# Board of Adjustment Hearing - February 12, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 12, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6040 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6040?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-02-12 - **Last revised**: February 12, 2024 - **Length**: 22,158 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 Division of Planning Planning Services Section Board of Adjustment convened on February 12, 2024, at 1:35 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Raquel Carter presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed seven agenda items, including the approval of minutes, public hearings on zoning appeals, and various board and staff informational items. During the session, the board conducted 16 motions and votes on various matters before them. The meeting included significant public participation, with 9 public comments heard throughout the proceedings, primarily during the public hearing portion on zoning appeals. The board successfully completed its business agenda, covering both administrative matters and substantive zoning appeal cases that required board consideration and action. ## Attendance The following members were present at the February 12, 2024 meeting: **Present:** • Raquel Carter • Harry Clarke • Branden Gross • Carolyn Plumlee • Bob Sturdivant • Linda Tucker • Chad Walker **Absent:** None **Late:** None All seven members were in attendance for this meeting, with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Board of Adjustment took action on multiple items during the February 12, 2024 meeting, with varying outcomes across different applications. **Meeting Minutes and Short-Term Rental Applications** The board unanimously approved the November 2023 meeting minutes on a motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Linda Tucker [timestamp: 00:30]. For short-term rental applications, the board approved PLN-BOA-23-00101 for Sidney Beaven unanimously, limiting occupancy to 12 individuals [timestamp: 01:30]. PLN-BOA-24-00004 for AR Nicholasville Rd, LLC was also approved unanimously with occupancy limited to 20 individuals [timestamp: 04:00]. PLN-BOA-24-00003 for Katelyn Yackney passed unanimously with occupancy limited to 4 individuals [timestamp: 10:00]. However, two short-term rental applications were denied. PLN-BOA-23-00107 for Mike Adams failed on a 4-3 roll call vote, with Raquel Carter, Carolyn Plumlee, Bob Sturdivant, and Linda Tucker voting against, while Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, and Chad Walker voted in favor [timestamp: 02:30]. The board then voted 6-1 to formally disapprove the application, with only Branden Gross dissenting, citing concerns about occupancy being too high for the square footage and single bathroom [timestamp: 03:30]. PLN-BOA-24-00001 for Liz Rogers was also disapproved 6-1, with Branden Gross as the sole dissenting vote. The denial was based on safety concerns regarding proximity to an elementary school and location on a one-way street [timestamp: 09:30]. **Red Draw Delaware Variances** For PLN-BOA-23-00045, the board approved four of six requested variances for Red Draw Delaware, LLC. Variance #1 (reducing buffer width to zero feet), Variance #3 (reducing tree canopy from 30% to 17%), and Variance #4 (reducing open space to 6%) all passed unanimously [timestamps: 05:00, 06:00, 06:30]. Variance #5 (reducing minimum dimension from 10' to 5') initially failed 4-3 but passed 4-3 on a second motion [timestamps: 07:00, 07:30]. Variance #6 (reducing vegetated open space from 10% to 8%) passed 4-3 [timestamp: 08:00]. Only Variance #2 (reducing interior landscape area from 10% to 8%) failed, receiving only 4 votes when 5 were needed [timestamp: 05:30]. ## Public Comment Nine residents spoke during the public comment period, with eight opposing a proposed un-hosted short-term rental and one speaking in support of the property owners. **Opposition to Short-Term Rental** Tom opened the comments [timestamp: 11:00] expressing concern about converting single-family homes into un-hosted short-term rentals, citing loss of community and increased housing prices. Dean followed [timestamp: 11:30] with concerns about parking, management, and safety for children regarding the proposed short-term rental on Hambrick Avenue. Christine Warner [timestamp: 12:00] focused specifically on safety concerns for children due to the rental's proximity to an elementary school. Shannon [timestamp: 12:30] shared traffic safety concerns and recounted a negative interaction with the property owner. Carl [timestamp: 13:00] raised issues about noise from the driveway and challenges of screening guests at the proposed rental. Shane Okurer [timestamp: 13:30] expressed concerns about the character of the property managers and neighborhood safety. Tommy Ross [timestamp: 14:00] discussed broader neighborhood impacts, including increased property prices and loss of community cohesion. John Grimes [timestamp: 14:30] opposed un-hosted short-term rentals generally, citing their negative effects on neighborhoods and housing availability. **Support for Property Owners** Sidney Beaven [timestamp: 15:00] provided the sole voice of support, speaking positively about the character of the property owners, Liz and Kenny Rogers. The comments revealed consistent themes among opponents: safety concerns related to children and traffic, parking and management issues, noise concerns, and broader worries about community character and housing affordability. The concentration of opposition centered around a specific property on Hambrick Avenue and its proximity to an elementary school. ## Contested Items The February 12, 2024 meeting featured two conditional use permit applications that generated significant debate and opposition. **Mike Adams Conditional Use Permit** [timestamp: 03:00] The Board faced internal division over Mike Adams' conditional use permit application for a short-term rental. The primary point of contention centered on establishing an appropriate occupancy limit for the property. Board members could not reach consensus on this critical aspect of the permit conditions, leading to multiple failed motions as different occupancy numbers were proposed and voted down. The disagreement ultimately resulted in the application being disapproved due to the Board's inability to agree on suitable terms. **Liz Rogers Conditional Use Permit** [timestamp: 09:00] Liz Rogers' conditional use permit application encountered substantial community opposition that dominated the discussion. Residents and community members raised concerns about two primary issues: safety implications of the proposed use and potential negative impacts on neighborhood character. The community opposition was described as significant, indicating multiple speakers or written comments expressing these concerns. The nature and extent of this public opposition became a major factor in the Board's consideration of the application. Both contested items highlight common challenges in land use decision-making, where Board members must balance applicant requests with community concerns and regulatory requirements. The split vote on the Adams application demonstrates how technical details like occupancy limits can become divisive issues among decision-makers, while the Rogers application illustrates how community input can significantly influence the permit review process when residents mobilize around safety and quality-of-life concerns. ## Call to Order Chair Raquel Carter called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. [timestamp: 00:00] This was a standard procedural opening to begin the official proceedings of the meeting held on February 12, 2024. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The Board considered the approval of minutes from their November 2023 meeting as the second agenda item. The discussion involved three key speakers: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, and Linda Tucker. The minutes from the November 2023 meeting were presented to the Board for review and approval. The Board members discussed the contents of the minutes to ensure accuracy and completeness of the record from their previous meeting. Following the discussion among the Board members, the minutes from the November 2023 meeting were approved by the Board. ## Public Hearing on Zoning Appeals [timestamp: 01:00] The Board conducted a public hearing on various zoning appeals during agenda item III. The hearing addressed multiple requests including variance applications and conditional use permits from property owners seeking exceptions to existing zoning regulations. Key speakers during the hearing included Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, and Branden Gross, who presented their respective cases to the Board. Each speaker outlined their specific zoning requests and provided justification for why their applications should be approved. The appeals covered a range of zoning matters, with applicants seeking relief from current zoning restrictions for their properties. The Board reviewed each case individually, considering the merits of the requests and their potential impact on surrounding properties and the community. The outcomes of the various appeals were mixed, with the Board reaching different decisions on individual cases based on their specific circumstances and compliance with zoning criteria. Some appeals were approved while others may have been denied or required additional review. The public hearing format allowed for community input and ensured transparency in the zoning appeal process, giving both applicants and interested parties the opportunity to present their positions before the Board made its determinations. ## Board Items [timestamp: 16:00] Chair Raquel Carter opened the Board Items section by announcing that any items Board members wished to present would be heard during this portion of the meeting. This agenda item served as an opportunity for individual Board members to bring forward matters for discussion or consideration by the full Board. No specific items were presented by Board members during this section of the meeting. The agenda item was informational in nature, with Chair Carter simply providing the opportunity for Board member input and discussion of any matters they wished to raise. This section represents a standard practice in Board meetings to ensure all members have the opportunity to bring forward items of concern or interest that may not have been included in the formal agenda. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 16:30] Chair Raquel Carter announced that agenda item V would provide an opportunity for any staff member to present items to the board. Carter indicated that the floor was open for staff members who wished to bring forward any matters for discussion or information. No staff members came forward to present items during this portion of the meeting. The agenda item served as a standing opportunity for staff input but resulted in no presentations or discussions. This was an informational item with no action required by the board. ## Next Meeting Date [timestamp: 17:00] Raquel Carter announced the date for the next meeting during this agenda item. The upcoming meeting is scheduled for March 11, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. This was an informational announcement with no discussion or debate required from the meeting participants. ## Adjournment The meeting was formally adjourned by Raquel Carter at approximately 5:30 PM [timestamp: 17:30]. No additional discussion or procedural matters were addressed during the adjournment process. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of November 2023 Board of Adjustment meeting minutes - **PLN-BOA-23-00101** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for Sidney Beaven for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-23-00107** — failed (3-4): Conditional use permit for Mike Adams for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-23-00107** — failed (0-0): Conditional use permit for Mike Adams for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-23-00107** — passed (6-1): Disapproval of conditional use permit for Mike Adams for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00004** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for AR Nicholasville Rd, LLC for an un-hosted short term rental with occupancy greater than 12 - **PLN-BOA-23-00045** — passed (7-0): Variance #1 for Red Draw Delaware, LLC to reduce Vehicular Use Area perimeter buffer width to zero feet - **PLN-BOA-23-00045** — failed (4-3): Variance #2 for Red Draw Delaware, LLC to reduce minimum interior landscape area from 10% to 8% - **PLN-BOA-23-00045** — passed (7-0): Variance #3 for Red Draw Delaware, LLC to reduce Vehicular Use Area tree canopy from 30% to 17% - **PLN-BOA-23-00045** — passed (7-0): Variance #4 for Red Draw Delaware, LLC to reduce useable open space to 6% - **PLN-BOA-23-00045** — failed (3-4): Variance #5 for Red Draw Delaware, LLC to reduce minimum dimension for useable open space from 10' to 5' - **PLN-BOA-23-00045** — passed (4-3): Variance #5 for Red Draw Delaware, LLC to reduce minimum dimension for useable open space from 10' to 5' - **PLN-BOA-23-00045** — passed (4-3): Variance #6 for Red Draw Delaware, LLC to reduce vegetated open space from 10% to 8% - **PLN-BOA-24-00001** — failed (0-0): Conditional use permit for Liz Rogers for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00001** — passed (6-1): Disapproval of conditional use permit for Liz Rogers for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00003** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for Katelyn Yackney for an un-hosted short term rental --- ## Full transcript Prep course, you're learning the history of our department. They not only prep you on our department, but they prep you on what you should wear. You know, hey, come in a suit and tie. They prep you on these things, what you should expect with our physical test. This is what you're going to see. This is what you should prepare yourself for. This is how you train for that, for the physical test, because some people will struggle with that a little bit, and mostly, sometimes just a mind game. So to have our wellness coordinator in there to be able to tell them, hey, this is what I would do if I was in your shoes. And this is how you can start to build yourself up for the physical. So our prep course, like I said, I sit on a lot of our higher east that are here now. And you can tell the ones that when I'm sitting there and we're counting the points and stuff for the oar boards, You can tell the ones that have been to our prep course because they're saying things about our history. They know who the chief is. That's the type of things that our prep course does for our new applicants that they're putting in for the job. Well, this is a great place to work, and we are hiring right now. Absolutely. And we encourage people that may have an interest to apply. Apply, right? And what this all comes down to, and when we talk about wellness overall, whether it's physical, emotional, mental, it all comes down to the fact that we as a police department, Lexington Police Department, want to provide the absolute best service, which is what is deserved by the citizens of Lexington, and we want to make sure that we provide that. And all of this is a component of that. Thank you. I will officially call the meeting to order. Okay, I'm Raquel Carter. I'm the board chair. First thing I'd like to do is make sure everyone has had an opportunity to sign in. There is an iPad outside, especially if you're going to speak. We will need you to sign in in advance. Everybody had an opportunity to do so? great the next item on our agenda will be the approval of the minutes we actually have minutes from november and december of 2023 that have circulated to the board no okay november of 2023 that have circulated through the board um you guys had an opportunity to receive and review those and if so i will entertain a motion moved to accept the minutes of november the 23rd thank you mr clark and miss tucker has offered a second thank you we will vote we're ready to vote at this time okay that motion has passed the next thing i will do is swear any witness that plans to speak today so if you are an applicant or if you are here to speak on behalf of any of the cases i will need you to stand at this time if you could please raise your right hand indies where to tell the whole truth in the complete truth today fided okay thank you the next thing i will do is actually found the agenda so i'll read through the cases that have been listed on the agenda cd applicant is present and I will ask if any opposition is here to speak against any particular case. If the case has been recommended for approval and there is no one to speak in opposition, those cases will be heard first. Any case that either has been recommended for disapproval or we do have public comment, those cases will be heard in their order after the first group. first item i had a steal and be a late twenty three dash forty five is the applicant present it's red draw in that one's pretty complex that we will hear that case will be the first heard paper sticking together Okay, and the next item on the agenda, PLN BOA 24-5, I understand the applicant has requested a withdrawal? That's correct. Okay. And I always forget, do we need a motion for that or do we just mark it off? No. Just mark it off. All right. One less, guys. Okay, then we have conditional use appeals. I have PLN BOA 23-101. one. Sidney Bevin, is the applicant present? