the guide, for the lease, for the use of the property. So there's multiple levels of where this comes back to being a prohibited activity. And I can tell you, as someone, and some of you also were there, who sat through the two years of the recreational text amendment that amended this, absolutely these things were pondered and questioned, but there was no way to list every single possible thing. So now, you all are interpreting this today. I'm just telling you how we view it. So if you want to interpret it differently, you know, that's why we're here. But that's our view of it. That's how we came to the conclusion. The next argument that I wanted to. Ms. Jones, real quick. You said, so the AR has a specific prohibition on commercial recreation. Did I follow that correctly? It's, no, it's, I'm sorry, I've got to back up. Yes, prohibited commercial recreational facilities. And also, let me see. I mean, yes, and the goal here was to only, That whole text amendment was to allow certain types of commercial activity in the Ag Zone that promoted the agricultural uses and agricultural production in the zone. But to limit other ones because they would be more commercial in nature than they were agricultural, if that makes sense. So secondly, the next argument that was made that I wanted to address is to argue about a non-conforming use. And that this, you heard testimony today that this was a use that had been in place and going on sometime in the early 2000s. Well, let me say, you heard testimony about it. So you weigh that, that is at your discretion to weigh that. However, the lease, and that's been addressed earlier, that was produced to show that this was somehow going on. If you look at it carefully and closely, I just want you to be aware when you're looking at it and considering it, what its weight is. It is a lease for property at 5725 Jack's Creek Pike, that's it. It's a lease between McGregor and McCauley. It is one page long, it's month to month. It has a rental rate of $1,200, which I don't know if that's still about or not. But specifically, as Megan pointed out, number 12 says the premises are to be occupied only as a residence for yourself. So I'm not really sure how that lease gets you to the operation of the outfitters prior to the 2016 change in the text amendment. But we would just be aware when you're looking at that. That was presented to you to support that, but those things are important. We asked early on in this investigation for leases and things about the claims that were being made of what was going on on different properties. we didn't get those. We didn't even get this. So, you know, you've got what we got today. A non-conforming use is a use under Article 4 in the zoning ordinance that is something that was legal, and then the government changed it by ordinance, which we did in 2016, And that now makes something that was prior to that change legal now illegal. However, and so obviously, you know, if there's provisions in that ordinance that say if you, you know, if you were doing that and you're continuing to operate that and you continue to act the same as you did before, the change in the ordinance will allow for you to continue doing what you were already doing that was legal at some point. So long as you don't stop doing it and create a gap, so long as it was legal to begin with, so long as you're not expanding the use, broadening the use, if it involves a structure creating a bigger structure, If you do any of those things, your status of, you know, having what we call a legal nonconforming use doesn't exist. So think about here what you heard today and evaluate this, because that's a very significant linchpin in their argument. So when you're determining what you believe and where you're going to come down on this, if you don't have legitimate leases, or you do, I don't know. That's something, you got what you got, so you can evaluate it. If you're not registered or if your corporation or your LLC or your business has been dissolved, if you're not registered, if you don't have a license that you're registered for to do what you're doing for a period of time, does it break the chain for it to be a legal nonconforming use? Those are always tough questions. You all get them a lot, frankly. You get this nonconforming use, nonconforming structure question a lot, and those are the things you have to look at. So you've heard the evidence that we've all heard, but those are the things you have to look at. I think that's everything that relates to what was in the legal arguments, And we felt like it would be better for law to address those with you than ask the staff to do that. So if you have any questions, I can try to answer them. We just wanted you to know how we view our ordinance and view the things that we consider that were made as legal arguments to you today as you go forward and