# Board of Adjustment Hearing - April 8, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 8, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6083 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6083?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-04-08 - **Last revised**: April 8, 2024 - **Length**: 24,964 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on April 8, 2024, at 1:31 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Raquel Carter presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed 17 agenda items during the session, including variance requests, conditional use permits, an administrative appeal, and an early rehearing request. The board conducted 17 motions and votes throughout the meeting, with the majority of applications receiving approval. Three members of the public provided comments during the proceedings. Of the 17 items considered, 12 were approved, 3 were denied, and 1 was tabled for future consideration. ## Attendance **Present:** Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, Carolyn Plumlee, Bob Sturdivant, Linda Tucker **Absent:** Chad Walker **Late:** None Six members were present for the meeting, with one member absent. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered 17 motions during the meeting, with outcomes ranging from unanimous approvals to tied votes that resulted in failed motions. **Postponements and Approvals** The board unanimously voted to postpone variance request PLN-BOA-24-00012 for Jeromie R. Kirk [timestamp: 00:00]. Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Bob Sturdivant, passed 6-0 by voice vote. Several variance and conditional use permit requests received unanimous approval, including: - PLN-BOA-24-00033 for The Dog Stop [timestamp: 02:00], subject to four conditions regarding supervision and permits - PLN-BOA-24-00035 for Quality Logistics, LLC [timestamp: 03:00], with four conditions regarding construction and permits - PLN-BOA-23-00056 for Lexington Country Club expansion [timestamp: 04:00], with three construction and permit conditions - PLN-BOA-24-00023 for Fairhaven Baptist Church amendment [timestamp: 05:00], with two conditions **Split Decisions** Four applications passed by 4-2 roll call votes, with Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, and Bob Sturdivant voting in favor, while Carolyn Plumlee and Linda Tucker voted against: - PLN-BOA-24-00032 for Eric Shockey and Christa Burrows [timestamp: 01:00] - PLN-BOA-24-00026 for Kristin Nelson [timestamp: 06:00] - PLN-BOA-24-00038 for Alex Frost [timestamp: 11:00] **Failed Motions** Two motions failed due to tied 3-3 votes: - PLN-BOA-24-00027 motion to disapprove Fincastle LLC's conditional use permit [timestamp: 07:00] - PLN-BOA-24-00037 motion to disapprove James Raynolds' conditional use permit [timestamp: 14:00] **Additional Approvals** The board unanimously approved several other conditional use permits and one administrative appeal (PLN-BOA-24-00030 for Chris Johnson) [timestamp: 15:00], along with an early rehearing request (PLN-BOA-23-00107 for Mike Adams) [timestamp: 16:00]. Most approved applications included specific conditions related to construction, permits, occupancy, or operational requirements. ## Public Comment Three community members addressed the meeting during the public comment period, with all comments focusing on short-term rental issues. **Rebecca Coons** spoke first [timestamp: 13:30], expressing concerns about the impact of short-term rentals on neighborhood parking and community character. She highlighted how these rentals affect the residential nature of local neighborhoods. **Francis** followed [timestamp: 13:45], voicing concerns about the availability of affordable housing and the broader impact of short-term rentals on community dynamics. The speaker emphasized how short-term rental operations may be affecting housing accessibility for long-term residents. **Sidney Bevin** provided a contrasting perspective [timestamp: 15:30], speaking in support of Chris Johnson's appeal. Bevin noted that there have been improvements in the neighborhood since the property in question was managed as short-term rentals, suggesting positive outcomes from this particular operation. The public comments reflected ongoing community debate about short-term rental regulations, with speakers presenting both concerns about negative impacts on parking, housing availability, and neighborhood character, as well as support for specific properties that have demonstrated positive management practices. ## Contested Items Two items generated significant debate during the April 8, 2024 meeting, resulting in divided votes and community opposition. **Conditional Use Permit for Fincastle LLC** The board faced a split decision regarding a conditional use permit application submitted by Fincastle LLC. The primary source of contention centered on the high concentration of short-term rentals already present in the affected area. Board members expressed differing views on whether approving an additional short-term rental permit would negatively impact the neighborhood's residential character. The division among board members reflected broader community concerns about the proliferation of short-term rental properties and their effects on local housing availability and neighborhood stability. **Administrative Appeal for Chris Johnson** Chris Johnson's administrative appeal drew substantial community opposition during the proceedings. The contentious nature of this appeal stemmed from two key concerns raised by residents and board members. First, questions were raised about the legality of existing units associated with the appeal, suggesting potential code compliance issues. Second, community members voiced significant concerns about the potential impact on the surrounding neighborhood if the appeal were approved. The combination of legal uncertainties and neighborhood opposition created a challenging deliberative environment for the board. Both contested items highlight ongoing tensions in the community regarding development decisions, property use regulations, and the balance between individual property rights and neighborhood preservation. The split vote on the Fincastle LLC permit and the community pushback against Johnson's appeal demonstrate the complex considerations local officials must weigh when making land use decisions that affect both individual applicants and broader community interests. ## Variance request for Jeromie R. Kirk [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-24-00012, a variance request submitted by Jeromie R. Kirk to increase driveway width from 10 feet to 20 feet in a Historic District Overlay zone. The item was briefly addressed by key speakers Raquel Carter and Carolyn Plumlee, but the discussion was limited due to the applicant's absence from the meeting. Without the applicant present to provide details about the proposed variance or answer questions from board members, the board determined they could not proceed with a substantive review of the request. The variance would allow Kirk to double the permitted driveway width in the historic district, which typically has stricter design standards to preserve the character of historic neighborhoods. The board tabled the item, postponing consideration until a future meeting when the applicant can be present to present the case and respond to any questions or concerns from board members. No timeline was provided for when the item would be rescheduled for consideration. The postponement ensures the applicant will have the opportunity to fully present their case and justify the need for the variance, while allowing board members to ask questions about how the wider driveway would impact the historic character of the area and whether the request meets the criteria for granting a variance in the Historic District Overlay zone. ## Variance request for Eric Shockey and Christa Burrows [timestamp: 01:00] The Board of Adjustment reviewed variance request PLN-BOA-24-00032 submitted by Eric Shockey and Christa Burrows for their property. The applicants requested approval to reduce required setback distances and increase the floor area ratio to accommodate planned additions to their existing structure. Eric Shockey presented the variance request to the board, explaining the need for the modifications to support their property improvement plans. Staff member Raquel Carter provided analysis and recommendations regarding the proposal. The discussion centered on the specific setback reductions requested and the proposed increase in floor area ratio. Board members evaluated whether the request met the criteria for granting a variance, including considerations of hardship, impact on neighboring properties, and compliance with the overall intent of zoning regulations. Following deliberation, the Board of Adjustment approved the variance request with conditions. The approval allows Shockey and Burrows to proceed with their property additions under the modified setback and floor area ratio requirements, subject to meeting any stipulated conditions established by the board. The decision enables the applicants to move forward with their development plans while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place to address any potential impacts on the surrounding area. ## Variance request for The Dog Stop [timestamp: 02:00] The Board of Adjustment reviewed case PLN-BOA-24-00033, a variance request for The Dog Stop seeking to reduce required setback distances for a kennel operation. Blake Hendricks and Raquel Carter served as key speakers during the discussion of this variance application. The request centered on allowing the kennel facility to operate with reduced setbacks from property boundaries, which would typically be required under standard zoning regulations. The board deliberated on the specific circumstances of the property and the nature of the kennel operation. Discussion focused on ensuring appropriate safeguards would be in place to address potential impacts on neighboring properties while allowing the business to function effectively within the reduced setback parameters. Following their review of the application materials and hearing from the speakers, the Board of Adjustment approved the variance request. However, the approval came with specific conditions attached to address operational concerns. The conditions included requirements regarding supervision protocols for the kennel facility and restrictions on the hours of operation. These conditions were designed to mitigate any potential negative impacts on surrounding properties while allowing The Dog Stop to proceed with their planned kennel operation under the reduced setback requirements. The approval enables the business to move forward with their project while maintaining appropriate oversight and operational limitations to protect the interests of the surrounding community. The conditional approval represents a balance between accommodating the business needs of The Dog