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this particular item? Okay, the staff has recommended approval so we will actually hear this item first. And then PLNBOA 23-106, that one has also been withdrawn. If anyone's here to speak on either of those withdrawn items, um they won't be heard today so you could leave no you just hang on a moment we'll come back around okay so peel and boa 23-107 that's mike adams is the applicant present okay this one has been recommended for approval do we have anyone to speak in opposition on this particular item okay that one should be number two The next one we have PLNBOA-24-00001, Liz Rogers. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition for this particular item? We do have a few, okay. You will be number two on the herd docket. Then we have PLNBOA-24-3, that's Caitlin Yackey. Is the applicant present? Okay. That has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this particular item? Okay. We do have public comment. So that will be number three on the HERD docket. And then lastly, we have PLNBOA 24-4 AR Nicholasville Road, LLC. Is the applicant present? Okay. Do we have anyone here to speak on this particular case in opposition? Okay. I think that makes you number two on the first. I lost count. Three on the first. Okay, on the abbreviated. All right. I think I got everybody. So number one on the abbreviated is PLNBOA 23-101, Sydney Bevin, if you can come forward please. Hi. Did you have an opportunity to sign in or anything? I did not. Okay, okay. Is that okay? We'll just get you added to the list. And I think you came in after I swore the witnesses as well, is that correct? That is correct. Okay, so if you could raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth today. I swear to tell the whole truth today. Okay, thank you. Now, this particular item has been recommended for approval. With the recommendations, there are four conditions that are listed. Have you had an opportunity to review the conditions? Yes. And are you okay with the conditions? Yes. Okay. Now, the board has received the documentation ahead of time. Do we have any questions? Would we like any more information from this applicant? Any questions? And just for the record, this has been operating in a commercial status already as a bed and breakfast previously? Yes. There are no questions. I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move that we approve PLN BOA 23-101, one Sydney Bevins request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in an historic overlay district in a medium density residential R4 zone on property located at 467 West 2nd Street. Based upon the application, the staff's recommendation of approval and subject to the conditions in the report. Thank you. And I see Ms. Plumlee has offered a second. There's no further discussion. We will open for vote. Okay. The motion has passed. Good luck. Thank you very much. Our next item is PLNBOA 23-107. That's Mike Adams. If the applicant can please come forward. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record. Mike Adams. This one has also been recommended for approval and there are some conditions that have been listed, the four conditions. Have you had an opportunity to review those? Yes, ma'am. Are we comfortable with those conditions? Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Clark. Mr. Adams, I see that there's no mention of baths, bathrooms on your application, and you're, we're talking about 10 people, three bedrooms, but I don't see how many baths you have. Could you clear that up for me, please, sir? Yes, sir. We have one full bath. So you're dealing with, you're dealing with three bedrooms and 10 people in one bathroom? Yes, sir. Okay. How does that work? I don't answer that. But I'm concerned about that. There's a lot of people for one bathroom. Express my opinion. Any other questions? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. i have concerned about this the value of the home is i would roughly say around 200 000 the value of your property um yes ma'am okay so this would make it a nice area for a workforce of residents for some variety for our family so in doing this this residence will be removed from a if there will no longer be a home for a family there will be transient different people weekly or monthly or whatever there so I'm concerned about that and I'm concerned about what this does to neighborhoods that are affordable and I that's that's my question and my expression at this time regarding this application may I respond to that yes please okay ultimately this was my grandmother's house they built the house back when that neighborhood was developing and so I've taken that over from her our intent is to essentially provide a place where where a couple of families max maybe 10 could go and experience kind of what i grew up experiencing on the north side of town that's our target of of what we're looking to do ultimately with the airbnb process we get the opportunity to accept and reject applicants that come in there we've been in business prior to the not prior to the july 11th deadline that was given however from about september until december we were kind of feeling out the waters to look at how it would work and so that's been mostly what we've been experiencing is families coming in wanting to visit the kentucky horse park there was a family that came in they had their their children at the university of kentucky spending time with them that's our desired intent with it thank you yes miss tucker am i concerned also for um it looks like you got a thousand fifty square feet with 10 people that's awful cramped it's intended to be a place where people sleep and they go out and they experience the area yeah that's just i just feel like it's a lot of people for that square footage but would you be willing to to reduce that number say to eight or six it's part of our deliberations it just seems 10 is an awful lot of people to put in that space i don't know certainly your decision and i i mean if it ever came to the point because i'm on top of an unfinished basement if i ever wanted to increase that number how does the process work for for for modifying that number. Good point, someone on staff respond. You would need to come back before the board again to modify the conditional use. If you're approved today, it will be for a certain number. You've applied for 10, but it could be reduced by the board. But if you wanted to come back in the future and modify that number, it would be a new application to modify the conditional use permit. Thank you. So in that case, if such a motion had been made, we don't have a motion on the floor, but I think Mr. Clark was maybe given an opportunity if that motion would be made with the lesser amount, you would have the opportunity at that time to make that decision. So I don't know that he has to decide just yet, right? What's Mr. Clark thinking? Mr. Clark is ready to make a motion. How many? I was thinking eight at the max. Eight. Eight at the max. Eight. Would that be acceptable? Eight people? What if I said no? What if I didn't want to do that? Do I have that option? You do, but sometimes half a loaf is better than no loaf. I don't disagree. Yeah, so it's up to you, though. You can say yes or no. So if I say no when you guys reject me, am I going back through the process? again? Actually, Ms. Jones. If you all change the number to 8 and that's not a number that you agree with, you have the right to appeal their decision. But that appeal goes to circuit court. Okay. I'd prefer to stay with 10. Well, they can also disapprove it at the number it is of 10, but that doesn't seem to be the inclination here. So. Do we have any further comment? I actually agree with each of the parties. It is a lot of people, but I also agree this is definitely one of those examples where we are taking entry-level housing in a neighborhood out of the market, not necessarily in one of our areas of tourism or more inclined to. to that type of thing so um it's just a statement i'll entertain a motion if there is one madam chair uh i move that plnboa 23-107 request by mike adams for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single family residential zone on property located 1783 gling Clean Eagles Drive be approved with the change in condition number two to be changed to eight individuals. Based on the staff's recommendation and the conditions as listed. Real quick from law, if we put a condition that the applicant is rejected, Do we proceed or do we not proceed? You have to vote on this motion. I mean, that's the motion that's being made. Okay, so if we vote on a motion in which a condition has, I guess my question is, if we approve an application that has a condition that the applicant has rejected. Right, but you all do that all the time. I mean, you change conditions. you make conditions and the applicant may or may not agree with all of them and if they don't they have an opportunity okay no that works for me yeah okay so we do have a first do we have a second on this particular motion mr gross has second do we have any further discussion before we open for vote i'm the only i would say is i would just keep it at 10 like the staff recommended but I'll support eight. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I think we're ready for vote. I'm missing a couple. We have everybody's vote. Okay. So it looks like the motion has failed, so you have not received the... Can I make an alternative motion now? Yes. And the reason I vote is because I second it, so I voted with the way I second it. So I will now move for approval of PLM BOA 23-107 Mike Adams' request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in the single-family residential zone on property located at 1783 Glen Eagles Drive. Based upon the applicant's application, the staff's recommendation approval, and discussions we have had here today. have a first into we have a second on the motion as staffer has approved so we do not motion has okay so you all have made two motions to approve and both of them have failed so you're going to have to have a different motion and potentially depending on what that notion is you're gonna have to have different findings so i don't know what you're gonna do but that's where you are can we take a brief recess i'll say i was in the uh... in favor of both motions, so I'll let the denials hop up on that horse and ride it to the sunset. Okay. So we'll just take a quick five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Transcription by CastingWords Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair. Yes. I move disapproval for PLNBOA 23107 Mike Adams. request a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential R1D zone on property located at 1783 Glen Eagles Drive. Based on the following findings, I move to disapprove. Occupancy of 10 is too high due to the square footage and occupancy rate of the property and only one bathroom facility. The short-term rental will remove a dwelling unit from moderate income residential availability and reintroduce a commercial use, therefore causing an adverse use impact to the area. So moved. Thank you. And Ms. Tucker has seconded it. Any further comment or discussion? Okay, now I will open for vote. Okay, they have voted to disapprove the conditional use for the short-term rental at that address. Thank you. okay so the next item is p l n d o a twenty four dash four a r nicholasville road l l c applicant please come forward Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you. Now this particular item has been recommended for approval. This was also already operating Airbnb, correct? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. The board had an opportunity to review. Are there any questions of this particular applicant? Thank you. Okay. Are you ready? Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move approval BLN BOA 2404 AR Nicholasville Road, request a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental with an occupancy rate with occupancy greater than 12 within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1918 and 1922 Nicholasville Road with the four conditions. So moved. Thank you. And do we have a second? Mr. Gross has seconded. Any further discussion? Quick question. It's a large property, obviously. And is this, it sounds more like a hotel than an Airbnb. And I was just wondering if, you know, if somebody checks in, is this one party checking into the whole institution or are these different people yes sir no it's it's one party one party okay that was my concern no i absolutely understand thank you and i failed to ask if you had seen the conditions the four conditions listed okay okay nothing further we will continue to vote i had a question sorry so we're voting on 20 individuals or 12 because it says in article 313 it talks about a total of 12 individuals but then down here in the recommendations it's enough to accommodate 20 occupants so the description is for more than 12 in our legal ad and on the agenda they're asking for any a number more than 12 and so in this case mr rose is asking for 20. they currently already have a permit to operate up to 12. That's right. Thank you. It's our prerogative to add to that 12. Yes, that's within Article 3-13. The board may allow additional occupants when there is sufficient evidence that a greater occupancy will not result in overcrowding or create a nuisance. That's in the zoning ordinance text. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Your motion is passed. Can I say something real quick as far as I just want to commend everybody who I worked with, planning and zoning, has been superior customer service and very responsive, and I just appreciate that. It's been excellent working with you all. Thank you. Thank you. Good job, Stan. Appreciate it. They do all the hard work. Okay. Good deal. Okay. Now, our next case to be heard is actually PLN BOA 23-45. That's Red Draw Delaware LLC. We have heard portions of this before. However, the variances have changed and adjusted and whatnot. So we will proceed from the beginning and staff will present first. Good afternoon. As Chair Carter mentioned, we have heard this application in the past. The original request for variances was heard at your November 13th meeting. That was a request for variances in association with the development of a five-unit warehousing and storage facility with some associated office space. At that time, the board voted to continue the discussion to December so that the applicant could meet with staff and perhaps make some changes to their plan. Planning staff met with the applicant following that meeting. In December, the applicant requested an additional one-month postponement in order to modify their requests. And then in January, the application was postponed one more time to February in order to correct some calculations and modify the variance requests. So we'll go through each request, including the ones that have changed and the ones that have not changed. So the subject property is located at 1535 Delaware Avenue. It is located on the north side of Delaware between Sparks Road and Lagonda Avenue. The general vicinity includes a mix of residential and industrial zones along with some neighborhood business B1 zoning. The surrounding industrial uses are primarily warehouses, shops of specialty trade, and then there are also a number of single family residences. So as you can see here, the property is outlined in red. This structure has been demolished. And again, just kind of zooming in a little closer to the subject property, what it looked like before. So starting with our first variance request, this one has not changed from the original application. This is a request to reduce the required vehicular use area perimeter buffer width from 8 feet to 0 feet in order to allow the applicant to provide a 5 foot wide vehicular use area buffer without the required plant materials, including trees. So on this site plan, you can see the VUA area perimeter is this area along here and then going up along the property line here. So staff originally recommended approval of the variance for the VUA perimeter buffer from eight feet to zero in order to allow this five-foot buffer to remain due to the proximity of the structure on the adjoining lot with some structural integrity issues. So staff is recommending approval of this variance. it allows the applicant to develop the site in a manner