try to make your decision. Thank you. Thank you. I think that would be out of order. Are we done in that particular? Well, I think we'd be better off to allow counsel to do a short rebuttal on those legal issues. Well, particularly because the report went into these legal interpretive issues on the front end, but we didn't have an opportunity to respond to those precise legal arguments in our, when the staff presented the report, the legal position on how the ordinances interpreted was presented on the screen, and then these arguments were made. I'd just like a brief opportunity to reply. But the definition, I agree that you have to go to the definitional section to complete the interpretation of the zoning ordinance. And you get the recreational outfitter. The only time guide services is mentioned is in connection with outdoor tourism. Outdoor tourism. Again, we get back to another phrase where we struggle with what does outdoor tourism mean. Why doesn't it just say hunting? Why didn't it just say you can't guide with hunting or commercial hunting operations? The other thing about the recreational commercial activities prohibited in the AR, that's not what the notice of violation are based upon. And that's my brief, simple response to that is the notice of violation point to recreational outfitter, not some other prohibition in Article 8-1 sub E. But going to the recreational outfitter, guide services is tied in this definition to outdoor tourism. Now we have to read into outdoor tourism, hunting or hunting services, or commercial guided hunting services into outdoor tourism. The last thing I'll say on the legal argument, it's repetitive, but we're talking about non-conforming use. nearly everybody that testified in public comment identified the people engaging in that use as Whitetail Heaven. The notices of violation identified Whitetail Heaven. This is a group, whether you call them Acme Inc. or Whitetail Heaven period or Whitetail Heaven LLC, and by the way, none of our papers say LLC, it's Whitetail Heaven Outfitters, but this is a group, this is a use. This group was putting these properties to that use, that nonconforming use, dating prior to 2016. Thank you. Well, I'm sorry, Wes, since you're there, so are you contesting or do you want to speak to the fact that that nonconforming use was expanded? I guess I'm unclear expanded in what way because the property. So only three of the properties we're identifying, or you identified as prior to 2016? And then we've added the additional property that we weren't saying was prior to 2016. No, actually, we're not going forward on the pre-2016 argument as to, I think it's 5718, Jackson Creek Pikes. So, in fact, it's not an expansion. We're saying that wasn't at issue in 2016. 5837, Jackson. 5837, I'm sorry, thank you. So, it's actually not, we're not expanding it. we're saying that that argument doesn't, the pre-2016 non-conforming use doesn't even apply to that property. What we're saying is the McGregor Enterprises properties and the Old Dry Branch Road, and those are not an expansion. The testimony is the use on those properties predated 2016. As to the lease, very briefly, we didn't offer that as conclusive evidence as to every year. We offer that as a bookend on how early in time the relationship was established with the McGregor Enterprises. I don't want a misconception that our case rests and relies entirely upon that one document. It was meant as a point in time to try to pinpoint the approximate time that it started. And this is more a point of curiosity. knowing that the owner is now not wanting those services or this enterprise to happen on the property. What is, what's Whitetail planning to do in that regard? You know, that's a bit of a hypothetical. My understanding is that letter and that position, because I've talked to Mr. Greger, I'm not going to represent what he would, how he would respond to that letter about something that may happen in the future. my understanding impression is that was reactionary to him getting a notice of violation on his property and he took reactionary steps in response to it and so i'm not going to speak for him about what will happen in the future and therefore can't really say what whitetail heaven's position will be on it okay thank you to check with brandon read them brandon Good deal. Any other discussion from the board? And we are closed for public comment at this time. Thank you. I wish we had a flow chart. Yeah. I feel like instead I've got a bowl of spaghetti. Yeah. Sitting in front of us with all sorts of issues. I guess I'm going to start. I would like to start if you don't mind. Please. Thank you. Okay. Okay, so first off, with the argument as to, and I want to see if maybe Ms. Wade or Ms. Jones can help me here. So recreational outfitter, generally I have an issue that we're relying upon the language such as