Stop and ensuring responsible land use practices within the jurisdiction's zoning framework. ## Variance request for Quality Logistics, LLC [timestamp: 03:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-24-00035, a variance request submitted by Quality Logistics, LLC to reduce the required side yard setback for the construction of a solar canopy on their property. Greg Smorstad and Raquel Carter served as the key speakers during the discussion of this agenda item. The applicant sought relief from standard setback requirements to accommodate the proposed solar installation, which would otherwise not be feasible under current zoning regulations. The board examined the specific details of the variance request, including the proposed reduction in side yard setback distances and the justification for the solar canopy project. The discussion focused on whether the request met the necessary criteria for granting a variance, including considerations of hardship, public benefit, and compatibility with surrounding properties. Following their review and deliberation, the board voted to approve the variance request. However, the approval came with specific conditions that Quality Logistics, LLC must meet in order to proceed with the solar canopy construction. These conditions were designed to ensure the project complies with safety standards and maintains compatibility with the surrounding area while allowing the applicant to move forward with their renewable energy installation. The approval of this variance demonstrates the board's willingness to support sustainable energy projects while maintaining appropriate oversight through conditional requirements. ## Conditional use permit expansion for Lexington Country Club [timestamp: 04:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-23-00056, a request to expand the conditional use permit for Lexington Country Club to allow for a building addition. Eric Eaton and Raquel Carter served as key speakers during the discussion of this expansion request. The applicant sought approval to modify their existing conditional use permit to accommodate new construction on the country club property. The board reviewed the proposed building addition and its compliance with existing zoning requirements and conditional use permit parameters. Discussion focused on the scope of the expansion and any potential impacts on the surrounding area. Following deliberation, the board approved the conditional use permit expansion request. The approval came with specific conditions that the applicant must meet as part of the project implementation. The decision allows Lexington Country Club to proceed with their planned building addition under the modified conditional use permit, subject to compliance with the established conditions. ## Conditional use permit amendment for Fairhaven Baptist Church [timestamp: 05:00] The Board of Adjustment reviewed application PLN-BOA-24-00023, a request from Fairhaven Baptist Church to amend their existing conditional use permit to allow construction of a second structure on their property. Jonathan East and Raquel Carter served as key speakers during the discussion of this agenda item. The church sought approval to modify their current conditional use permit to accommodate the proposed additional building. The board deliberated on the amendment request, considering the church's plans for the new structure and how it would fit within the existing conditional use framework. Details of the specific conditions attached to the original permit and how the amendment would affect those requirements were part of the review process. Following discussion, the Board of Adjustment approved the conditional use permit amendment for Fairhaven Baptist Church. The approval came with conditions, though the specific terms of those conditions were not detailed in the available information. This approval allows the church to move forward with their plans for the second structure while ensuring compliance with local zoning requirements and any stipulations set forth by the board. ## Conditional use permit for Kristin Nelson [timestamp: 06:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-24-00026, a conditional use permit request submitted by Kristin Nelson for an un-hosted short-term rental property. Kristin Nelson presented her application to the board, seeking approval to operate a short-term rental without on-site hosting. The specific details of the property location and rental operations were discussed during her presentation. Raquel Carter participated in the discussion, raising concerns about the potential impact of short-term rentals on the local housing market. These concerns reflected broader community discussions about how vacation rentals affect housing availability for permanent residents. Despite the housing market concerns raised during the meeting, the board ultimately voted to approve Nelson's conditional use permit application. The approval came with specific conditions attached, though the exact nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available materials. The decision represents the board's balancing of individual property rights with community concerns about housing availability. Short-term rental applications have become increasingly common agenda items as communities grapple with the effects of vacation rental platforms on local housing markets. The approved permit will allow Nelson to proceed with operating her un-hosted short-term rental property, subject to compliance with the conditions established by the board. ## Conditional use permit for Fincastle LLC [timestamp: 07:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-24-00027, a request by Fincastle LLC for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental property. Key speakers during the discussion included Ben Franzini and Raquel Carter, who presented details about the proposed short-term rental operation and addressed questions from board members. The primary concern raised during deliberations centered on the concentration of existing short-term rentals in the surrounding area. Board members expressed that approving additional short-term rental permits in this location would contribute to an already high density of such properties in the neighborhood. The concentration issue appeared to be the determining factor in the board's decision-making process, as members weighed the potential impact on the residential character of the area and the cumulative effect of multiple short-term rental operations in close proximity. Following discussion and consideration of the application materials and public input, the board voted to deny the conditional use permit request. The denial was based specifically on concerns about the high concentration of short-term rentals already present in the area where the proposed property is located. The outcome means Fincastle LLC will not be permitted to operate the requested un-hosted short-term rental at this location under the current application. ## Conditional use permit for David and Cheryl Lasheen [timestamp: 08:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-24-00029, a conditional use permit request submitted by David and Cheryl Lasheen for an un-hosted short-term rental property. David Lasheen presented the application to the board, providing details about the proposed short-term rental operation. The request involved obtaining the necessary permits to operate a rental property without on-site hosts present during guest stays. Raquel Carter also participated in the discussion, though the specific nature of her involvement and role in the proceedings was not detailed in the available materials. The board conducted their review of the application, examining the proposal against applicable zoning requirements and conditional use permit standards for short-term rental operations. The discussion covered the typical considerations for such applications, including compliance with local regulations governing un-hosted rental properties. Following their deliberation, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit for David and Cheryl Lasheen. The approval came with attached conditions, though the specific terms and requirements of those conditions were not specified in the available documentation. The approved permit will allow the Lasheens to operate their un-hosted short-term rental property in accordance with the established conditions and local regulatory framework governing such businesses. ## Conditional use permit for Jennifer Krimm [timestamp: 09:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-24-00031, a conditional use permit request submitted by Jennifer Krimm for an un-hosted short-term rental operation. Jennifer Krimm presented her application to the board, seeking approval to operate a short-term rental property without on-site hosting. The request involved converting her property for rental use while maintaining compliance with local zoning requirements. Raquel Carter participated in the discussion, though the specific nature of her involvement and role in the proceedings was not detailed in the available materials. During the review process, the board gave particular attention to verifying the primary residence status of the property, which is a key requirement for short-term rental permits in the jurisdiction. This verification was noted as an important factor in the board's consideration of the application. The board ultimately approved Krimm's conditional use permit request, but the approval came with specific conditions attached. While the exact details of these conditions were not specified in the available materials, they likely relate to standard short-term rental operational requirements such as occupancy limits, parking provisions, noise restrictions, and compliance monitoring. The approval allows Krimm to proceed with her un-hosted short-term rental operation, provided she adheres to all stipulated conditions and maintains the property's status as her primary residence as required by local regulations. ## Conditional use permit for Rewa Gardner [timestamp: 10:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-24-00034, a conditional use permit request submitted by Rewa Gardner to operate a home-based cosmetology business. Gardner presented her proposal to the board, outlining her plans for the cosmetology services she intended to provide from her residence. The application sought approval to conduct professional beauty services including hair styling, cutting, and related cosmetology treatments from her home location. Raquel Carter also participated in the discussion, though the specific nature of her involvement was not detailed in the available materials. The board evaluated the request according to standard criteria for home-based business permits, which typically include considerations such as: • Impact on neighborhood traffic and parking • Compliance with residential zoning requirements • Hours of operation • Number of clients served • Signage restrictions • Health and safety standards for cosmetology services Following their review and discussion of the application, the board voted to approve Gardner's conditional use permit request. The approval came with specific conditions that Gardner must follow in operating her home-based cosmetology business, though the exact details of these conditions were not specified in the available documentation. The approval allows Gardner to legally operate her cosmetology business from her residential property while ensuring compliance with local zoning regulations and maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. ## Conditional use permit for Alex Frost [timestamp: 11:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-24-00038, a conditional use permit request submitted by Alex Frost for an un-hosted short-term rental property. Alex Frost presented the application to the board, seeking approval to operate a short-term rental without on-site hosting. The specific details of the property location and rental operations were discussed during the presentation. Raquel Carter participated in the discussion, though the specific nature of her involvement and role in the proceedings was not detailed in the available materials. During deliberations, board members raised concerns about rental density in the area. This issue appears to have been a significant consideration in the review process, suggesting the board was evaluating the cumulative impact of short-term rentals in the neighborhood or district where Frost's property is located. Despite the expressed concerns about rental density, the board ultimately voted to approve the conditional use permit. The approval came with attached conditions, though the specific terms and requirements of these conditions were not specified in the available summary materials. The approval of PLN-BOA-24-00038 allows Alex Frost to proceed with operating the un-hosted short-term rental, subject to compliance with the conditions established by the board. This decision reflects the board's determination that the proposed use, while raising some concerns about area rental concentration, could be appropriately managed through the imposed conditions. ## Conditional use permit for Muvurati Mapigano and Noela Anania [timestamp: 12:00] The board considered application PLN-BOA-24-00008, a request by Muvurati Mapigano and Noela Anania for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental property. Muvurati Mapigano presented the application to the board, seeking approval for the short-term rental operation. The specific details of the property location and proposed rental arrangements were discussed during the presentation. Raquel Carter also participated in the discussion as a key speaker, though the specific nature of her involvement was not detailed in the available materials. The board ultimately denied the conditional use permit application. The decision was based on two primary concerns raised during the deliberations: • **Housing market impact**: Board members expressed concerns about how additional short-term rentals could affect the local housing market and availability of long-term housing options for residents • **Neighborhood character**: The board determined that the proposed un-hosted short-term rental could negatively impact the character and nature of the surrounding neighborhood The denial reflects the board's assessment that the proposed short-term rental operation would not be compatible with community interests and planning objectives. Un-hosted short-term rentals, where property owners rent out their homes without being present during guest stays, often face additional scrutiny from planning boards due to concerns about property management, neighborhood impacts, and effects on local housing stock. This application represents one of several short-term rental requests that planning boards across many communities are grappling with as they balance property owner rights with broader community planning goals and housing policy considerations. ## Conditional use permit for Ethan and Lindsay Jackson [timestamp: 13:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-24-00025, a conditional use permit request submitted by Ethan and Lindsay Jackson for an un-hosted short-term rental operation. Lindsay Jackson presented the application to the board, providing details about the proposed short-term rental use of their property. The request involved operating a rental without on-site hosts present during guest stays. Raquel Carter participated in the discussion, though the specific nature of her involvement and role in the proceedings was not detailed in the available materials. The board evaluated the application according to applicable zoning requirements and conditional use permit standards for short-term rental operations. While the specific conditions imposed were not outlined in the summary materials, the board determined that the proposed use could be approved with appropriate regulatory conditions attached. The conditional use permit for Ethan and Lindsay Jackson's un-hosted short-term rental was approved by the board. The approval includes conditions that the applicants must meet to maintain compliance with the permit, though the specific terms of those conditions were not specified in the available documentation. This approval allows the Jacksons to proceed with their short-term rental operation under the parameters established by the conditional use permit and subject to ongoing compliance with the attached conditions. ## Conditional use permit for James Raynolds [timestamp: 14:00] The board considered application PLN-BOA-24-00037, a conditional use permit request submitted by James Raynolds for an un-hosted short-term rental operation. **Key Speakers:** - James Raynolds (applicant) - Raquel Carter **Discussion and Concerns:** The application faced significant opposition from the surrounding neighborhood. Residents raised concerns about the potential impact of short-term rental activity on the residential character of the area and property values. A critical issue emerged regarding deed restrictions on the property. The board determined that existing deed restrictions would prohibit the proposed short-term rental use, creating a legal impediment to approval of the conditional use permit. **Outcome:** The conditional use permit was **denied** due to two primary factors: - Substantial neighborhood opposition to the proposed short-term rental operation - Existing deed restrictions on the property that would prevent the intended use The denial means James Raynolds cannot operate an un-hosted short-term rental at the subject property under the current application. The applicant would need to address the deed restriction issues and potentially seek different approval pathways if they wish to pursue short-term rental operations in the future. ## Administrative appeal for Chris Johnson [timestamp: 15:00] The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-24-00030, an administrative appeal filed by Chris Johnson challenging the planning department's refusal to issue zoning compliance permits for five short-term rental properties. Chris Johnson presented his appeal, arguing that the planning department's denial was improper and that his properties should be eligible for the requested zoning compliance permits. The appeal centered on the interpretation of zoning regulations as they apply to short-term rental operations. Raquel Carter also participated in the discussion, though the specific nature of her involvement and position on the appeal was not detailed in the available materials. The Board deliberated on the merits of Johnson's challenge to the planning department's decision. The discussion focused on whether the original denial was justified under current zoning regulations and compliance requirements for short-term rental properties. After consideration of the arguments presented, the Board voted to approve Johnson's appeal, but with conditions attached. The specific conditions imposed by the Board were not detailed in the summary materials, but the approval means Johnson will be able to proceed with obtaining zoning compliance permits for his five short-term rental properties, subject to meeting the Board's specified requirements. This decision effectively overturns the planning department's original refusal and allows the short-term rental permits to move forward in the approval process, contingent upon Johnson's compliance with the conditions set by the Board of Appeals. ## Early rehearing request for Mike Adams [timestamp: 16:00] The board considered an early rehearing request for case PLN-BOA-23-00107 submitted by Mike Adams regarding a conditional use permit for short-term rental operations. Mike Adams presented his request for an early rehearing, citing substantial changes to the property that warranted reconsideration of the previous board decision. The original conditional use permit application had been previously reviewed by the board, but Adams argued that significant modifications to the property conditions justified reopening the case ahead of the standard rehearing timeline. Raquel Carter participated in the discussion, though the specific nature of her involvement in the case was not detailed in the available materials. The board evaluated whether the changes to the property were substantial enough to merit granting the early rehearing request, which would allow Adams to present his case again before the typical waiting period expired. After reviewing the request and considering the evidence of substantial property changes, the board voted to approve the early rehearing request. This decision allows Adams to proceed with a new hearing on his conditional use permit application for short-term rental operations, taking into account the modified property conditions that have occurred since the original application was considered. The approval of the early rehearing request means the case will be scheduled for a future board meeting where Adams can present his revised application with the updated property information. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-24-00012** — postponed (6-0): Postpone variance request for Jeromie R. Kirk - **PLN-BOA-24-00032** — passed (4-2): Approve variance request for Eric Shockey and Christa Burrows - **PLN-BOA-24-00033** — passed (6-0): Approve variance request for The Dog Stop - **PLN-BOA-24-00035** — passed (6-0): Approve variance request for Quality Logistics, LLC - **PLN-BOA-23-00056** — passed (6-0): Approve conditional use permit expansion for Lexington Country Club - **PLN-BOA-24-00023** — passed (6-0): Approve conditional use permit amendment for Fairhaven Baptist Church - **PLN-BOA-24-00026** — passed (4-2): Approve conditional use permit for Kristin Nelson - **PLN-BOA-24-00027** — failed (3-3): Disapprove conditional use permit for Fincastle LLC - **PLN-BOA-24-00029** — passed (6-0): Approve conditional use permit for David and Cheryl Lasheen - **PLN-BOA-24-00031** — passed (6-0): Approve conditional use permit for Jennifer Krimm - **PLN-BOA-24-00034** — passed (6-0): Approve conditional use permit for Rewa Gardner - **PLN-BOA-24-00038** — passed (4-2): Approve conditional use permit for Alex Frost - **PLN-BOA-24-00008** — passed (6-0): Disapprove conditional use permit for Muvurati Mapigano and Noela Anania - **PLN-BOA-24-00025** — passed (6-0): Approve conditional use permit for Ethan and Lindsay Jackson - **PLN-BOA-24-00037** — failed (3-3): Disapprove conditional use permit for James Raynolds - **PLN-BOA-24-00030** — passed (6-0): Approve administrative appeal for Chris Johnson - **PLN-BOA-23-00107** — passed (6-0): Approve early rehearing request for Mike Adams --- ## Full transcript And understand they still are open homicides that we are actively investigating and want information on. But yes, there's a portion of the website that will allow someone to provide information. They can type up something as simple as, you know, they were there, they know a suspect, they saw this, they heard that. There's an option for it to be anonymous. Obviously, we as investigators would like for that person that's submitting that tip to at least provide some way that we can contact them to ask any follow-up questions. But with the unsolved homicides particularly, any information is helpful. So, yes, there is a portion of the website that is dedicated to tips and information and that sort of thing. So as we take a look at the website and see how to enter the tips, what are some of the specifics that you really would like folks to let us know? The biggest thing is that if for some reason when the homicide occurred, if they've never spoken to a police officer and they have information that they think is relevant or is important, even if it's something that they may not think is important, it could be huge to us. we would just like that person to reach out. If they've spoken to the police before about the homicide, we, again, going back and re-interviewing witnesses is crucial in most homicide investigations, especially the unsolved homicides. If an extended period of time has passed and they provided any information to the police department, if their contact number has changed, anything pertinent to the investigation that is going to assist us in bringing some closure and justice to the victims' families in these cases. That's the type of information we want. I don't want to say that, well, this information isn't helpful. I don't want that. No. We will kind of sift through what information is helpful, what may can be put on the back burner and say, ah, that doesn't kind of go along with what we already know. We just want information. Okay. So not only can folks put the tips in this website, but they can also go to the Crime Stoppers website. So let's take a look about down that road. So we are back, and we are here with Detective Kristen Klinscher with Crime Stoppers. And Crime Stoppers is under the chief's office, correct? It is. So tell us a little bit about yourself and how you became to be in that position. So I've been with the department for about 10 years. Of course, I started on patrol. After patrol, I went to personal crimes, which is the robbery homicide unit. You can see different parts of town, but have programming closer to them sometimes. So like we're at Artworks right now, but I came over and played some games with you all in the Kenwick Community Center in my district. So I really value that about this program and how you kind of expose folks to different areas. And we want to make sure that we are serving our community that way and that we are giving our participants who might not have an opportunity to mix and mingle in a different community setting the opportunity to do that. So any of our parks facilities, you will see our programs going on there. Any of our open parks, you'll see our summer camps. We also go to non-park related facilities, too, to offer programs. We do a bowling program at Southland Lanes and we do a swimming program at the YMCA. And so we look for opportunities like that. And like I said, I have the coolest job in the city. It's certainly a fun one. It is. So thank you for all that you do for the families and our community. And thank you all for watching our video today. Thank you. Hello and thank you for joining me on this segment of my council comment. I'm 9th District Council Member Whitney Elliott Baxter and today I am joined by our Fayette County Clerk, Susan Lamb. Thanks for joining me. Thank you for having me. Of course. So there's a lot of really exciting things happening in the county clerk's office and I just wanted to share it with the public so that everybody kind of knew what was going on. Well, thank you. Yeah, so recently we had a presentation, the council had a presentation on something called the Digital Access Project. Can you tell me a little bit about that? Sure, sure. It is a very unique opportunity that we are actually collaborating with the University of Kentucky, and we have lots of students and also community partners that they're going back in the records, and they are actually looking at a lot of information and trying to catalog it, And it really is, it has a lot of important information about genealogy and, you know, slaves and different contexts. It's really interesting. It's very important to go to our website and to be able to look at this. And you mentioned the project, the presentation yesterday. It was outstanding as well. It's going to be able to give you much more depth of information. I actually had an opportunity to go and look at the scanners they were using to scan these massive historical records. And it's just such a cool project and really a great opportunity for our community to research their past and the history of Lexington. So thank you for being involved in that project. Absolutely, yes. And it actually has connected us to other countries as well where people have their beginnings in Kentucky. And so it's actually going to build many more bridges than we can even talk about today for the future of our community. That's awesome. I'm really super excited about that project, and we'll link more information as well. So we have a new vehicle registration system, and it's replaced something that's been around for a very long time. Can you talk to me a little bit about the CAVIS system and why we switched and the benefits to the community? Sure, sure, absolutely. So the CAVIS system, and CAVIS stands for the Kentucky Automated Vehicle Information System, and while we had the former system was called AVIS, and it was installed in like 1979, and anybody that looks at technology from 1979 and thinks that we're still in 2024 now and it was still functioning was just purely a miracle. So as you can imagine, the system had to be replaced. Well, it took probably about 20 years to actually figure out how to transition 350 million records in the state of Kentucky. Lexington County actually has over 212,000 vehicles in our system, in the system. So they basically had to go in and create a system, and this is a more customer-centric system. Eventually it will be that way. Right now it has been a little bit of a rough patch. As you can imagine, you move over 350 million records into a new system, there are going to be glitches. There's going to be bugs. Some people's addresses didn't translate. There were insurance, proof of insurance verifications. They didn't translate. There have been numerous things. The first three weeks here in our office, there were lots of things that we weren't able to provide to our customers. So luckily, over time and a lot of collaboration with Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and the CAVIS team, we have actually been able to move past a lot of bugs and glitches, and we actually are seeing a new normal, thank goodness, with less lines and less stressed people to be able to get their registration renewals. The other thing that we did during this time, because we had to shut down for two weeks at the end of December and the first part of January, So we actually, as a state, have actually taken and removed the penalties and interest for both December renewals and January renewals because we had such complications with the system that we felt like it was only fair that if you were a December renewal or a January renewal that you would not be penalized because of a new system. That was really nice. It has truly been a difficult situation, and I have used the word patience a lot more than I've ever in my entire life. And we still continue to ask people to have patience. We still in Fayette County, we're about 13 days behind with our dealer work and our mail-in, typically in our office. before we transition into this new system, if you mailed in or you did a web renewal, you would usually get your motor vehicle registration back in the mail within seven days. It's taken a little bit longer right now, but eventually we're going to be back into the new normal and we'll be back on schedule. But it's probably going to take us through about March to be able to get back to the new normal. Okay. Does this new system allow the public to do more online? Right. Are there more online capabilities with this, or is this more streamlined? Actually, the benefit that we're going to see is going to be behind the scenes. Okay. The customers really aren't going to see any different facing on the website or when they come in to our counters. Basically, what the old system was, what they refer to as the old green screens. And if you had five vehicles in your possession, you would have to go to five different screens to see each of and renew each of those vehicles. In this new system, all five vehicles will be listed on one screen, and then they're going to marry them all together so that in the future that it's a one-stop shop. Okay. So maybe cut down on waiting in line. It will. It will eventually. Efficiency of the office. Technically, they have said it could take up to a year for us to maneuver through all of the nuances and get everything to be married together. Okay. So it's just a lot of patience. Well, we appreciate you all updating your systems, and I'm sure that with any new technology, efficiencies will come out of it. So I really appreciate all the hard work that your staff has put in. Absolutely. So I want to shift gears a little bit because this is a big year. It's election year, presidential election year. And I want to talk about some dates as it pertains to voting. Can you tell me a little bit, go over the dates, voter registration deadlines, if people want to change their party, things like that. What are the deadlines that we're looking at this year? Sure. Sure. Well, if you're wanting to vote in the primary, the deadline to change your party is already passed. Okay. It was December 31st. Okay. So, but if you still want to register to vote for the primary, the deadline for that is April 22nd at 4 o'clock. And the important thing