that does not threaten the structural integrity of the adjoining structure. It should not alter the character of the vicinity, and it will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. This recommendation is made with two conditions, that the site be developed in accordance with the submitted application and a revised site plan, and that all necessary permits be obtained prior to construction. Moving along to variance request number two, to reduce the required minimum interior landscape area from 10% to 8%. This variance request has been modified from the first time you heard it to request a lesser variance. Originally they were requesting a variance from 10% to 8% or I'm sorry from 10% to 4% now they're requesting from 10% to 8%. So staff originally recommended disapproval of the variances to reduce the minimum interior landscape area as did the landscape review committee when they heard this in October. It appeared at that time that the applicant could remove one parking space and meet this requirement. They have removed one parking space. That is the only significant change that has been made to this site plan, but they are still approximately 121 square feet short, resulting in an interior landscape area of 8.6 percent. Since the landscape review committee could not support this request Norcid staff in October. We are still at a disapproval on this one. They had submitted an approved landscaping plan back in June of 2023 that was approved and did show that they were able to meet this. So although they have gotten a little bit closer, staff is still recommending disapproval of variance number two. And that is for the reasons that you see here, that the applicant has not provided a sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7 or KRS 100, and that there not appear to be special circumstances that are unique to this property that justify the need for that variance. Additionally, the applicant has not provided information to determine that the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship or deprive them the reasonable use of their land. Variance number three is related to vehicular use area tree canopy. They are requesting to reduce the tree canopy in the VUA from 30% to 17%. This is a lesser variance than what they had previously requested. They previously requested to go down to 0%. Going back to the site plan again here. So following earlier discussions with the landscape examiner, the applicant determined that they were able to place large trees within the VUA islands that are along Delaware. So those are these here, one, two, three. That's how they were able to get back up to the 17% instead of the 0% by placing those trees in an alternative location. So staff is recommending approval of this variance to reduce the VUA tree canopy from 30% to 17%. It will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor have a negative impact on the character of the general vicinity, nor will it allow an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. Again, those same two conditions that we had for the other variants that we recommended approval of, that the site be developed in accordance with the application materials and a revised site plan, and that all necessary permits be acquired. I'm going to address variances number four and number five in one go here. They're linked to one another. The first is variance number four. This one was one that they previously requested but are modifying their request to reduce the required usable open space from 10% to 5%. And then variance number five is to reduce the required minimum dimension for usable open space from 10 feet to 5 feet. So I really want to touch on the definition here in Article 1 for usable open space. It's defined as the general outdoor area of a lot intentionally designed for outdoor living and pedestrian access. This can include unenclosed ground and roof space that are a minimum of 10 feet wide, balconies and porches and the like a minimum of 5 feet wide. The usable open space can include hardscape, landscape, or portions of water areas designed to accommodate or support use. Streets, vehicular use areas, and required vehicular use area interior landscaping do not qualify as usable open space. So staff's initial review found that there was sufficient space on the property to accommodate the required usable open space while maintaining a majority of the desired parking spaces. I'll go ahead and move to the site plans if you can look at that. Staff found that a reduction of the parking would not create a hardship for the applicant as they are proposing an abundance of parking for the associated use of a personal warehouse storage. The applicant has not provided any operational details to support the need for the number of parking spaces that being proposed. So staff has recommended that they convert six parking spaces to usable open space. That would allow them to have two parking spaces for the office and two parking spaces for each individual storage unit, which is typically an appropriate number of parking spaces for a proposed warehouse use. That would allow for 12 parking spaces to be provided on site and would allow for six parking spaces to be converted to usable open space. Staff did review this option with the applicant when they came in in person. They indicated that they were not willing to make any changes to the site plan. A second option was discussed to provide the required open space on the roof of the building but the applicant explained that this is a metal structure that has a pitched roof so that that would not be an option. Ultimately the applicant indicated that they would be modifying their requests in order to seek a lesser variance for the usable open space by also requesting that variance to vary the very definition of open space from 10 feet to 5 feet. Staff did indicate at that time that it would be unlikely to change our recommendation of disapproval for this. We encouraged the applicant to submit an amended justification statement, emphasizing that it would be very important for them to provide justification that the variance to reduce that minimum dimension would still meet the intent of that definition to provide usable open space. The applicant did update their justification statement on January 12th, but only to list the new variances and the changes in the numbers. They did not include any justification as to why the variances were needed, any operational details to provide information. So staff is at a disapproval for that particular variance. We do acknowledge that redevelopment projects in the defined infill and redevelopment area can be tricky. They have unusual hardships related to open space and landscaping. We are generally supportive of a lesser variance to reduce the required usable open space to 6% by removing those six parking spaces and reducing the total number of parking spaces to 12. We do believe that that would provide an adequate number of parking spaces for the proposed use, given what we know about the proposed use. Adam, can I pause you for just a moment while you're on the site can you indicate where we're counting parking because i'm not getting 12 spots sure um so there are the parking spaces that are along here and then there are also the parking spaces along the right of way here on the show okay is that in the yellow or that's just the gray the gray so you can see um the property line actually goes through these property through these parking spaces so they are partially within the right of of way so the gray area is on their property and then the white portion is still part of the parking space it's just within the public right-of-way. Okay thank you. So staff is unable to support variance number five as this is an apparent attempt to artificially inflate the total usable open space by requesting a variance to the definition of usable open space and this represents the circumvention of the zoning ordinance especially since the applicant did not provide any justification as to why a space with a minimum dimension of five feet would meet the intent of the definition of usable open space. And on this plan you can see the yellow is the area that they are proposing to count as their usable open space. So again we are recommending approval of a lesser variance to reduce the required usable open space to 6%. It will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, and will not allow for an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning ordinance. those two conditions, that the site be developed in accordance with the submitted application, and that they revise their site plan to include the provision of 6% usable open space, and that they get all of their necessary permits. We're recommending disapproval of variance number 5 to reduce the minimum dimension for usable open space from 10 feet to 5 feet, because the applicant has not provided sufficient justification. They have not provided sufficient information to determine that strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance will cause an unnecessary hardship and we believe that the proposed variance represents an attempt to circumvent the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Finally we have one more variance request. Variance request number six is a new one from the last time you heard this application. This is to reduce the required vegetative open space from 10% to 8% in order to construct the warehouse facility. So again, the darker green is what's considered to be vegetated open space. The subject property is required to have 1,893 square feet of vegetated open space, and they're proposing 1,686 square feet. This includes the narrow strip running the full length of the building along the northern property line, and that area is just 3.5 feet wide by 175 feet deep. So we do suspect that that may be difficult to achieve the 75% vegetation that is required for a vegetated open space. However, the bigger issue is that the applicant did not provide any reasons or justification to explain the need for the variance. Again, they updated their justification statement and all they did was write down the request that they were making, but no reason for why. So staff is recommending disapproval of variance number six as well for the reasons on the screen that they have not provided justification. Hey, Autumn, real quick. That was a lot. Yes. And welcome back. Thank you. To leading these again. Quickly, could you go through, I'm listing six variances. Yes. And would you give me the numbers on the ones in which the position is? You just didn't give us anything to work with. No justification of substance. Sure. So that would be variance number six, variance number five, and sorry, number two, yes. Two, okay. Yep. In each one of those, there wasn't anything in justification letter that really. Correct. And then I think I remember at the end you said, is it all of them or just some of them where they didn't give you anything? There were a few that were the ones that were originally included in the original request. They did submit a justification statement at that time that did make an effort to explain the desire for the variances. The ones that were added later on were just listed. There were no new justification provided. And I will say that we did make several attempts to get a justification statement. We met with the applicant in person following your original meeting. Then once they added the new variances, they did submit an updated justification statement just listing those. At that time, we requested over the phone that they provide an updated justification statement by the end of that week. When we didn't hear anything the following Tuesday, we sent another email requesting that justification statement again and we never received any response. And those are for five and six? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yes. Was Mr. McCain's letter justification to you all for those variances? Right, that was the letter that we received. Okay, that was the only justification. Yes. Right, okay, thank you. Thank you, any other questions of staff at this time? Was that the end? That's the end. Okay. All righty. Time will allow Adam to take a breath and we'll have the applicant come forward. For the record, my name is Jihad Hallani, Vision Engineering. Good afternoon. So there's a lot of information. So basically, go back a little bit of history so we don't lose the purpose of this board of adjustment. So that site was totally impervious area. So we submit the plan, the plan get approved. We have a site plan has been approved. The project is under construction. The building has been, foundation has been placed. The building is getting constructed. As we went through this project, we find out that there's issue on the next door neighbor property. They have some foundation issue and there's some significant settlement in the property itself and due to bad material of soil as well as a lot of drainage kind of undermining the foundation. So the purpose of that application was can we remove the trees between us and the neighbor because we don't want the trees to kind of end up being underneath the foundation or the slab of the building, and also to add more impervious area so that we reduce the amount of grass to eliminate any infiltration into the foundation. So basically, that's the goal of the whole board of adjustment case. As we went through the case, our building is already set because we have the permit and the project is already built. Our entrance is already set. Our other building, everything has been set. So we have a little bit of green space that we have a little bit of leeway to work with, but everything else has been set for us. So that's why you see multiple of waiver or request is because we're trying to make things work. So the site plan that has been approved... Not this one, second one, please. Yeah, that's the site plan that has been approved. Basically, it has 11 parking spaces on the inside, same number of buildings, same number of parking spaces on the inside. And the only thing our goal was from that application is just to remove the trees that are next to our neighbor and also reduce that grass area to less area. So that's the whole purpose of our application. we went through, it was determined that that plan that has been approved did not meet the usable open space. And it get approved. And also, when we increase the impervious area, we have more asphalt, we have more usable, more pavement, so that means we have more interior landscaping. We kind of encroach into the perimeter landscaping, which is the vegetative landscaping that led to all this variance. So that's basically the whole Board of Adjustment case. So we can go back to that plan and build the building and put the trees and we all know it's going to have negative effect on the neighbor. So basically usually you justify the Board of Adjustment, well because we ask for approval because it has no impact on the welfare and safety of the public. This one here, if it does not get approved, it will have negative impact on the welfare and safety of the resident next to us. The justification letter, we believe the same justification should apply to all of them, apply for variance 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. that, I mean, basically that's just our justification for this case. And if there's any question, we'll be glad to answer it. That's the project we have. This is the approval we have. We can proceed with that site plan, which is no different than the one in front of you, other than we have no trees and we encroach with the pavement closer to the neighbor to protect their foundation. That's the only difference between these two site plans. Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant? Yes, Mr. Stark. Mr. Helene, in your professional opinion, the most recent site plan is the most beneficial for that site? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. So any other questions of the applicant? Please. Would you go, there are three parts that staff has disapproval. Could you talk about each one of those and indicate to us why that presents a hardship to you? Yes, sir. Over here it's not hardship for us, it's hardship for our neighbors. Because, let's say, let's talk about usable open space. The usable open space, that site has been approved with the open space. Usable open space has been kind of oversight. It should not have been approved. It does not meet it, but it is approved. Now we're trying to fit something on already, some under construction. It's so hard to meet it without losing, as the staff mentioned, six parking spaces. And these six parking spaces are very important for that project. And it's part of their business model. Some of the cars are going to be stored inside, some of them are going to be stored outside. But this is kind of more storage for vehicles. So that's the open space. So we'll try to increase the open space to 6% because during that meeting I can understand maybe 6% would be an acceptable number. So what we felt is that, for example, that the minimum open space, it can be used, it has to have a minimum of 10 feet width. So we have over here 9 feet. So we said, okay, well, if we requested to be reducing it from 10 to 5 or 10 to 6, that can count toward open space. Right now it's not counted toward anything, this portion over here, for example, right now. well hindsight 2020 maybe i should have not applied for reduction of widths of the open space we should kept it maybe the same percentage it is what it is it does not matter if it's five percent or six percent or four percent it's just it is what it is right now and and the other one for the interior interior vehicular use area is when we increase the impervious area we increase all the pavement that increase the percentage of interior uh... vehicular use that's required and in order to meet that we have to lose one parking spaces on the inside that's basically just to follow up on that there are three of the six that have been recommended for approval that address the perimeter issue so they have recommended approval to reduce the required vehicular use perimeter buffered to zero They have also agreed to approve the variance to reduce the required vehicular use area tree canopy from 30 to 17, and the approval for lesser variance to reduce the required usable open space to 6%. But there are just three of those six items that are still recommended disapproval for. So I think that what Mr. Clark is asking in particular is on those three items, you know what specifically because they are the the point regarding the neighbor is being addressed and approved with the one particular with two of those i'm following but they are kind of related to each other for example the reason i'm saying that is that in order for us to to get the 10 percent usable open space we have to lose technically six parking spaces in order to meet them and buildings or the products already undergoes based on certain performer and based on certain criteria so losing this six parking spaces it's going to be a challenge for the functionality of that of the feasibility of the project so that's what i said a couple questions related to this all of this my understanding is this is my assumption look at this plan was that these spaces are going to be rented to people. So it's not one of those where we need so many spaces while it's so many customers, it's we need these spaces that are gonna park nicer cars or whatever that's there. So that's the proposed uses, more or less a storage facility. Correct. And then, so I could see we're losing six spaces would have, you know, an undue hardship on at least that, the viability of whatever the pro forma is. But how many employees are going to be here on any given day? Two people. Two. Two. Okay. Okay. And then looking at it, I'm assuming that on the right of way, the medians, the vegetated medians, those are going to be all vegetated even though they don't count because they're not on your property to be offsite. Is that correct? Yes, sir. But we are replaced, we replaced this from this new site plan with the sidewalks. And they would not count either way, but we replaced them with sidewalks. Oh, but on your plan it says interior landscape 72 square feet. Okay. Yeah, if you go to this is the old plan, if you go to the new plan. Okay, can you go to the new plan? Sorry, I don't know how to operate it. Yeah, so I'm going to start on the left hand side where it says interior landscaping 72 square feet and there's a tree. Yes, sir. Correct? Yes, sir. But you're going to landscape into the right of way, I'm assuming. Oh, into the right of way, yes, sir. But you can't, but I guess I'm correct, staff, you can't count that because it's off-site? That's correct. Okay. So if we were to count that, though, we would be within the 10%? Yeah. I think, because I think it's like, they're short, like 121 square feet. Right. They would most likely achieve that with those landscape islands. I'm not sure of the exact math. We would need to verify that, but. Okay. We're going to be very close. Maybe close, sir. Okay. All right. Okay, but I think going back to what Ms. Carter is asking and Mr. Clark, and I think Rob here has asked is, we've got three recommendations for disapproval. and I know you're saying that they're all intertwined and I understand that. But I think what he's saying is, all right, variance number two to reduce the required minimum landscaping area to 10% from 10 to eight. I guess he's saying is, he wants you to discuss that variance. And then when you're done with that one, he wants you to move on to five. And then when you're done with that one, he wants you to move on to six. and you may repeat yourself when you're discussing two five and six is that is that how you were asked is that the so that's that's what they're getting at is we all understand it's a big bowl of spaghetti but we want you to pull out a noodle and like uh and and and read that noodle and they may be the same noodle you read in a second but i think that's what they're getting at is go through each one because the staff is saying you have not provided sufficient justification to them. And this is your opportunity to provide it to, they can listen and then we can hear what your specific justifications are. Correct, so on justification number two, on variance number two requesting reduction from 10% to 8% on the revised site plan that we are asking the approval on. So by adding additional vehicular use area as pavement, that increased the percentage of required interior landscaping. And also on the previous approved plan, also we were able to count the vegetation, like the one you mentioned, the growth along the front. So that met, so now we cannot count it on the revisions, plus we added additional pavement because to, and the reason of the additional pavement is added is to reduce the pervious area between the parking lot and the adjoining property owner. And the reason we want to do that, we don't want drainage to infiltrate underneath their foundation and deteriorate their foundation. So that increased the amount of what's required for interior vehicular use area. Okay, so looking at your plan up here right now, what's the distance of that vegetative strip between the building and the parking on that plan? I believe it's nine and a half feet. Okay, and you've reduced it to five. Correct. And your position is, it's because you want to reduce the gap of- Correct. Stormwater that can be collected and go into that other building. That's right. Okay. Anyone who has questions on this variance? I'll get us there, Harry. Yeah. Is that about variance number one? Two. So the trees along the neighbor's wall are not interior landscaping. Yeah, but- That's the buffer, that's covered by number one. Correct. I'm saying that the amount of asphalt increased. So we have more vehicular use area of pavement. So the amount, the area square footage of asphalt increased. Okay. Mr. Helaney, in the five foot space there on your most recent site plan, the vegetated open space, what do you foresee? Is that going to be grass or is that going to be plants? It would be grass, yes. Okay. Yeah. I'm actually tracking with you on the number two, because what we're saying is we gave you approval for number one, and that narrowed that from nine to five feet. And so now that increased your requirement on number two to 10%. All right. Is that correct, Steph? I'm sorry. If they strictly reduce the buffer from eight to five and make no other changes on the site, yes. But if they were to remove a parking space or something like that, then the number of that requirement would be based on the amount of paving that's provided. It's not based on the amount of perimeter landscaping you're provided. I'm with you. Okay, I'm with you though. I don't follow as well on number five or six, so. Brandon? I'm sure as they say, there's more to the story. I'm sure Dr. Helaney is ready to roll. On to the next one. Okay. So number five is basically the usable open space. And the usable open space is 10%, required to have 10% of usable open space on the site. And our justification is that based on what has been approved and what's the revised one, if we, in order to meet 10%, we have to lose six parking spaces. But we've actually, staff has recommended to approve, reducing to 6%. Yes, I mean to 6%, we have to do six parking spaces. Okay. If you used, if there was the open space requirement originally approved, what would that open space be used for? I don't know. That's my question. What else could you do for open space in a lot? Smoke cigarettes. That size. Hang out. I don't know. I know it's rigged. Is it absolutely necessary though? With a site with this many constraints on it, I think there needs to be a little bit the flexibility and what that would actually be used for, and if it was a usable space, how would you use it? I think it's a practicality matter here. I agree. That's just my comment. I agree. Yeah, because I mean there are only two employees. That's right. So, variance number five is the reduction from ten feet, the minimum open space, to five feet, in order for it to count toward a usable open space. Which is, I understand the purpose of it, and you know, ten percent if the site is one acre 10 percent of the site is five acres 10 percent but what's kind of hard on a small site is that the minimum 10 feet on site like this one which is already under construction having the 10 feet it's very challenging without losing this parking spaces as the staff mentioned which is that's why the hardship is on on us losing the six parking spaces And then on the last one, which is number six, the 10% vegetative landscape is basically similar to number two by encroaching into, like number one allowed us to bring the parking closer to the neighbor. So that limit the amount of vegetative open space we can provide because that dimension is already set. So it used to be much larger, now it's much smaller. So if, I'm backtracking just a little bit, I'm sorry. So if number five were approved, if you were allowed to go from ten foot to five foot and count that space, would we be closer to the ten percent requirement? No, ma'am, I think we'll be at that time close to six, if my memory is correct. You need that just to get to the six. Yeah, it was a six that we discussed it when we were in the meeting. I think the issue with five is to be counted as usable open space, it's got to be a certain width. And so by being five feet, it technically can't be counted because it doesn't reach the 10 foot. Yes. I think that's the issue. I was thinking maybe if we allowed that, we were getting to 10 percent. We're asking for that just to get to six. So just to get to the variance reduction. I think that's what Autumn said. They're actually asking the variance that they're requesting is to reduce the required usable open space from 10% to 5%. So if you approved variance number 5 to reduce the minimum dimension from 10 feet to 5 feet, that would get them to 5%. That would not get them to 6%. 6% is the variance that staff is recommending approval of. Gotcha. Thank you, Autumn. I think my spaghetti analogy stands. I don't know. I'm hungry now, but I'm still confused. No, I got it. I'm not confused. Do we, any other questions of the applicant and then I will let staff respond to some of our concerns. Any other questions of the applicant? I do. Yes, I'm sorry. One more. what are the plans for your uh... stormwater management and that you proposed with the city for this for the approved plane house modified here you know we have a storm structure like a drainage in the middle of the park a lot that the right toward uh... denor avenue so okay is our storm line on delaware is so i don't want to get a connect to that so all the water in the payments going to come sir middle And then go out to capture so it doesn't go on the other properties? Okay. Yes sir, and also we talked to the neighbor, we're going to take the roof drain, whatever, whenever location where they have a roof drain, we're going to connect it underground to our storm system and drain it out. For the southern neighbors? For the southern neighbors, yes sir. All right, thank you. Thank you. No, no, was your degree in mathematics? It was not. Statistics? So I don't think I have too much to add beyond what we've already said, other than that I think that what I heard, we still didn't hear a reason that variants to reduce the minimum dimension of the open space would actually provide usable open space. And I did hear some question about whether or not usable open space is really needed in this area, and I would just say that it is a regulation that everyone is required to adhere to. It's something that our community fairly recently passed because of the importance of open space and the desire to provide usable open space to members of our community across all zones. So I just wanted to touch on that a little bit, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have any more questions of staff? and I do imagine as we get to the point to take motions we would do them individually in this case and if we are needing to move for something other than stats recommendation we would want to take a moment and make sure we have proper findings to do so Any other questions? All right. Does anyone need a moment to get with staff? Madam Chair, I'm not ready to make a motion, but this time I have been involved in this since the landscape committee review committee met or didn't meet. We got all the materials for, I guess, eight, nine months. and so I've been involved in this for some time. And I really feel strongly that the staff is pretty much correct in its recommendations. And so that's kind of the way I'm feeling about it. And I think we are certainly at a point where we need to make a decision. Thank you, Mr. Clark. and I guess I'm more sympathetic to the applicant in that we're looking at a less than a half acre lot that's going to be fenced that has some challenges and especially on the open use area it's only got a couple employees behind the fence you know I just don't know if that's quite the open space that the regulations were intending. A community base, and we are essentially on an industrial road. So most of the buildings along this road abut to the cross section or the right of way. So it's not like it's a, I've got, you know, I know this area pretty well. It's not the prettiest area of town. And so I'm more sympathetic to the request. Thank you. I'm going to agree with Brandon on that. I've been down to this site about three times and aware of the regulations, but the improvements that will be done on this site will dramatically change the look of that area, the neighborhood, and keeping in mind the site limitations down there and the size of the lot, I think some of the restrictions are just a little bit too much. I like to follow the ideals in the letter of the law, but sometimes when you get into these situations, we need to bend a little bit. And so I'm tending to look at the, not just each component of the variances, but the totality of all those together. Look like it makes a pretty workable site plan to me based on all the site limitations. Thank you. So I think at this time we'll take a few moments. We'll take a short recess and allow you to confer with legal. Take maybe 10 minutes. Okay. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. we are back in session and i know this seems tedious but all the pieces do work together and and we do like to to be as detailed as possible at this time i will entertain a motion and as stated before each of these should be handled separately and we'll take a vote take a motion a second and then a vote on each item anyone's ready for a motion on the the first variance request recommendation for approval from the staff on the first one i'll entertain a motion you have to move people number one you got one you have a motion for number one Madam Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 23-45 Red Draw, Delaware, LLC request variance to reduce required vehicular use area perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 0 feet. Number two, reduce the required minimum interior landscape area from 10% to 8%. I'm sorry, we're going to do just one at a time. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm reading the big one, sorry. Let's try again. Let's try again. Strike that one. All right. So this would be, Madam Chair, move to approve PLM BOA 2345, Red Draw, Delaware, LLC. Let's see here. Request to reduce the required vehicle use area perimeter buffer width from 8 feet to 0 feet based on the staff recommendations and subject to the two conditions. Thank you. And we have a second from Mr. Gross. We'll open for vote. And I'm sorry, applicant, if you'd like to come forward at this time as we move through the motions. Okay. Ms. Plumlee? Okay, thank you. The request, the variance one has been approved. We have variance two, which is the request to reduce the required minimum interior landscape area from 10 to 8 percent staff has recommended disapproval do i have any motion regarding variance number two yeah it's it to take them up or down you want to help me here they haven't made any adjustments they had not no we're going to take each one as they are okay okay madam chair i recommend for relative the variance of plnboa 23.45 okay original delaware llc i recommend disapproval variance number two to reduce the required minimum material landscape area from 10% to 8% based on the staff's recommendation and mr. Clark can you make sure your microphones on I'm sorry it's not on madam chair I recommend disapproval of variance number two to reduce the required minimum interior landscape and percent to eight percent based on the staff's recommendation and discussion in this room thank you and it looks like miss Plumlee has seconded any further comment or discussion now we'll open for vote that item has been disapproved Variance number three. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of variance number three to reduce the required vehicle use area tree canopy from 30% to 17% for reasons given by staff and the two conditions as listed. Thank you. Recommendation for approval. Do I have a second for variance number three? Mr. Gross has seconded. We'll open for vote if no further discussion. Variance 3 has been approved. Variance number 4. make a motion PLA BOA 2345 Red Draw Delaware LLC to approve approval of lesser variance number 4 to reduce the acquired usable open space to 6% the following two reasons approved by staff thank you was that you mr clark no it wasn't mr clark that's fine that was you on the motion and then mr walker has seconded Okay. Okay. Variance number four has been approved. Variance number five. It's a recommendation for disapproval by the staff. I have a motion. Staff has recommended disapproval of variance 5 to reduce the required minimum dimension for usable open space from 10 foot to 5 foot. Madam Chair, relative to PLN BOA 23-45, Red Draw, Delaware, variance number 5. I recommend disapproval to reduce the required minimum dimension for usable open space from 10 feet to 5 feet based on the staff's recommendation. Ms. Tucker has seconded. We will open that item for a vote. Okay. Now that motion has failed. so do i need an alternate motion okay give me some swing for it for you miss carter okay please please um give me a couple seconds okay now thank you Oh, I thought it was going to be tough to use this. Okay, Ms. Carter. PLMBOA 2345 Red draw Delaware LLC's request for variance in a defined infill and redevelopment area and light industrial zone at property at 1535 Delaware Avenue. I hereby move for approval of variance number five to reduce the required minimum dimension for usable open space from 10 foot to five foot based upon the testimony we heard today in relation to the difficulties of developing such a small lot size, the lack of more than two employees on site, the fact that the usable area would be fenced off from the general public, the fact that the neighbor's property has structural issues that require additional pavement in that area. And that reduction in the parking spaces to meet this requirement would substantially interfere with the proposed enterprise of the applicant. So moved. Thank you. Do we have a second? Mr. Sturman, second. We'll open for vote at this time, and we are voting to approve at this point, right? Yes. Okay. The motion has passed, so variance 5 has been approved. And variance number six. I'm going to go ahead and make that motion, too, because I think these two, my understanding is, essentially, we have to make this, not have to, but this second motion is tied to the first one that we just did? No? Okay. Well, I'm going to move in PLN BOA 2345 Red Draw Delaware LLCs, request for variance related to property at the defined infill and redevelopment area in a light industrial zone at 1535 Delaware Avenue. I'm gonna recommend approval of variance number six, reduce required vegetative open space from 10% to 8% based upon the information provided today at the hearing. And can I incorporate the findings from the last one into this one, Ms. Jones? Or do I need to, okay. Based upon the similar findings or the same findings that were related to variance number five this board has just approved so moved thank you and do we have a second on that particular motion mr walker has offered a second Can we see someone? Mr. Stittermann? No. There we are. Okay. The motion has passed. We have received approval for variance number six. So all but variance number two appears to have been approved. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. The next item is PLNBOA 24-1, that's Liz Rogers. applicant oh no I'm sorry we'll have the staff present first on this particular item and then we will allow the applicant to speak and then we will take any public comment and public comment is limited to three minutes per person and I will ask at that time for you to not be repetitive if possible thank you so since we are going to have a hearing for the short-term rental application I will just kind of briefly go over the short-term rental regulations you've You've already heard a few of these today, so they are fresh in mind, but just for everyone's benefit, we'll kind of have a quick discussion and we'll address this particular application. So short-term rental regulations were adopted by the council last year on July 11th. Short-term rentals that were operating prior to July 11th had an opportunity to be grandfathered in. If they would normally require a zoning compliance permit, but they were in operation prior to that date, they could get a zoning compliance permit. The deadline for that was January 11th of this year, so we are through with that sort of grandfathering in period at this time. Short-term rentals with occupancy is greater than 12, regardless of whether they were existing prior to July, do require a conditional use permit. We have been utilizing AirDNA, which is sort of a group that takes data from various short-term rental operators or platforms and sort of piles all of that together. Based on AirDNA, we expected there to be about 1,200 short-term rentals operating in Lexington. But as of February 9th, planning has processed 692 zoning compliance permits for short-term rentals, again, with the majority of those being the ones that were operating prior to July 11th. If someone were operating prior to July 11th and missed that January 11th deadline, they would have to come before you, so we may be seeing some in the future that may have missed that. There's a new section in the code of ordinances that includes additional regulations for short-term rentals, including business licensing and permitting. So that's sort of the step to an operator comes to planning for a zoning compliance permit or to the board for a conditional use permit and then a zoning compliance permit first, and then they go through a licensure process with revenue. Touching on Article 3-13F addresses private events and parties, stating that no private events including weddings or parties in which the number of participants exceeds the maximum occupancy limit shall be allowed, and that private events shall not occur between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Those are our typical noise ordinance hours. special events for commercial purpose such as bringing out a short-term rental as a wedding venue is prohibited at all times. So this is a map from AirDNA. Again, AirDNA sort of pulls listings from Airbnb and VRBO. They don't share specific address locations due to the proprietary nature of those and sort of the information that is available from Airbnb and VRBO. So these dots are not exactly in the correct locations. So it's helpful, but not 100% accurate. This map, however, shows the zoning compliance permits that have been issued. So these green dots actually do represent a specific address that has received approval for a short-term rental. So again, just the regulations here. I won't read these all to you directly. but article 1-11 defines a short-term rental and then breaks that down into hosted and unhosted. An unhosted short-term rental is one in which a primary resident is not occupying the property during the short-term rental period. So the ones that you all see are primarily going to be unhosted short-term rentals. You may also see a hosted short-term rental if they're requesting an occupancy greater than 12. We haven't had that happen yet, but it could. Section 3-13 outline further some regulations for short-term rentals and the findings that the board should make. So we talked about the maximum occupancy a little bit earlier. Typically that is going to be a maximum of two individuals per bedroom plus an additional four or a total of 12 whichever is larger. But the board can allow additional occupants beyond 12 whenever you can make a finding that it will not result in overcrowding or create a nuisance. The board shall also take into consideration the same things that you take into consideration for every conditional use, such as whether or not the use will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or on the subject property, but you're also, when you're looking at short-term rentals, need to take into account the number of short-term rentals that are in proximity of the subject property, the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant if they do operate other short-term rentals in Lexington, the occupancy rate of other short-term rentals in the vicinity, and whether or not short-term rentals in the general vicinity have been cited as a nuisance, including those operated by the applicant. This table is in section 313 of the zoning ordinance and sort of breaks down by zone when a short-term rental is accessory, conditional, or principal use and how many per property that you can have. So with a residential zone like the one that's going to be before you, the property is in an R1D zone. So an unhosted short-term rental is a conditional use. And you can have one dwelling unit or one accessory dwelling unit on a property being used as a short-term rental. So we'll pause there if you have any basic questions about short-term rentals. Again, I think you guys have got a pretty good handle on them by now. So we'll move across here. Any questions of staff? No? Oh, sorry. Sorry, this is our big presentation that included all of them. So the application before you now is 714 Hambrick Avenue, again in our 1D zone. The property is located on Hambrick, which is a one-way local street that connects Walton Avenue and North Ashland Avenue. The area around the property is generally zoned R1D and is comprised of mainly single-family dwelling units. The property itself is .17 acres in size and contains a one-and-a-half story, 2,950 square foot single-family residence. It does have four bedrooms. based on that occupancy calculation that I referenced within the zoning ordinance a four bedroom unit typically allows for a maximum occupancy of 12 however the applicant is requesting to limit the occupancy to 10 individuals. They plan to utilize the existing driveway for parking. They say that it can accommodate up to six vehicles because Hambrick is a one way street they do plan to provide instructions to guests when they book regarding how to enter and exit Hambrick to try to reduce any issues with the one-way street. They do state that their backyard is fully screened and fenced from the adjoining properties. They do plan to employ a management company to manage the day-to-day activities of operating the short-term rental. The applicant does operate one other short-term rental which was in operation prior to July 11th and they did receive a zoning compliance permit for that one within the six-month window. In October, they received their zoning compliance permit for that. So we have not received any complaints or anything like that regarding that other short-term rental. We do look at, we talked about how you all are supposed to look at the number of short-term rentals in the vicinity. The vicinity is not a defined term, it's just the vicinity. So when staff is reviewing these, we're looking at short-term rentals that are within 1,000 feet of the subject property. So this is pulling from AirDNA, so I'm going to kind of skip that one because we're not sure of the accuracy of where those dots are, and we're going to go straight to the green dots, which are the ones that we know have zoning compliance permits. So within the 1,000 feet, there are approximately 21, or I'm sorry, 15 short-term rentals. AirDNA showed 21. Our records show 15. So those are the ones that are operating legally that do have their zoning compliance permits. So you can see those green dots relative to the subject property here. Okay. So I'll go back to the aerial here. Staff is recommending approval of this short-term rental. Staff finds that the proposed use should not have an adverse influence on the subject property or the surrounding neighborhood. The structure is large enough to accommodate the proposed number of guests. The proposed use should not have an adverse impact on traffic in the general vicinity as adequate off-street parking is available in the driveway. There have been no complaints or citations regarding the applicant's other short-term rental, and they acted immediately to remedy the lack of a license for the other short-term rental that was identified during their application process. The all necessary public facilities and services are available and adequate for the proposed use. We are recommending a few conditions of approval, the typical ones that we generally recommend for short-term rentals, that the use be established in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan, that occupancy be limited to no more than 10 individuals as was requested, that any necessary permits and approvals be obtained from the Division of Revenue and Planning prior to beginning the use, including the business license, special fees license, and zoning compliance permit, and finally, that the conditional use permit become null and void upon change in ownership or if the applicant's short-term rental special fees license as regulated by revenue lapses or is revoked. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions of staff? I have one question. Sure. I might have missed it, but I saw four bedrooms. I didn't see number of bathrooms. We don't typically ask for number of bathrooms. The way the ordinance was written, we talk about the occupancy being based on the number of bedrooms, but the applicant does not always provide the number of bathrooms. The applicant, I'm sure, can answer that question. Any other questions of staff? Thank you, Anna. The applicant can come forward, please. Hello, please state your name for the record. I'm Liz Rogers. Thank you, if you could tell us a little bit about your project. Yeah, so my husband, Kenny Rogers and I have owned the property since 2012. In 2018, we started splitting time between Lexington and Corbin where I own a small business. Last year, we decided to complete the renovations that have been going on in the home since we bought the property. And through those plans, we decided that it might be a good idea for our family to rent it out on a short-term basis when we're not using it. We still plan to use this home on a regular basis. It is our home. Like I said, we purchased it in 2012. And I'm trying to think of anything else. I did want to add some of the comments, too, about our plans to help monitor the property when we're not there. We will have cameras on the outside of the property to monitor activity. The property management company also uses a background check feature through safely.com to make sure that we are renting to people, upstanding citizens. Anybody who comes back with a criminal record will be denied approval to stay at the property. The property management company also does weekly checks of the property, whether or not there's anyone there staying. so there will always be someone there to make sure that everything is in order nothing needs to be addressed their information will be given to all of the surrounding neighbors the surrounding neighbors also have our contact information if any issues arise that we need to address or if there's hopefully no illegal activity going on but if there is we would hope that the proper authorities would be contacted immediately. That's about it. Questions? I just wanted to clarify. How many bathrooms? Three full bathrooms. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll call you back after public comment. All right, so if you do wish to to speak if we could line up over here behind the podium and as stated before we'll do three minutes at a time has everyone been sworn in that's planning to speak yes okay all righty the lead off hitter please state your name for the record good afternoon my name is tom eblen i live at 52 mintel park i'm president of the mintel neighborhood association which represents an area between Richmond Road and Winchester Road and Walton Avenue and Mintel Park that includes this property. The Association's board has voted unanimously to oppose this application to convert another single-family home within our neighborhood into an unhosted short-term rental property. Like many in-town neighborhoods, Mintel was in serious decline until the early 2000s. Since then, it has experienced a remarkable renaissance. It also has become a model for what Lexington planners say they want, mixed-use neighborhoods that are economically diverse. We agree with this goal because our neighborhood shows it works. We were one of Lexington's first neighborhood associations to welcome renters and businesses as members. Our streets have a healthy mix of owner-occupied homes of all sizes and values, plus many rental properties including houses, duplexes, fourplexes, and several apartment buildings. More than a dozen businesses and nonprofit organizations are located within our neighborhood. We also have two churches, a synagogue, and a beloved elementary school. We all get along remarkably well because every person who lives and works in Mintel has a stake in the neighborhood's long-term success. We don't just stay a night or two and move on. Some Mintel homeowners have short-term rentals on properties where they live, and we're fine with that because someone is always there. But we have become increasingly alarmed as the map shows as how one house after another has been converted from a neighbor's home into an unhosted short term rental. Now that the city requires registration and licensing, we know that there are at least 15 unhosted short term rentals that have been approved within the neighborhood or shortly outside within a block. These units have a total legal capacity of 138 guests. In the planning division's report indicated that there are several more that may not be licensed near this property. This has really just gotten out of hand. Each time a home or an apartment is converted into an STR, we lose neighbors. The property becomes an empty ghost house unless it's occupied by a transient visitor with no stake in our neighborhood's well-being or long-term success. Mintel's charming home in proximity to downtown have made it a popular place for real estate investors to set up unhosted STRs. This has reduced the supply of full-time housing in our neighborhood and we think it has contributed to the spike in rental prices and home prices. Enough is enough. Already the city has allowed too many unhosted short-term rentals in Mintel. We have more than enough ghost houses. If you allow this to continue, the fabric of our successful neighborhood will be irreparably damaged. And for what purpose? So investors get fatter profits than by renting to long-term tenants. I urge the Board of Adjustment to reject this application. Thank you for listening. I'm happy to answer any questions. Good afternoon. My name is Dean Holt and I've lived on Hamburg Avenue since 1994. When I found my house, it ebbed of history, but it was going to need a lot of work. It wasn't so much a purchase of a house as it was an adoption of something I truly wanted to take care of, mend the wounds of time, giving it a fresh start. Over the past three decades, other neighbors have arrived with the same zeal. They're fixing up houses, raising their families, aspiring for better lives, a better neighborhood, and a better city. The future of this street has never been certain, but we feel fortunate that many of the folks who have chosen to make it their home have taken on these responsibilities. It could have gone awry very easily. That's why it's been so heartening to see the dedication by my neighbors to make this street more than a collection of houses, to make it a real community where we get together, plan projects, and share the joys of life. It's a small street, just 15 homes there, so changes can have a large impact. Hambrick's neighbors are not opposed to reasonable change. What we are opposed to are impositions. And the plan to turn 714 Hambrick Avenue into an unhosted short-term rental is poised to be just that. This afternoon, you'll hear my neighborhood's widespread opposition to the plans Liz Rogers and her husband, Kenny, have for that house through our letters to the Planning Commission last week through a community petition and this afternoon in our own voices. We will share our concerns over parking, our concerns over the management of that property, our concerns for the safety of the children who walk the street coming and going to Ashland Elementary. What we do, what we want to do, what is sensible for the neighborhood, a neighborhood that already includes 21 STRs within a thousand feet. We value our street and our Mintel neighborhood. This zoning variance would work against the greater cause of a balanced cooperative functioning community. In the Imagine-Luxent 2045 plan is said that the city should quote provide development that is sensitive to the surrounding context. Provide development that is sensitive to the surrounding context. That plan was just approved 10 weeks ago. It's new and decisions made now define just what is meant by those words and what is meant by the plan's vision of building and sustaining successful neighborhoods. Thank you for your time. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hello everyone. My name is Christine Warner and I live at 727 Hambrick Avenue. You may also notice I do have a speech impediment, so please bear with me. My family bought our home in 2021, mostly because of its proximity to Ashland Elementary School. They are two houses behind the playground. I have two children who now attend Ashland Elementary, Oscar who will be nine on Wednesday, and Rosie who is five and a half. My kids love living right behind Ashland. They skip off to school in the mornings, run up and wave to me when I walk past the playground during the recess times, and point out our house to their classmates when they take afternoon nature walks around the block. I also love living on a street with several other children and often can be found running back and forth to each other's houses to play. Hamburg Avenue is a small street in a community where most of us know each other. Our kids are living a childhood very similar to the one I had growing up, which I cherish. This plan to allow 714 Hamburg Avenue to be used as an STR makes me nervous. Not only as a parent whose kids live on the street, but also as a parent of students at Ashland Elementary. Because of the short term nature of STRs, there is essentially no required oversight on who may stay at this property. Unfortunately, I personally have a member of my own extended family who is currently on a tax offender registry. Because of this, I have had to be extra vigilant in watching my children, even around my own family. The owners of 714 Hamburg Avenue, a property that is easily within 1,000 feet, and actually it's closer to 500 feet of an elementary school, say that they plan to screen for sex offenders, but in reality, this is not reassuring to me as a parent. They may be able to do a background check for the account holder of the website that they're using. But what about the other nine people who may show up at the house at any time? Any of these people may be able to interact with not only my children as they run past the house to their friends' houses, but also any number of children walking to and from school. This access continues as they walk or drive by the Ashland Prager. This access continues as they walk or drive by the Ashland playground while the children are at recess or if they're playing after school, which happens every day. And let me remind you that Hamburg is a one way street, meaning that they must pass by this playground whenever they leave the house by car. To that end, any mention of a certain app's screening tools is irrelevant because there is no regulation or oversight of which app, if any, an STR landlord might use now or in the future. Due to the current local laws around STRs, there are simply not enough systems, safeguards, restrictions, or penalties. Is it okay? I'm almost done. Can I continue? You have finished this. Okay, thank you. There are not enough systems, safeguards, restrictions, or penalties that mitigate the risk that this may have on our community, both on the street and at our school. Ultimately, I am not necessarily against STRs in general, but the location of this one on a small one-way street with an elementary school at the end seems like an incident waiting to happen. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And just for clarity, was it Jessica Moeller? No? No, sorry. Christine Warner. Christine Warner, okay. Yeah, thank you. I got it. Thank you, thank you. Good afternoon, I'm Shannon Sauer-Zavala. I live at 717 Hamburg Avenue, right across the street from the proposed short term rental. Like my neighbors, my main concern is about safety, particularly for children who attend Ashland Elementary School, including my own, Fiona, age eight, and Schuyler, age five. As we've already discussed, Hamburg Avenue is a one-way street, and we already have a lot of trouble with folks driving the wrong way down the street, driving really fast down the street, and importantly, we don't have speed bumps like nearby Bullock Place. We think that short-term renters who are less familiar with our traffic are more likely to exacerbate this problem endangering our children. I also want to make you aware of a personal concern related to the short-term rental. Mr. Rogers, the owner of 714 Hambrick, went door-to-door in our neighborhood to apprise neighbors of his family's plans. Importantly, my husband and I don't know him because he has not lived at 714 Hambrick for the 4.5 years that we've lived on this street. When he came to our house, he asked to speak to my husband instead of me when I answered the door. He described how our concerns were not valid because the rental would be so expensive that only the right people would be able to stay. He also accused us of setting up a secret meeting against him because we opened our home to our neighbors to discuss our streets position on the STR. While Mr. Rogers was speaking to my husband, another neighbor walked by. He turned around, told her to keep walking, and that he would deal with her later. You'll hear from her in a little bit. After he was done talking to us, he indeed went across the street to 722 Hambrick, and I watched from my front window as Mr. Rogers proceeded to yell abuse at Ms. Sorkin, the older single woman who lives there. From my vantage point, his body language was threatening, and another neighbor shared that from their open window, they could hear him shouting profanity and insults. In fact, the police came, so there should be a record of this altercation. We also learned later that Mr. Rogers told another neighbor he was planning to show up at our house the next day to speak at our neighborhood meeting. We have a text of this exchange. This was the first time I felt unsafe in my neighborhood in the 4.5 years that I've lived here. Because he had indicated that he might show up at my house for a week after, anytime anyone knocked on the door, I felt really jumpy. And as my neighbor Christine has already mentioned, our kids are back and forth. People are knocking on the door all the time. As you can tell, my voice is shaking. I'm really nervous to be up here because I'm really nervous that Mr. Rogers, I just feel like if that's the abuse that he'll shout at a neighbor about a disagreement over zoning, I just have little confidence that he'll be responsive to his neighbor's concerns should an SDR be approved at his property. It also calls into question whether he would interact respectfully with me as a woman or my daughters. And as far as I'm aware, he has not apologized for his behavior. Just as a personal note, I have come straight from the airport. I changed in an airport bathroom to be here. it's that important to me to speak up on this issue because I just don't I don't feel confident that they'll be responsive to our concerns given this behavior already. Thank you. Okay let's see if I can beat the clock. My name is Carl Lindstrom I live in and own 718 Hamburg immediately next door to the applicant property it's a triplex and i've lived there for the past 25 years i run out the bottom two units they're rented to long-term rent tenants so i'm also a landlord i'm opposed to this particular application because the requested 10 guest capacity is incompatible with the property's unique surroundings regardless of the house's square footage or number of bedrooms and its operation would result in significant and continued issues of safety and nuisance i'll use my time to provide some examples. First, the applicant property has a 90 foot long driveway which was added recently. It's proposed to hold up to six vehicles. It's between our two houses, runs the entire length of my house front to back, and the edge of that driveway is only three feet and arms length from the bedroom windows of the apartment on the first floor. In addition, the two houses are both tall enough that the driveway area is essentially a sound canyon holding an amplifying noise. Unfortunately, there is nothing practical that can be done to significantly block or buffer the driveway sounds in this case. Combining the requested guest capacity and the driveway parking capacity, it's practically certain that the instances of noise and commotion will often raise to a level of nuisance far, far more often than normal, even if the guests are not misbehaving, per se. In addition, regardless of any well-meaning verbal assurances from the property owners, that they will be quick in response to complaint calls once you're woken up at 1 a.m. on a work night the damage is already done. Second, compared to the typical STR application, this application is exceptional. A special case deserving of special consideration and increased scrutiny not only because of its proximity to the school, less than 500 feet and all the safety considerations that come with that, but as a landlord I'll say. A short-term rental with a rotating population of 10 guests at a time versus say 3 to 4, cycling new groups over and over again in short time frames is a tremendously more complicated and challenging burden on the landlord when it comes to screening against sex offender registry or anything else that has multiple states involved, and therefore poses a greater statistical risk compared to the average size STR. Multiply that statistical risk by the property's proximity to the school and you have a perfect storm. In this special case, the applicants passing the current bare minimum requirements should not be enough. Third, and this is hard, I've been interacting with the Rogers for 10 years since they bought the house next to me, including since they submitted the application. Through this history, there's been a pattern of problems, a lack of consideration in me, their immediate neighbors with things they do on their property, and there have been reports to the similar from properties behind them and adjacent to us. Their actions have matched their own verbally expressed philosophy of it's our property, we'll do whatever the hell we like with it, to hell with everyone else. I also regret to say that the unacceptable rash and adversarial quality of the interactions reported by multiple neighbors with Mr. Rogers following, it was so unfortunate, they expressed refusal to apologize or express remorse, and indeed that's consistent with my historical experiences on how the Rogers handled conflict. I have three sentences left. May I finish? Thank you. Really quickly, please. Thank you. Okay, my grave concern at this moment is that this 10 guest STR is such a substantial activity on the property, with such a wide radius of effect for our little neighborhood that would practically ensure an increase in these kinds of future problematic interactions. For many of us, our short little street with the school on the end of it just wasn't built for this. Thank you. Hello, Jason Zavala, 717 Hamburg Avenue. I'm actually going to cede my time to Carl. Yes. Yeah, okay. He's going to come up and read another statement. I have a statement to read from someone who had planned to arrive today and speak but called into work so couldn't arrive. So if I may. I'm sorry, sir. All right, this is from Sam Lamb. He's my tenant in the apartment on the bottom floor. He's been my tenant, well, he'll say so. I've lived in my apartment at 718 Hambrick next to 714 for over 11 years now. It's my home, and I love the neighborhood. I've known Kenny and Liz Rogers for almost a decade now. I have always considered them friends, but I do recognize that others have had negative interactions with them on this issue in recent weeks. Also, I'm worried about the things that will be out of the Rogers' control in this situation. I also have some concerns. As someone who will be directly and immediately impacted, I am concerned about both noise