to read hunting as to the same as canoeing, hiking, fishing, and trail riding. But I want to ask you, is there, do we have, I don't know, is there a planning, maybe an encyclopedia or dictionary or a Webster's that we could look up? Because I've done a quickie and just looked up outfitter. And Webster's defines it as, generally, definition two is a business. I'm surprised none of the attorneys brought this up. Shame on you, Mr. Woodall. A business providing equipment, supplies, and often trained guides, parenthetical, as for hunting trips. And so I guess from a, and this is really kind of directed towards Ms. Jones, in this instance, I know that the ordinance says recreational outfitter, but would we be able to rely upon a common meaning of the term outfitter to be able to read into hunting is included within, such as activities of other outfitters, would that be an appropriate reading? Well, in part, I think that's why in the zoning ordinance it's defined more broadly. Yes. And why it uses the words like such as rather than limited to or only so that it's hard to depict or define every single thing that you think might fall in something when you're doing it. And so I think you can look to other common experiences or things that are publicly knowledge about how things are utilized to help you interpret what that means. But you're still interpreting what that means. Yeah, I guess my issue of being on the fence is hunting is not a new concept. If they wanted to list hunting, I don't know why I wasn't listed. And I wasn't there during all the discussions. And so maybe you guys can enlighten us a little bit. Were you there, Ms. Plumlee? I was there. Ms. Plumlee was there. Maybe Mr. Clark was on the city council. To your point, something Mr. Woodall said is that hunting under the state statute is permitted. It's a permitted activity in our state. I mean, it's Kentucky. We're going to tell people you can't hunt. We're not going to do that. However, it says that local jurisdictions can control commercial activities relating to hunting. And so I think that might in part be why hunting wasn't specifically addressed because, again, this is for you all to interpret here. Unfortunately, that's a hard task. But, you know, do you want to limit something and use the word hunting when normally on private property people can hunt as much as they want? Or in places, you know, where they go, where they're preserved. I don't know anything about hunting, so I'm speaking way out of turn here. But, you know, it is allowed under our jurisdiction, but it's also allowed in our jurisdiction to be regulated by local governments when it comes to commercial. So that may explain part of why hunting specifically isn't listed, but also isn't specifically excluded. Okay, yes, I was there and I think we spent two years with this recreational ZODA as it was entitled at the time. And as a participant, I recall we are going detail, detail, detail. And even with that much detail, maybe we missed the word hunting at that point. But I think that, to me, hunting was understood. And hopefully that would be what would follow in the days to come. And that's just my take on it right now. Any other? Is that your whole list, Brandon? No. I think there's multiple things we've got to kind of knock out. So I say let's focus on this one first and then we'll move on. For me, the distinction of the word being there or not is not the issue. You know, I don't think that every word in here has a definition. And as you said, a brief internet search would say outfitters is the common word that is used in that scenario, in that commercial hunting scenario. So whether hunting is explicitly stated after or before outfitters in there or not is not the issue for me. More in particular was how to determine the pre-2016 versus post-2016. If I could interject. 2016. I'm thinking maybe we do because he's got three arguments and how about I think we address them at least initially one at a time. I am comfortable with reading, interpreting recreation outfitters to include the term hunting. That's just my feeling. I think Ms. Plumlee would agree. I would agree with that. I wouldn't go so far as to call it interpretation. It is just the definition of the word. Well, I think we have to, Ms. Jones, aren't we being asked to interpret the definition on whether or not... Well, you're being asked... You're being asked if the notice of violation, which was issued by the Division of Building Inspection, was for a violation of conducting a prohibited use in the AR zone as a commercial recreational outfitter. And so you're being asked to say when they issued that in the way, based on what the information they had was and based on the way our ordinance is written and how, do you think their interpretation was appropriate to issue that violation or not? If you don't think it was, then you're