is, is you go to the website govote.ky.gov, and you can go in and register to vote. We're excited this year. We are actually, we partnered last year with the libraries. Well, this year, I'm really so excited because we are actually going to have early voting at every single library in Fayette County. That's great news. And we also, in addition to the normal precincts, we're not taking any of the precincts away, but we are also going to have a vote center at each of the libraries on Election Day. Oh, wow. So, I mean, this is huge. So early voting, and I always have to look at my dates on this, we have in-person absentee voting that you have to have a qualifying excuse. That is May 8th through May 10th, May 13th through the 15th, and that is here in our office. It's on the second floor. You would go to our election department and sign in, and then you would go down to our conference room. But there are eight qualifying excuses, and that is, You can see that information on the GoVote, ky.gov website as well. Now, early voting this year is May 16th, 17th, and 18th. Just like I said, it's at every single library, including Central Library downtown. So we can walk down the street. We can walk down the street. And we can vote at the library. And that is from 830 to 430 for the early voting. And then, of course, Election Day is May 21st, and it's from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and that will be the operational hours for the precincts as well as the early voting at the libraries. Okay. So a lot of people are probably like me and really love the day of voting. What are some of the benefits to the community to vote early? You know, it's a preference. I mean, early voting all started because people needed to be able to, if they were going to be out of town or if they had some type of surgery scheduled or if they had a family matter. You know, that's how it all started. But then the conveniences of less lines on voting day. And I understand something I've learned since being in this position just a little over a year now. I had no idea of the nature of the importance of going to your precinct to vote. It's a very special thing that's ingrained in our DNAs. And I think it's really important to understand that, which I have learned. You know, prior to me coming into this office, I had always voted at my precinct. I never went to early voting. I always voted at my, and I took great pride in doing that. So I really appreciate and value that. But I also want people to know that if you can't get off work or if you do have some other circumstance, there are multiple ways to be able to cast your vote. And at the end... I know you just have to wait. Just trust in the good time. No matter how long it takes. How many heartaches must I stand before I find the love to let me live again? Right now the only thing that keeps me hanging on. When I feel my strength, it's almost gone. Remember mama said hurry love No you just have to wait She said love don't come easy It's a game of give and take How long is the way How much more must I take Before loneliness That cause my heart, heartbreak No I can't beg To live my life alone A motivation for love To call my own But when I feel that I, I can't go on Well, these precious words keep me hanging on I remember mama said, can't help me not No, you just have to wait She said, love, don't come easy Well, it's a game of give and take You can't help me not No, you just have to wait Just trust in the girl's eye No matter how long it takes And I break Now love, love It doesn't come easy But I can Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the room. Thank you. okay it looks like the time has clicked just past 1 31 so i will now call the meeting to order um i am chairman raquel carter and what we will do first is i will um our board has already had an opportunity to review the minutes and if so and if they're okay we will i will entertain a motion to approve the minutes so moved thank you second all right i have a first and a second if there's no further discussion i will open for vote mr clark i'm sorry that's fine i'm going to blame everything on the eclipse today so no no trouble Mr. Clark? Mr. Clark? That's okay. Okay, the motion to approve the minutes have passed. Has passed. And that was actually the easiest part of today. So first of all, I do want to make sure that everyone has had an opportunity to sign up outside on the iPad. What we'll do first is swear the witnesses. So anyone that is planning to speak, I will swear you in. Secondly, I will sound the agenda. And we have a large agenda today, a lot of cases, so I will move quickly. If anyone needs me to slow down or has any additional questions, please just raise your hand a little bit. we want to make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak that would like to but we also want to be very conscientious of our time and move effectively and efficiently so if you do plan to speak today either as an applicant or for or against a particular case if i can have you stand at this time and if i could have you raise your right hand please and repeat after me you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth today okay thank you now i will run through the cases um plnboa 24-12 that's jeremy kirk is the applicant present jeremy kirk it sounds like we received an email from them that they would not be able to be here today know how you all want to handle that you may want to postpone that let me ask so this one has been recommended for approval is there anyone here to speak in opposition I think we'll still just hear it first okay the next item is plnboa 24-32 that's eric shockey and krista burrows the applicants present thank you is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this particular item okay that has been recommended for approval so you will be heard second then we have pln boa 24-33 the dog stop is the applicant present is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this particular item okay it has been recommended for approval so you will be heard third today the next item is plnboa 24-35 quality logistics is the applicant present do we have anyone in opposition of this item today all right looks like you'll be number four and under under our conditional uses the first item is plnboa 23-56 lexington country club is the applicant present and we do have this supplemented it has been a recommended for approval do we have anyone here to speak in opposition of this particular item looks like you'll be number five then we have pln boa 24-8 that's mr mapagano mapagano and miss ananiya i'm sorry thank you sir is there this one has been recommended for disapproval so we will hear the case so that'll be first on the herd docket Then we have PLN BOA 24-23 Fairhaven Baptist Church. Is the applicant present? Thank you. This has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone to speak in opposition today? So you will be number six in the first set of cases. I'm going to mess up my... Okay, then we have PLN BOA 24-25, Ethan and Lindsey Jackson. Applicants present? Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of that case? Can I put my phone down for a meeting? Yes, you can. Okay. So that will be number two on the H.E.R.D. docket. Then we have PLN BOA 24-26 Kristen Nelson. Is the applicant present? Okay. That has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this case? Okay. That makes you number seven. you know who's keeping my numbers brandon are you keeping my numbers no one helps me okay plnboa 24-27 fincastle llc is the applicant present this one has been recommended for approval do we have any opposition to this particular case will be number eight then we have PLN BOA 24-28 New Life Baptist Church is the applicant present and if you come forward just a quick moment please good afternoon if you state your name for the record Steve Wainwright thank you this has been recommended for a postponement right are we comfortable with that yes ma'am do we need a motion to postpone this case till next month if so i will entertain a motion madam chair i recommend postponement of plnboa 24-28 of new life baptist church as recommended thank you miss plumley has offered a second and we will open for vote wonderful the motion is passed we'll see you next month thank you all righty we have plnboa 24-29 david and cheryl lachine are the applicants present this one has been recommended for approval do we have anyone in opposition today i think that makes us number nine okay then we have pln boa 24-31 jennifer jennifer crim is the applicant present all right and this one has been recommended for approval do we have anyone in opposition today we'll be lucky number 10 We have PLN BOA 24-34, Rua Gardner. Good morning. This one has been recommended for approval. Do we have anyone in opposition today? All right. I believe that's number 11, if I'm counting correctly. Then I have PLN BOA 24-36, Dustin and Lauren Gage. Are the applicants present? And this one, the staff has recommended postponement. They did indicate via email that they were agreeable to a postponement, so they may not have realized that they needed to be here today. In this particular item, the staff needed some additional clarification on. So I will entertain a motion to postpone. Madam Chair, I move for postponement of PLNBOA 24-36, Dustin and Laura Cage. Request for conditioning is for bed and breakfast, so move. Clark is a first. Ms. Plumlee has offered a second. we will vote i'm missing oh mr clark that's okay all right we will hear this one again next month the next item is plnboa 24-37 james reynolds the applicant is present it has been recommended for approval do we have anyone in opposition of this particular item we do have one okay that will make us number five on the hurt docket okay then i have plnboa 24-38 alex frost is the applicant present this one has been recommended for approval is there anyone in opposition of this item today okay put that at number something i think 12-ish Okay, so then on PLN BOA 24-39 Lexington Islamic Center, is the applicant present? I could speak to this briefly. My name is Matt Carter. I'm with Vision Engineering. The applicant, he would like to postpone this for one month. got they're they're looking at doing a new layout so we would have to resubmit a new site plan okay thank you if the board chooses i'll take a motion to postpone madam chair move postponement of pln boa 2439 lexington assembly center for one month thank you and i think ms coker was that your second yep so we have a first and a second we will take a vote is that everybody no ms plummer there we go thank you then i have administrative appeal number pln boa 24-30 chris johnson is the applicant present okay and we will this one will be heard i think it's maybe six or five six the staff will present first on that particular item and then we have a rehearing request for PLN BOA 23-107 Mike Adams this applicant present and that will be looks like number seven okay now we can start