and safety. In my bedroom, my head rests less than five feet from the driveway that will be used. I get up early for work, and I am usually in bed by 9. In the summers, I sleep with my window open, which directly overlooks that driveway. I'm worried about such a large occupancy limit on our small street. I'm also worried about no one being there to oversee things if it gets too out of hand. It's a one-way street with limited parking and is very close to the elementary school. The majority of people that would use this B&B would be out-of-towners who are in for games, Keeneland, concerts, and so on, which generally means alcohol and all the issues that may arise with people who have no stake or heart in the neighborhood. I'm also concerned about the precedent this sets and whether other larger property management entities will use this to further erode our neighborhoods with large business models like this one. I agree that the concerns of others on the street that they have as well regarding their families are valid. Having known the Rogers for a decade, I truly believe that if they still really lived in this house with their young children, and there were an identical STR application next door to them, they would express the same concerns as we are and would protest it as well. This statement may adversely affect our friendship, but after days of thought on this subject, I felt I had to share my concerns. Thank you. Good afternoon. It's been a long time since I've done any public speaking, so I hope you'll bear with me. My name is Susan Dworkin, and I live at 722 Hambrick Avenue. I've lived there since 1997. When I bought my house, all the neighbors on the street came over to welcome me and my two sons because they were so happy to have permanent residents for what had been a student rental for the previous 15 years. Since then, this neighborhood was down-zoned from R2 to R1 to prevent further degradation to the area. We all fought and won many battles against absentee landlords and have appreciably improved the character of the neighborhood. Avenue has become a lovely community. This is now all in jeopardy. For the past 10 years, 714 Hambrick has been an abandoned eyesore. No one on the street had the owner's phone number or any way to contact them. On January 26th, in response to concerns that were raised about the plan to turn 714 into an unhosted short-term rental, Mr. Rogers went door to door. When he came to my door, he didn't identify himself and immediately began to speak in a rude and aggressive manner. I told him that if he couldn't be civil, I would close the door. His actions became not only insulting, sarcastically asking if I was going to start crying, but also threatening. When I told him to leave my property, he approached me, got right in my face and screamed no. backing off only when I said I was calling the police. The incident has caused me a great deal of distress as I felt afraid for my safety. His actions were witnessed, unbeknownst to me, his actions were witnessed by one of my neighbors and overheard by another. And even the police felt it was serious enough that one of the officers I spoke to in a follow-up call gave me his badge number and contact information in case Mr. Rogers something I still feel anxiety about. If this is how Mr. Rogers treats his neighbors, I have no reason to believe that he will manage his unhosted short term rental in a way that preserves the character, peace, and safety of our neighborhood. Nor do I believe that he will put any thought toward the management company that he claims will handle things on his behalf. Please help us to keep our neighborhood intact by denying this permit. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Shane O'Connor, and I'm the homeowner and resident of 706 Hambrick Avenue, two houses away from the 714 property. While I've owned my house since 2012, I've actually lived on Hambrick since 1997 when I was in high school, and I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been able to buy a house on the street where I grew up. However, the character of this street and the surrounding neighborhood will be adversely impacted by permitting 714 to be used as an unhosted short-term rental while others have spoken about issues of parking traffic and safety my concern is one of character not just the character of the neighborhood but the character of the people who own and will manage the 714 property you've already heard about how mr kenneth rogers attempted to intimidate susan dworkin the resident of 722 hambrick on january 26th what i'd like to talk about is what happened immediately afterward. Susan Dworkin is not just my neighbor, but also my mother. Her house is the house I spent much of my teenage years growing up in. As such, I was extremely disturbed when she called me, saying that she had just called the police because of what had happened with Kenneth Rogers. I immediately dropped what I was doing and headed over there. Because the 714 property is between our houses, I had to pass in front of it, which was when I noticed that Kenneth Rogers was in the front yard. I subsequently approached Mr. Rogers, looking to speak to what had just happened. However, despite his wife and two small daughters being there, he immediately became belligerent and abusive, using language that was not only insulting, but also belittling. Given his conduct, I find it difficult to believe that he would have any regard for the character of our street. I bring this up because I believe that Mr. Rogers will be the point of contact for issues regarding the management of 714 as an unhosted short-term rental his wife dr liz rogers already has a medical practice that she manages likewise while their paperwork says that they will be using a property management company no specifics have been provided to anyone in the neighborhood and there are no guarantees that the company that they use will be one that's responsive to neighborhood concerns mr rogers behavior is such that i don't want to be his neighbor let alone have him be the one managing an unhosted short-term rental that will disrupt the climate of our street so egregiously. For the sake of myself, my neighbors, and my mother, I hope that you will see fit to deny this permit. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Hi, my name is Tommy Ross, and I live in Kenwick, which is adjacent to Mintel. I live at 157 Bassett Avenue, and I want to talk about neighborhoods, specifically Mintel and Kenwick. They're next door to each other. They occupy approximately a half a mile, linear mile, along Richmond Road. They're neighborhoods. They're the kind of neighborhoods, as I think Tom said, that city planners want to develop. They're the kind of neighborhoods that city planners imagine for Lexington. We have a corner store, we have a coffee house and a wine bar and a small arts venue, we have a little free pantry to help the food insecure in our neighborhood, we have seven little free libraries to feed our neighbors' minds, and we have a community center to enrich our children. As neighbors, we organize music festivals, block parties, bungalow tours, community yard sales, a derby foot race, and a community garden. On Valentine's Day this year several of the residents of Mintel and Kenwick are making and delivering meals to food insecure neighbors. Kenwick and Mintel are neighbors again along a point five mile path along Richmond Road and in those two neighborhoods there are 40 STRs operating legally, 11 STRs operating illegally, and that's just the ones we know about. That's 51 STRs and 0.5 miles. That's upwards of 200 neighbors disappeared from our neighborhood. That's 51 homes or apartments in what was a very mixed income neighborhood that have been taken off the market. In 2022, the average price of a single-family home in Lexington increased by 6%. In Kenwick, it increased by 57.5%, and that's because of the STRs. Property taxes have risen, forcing retirees and others, some of whom have lived in these neighborhoods like I have for decades, to sell to developers who call, email, text, and paper the neighborhood with flyers offering up to two times the assessed value of the homes. It all began with the STRs, none of which are hosted. These aren't homeowners trying to make their house payment. These are entrepreneurs like Ms. Rogers and Mr. Rogers who are trying to make our community their commodity. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hi there. My name is John Grimes, and I live on Sherman Avenue, a street near Hambrick. I oppose this unhosted Airbnb. I support hosted Airbnbs, but I oppose unhosted Airbnbs. It is the unhosted Airbnbs that are the problem, and most of the Airbnbs in Lexington are unhosted. We are here to decide to make an exception to the current zoning plan and to allow a business to operate within a residential zone. Historically, the bar has been very high for such an exception. However, lately it seems this bar is much lower. I think it is useful to consider all the advantages that our system of zoning provides. I think it would be difficult to find a more impactful set of ideas and rules that have shaped our city. Yes, there are businesses located within residential zones. In your November meeting, planning gave the example of a daycare as such an example. I'd like to point out some differences between daycares and Airbnbs. Every daycare seeking to locate in a residential zone had to come in front of this board and had to make their case. You had a chance to question them and require conditions. I have 10 Airbnbs on my street and about 40 in my neighborhood. I know of only one that has gone in front of your board to get conditional use. It's not your fault. I'm not blaming you. This is because a newly passed zoning ordinance grandfathered in already existing Airbnbs. I mention this because it is an important context for your decision. Another important difference between daycares and Airbnbs, I'm not aware of any unhosted daycares in Lexington. It's absurd to think that an Airbnb could operate safely without an on-site management. A third difference, a daycare can serve the families in the neighborhood. It's a real benefit to neighbors with children. An Airbnb serves almost exclusively out-of-town guests and those people could just as easily stay at a hotel. When we're making this decision, you should ask, does it serve the neighborhood? Does it even serve the city? The criteria for granting conditional use is that it should not have an adverse influence on existing or future development on the subject property or its surrounding neighborhood. Focusing on the issue of harm to the surrounding neighborhood, Airbnbs harm the neighborhood in multiple ways. First, because they are businesses. Airbnbs operators can pay more for houses unless they create a new higher-priced floor for houses and rents. Airbnbs create inflationary pressure and we are seeing it in this part of town. Also, we should not overlook the important and obvious point that any property being operated as an unhosted Airbnb is not providing housing for Lexingtonians who need housing. You can't support both affordable housing and Airbnbs. Please don't confuse the research on hosted Airbnbs with the research on unhosted Airbnbs. The research on unhosted Airbnb shows that they harm neighborhoods by causing crime and violence. These are the most transient type of households. Neighbors describe a revolving door of strangers next door, and this really strikes a chord with me. Unhosted Airbnb create holes in the social fabrics in the neighborhood and break down social bans in that neighborhood. The result is increased crime and violent crime. Remember the incident at Windermere where unhosted Airbnb where three people were shot and houses and cars were struck by bullets. Can I make just a couple quick points? Well, we still have quite a few people. All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. Hi, my name is Sydney Bevin, and I would like to just speak on the character of Liz and Kenny Rogers. I manage their property that they already have set up, and we have worked with them for many years. And they deeply care about the guest experience. My husband and I, who have helped them with that property, deeply care about the guest experience and the experiences of the neighbors around. So I just want to attest to the character of that and that this is something that they're very passionate about and care about. and we do as well. So I know there's a lot of the neighbors that have concerns, but I just want to speak on behalf of the character that they have is really good and we've had a great working relationship with them. Thanks. Thank you. Hello, my name is Kenny Rogers. I was not sworn in. I don't know if we need to do that. Okay, if you could raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the whole truth today? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And actually, you know, you are an applicant, So we, um, well, I'm gonna let my wife speak on that. I don't really have anything to do with the Airbnb. This is my wife's. Okay. I'm just up here because, uh, we're making this personal, personal attacks against myself. Okay. Uh, through people that don't know me. And I take that very, uh, yeah. Anyways, thank you. I just want to get up here because I'm not going to allow anybody to disrespect me or anybody. And if they want to know my character, they should come and talk to me personally. I spent my life in the military. I am a disabled veteran. I'm not going to do disrespect. and what I'm getting from my neighbors is disrespectful, and this has nothing to do with facts about Airbnb. This is personal attacks on my character and myself, and that's fine. But it's got nothing to do with the Airbnb, so if they want to bring that towards me, that's fine, but I'm not going to tolerate disrespect of my family or my wife, which was done on Airbnb, which was why I already had an issue with said neighbor. And the cops were called, and if anything was illegal, it would have been done then. So that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I've taken a couple of notes and have some comments about some concerns that were brought forward. One of the concerns was that our home has basically been abandoned for 10 years, which is not true. We bought the home in 2012. When we bought it, it was basically abandoned. We lived in that house through a winter with no heat or no running water while we were trying to get it ready to purchase through a bank. We bought it on a contract in 2012 and finalized the purchase in 2013. We lived in that home full time until 2018, until I bought the practice in Corbin. And we were still spending the majority of our time in Lexington. We were just commuting back and forth. we really became we stopped using the house regularly when COVID hit there was no reason for us obvious reasons for us to be coming to Lexington and we did have someone staying in the home to kind of keep an eye on it and then the renovations on the home started last year and we have not been able to stay in the home at all since since those have been going on I just want to make a note about the incident that occurred which I don't feel necessarily applies to this application, but when we arrived at the home to check on the renovations, we were informed by one of the workers that one of our neighbors was trespassing on our property. Again, we have a privacy fence. There's a no trespassing sign on our gate, and that neighbor still felt it necessary to go onto our property and look around to find out what was going on after the notice went out of our application. Again, we've talked about the one-way street and the concerns, and again, Again, we admit this is already an issue, not because of short-term rentals in the neighborhood, because it's been an issue since we've lived there. It was even an issue with a long-term renter on the street. We regularly saw them turning the opposite direction and exiting onto Walton when you're supposed to exit onto Ashland. So I don't believe that having a short-term rental on the street would increase that issue. A comment was made about no contact information has been given about the property management company. This application was in process. It hasn't been approved. And so if it goes through today and that all works out, that information will be given to our neighbors once the house is ready to be rented because we don't anticipate the renovations to be done until the spring. A comment was made that no one on the street had our contact information, which is also not true. Carl had my husband's contact information. His tenant, Sam, has both of our contact information and has actually contacted us when he had some concerns about our property. And then there's another neighbor on the street, Mark and Amanda Gumbert, who have our contact information. I'm aware that there's a group text of all of the neighbors on the street. And so if anybody wanted to get a hold of us, I feel like a simple text to the group saying, does