going to say they shouldn't have issued it. But if you think that they had enough information and enough to make that interpretation, then you're going to uphold it. That's basically what you're being asked to do. Can I just add very quickly, because I think the last comment of the staff in their report says, this is what we're deciding. The issuance of the notice of zoning violation by the Division of Building Inspection was done in compliance of Article 5 of the zoning ordinance. That's what we're deciding. Right. That's what you're deciding. This is it. Well, yeah, but I guess my question is, the appellant has raised the issue. I understand that. Do we need to come to a decision that says we think commercial guiding hunting falls within the definition of recreational offender? Yeah, and that's correct. I just don't want to lose sight of what our decision is one way or the other. No, that's right. May I speak again? Yeah. Thank you. I think, to me, the foundation of planning and zoning is one of them, one of the bricks, is the intent of the zone. And I think clearly here, the intent of the zone is to prohibit hunting, commercial hunting, in an AR zone, period. Now, the applicant is saying that, hey, we had this, we could hunt before 2016, and they've tried to establish that. But, as Tracy has alluded, or Ms. Jones, I'm sorry, has alluded, that there are non-conforming uses. And that even if they had legally, it could hunt before 2016. with this new ZODA, then they can't do that anymore. And that is, to me, when we write all these rules and zoning ZODAs and regulations, we try to improve the document. Just as someone alluded in another hearing that, hey, I don't have to have this many parking places anymore. I just don't have to do that. And that's the same, similar here. After 2016, then you can't hunt anymore. That's why we write the ZOTAs. That's just the way I feel about it now. And I think there's no question that commercial hunting is a permit. You can't hunt commercially in an AR zone. And I stick to that right now. I think we can just handle my concern with one of the findings if we were to move an approval. So I'm good. You can move forward. Okay. Okay. Mr. Clark, did you have anything additional? No. Okay. We're good. This side is quiet. As such, if someone want to make a motion, I'll be there. What are we, what will we be moving on? The staff's recommendation currently. Which one I see? Well, I go ahead, so I guess- We take them one at a time, I guess. I wasn't saying yet, but I guess, I mean, that's the question. So he's got three? Yeah. Are there some that we're able to move on? I'll say the second one is the non-conforming. What was the third issue I can't recall at this point? It was the time prior to 2016. What was the second issue then? I think the first and the second married in my mind. Okay. But I don't. I think the first and second argument are somewhat connected. Pretty much the same. Okay. The argument was that the interpretation of the. interpretation of the ordinance should not include hunting. Okay. And then if you're going to say it does include hunting, isn't it unconstitutional because it's vague? So those are sort of tied. Okay, well I'm going to ignore the constitutional issue. And then the third one is the grandfathering question. Yeah, the courts can handle that one. Okay. The non-conforming use question, those are the same thing. Okay. So I'm good on one slash two, if the board feels that this is. Hunting should have been prohibited by the zoning ordinance. Okay. But with that being said, you think they have an argument with three that would say, I mean, that's really where we end up. That's a tough call. Right. Yeah, that sounds like a Chad and Edom. Because we're either going to make a motion to, what is this? To disapprove the request for an administrative appeal. Or we're making a motion to approve, right, the request for an administrative appeal to contest the issuance of the. That's correct. And what Mr. Harned gave you was their reasons, and he gave you three of them. The first two are somewhat interconnected. But he gave you three of them on which he believes you could base ruling in their favor. The staff gave you the reasons they think you could, you know, disapprove the appeal and uphold the. So a vote for it. So that's basically what you're considering is, you know, are his arguments compelling to you? Are the staff's arguments, what they gave, you know, what does the evidence compel you to believe at the end of the day? Well, okay. I think, too, Raquel, just looking through these. can we handle these one at a time or separate them out or we don't have to do them all like one fell swoop what since some of them have fact they're factually different on some of them oh you mean each individual yeah like for example yeah 5837 jack's creek pike i think they said the activity