the first item on the docket is plnboa 24-12 jeremy kirk did jeremy ever nope okay well this particular item is a variance to increase the allowable width of the driveway from 10 foot to 20 feet it has been recommended for approval has the board had an opportunity to review and if there are questions that would cause us to postpone this we can if it seems clear i'd say we go ahead and move forward miss tucker your mic's not on i just had a question about the garage if you know anything about that because it says proposed garage and the garage is already there the garage is currently under construction i believe they did receive sorry they did receive a building permit for the garage and it was not caught at that time that the garage was so close that a driveway to that garage would would require a variance um so so the garage itself is perfectly fine um the only thing that you're reviewing is whether or not the variance is appropriate but the garage is i think mostly constructed if not all the the way. And do you know if the garage is just going to be used for a garage or is it going to be used for? I believe it has some storage space. There may be some finished space attached to the garage, but it's not an accessory dwelling unit or anything like that. It's just additional finished space. Okay, thank you. Any further questions of staff? madam chair we don't at least to my recollection um normally approve matters when the applicant doesn't attend especially since there are conditions and they haven't agreed to them on the record so i would prefer to postpone to next month that's just my my feeling on it move i move postponement of plnboa 2412 jeremy r kirk for one month looks like mr stutter that All righty, that motion has passed. I wish I maybe would have waited until then to make sure Jeremy didn't show up, but if so, someone holler at me. Okay. So the next item. Real quick. britney um if he does show up since there's no um buddy here in opposition um could we could we could reconsider our motion he doesn't plan to show up oh okay there we go boom yes yeah okay there yeah he's watching the eclipse so just don't blame everything on that today so pln boa 24-32 eric shockey and krista burrows okay this particular item has been recommended for approval let's see we do have one concern comment there's uh has been one comment just with some concern about the bamboo planter and then a concern about the sewer hookup from a neighbor if you had yeah we plan to have a liner for the bamboo planter and we kind of chose bamboo to grow quickly because of the weeds in the alley and in the adjoining lots sorry we plan to have a liner for the bamboo planter so it can't spread and there are sort of rules about that about going 32 to 36 inches deep and we chose bamboo for it to grow quickly because there's a bad weed situation in sort of that corner of the lot and the weeds grow up to 10 feet every year so we want to get above that as quickly as possible and then the other concern was about the sewer hookup when we met with this the staff and autumn we didn't think that we'd be able to hook up to any sewer line in dixon alley we didn't there wasn't a sewer line in dixon alley on the map so that was never part of the plan okay and you are mr shockey correct mr shock sorry i'm moving too quickly and submit if i could ask a question when you say bamboo planter it's not not going to be in the ground it's going to be it will dig the ground out and put a liner around and breeze soil it and put bamboo in there okay autumn is that permitted underneath our planning guidelines bamboo I don't think that the planting manual would apply in a situation where it's a single-family dwelling unit for personal landscaping I don't know that that's something that would be approved for say a required buffer for zone design screening or something like that but in this case I don't think that there's any issue okay we've seen bamboo in yards oh god I have to but I would not recommend any evasive species for plantings right honeysuckle is once ornamental now it's a nuisance so that's just my soapbox I had a question about how many people between the house and the garage when you increase the when you construct the addition on there is going to be on the property and I guess my concern is with parking yeah it looks like Dixon Electric has lift trucks that kind of go up and down the street and then there's I think the section that you're talking about is that where the blue truck is is that where the one sorry there's a blue truck sitting there on a concrete pad or something there's I don't think that there's a oh it's yeah in that's our truck okay so my concern is not having enough parking spaces for the people who are going to be in the residence yeah so on the other side of the alley I think it's part of Dixon Electric's property they have parking there and the apartments around in our vicinity the residents usually park there we park in the garage and then next to the garage but we also can park on one side in front of the garage there's a setback enough for that and so basically street parking and other parking in the alley so how many people between the house and the structure do you think will be living in that area just my wife and I and the house and then we have like renter lined up that's a husband and wife potentially and that that would be the maximum type deal I think that's all that we're allowed for an accessory dwelling unit is is a two unrelated adults and any of their children so you're thinking maybe three vehicles excuse me sorry so you're thinking maybe three vehicles yeah three or four because they only have one yeah okay thank you thank you do we have any other questions of the applicant and there were two conditions that were listed did you have opportunity to review those yeah the setback is being applied for because we are building on top of the existing garage and the existing garage is in that setback we're not going to exceed the footprint of the existing garage it's just going to build a second story on top of it and then the FAR is is the low 0.35 I think FAR for the zoning and so we're extending that to 0.7 to accommodate any future you know because we want to kind of do some alterations to the house in the future and so just accommodating anything we would ever want to do would all be under that 0.7 so. Thank you. Any further questions of the applicant? If not I will entertain a a motion madam chair I'm going to move to approve PLN VOA 24-3 to Eric Schocke and Krista Burroughs request for variance to reduce the required setback along an alley from 15 feet to 7 feet and the variance to increase the allow of a floor area from 0.35 to 0.7 in order to construct additions to the principal structure and the detached accessory structure within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a mixed low-density residential R2 zone on property located at 505 West Third Street based upon the staff's report testimony herein is subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Thank you and mr sturdivant has offered a second any further discussion we'll take a vote your motion is passed good luck with the project okay the next item is plnboa 24-33 the dog stop This has been recommended for approval and there are four conditions that have been listed. Have you had an opportunity to review those? Yes I have. Are you comfortable with those? Yes I am. The quiet hours, the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.? And is this actually a kennel? Kennel, daycare, grooming, training, and retail. Could we have the applicant state his name for the record please? Oh I'm sorry. My name is Blake Hendricks. Thank you. okay so like hendrix thank you and do we have any questions of mr hendrix i'm trying to move too quick and i'm forgetting everything there are no questions or concerns i'll entertain a motion madam chair i recommend approval of plnboa 24-33 the dog stop request for a variance to reduce the required setback for a kennel from a residential zone from 100 feet to 21 feet in a split zone highway service business zone and single family residential zone properly located at 31 20 richmond road based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed thank you and ms tucker has offered a second it's like the motion is passed the next item is pln boa 24-35 quality logistics We'll please state your name for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Greg Smorstad with Banks Engineering. Thank you. Now, this item has been recommended for approval. There are four conditions that have been listed, including an encroachment agreement mentioned and the final development plan. Have you had an opportunity to review those? Yes, we're okay with those conditions. Just out of curiosity, I'd like to ask if you're actually going to use the electricity from the canopy and how are you going to use it? Yes, so there will be some electric vehicle chargers underneath this canopy, so it will go to that. And then anything additional will actually be put back into the building usage as well. How much electricity is this supposed to generate? That's a great question. I'm not sure though. I don't know what the, I don't know. Do you think most of it will be used by the charged electric cars? What they're thinking is there's going to be extra left over to help offset some of their utility bills as well. Thank you. My only comment, this is not directed to you, it's directed to staff. It'd be nice if we could, if the Planning Commission could possibly look at a way to make something like this an accessory rather than needing a conditional use because I know we're trying to shade our parking lots. It is an accessory use it just requires a variance because it's an accessory structure within a required side yard. Maybe we can work with some way for this not to be quoted as structure. Since we're trying to keep the sun off our parking lots I think this is a great opportunity for people to be able to install these. It'd be nice if we wouldn't have to go through this process and good luck with your the encroachment process have you been through it before i have not okay you you won't enjoy it yeah so well that's unfortunately for this site where the solar study that has been done um it you know it kind of dictates where this canopy needs to sit to kind of maximize the solar orientation um and that just so happens to to cause some other problems for us down the line. So with just the easement, encroachment, and the building line and stuff like that. So we've got a few other things to take care of on this one as well. It can easily take you six months to get through that process. So put that in your schedule. Thank you. There are no other questions. I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I hereby move to approve PLN BOA 24-35 quality logistics request for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 12 feet to 7 feet in order to construct an accessory solar canopy in a parking