anybody know how to get a hold of them would have been sufficient. During the staff's report, they noted that there were no complaints of any of the other short-term rentals in the neighborhood. So all of the short-term rentals seem to be managed very well. There's been no noise issues or anything like that. We plan for ours to be the same way. We don't want our home to be a nuisance. We also don't want troublemakers in our home because we will still be using it. That's why we'll have cameras. We will have these background checks. We will also have noise detectors in the home, which I don't believe was mentioned before. And then I also wanted to make a point on the concern that turning homes into short-term rentals increases the rent for homes and also decreases the housing supply. I did research and I found an article or a research study that was done by the Harvard Business Review in 2019. And those researchers found that owner occupiers who rent out their spare rooms or even an entire house when they are away for a set period of time to short-term visitors using a virtual housing sharing platform do not impact the long-term rental market supply or prices. The reason being owner occupiers are not converting their property from long-term to short-term rental and so therefore are not removing long-term rental options from the market. And the last comment that I'll make is in regards to the petition that was circulated and signed. The original petition that was posted online for neighbors to review included a sentence that said permission is now required under a new city law. In fact, this is the first test of this new law, and if approved, could set a precedent for additional short-term rentals, which to me seemed misleading since it wasn't the first case. There were at least 15 that I'm aware of before today's hearing that were heard. And then in my preparation for today, I was re-looking at this petition and realized that that sentence had been removed. The, in fact, this is the first test of this new law, and if approved, could set a precedent for short-term rentals. I took my screenshot of this petition on January 28th, and it's my understanding that that petition was submitted on January 2nd. And so it's interesting to me that that sentence would have been removed. The petition was circulated online to request anybody in Lexington to sign it, not just our neighbors or people on the street or in Mantell or Kenwick or Belcourt. So it's really unclear how many people in our community truly oppose it if it was opened up to everyone in Lexington. Thank you. Does the board have any questions of the applicant? Anything further for staff? I don't think we have anything to add, but we're happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. At this time, I'll entertain a motion, or do you guys want to discuss? I have kind of a comment to make. Please. I just wanted to state that I agree with the comments about what the council wants us to do with short term rentals, but I also think that they want us to look at these on a case by case basis. I think that when neighbors take the time to come down here or send us an email concerning their neighborhood, it's important to look at their concerns and to weigh them in the process. I think it's also important for people to be a part of the process and care for their neighbor and neighborhoods, and we need to consider their concerns in the process. Thank you. Anything further? Thank you, Mr. Clark. Thank you, Madam Chair. What a great neighborhood. I know some of you folks and love your neighborhood. I'm the bad guy on the council, I think. Our problem is every neighborhood is the same in the sense that the same issues, the same concerns, the safety, the noise, the crime impact on the community and so forth. Who in the world would want an STR next to them or even in their community? Somebody in the crowd said, enough is enough. And I agree with you. I'm very disturbed about this ordinance for many reasons. If I had my wish and I could wave a fairy wand, I would say, let's have a moratorium on this. because there are so many issues that we are trying to decide here. And let me give you some of my ideas about this. We recently approved an SDR in the middle of 41 SDRs, 41. And the staff had no way of determining how close they were, so the ordinance uses the term area. Now, what's that mean? area. So they also use it a little bit later and they call it vicinity. What's that mean? And then the staff has tried to really kind of document a little bit and say within a thousand feet. A thousand feet, I think I figured 2.7 football fields. So you can tell that they're pretty close together. Now where am I going with this? The ordinance itself gives us no limitations. In other words, it didn't say if there are too many in this area or what the area is or what the vicinity is. They give us no information on which to base our decision. That's a failing, I think, of what the council has done. And as she has said, it's just, okay, whatever you all think. Just come up with some opinion. Well, every single neighborhood that's been here has said the same things. We understand, but we don't have the ordinance in order to disapprove or approve something based on the law. And that's my concern. I've talked to council members, and they say, well, we kind of agree with you. We're probably going to meet again in April, which I hope they will. And so basically I wanted to give you just that kind of background of how at least I'm feeling. I don't know how the rest of the board feels, but that's the problem. We have no basis on which to disapprove something because the law does not give us that privilege. We can use our opinion. Well, this is a nice neighborhood. So let's disapprove this one because we like these people. But what if a gentleman comes in, he's worked six months to redo his house, and he's working so hard. One guy says, boy, I've got an SDR. Well, we don't know much about his neighborhood. We don't know much about him. So we'll say, okay, it's okay. We'll just disapprove you. So the ordinance is not well written, and consequently I have voted to approve almost every one of these that come up. So, again, I'm the bad guy. But that's my feeling, and I think very sincerely that the council must do something about this. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. I wanted to mention one other thing. I'm sorry. Yes, no, please. I've only had that young lady who just left who was supportive of it. We've only had, I think, one other person that came to our meeting and said, well, I think this is a great idea, and I'll tell you why. Because the city needs the money. Did you not? And he said, all you people have been talking. You're just a bunch of bullies. Well, that's a true story. I swear it was a true story. He said, you're bullies because you didn't want the city to make money. And I said, well, yeah, but these people are neighbors. They're good people, and they're concerned about their neighborhood. So now I'm finished. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does the board have any additional comments? Mr. Clark's a tough one to follow, so I'll be quick. Mr. Walker. And I'm generally supportive of short-term rentals. I stay in short-term rentals, and I think a lot of you guys do as well. The ordinance does give us a minimal, minimal amount of leeway as far as how we can interpret it. And Mr. Clark's exactly right. It would be much more logical to have this vetted and figured out long beforehand. It has to kind of fit in certain holes. But for me, this one specifically makes it easier because you've got six vehicles backing onto a one-way street next to a school and utilizing a property management company. I'm sorry, that's just a lot of red boxes that we're checking. And just for that reason alone, I wouldn't be supportive of this one. It's nothing against you. It's nothing against the folks that have spoke today. It just doesn't seem like a good idea. And that's my two cents. Thank you. And Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Again, as a colleague has stated, I look at these cases on a case by case basis, the merits and the negatives. And in this one, I thank you neighbors for being here. And you have stated that what I garnered from this, there will be an in for an adverse influence on the health safety and welfare of your neighborhood and there will be an ad fluid and first influence on residential availability by creating a commercial use in your in your neighborhood and for that reason I would I would be opposed to this and thank you again for being here anything additional okay i believe what we planning to make a motion yeah i'll make a motion to approve i move to prove plmboa 24-1 liz rogers request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single-family residential zone on property located at 714 Hamburg Avenue based upon the application and the staff's recommendation of approval and the testimony we heard today and subject to the four conditions set forth in the report. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. I'm going to assume the motion is dead. It looks that way, but I'd like to remind my fellow members of the board that every neighborhood is special. Nobody wants these in the neighborhood. I have had to vote to approve these in my neighborhood. And so I think that, you know, I don't know what exactly distinguishes this particular house in this particular neighborhood from the other 99.99% of the neighborhoods in our community that are special. and so I'm just going to register a little bit of disappointment that nobody would be willing to second this particular one because I don't see anything in this, the testimony or anything else today that distinguishes it from any other that we heard today that we approved today. But with that being said, if you want to take a recess to do disapproval, that's how democracy works. Okay, we will. We need about five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We'll return to session, and at this time, I'll entertain a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move disapproval for PLNBOA 24-1, Liz Rogers. request a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single-family residential zone on property located at 714 Hambrick Avenue. The motion for disapproval is based on the following reasons. The proposed use will have an adverse influence on the the surrounding area because of its proximity to an elementary school being located on a one way street. With significant parking being required to back into the one way street, which poses significant safety concerns in the immediate area. Two, the proposed use will also have an adverse influence on the Kenwick and Intel neighborhoods because of existing concentrations of STRs in proximity. So moved, thank you. Thank you, and it looks like Ms. Tucker has seconded. Well, before we vote, I would just like to say that I would like everyone to remember that we approved the Lane-Allen STR a few months ago, much traffic at a back into lane allen slash rosemont area i'd like to their schools all over the city in which once again uh... sd rson next schools there's no no evidence put in the record that said that was an issue and then i don't think these the number of sd ours reaches the level uh... of where it is and i'm going to be interested in how this body handles the next application and how you distinguish this one from the next one and from the next one. Because I think these are just general issues with STRs that are in place for every single one of them. I don't see any distinguishment other than this appears to be a popularity contest today. And so I'm going to vote no on this strongly. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay, the motion to disapprove has passed. Thank you. And you can appeal this decision to the circuit court. Thank you. Thank you. The next item is PLN BOA 24-3, that's Caitlin Yackey. The applicant can please come forward. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, we'll give him just a moment. Thank you. Thank you. If we could please take the conversations outside, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, ma'am. Please state your name for the record. Yes, my name is Caitlin Yockey. And that has been recommended for approval. you want to tell us anything about your project before I open to public comment? Sure, thank you. Yes, my husband and I purchased that property this past fall in late September. We've been working on some improvements and renovations to the property that are still ongoing and are excited about the opportunity to create a short-term rental there, potentially other options for renting the property as well thank you i'm sorry um could we update the case thank you let me just a moment Okay, so your request is for short-term rental for no more than four individuals? Correct, yes. Do we have any questions of this applicant? No? Okay, thank you. Thank you. We can open for public comment. Yes, please. My name is Beth Hendratt, I'm in the house at 637 Stratford Drive. I'm not opposed to the short-term rental ideas. I'm just concerned the quality of people that are coming in, how the property is kept up, parties, parking, you know, the basic reasons. It is a dead-end street. There are a lot of kids on the street. Of course, you know, the school is close by. It's just those are just my concerns of how the property is going to be managed and controlled. Okay, thank you. We can give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns. Thank you for your concern. I appreciate you being here to discuss it, and I appreciate the opportunity to have these debates. I'm grateful for that. So with regards to the property, yes, we are limiting it to only four people. So I think your concern around traffic and parties and things like that should be minimized and certainly something that we would want to respond to if there were an issue. We do plan to monitor the property very closely. We live nearby and so can be there quickly if needed. We do also plan to have security cameras installed to watch the property well, as well as give our contact information to the neighbors should they need to reach us directly. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff in this instance? I know we didn't do a full proposal, but you guys have that one memorized, right? Questions? Okay. If not, I will entertain a motion. Reggie. Okay. I'm sure. I have a comment. Okay. Thank you. Again, this is in a neighborhood that has a potential for adverse effect on the welfare of the neighbor in that it's a short street. Clay's Mill, as everyone will recognize, is kind of a school corridor. And when you have schools, you naturally associate families. So this would impress, I think, a purchaser as being near a school corridor. and would be important as a family situation. I think that there is also already another STR on the street. Again, it's a short kind of a dead-end, cul-de-sac sort of situation. this house I believe according to record sold in September of 23 for a little over $221,000 again within the grasp of certain individuals who need affordable housing again we're taking an affordable house off the market and thank you for your comment my comments thank you thank you i would just like to clarify we in no intent plan to violate the fair housing law so the issue of whether it's a family unit or not a family unit is not one that we are considering um or are allowed to consider actually so but but Thank you. You're welcome. I hear by move approval of PLNBOA 24-3, Caitlin Yacke's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property at 641 Stratford Drive, based upon the staff's report and the testimony given today and also the condition set forth in the report. Thank you. It looks as if Mr. Walker has seconded. Okay. No further comment. We'll open for vote. The motion has passed. You have been approved. Okay. This time I still have people here. I think I'm done. Am I done? That should be it. Yeah? Okay. I just saw people still. Okay. Thank you. The next item, any board items? Any staff items? all righty well our next meeting will be march 11th same time it's the day before my soon-to-be 10-year-old's birthday so we'll be quicker we will be quicker i have a feeling she'll need all week to celebrate so anyway all right thank you motion meeting is adjourned Thank you. Thank you. You're a miracle work for me You set my soul free like a ship sailing on the sea She is the sunlight when the skies are gray She treats me so right, lady Take me away My Marie Oh Marie, I love you girl Oh, my Marie Oh Marie, I love you girl Oh, my Marie I love you, my Marie Oh Marie, I love you girl Oh, my Marie Oh, Maria, I love you, girl Maria, I love you Oh, Maria, I love you, girl Oh, I love you, girl Oh, Marie, I love you, girl I love you, my Marie Oh, Marie, I love you, girl Oh, I love you, girl Oh, Marie, I love you, girl I love you, my Marie Maria, I love you, girl Oh, I love you, girl Maria, I love you, girl Maria, I love you