started after 2016 i think you probably can probably yeah should handle them separately okay so i'm ready to move on that one okay let's get one done brandon so do we need to I guess we need to change the findings of fact. Well, only if you need it, only if you're going against disapproval. I'm going to vote to disapprove that one, but. Yeah, so we don't have any. Okay, I think I can. Number four on our thing that's PLNBOA 2316. That's 5837 Jack's Creek Pike. Yeah, just real quick. Did you want to add another finding that addressed- That specifically addressed the definition. Contemplating that, but I'm also trying to remember, is this even one of those properties they're hunting on? Yes. Yeah, they are. Okay. All right. Talking about number four on the agenda. Number four, yes. They are. I don't think I need to come up with another finding. I think B handles it where it talks about commercial guide hunting. and I think that the record shows that they did not produce any evidence for this particular property so I'm comfortable with this one. So we're clear you're talking about number four on the agenda which is PLN BOA 2316? Yes. Okay. Yes. Yeah for the property at 5837 Jack's Creek Pike? Yes. Just want to make sure if you would, if you're going to, as you go through them individually, if you would reference them. I will, I will. And then there's another question I can't recall. Is this one where an actual notice was issued or an advisory notice? Like is this even, I mean, is an advisory notice even something that is appealable? Well, they're not withdrawing it, so we need to move on it. I mean, technically- You could? The way the section in Article 7 is written of the zoning ordinance for the BOA is they can appeal a decision that is made by the director of planning or the director of building inspection to you all. So that's what they've done here. Okay. All right. So I'm ready. Okay. I'm ready on this one. Okay, Madam Chair, for PLM BOA 23-16 Whitetail Heaven Outfitters request for an administrative appeal to contest the issuance of notices, I guess, of zoning violations by the Division of Building Inspector for Recreational Outfitters, Commercial Guided Hunting in the AR Zone, property located at 5837 Jack's Creek Pike, I recommend disapproval based upon what staff provided us and all the testimony we have taken today and the ABC recommended findings of facts set forth in our report. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Do we have a second? Mr. Needham, thank you for a second. Oh, Carolyn did it already. okay no that's okay i just didn't hear you that's fine okay so we will put this one fourth for vote and i'm sure should i have the applicant back up at this time or no no okay Okay. Let's see. So in this case, the motion has passed. I'm sorry, I didn't know. Check. Check. I'm sorry. And that's specifically for the property at 5837 Jack's Creek Pike in reference to that advisory notice. Okay. Okay. Now, Madam Chair, maybe we can take up the next one I would consider an easy one. Okay. This would be the 35-08 Crawley Lane. Mr. Gross, your microphone's not on. There you go. Sorry about that. The Crawley Lane property in which the testimony, this is number 5-3508 Crawley Lane. And on this one, my recollection was the testimony was that no hunting, guided hunting activities were occurring on this property. And I don't think anything rebutted that. So I think on this one, I guess we'll approve their appeal since they're, I mean, how did we handle that, Ms. Jones? They win, but they don't get to do any hunting, so good luck. You can make a finding, and you can make it based on the testimony that you heard. All right. Okay. But I would vote to approve the appeal is my motion. If that's what you want to do, which is, I mean, what's your goal? Well, I guess the goal is, I mean, I want to wipe this one off the docket. And they have testimony that this one isn't used for hunting. And there was no rebuttal testimony. So they can win their appeal, but they can't do anything with it. But I'd like to clear it off the deck. Well, but the appeal specifically that we've advertised is to allow, or what they received their notice about was recreational outfitters. So you don't want to approve that. That's what I'm saying. So how do I handle getting rid of this one? Well, I think what Mr. Harnett asked was for it to be, for the notice to be rescinded. Can the board take that action? Tracy? Is that the same as approving the appeal? You can do that. I mean, I'm going out on a limb here. I think you could remand it back to building inspection with a finding that based on the hearing there was no testimony. That's not something that's just something I'm sort of venturing out here on because it's something that we haven't dealt with before. Yeah. I'm cool. I'm good with romanding. If someone has a problem with it, they can appeal it. Hang on one second. Yeah. What we're doing is double checking. This is an appeal which falls under Article 7 and And it's all other appeals to the board. I just have to . And. I mean, the way it reads is that this appeal has to be taken, which it was within 30 days, and that. At the hearing, any interested parties can appear, enter their appearance, be given an opportunity to be heard. It doesn't limit you specifically. So I think if you want to remand it back to the Division of Building Inspection to review the information that was provided today at the hearing of the fact there was no activity going on. I mean, I don't know what to tell you to do for sure, but I'm hearing that's what you would like to do. In other words, you're not trying to approve the outfitter activity on that property, but you are asking building inspection to review what they issued because now you've gotten information at this hearing that there's no activity going on there. That works for me. I mean, does that make sense? Yeah, works sense to me. I think the confusion goes back to the simpler route on that one is the withdrawal of that particular advisory notice. Or if information had come to building inspection upon issuance of the thing, of the notice saying we don't have any, you know, we don't have any hunting going on on our property. That would have allowed them to look into that further, but that's not what happened. I'm comfortable with just remanding it. I mean, it's only advisory. There's no penalty. And if they get bad, they can appeal it back to us. So I'm going to go ahead and move to remand it. Okay. Yep. So this one's PLNBOA 23-17, Whitetail Heaven Outfitters. This is in reference to 3508 Crawley Lane. I'm going to move that we remand this back to the Division of Building Inspection for further review. in light of the evidence and testimony brought to us today regarding the fact that no commercial guided hunting was occurring on this property. So moved. Does that work? Okay, so moved. Thank you. Do we have a second? Okay, so our system limits us on what motions are available. So we're going to put it up there as approval, but we're recording the minutes remained. Okay. So we made a new status today. What a good Monday. In chat, Mr. Walker said, you got it. Okay. Are we okay to vote on it? Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Chad? Okay. Okay, so I think that... Motion in its form, whatever it was, has passed. Yeah, and I feel like I've handled a third of the problems here. Yeah, the easy part. And so the easy ones. Now as to the other four, I think we should have a discussion. I'm leaning towards finding these to be pre-existing uses based upon the testimony today. That's just where I'm leaning, but we can talk amongst the board about what you guys feel. That includes 1, 2, and 3. So those are the properties at 5701 Jacks Creek, 5725, and 5751 Jacks Creek. and then also the additional property at 7418 Old Dry Branch Road. That's what I have left. Okay. And I guess I would immediately agree with you that activity occurred prior to 2016. I guess the question for me becomes, is it legal non-conforming use or not? I mean, it's a non-conforming use. They were acting on it. But how do we determine that it was a legal nonconforming use? I think the question is, was the activity occurring? Has it been now prohibited? It has to continue to occur until this date. And then it becomes a potentially legally nonconforming use. And it's a lot of gray. It has to be what they were doing before 16. So if they're doing something different, they could potentially be outside of what would be a legally non-conforming use. Unless they were doing it incorrectly before 2016, right? I don't know. Was hunting, commercial hunting prohibited prior to 2016? I don't think we have any testimony to that today. Was that a question for us? A little bit of both. So the recreational outfitters became part of the ordinance in 2016, but hunting and fishing clubs have been a conditional use in Article 8-1 prior to 2016. So if someone were to operate a hunting, commercial hunting establishment on one property, they could ask for a conditional use to do that. But that hasn't occurred for any of these properties. So prior to 2016, the way that that would have become a legal non-conforming use would have been a conditional use. And that would have fell under the hunting club. Is that what, like, for example, the Iroquois Hunt Club is? Anyone? Yes. Yes. Are they? The Iroquois Hunt Club, there's a couple of private fishing clubs in the Boone Creek area. Those were conditional uses. And they would not be approved now. They're not allowable now, but they were conditional uses that had been put in place prior to the 2016 Zota. I think in some cases they could be approved. It's just whether it's the guided hunting in terms of tourism that's usually related to being off-site. You're not on your own property, whereas a fishing club or a hunting club is typically operating. They might have a clubhouse or something, a facility, and they operate on their own property, especially a fishing club, right? You'd be next to a lake or the river. I guess the question is, was... And you have membership. where it was guided hunting tours were those permitted or not permitted prior to 16. Weren't mentioned in the ordinance at all prior to 2016. So maybe permitted? Yeah, maybe. Okay. Spaghetti. I'm just thinking through this. The operation existed. We've heard that the operation was in existence. The activity. The activity. However, that was never licensed. Business licensed. That is correct. Okay. So did that exist? That's the question. I'm less, personally, I'm less concerned about that. people, I cannot tell you how many people have to deal with that had their LLC administratively dissolved but they continue to operate or how many people don't file for their permits correctly. That doesn't mean there's not a business they're not in conformance with the law but it doesn't mean it's not a use that's not there. Well that's what I was going to say it's conforming or non-conforming are we legally non-conforming or are we out there doing stuff? I don't know, I'm just I think if they were not And I don't mind. I mean, you guys can come up with, and I'll, you know, I don't mind losing a vote. So if you guys come up with a vote with findings of fact that I don't agree with, I don't, you know, it's whatever the board thinks. But I'm comfortable with it has been in operation since before 16. And I'm also comfortable that since there's been no testimony that it wasn't prohibited. Either way, I don't know what to do on that issue. I just think that the LLC, to me, it's more of a red herring because you can operate a business without being an LLC. and many LLCs are administratively dissolved and they continue to operate as businesses and then they get reinstated. I think it's whether the use is legal. I think that's not whether or not the LLC was properly formed in doing all the company niceties. I think the question is, was it a legal use at the time that's no longer conforming? maybe miss jones has a different well any business being licensed or not licensed i mean that that's the legality part of it i know what you're saying in practice you know and and we see it i've seen it and people have to update it prior to closing that type of thing but there were several components not because you don't have to be an llc by any means but you do need a business license to operate a business in fayette county so if they don't have a business license. Well, but here's an example, Raquel. You're operating your real estate. For some reason, the Planning Commission loses its mind and the Urban County Council agrees and they prohibit your real estate company from operating in your shopping center where you are. You're busy. You forget to file your annual report, which takes 10 minutes, 15 bucks, and then so you don't file it by the deadline. Secretary of State Administrator resolves you. does that mean they can now close you down? You'd lose your ability to continue on as a real estate operator in that particular space. I just, I just, I'm stuck. I mean, I'm just not gonna, I don't, I'm not comfortable with that. Yeah. But for 15 years. Yeah. Well, I mean, for a few months, maybe. But, but once again, I mean, once again, I mean, I, that's just my personal opinion. No, it's okay. Yeah. Just the conversation. If it, if it helps at all, just so you know, the, the ordinance in section, Article 4 of the zoning ordinance talks about regulating nonconforming uses. It says, a nonconforming use shall be permitted to continue as long as it remains otherwise lawful and shall be regulated as follows. And then the first section under that says, no nonconforming use shall be enlarged or extended. And then it goes on into a whole bunch of other things. But that's the first line of that section, if that's helpful to you all at all. Well, I think I'd like the part before you get to the first line. Yeah, a non-conforming use shall be permitted to continue as long as it remains otherwise lawful and shall be regulated as follows. And then there's, I mean, there's like A through G sections, but A is the very first one. And the very first clause in that section says no non-conforming use shall be enlarged or extended. And then it goes on to talk about other things and structures and moving locations and all that kind of stuff that you're not really talking about here. So just so you know, that's what the ordinance says about nonconforming uses. Okay. So, Brandon would be a, from what I'm hearing, is actually comfortable with the pre-existing, now I'm in medical terms, with the, is that correct, the pre-2016, the non-conforming use, allowing it to carry on, which would make him an approval as opposed to disapproval. So if someone else is either wanting to make a disapproval motion, then we could take a vote on it or if brandon needs some time to make a form of motion with findings for approval that you guys would want to entertain we can do that i i i think miss plumley may be ready okay to do something well i'm not real sure if i'm ready or not okay well i'd say if someone wants to disapprove let's go that route first because it's faster i'm ready to disapprove the only one we've done four and five oh yeah put your um i'm sorry is your mic on miss plumley they can't hear you is your mic on will you bring it down we've done this one's out and then we also did yeah this one Okay, we've done two then. Okay. Okay, according to my sidekick colleague, I move forward as the staff recommends disapproval for the following. PLN BOA 236 Whitetail Heaven Outfitters request an administrative appeal to contest the issues of notice of zoning violations by the Division of Building Inspection for Recreational Outfitters, Commercial Guided Hunting, in an agricultural rural zone on property at 5701 State Jack's Creek Pike. The staff recommends disapproval for three reasons and those are so stated. I also move for PLNBOA 2314, White Tail Heaven Outfitters. I'm sorry, are you wanting her to continue? I was going to do them as a bundle. I think you're going to have to do them separate. Separate, okay, I'll stop right there and we will deal with 2006. Okay. So moved. All right, and Ms. Tucker has seconded. Okay, the disapproval. Well, we're- Oh yeah. Excuse me. Ms. Tucker, anybody? Okay, thank you that disapproval of the appeal has been upheld. On PLN BOA 2314, do you have a motion? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move disapproval of PLN BOA 2314, Whitetail Heaven Outfitters, request an administrative appeal to contest the issues of notice of zoning violations by the Division of Building Inspection for Recreational Outfitters, commercial guided hunting in an agricultural rural zone on property located at 5725 Jack's Creek Pike for the three so stated reasons by the staff. Disapproval. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Clark, what's the second? Ms. Tucker, she was faster than me. You're getting slower, Mr. Clark. Okay. All right, thank you. That motion for disapproval has been upheld. PLNBOA 2315. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move disapproval for PLNBOA 15, White Tail Heaven Outfitters, request an administrative appeal to contest the issues of notice of zoning violations the division of building inspection for recreational outfitters commercial guided hunting in an agricultural rural zone on property located at 5751 jack's creek pike for the three reasons recommended by staff so moved thank you and is that your second miss tucker okay All right, now we have PLNBOA 23-18. Okay. I move for disapproval of PLNBOA 18, White Tail Heaven Outfitters request an administrative appeal to contest contest the issues of notices of zoning violations by the division of building inspection for recreational outfitters commercial guided hunting in an agricultural rural zone on property at 7418 old drive branch for the three reasons indicated by staff disapproval thank you thank you do we have a second miss tucker again okay that request for administrative appeal has been disapproved as well sorry everybody okay Okay. All right. Thank you guys. It has been a long afternoon. We do have a couple of other board items to address. Regarding a case from last month, PADDIC PLN BOA 23-13. After review of the minutes, there are some findings that need to be amended? Yes, Madam Chair. In relation to matter PLNBOA 2313, I move to amend part B of the board's findings of fact. Which the board issued in support of its approval of a variance for a cocktail lounge after hearing on March 13th, 2023 to reflect that the board approved the variance because, quote, live entertainment will be located over 100 feet from the nearest residential structure. use of the courtyard for outdoor seating and gathering with live entertainment should not create a nuisance, unquote. All other findings affect, as well as conditions for approval that the board issued in matter PLNBOA 2313 on March 13, 2023 remain unchanged. That's a motion. And that's a motion. I'll second for approval. Second. Do we have any discussion or any concern? A motion to amend. The applicant's fine with the amendment. All right. Thank you. second we'll take a vote all right the amendment has been passed thank you all right does the staff have anything else the staff have dinner do we have any food available okay all right well our Our next meeting date will be May the 8th, 2023 at 1.30 right here in the same location. We are officially adjourned. Thank you.