lot in a professional office zone on property located at 2376 Sir Barton Way based upon staff's report testimony here and subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Thank You Mr. Gross. It looks like Mr. Sturdivant has offered a second. We are now open for vote. Wonderful. Motion is passed. Good luck. Thank you all. The next item is PLN BOA 23-56 Lexington Country Club. That's the supplement for everyone. Good afternoon to the board. I'm Eric Eaton on behalf of LCC. Eric, did you sign in? I did, I think. Did I miss it? I'm probably missing it. You so here. Oh, there. Thank you. Thank you. And this has been recommended for approval, and there are three conditions that have been listed opportunity to review yes yes we are agreeable with those conditions wonderful just because we did just get the amended report do you mind to briefly let us know what the project is sure the project contemplates a 912 square foot expansion on an existing building out on the premises the existing building to be expanded on 9,800 square foot. The building will have the same characteristics and likenesses as the other buildings on the property, and there's not expected to be any changes in membership or hours of operation or anything like that with the contemplated project. The project hadn't been completed or started yet, of course, because we're pending board approval. Once completed, the project will be about 200 to 300 feet away from Parris Pike. Back in time, about 20 years ago, LCC was here for additional improvements that were approved by the board. Since then, the vegetation along Parris Pike has matured and grown significantly such that you can't hardly see any of the buildings and you won't see the proposed construction once completed due to those uh that vegetation that that naturally barricades paris pike from the building we met with the paris pike corridor commission earlier today that unanimously approved the proposal wonderful do we have any questions of the applicant I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chairman, I make a motion for approval for PLNBOA 056 Lexington Country Club. I request to expand an existing cultural conditional use permit for an outdoor recreational facility in order to construct a building addition in a single-family residential zone on property located at 2550 Parris Pike, based on the approval of the planning staff and in accordance with the recommendations for the three conditions that are listed. Thank you. And Ms. Plumlee has offered a second. open for vote and there we go motion is passed good luck with the project thank you very much y'all have a nice day all right the next item is plnboa 24-23 fair haven baptist church the applicant will come forward please Thank you. State your name for the record. Jonathan East. Thank you. This has been recommended for approval, and there are two conditions that have been listed. had an opportunity to review that yes and we were agreeable to him we did receive one letter of opposition we'll take a quick look at it looks like it's a contiguous part have you had an opportunity to see this i have not 2212 chase moore court president general confirms did anyone have a discuss with the applicant or have any questions I'll give him just a moment. No, I'll entertain a motion. Okay. Madam Chair, I hereby move for approval of PLNBOA 24-23, Bear Haven Baptist Church request to amend a conditional use permit in order to construct a second structure at an existing place of religious assembly in an agricultural urban zone on property located at 2265 Liberty Road. based upon the staff's report and the subject of the conditions set forth therein. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee has offered a second. If there's no further discussion, we'll open for vote. Motion is passed. Good luck with the project. Thank you kindly. All right, so we have PLN BOA 24-26, Kristen Nelson. The applicant will come forward, please. State your name for the record. I'm Kristen Nelson. This has been recommended for approval, and there are four conditions that have been listed. had you had the opportunity to review those conditions i have and they do include a limit of no more than six individuals and all appropriate licensing yes does the board have any questions regarding this item i have a question yes please how long have you owned this property we purchased it in the 1st of August. Thank you. Is there a letter of objection to, let's see here. I think the ones on Granicus are different. I think they're the wrong ones. Thank you. I'm sorry we're just catching up with some public. No, I am as well. Sorry, I haven't seen us, so that's fair. Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant? I do have a quick question. and it says parking for the use will be accommodated in front of the unit. Could you explain that to them? So if you look at the site map, there is a driveway that would accommodate one vehicle, and then there's also street parking and things with only six people allowed there. I've never had a parking problem. I've always been able to park in the driveway and not had an issue with parking. I appreciate the concerns brought forth in the letters. I was unfortunately unaware that I needed to request those, so I apologize. But I'm grateful for that. I wanted to just touch base looking at that specific street, Aspen Street. If you look at home ownership on that particular street, there are 18 homes on that lane. Seven of them are owner-occupied. One is requesting a short-term rental. That's me. And there are nine long-term rentals on that street. And a property just sold, and I'm not sure what the future buyer of that is. So as I think about neighborhoods and things, I personally maintain yard work, clean. I'm there regularly. I have met a few of the neighbors and introduced myself. I appreciate their concerns. This is a really dense neighborhood. I think I sent over 150 notifications within 500 feet of this neighborhood. and so I would love to know the residents here. I do appreciate the one that is directly across the street. I know their concerns. I would equally have them. I live within two miles of the residents. Like I said, I'm there regularly, multiple times during the week, and things. We purchased this. my husband and I both have single mothers who are aging and we needed just some options. They live out of the area and needed a place in case we needed them to be closer that had a main floor master bedroom with a bathroom. So are there any other questions or concerns? I was concerned about the parking as well because you do, you look like you're one of the lucky people who do have a space in front of your house. It looks like most of the rest of the houses don't have. They don't. And if we want to talk parking and go there, we can go there with some of the visitor parking. The residents themselves seem to be able to park in the driveway, but there is a lot of visitors at a particular home that have quite a few vehicles and things. They don't park in front of my home, but they do park around the corner and things and stuff. do have a picture of if you wanted i am happy to provide a picture of what the street looks like that i took with everybody must have been gone the visitors were definitely gone um there's ample parking any other concerns or questions If not, I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move approval of PLNBOA 24-26, Kristen Nelson, request for conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone, a property located at 1205 Aspen Street, based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you. Madam Chair, may I comment? Yes. thank you do we need to have a second then comment i'm sorry my my comment would at this time would be that this house sold for 280 000 on at the end of july of 23 so that just again uh as we've kind of got a track record of taking housing off the market for permanent residents and i i just want to again state that that this is a house that could be for permanent residence in lexington thank you thank you okay any further comments no not we're open for vote yeah we uh mr growth second thank you the motion is passed good luck with your project thank you oh it's on the herd case yeah we have not skipped it we haven't gotten to that one yet um yeah no we do them in a different order after the sounding of the agenda so the next item is plnboa 24-27 fincastle llc Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Ben Franzini, owner of Fincastle with my wife Elizabeth. I'm sorry, will you speak up just more? Sure. My name is Ben Franzini. Is that better? Let's see here. Oh, there you go. All righty, this has been recommended for approval, and there are four conditions that have been listed. Have you had the opportunity to review those? I have reviewed those, and we're okay with those conditions. I have a question. Yes, sir. It says the applicant indicates they will obtain permits to allow two additional on-street parking places on Maxwell Street. So, yeah, so there are two dedicated spots directly in front of the townhouse that are part of the townhouse parking lot. And then per the Maxwell parking ordinance, we are eligible to get parking passes for visitors for Maxwell Street parking. We have not done that yet. We rarely have one or rarely have two vehicles, but we do plan to do that. Currently, we say maximum of two cars are allowed on the listing. Is that, is, there's only parking on the north side of the street on Maxwell, right? It's across the street? North side, correct. Yes, yes. One side. So the permits would be pertaining to the north side of Maxwell? I believe so. We have not, we have not gotten those permits yet. But, yeah, that's where the Maxwell Street parking permits are for. Is that permit only on that other side of the street? It is. Is there a maximum when they don't give any more permit? Does it first come, first serve? That's a good question. I'm not sure if there's a cap or it's just the way on another street it was two per household. I'd say, yeah, it's been a while since I've had permanent parking, but when I lived on Malt Mullen, there were so many per house, and you had to show with a lease or something that you were somehow occupying or owning it to submit the rules of change. That was 20 years ago. But, yeah, you couldn't just get 20 of them. There was kind of a limitation. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I just had a question so this is like a townhouse and so you have you're kind of in the middle so your walls are going to be kind of shared with your neighbors on either side correct okay and then you're wanting eight people in roughly 1,200 square foot? Yeah, so it's two bedrooms, and the formula based on the short-term rental unit, that's the way it calculated out for the license. And this is just a comment. And it looks like that there are 39 STRs already within 1,000 feet of this one. So I would probably not vote for this. Any other questions? Thank you. I just have a question with curiosity. two bedrooms and eight people, where do they all sleep? There are two queen beds in the bedrooms, then there's an air bed, and there's a pull-out couch in the living room. And that could be a staff question. Will you let us know the calculation again, the review of the calculation? The calculation is two individuals per bedroom plus four, up to 12. Yeah, actually on the listing we say max of six, but the calculation when we submitted it we went by that formula because eight would obviously be very too tight. So just to piggyback a little bit on what Ms. Tucker said, I do think that we will see the higher density in the downtown tourist areas where there are more attractions i mean that is in our downtown university within that corridor so i do think that we'll see the higher percentage of the strs there that makes sense to me anyway okay any other questions if not i will entertain a motion i'm going to make a motion for disapproval of pln boa 24 27. do you have conditions um yeah because there's too many in the area we could take like a five-minute recess if you wanted to make that motion okay okay we'll take a brief recess only fresh vegetables we're only talking fresh vegetables okay all righty okay i'm making a motion to disapprove plmboa 24 27 pincastle llc request for a short-term use permit to operate a short-term rental based on the following the vicinity has a high concentration of short-term rentals 20.2 percent of the properties used for residential purposes within a thousand feet of the property and the area has a high volume of traffic and limited on-street parking thus the requested use would have an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood and miss plumley has offered a second no further discussion we'll open for a vote So in this case, the motion fails, and it looks like we have a tie. So in that case, the application just fails as a whole, and he could bring it back perhaps if there's been substantial change, but there's really nothing else that can be done on this board. Unless you want to discuss further and someone changes their mind. Could I make any comments? What question? Yes. Am I allowed to make any comments? Yes, please. So first of all, on the occupancy of eight, I'd be glad to take it to six. That was based purely on the formula. We listed it at six. That's what we would list it at. The formula on the spreadsheet for short-term rental licensing had bedrooms plus four, so I just plugged in the numbers, and that's what I put on the application. So I'd be glad to take it to six. that's no problem at all if that has any impact so in the event that would be freeable someone would make a new motion or not if somebody wants to make a motion to approve based on what the applicant has offered that as a condition then you could try that and take it for a vote. And if you still have a tie, then it just fails. Anyone interested in another motion or is this one failing? Yeah, I'm still supportive of the application, so if one of the no votes is supportive now, I'll make the motion. But if not, we'll just move on. Is the reduction for six helpful for anyone? I'm sorry sir motion fail okay should we talk to do we need some clarification Did we ask the question to Steph? Can we, from legal, if we can have some clarification? Well, I'm wondering if we disapproved the motion, the applicant still, we disapproved her motion, but we didn't vote whether the application can be approved or not. We didn't vote on the application, we voted on the negative. So I'm a little concerned that we didn't ask for whether it could be approved or not. We said it couldn't be approved based on the motion, but the motion failed. So I'm just confused. So if you could enlighten me, I would appreciate it. The mic is not on. The mic is on. So sorry. if you would like for the record to make a motion to approve and take the vote then you're certainly free to do so but he can't proceed with the project with the proper committing without an actual approval from this board he could bring back a new application if there was a substantial change and the board could consider it again but it didn't look like there was going to be a consensus do an approval so before the record you could make a motion to approve and so so basically we leave this without a decision essentially yes the board could not come to a consensus all right thank you All righty. So the next item is PLN BOA 24-29, David and Cheryl Lachine. Applicants forward, please. Hello. Hello. Please take your hands for the record. I'm Cheryl Lachine. I'm David Lachine. So this application has been recommended for approval. There are four conditions that have been listed. Have you had the opportunity to review those? Yes, we have. Do we have questions or would we like to hear any more about this particular project? Maybe you want to tell us a little bit about it, please. We had a son who attended college here in Lexington, and we purchased the property when he started college where he would have a place to live in April of 16. So we've owned it since then. He recently moved, and it coincides with my husband's retirement, so we decided to keep the property and manage it ourselves and have it as a rental. She's trying to keep me busy. Exactly. That's exactly right. Out of the way. Okay. Thank you. And it does look like this one will be limited to four individuals. We would not want any more than four. There are two bedrooms. We have adequate parking. Any questions of the applicant? I have a question. This is a duplex, correct? It is. You own both sides of the duplex? No, we own 1039. the left unit. They were sold separately? They were. Okay. Yes. Has your neighbor been notified? The neighbor has been notified. An elderly couple lived there for years. They were my son's neighbors, and they unfortunately have gone to assisted living, is my understanding, back in November. So, yes. The son owns it, and he did receive a letter. Does he live there? He does not live there. It's vacant. This just happened fairly recently. Yeah. Okay. Is the other side a rental? There's nothing going on now. They were remodeling. My understanding is they're going to sell, is the plan. Or rent. Or rent. There's no one there. There hasn't been anyone there since November. We both, moving trucks appeared at the same day in November. Both sides became vacant. but yeah, they're not there any longer. Thank you. Sure. Mr. Smith? I have a concern about your letter of justification. Okay. You state that you believe there would be a positive economic impact to the neighborhood as guests would generate additional revenue for local businesses, including restaurants and shops. A permanent resident living there would support Lexington and live there the year-round, so I was kind of concerned about that. And also my concern, too, as I stated previously on another case, we're taking an affordable for some people house away from a permanent resident. And I understand that. The part about what I wrote in the justification statement, I mean, honestly, I guess anyone who lives there, whether it's owner-occupied or long-term rental or short-term rental, I guess there would be no difference. All of them would provide, you know, back to the community. but we're not planning on selling I mean we're we would keep it we both have mothers who are aging and it's a it's a small property that somewhere down the road might be for one of our parents even so we love the property and we wouldn't be selling it anyway there there is by the way there's shopping development across the street Groger and pubs and so forth so there's always going to be people whether they're long-term or short-term that will be shopping and doing business in the area through our connections we also understand that there is a severe shortage of nursing in in this area with the universities of Kentucky and st. Joseph so it's our hope to also get some long-term two to three month nursing nurses that are coming in and helping in that regard too which is good for both of us traveling professionals I mean nurses we haven't we've not ever done this before so saying that we would go the route of Airbnb or VRBO I mean we've looked at other other sites such as well it's called traveling well I have it here furnished binder or travel nursing housing I mean we're open to all different you know places to put the property on to be rented thank you in the short-term rental in particular is just less than 30 days yes we have other questions now we'll entertain a motion madam chair I recommend approval appeal in Boa 24-29 Dave and Cheryl Lachine request for conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental and a mixed low density residential zone on property located at 1039 Shinooi Road based on the staff's recommendation and the poor conditions as listed thank you mr. gross is offered a second there's no further discussion we will open for vote The motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you for consideration. Okay, our next item is PLNBOA 24-31. That's Jennifer Krim. Hi, everyone. My name is Jennifer Krim. Thank you. And this has been recommended for approval. are several six conditions that have been listed have you had opportunity to review those i have yes yeah this one's unique it's kind of i spoke with staff about it kind of fell in between unhosted and hosted would you like to tell us a little bit about the project itself sure this is my permanent residence this is my tax address this is the address that i have on my driver's license But I work for the federal government and I work at a lot of embassies and I travel a lot of the time. So, for example, in a couple of weeks I'm going to be in Iraq and I'm going to be in Israel-Palestine and we tend to leave the property unoccupied for long periods of time. We've already had one attempted break-in. We've already had a couple of maintenance issues. So when we bought the house, we knew that we would be traveling a lot for work And so initially we looked into maybe could we do short-term rentals for a period of time on a temporary basis until we're able to be in Lexington more full-time. So we are looking at doing a maximum of about 35% for short-term rentals. I know that this is in a protected area and completely understand, you know, the need for not gentrifying these areas. And we want to keep the home. We're not real estate moguls. We're not buying up investment properties. We just want to take care of our house and make sure that someone's there if a maintenance issue happens or to make sure that people are in and out to prevent from burglaries and that sort of thing. Thank you. I have a question. Sure. Who owns the vacant lot next to you on the corner? Do you know? I actually don't know. We've tried to find out who that was for a while. and in the records it said one person and then I looked on the sheet that was given to me and I couldn't find him. I know that my mom, who has come to help maintain the property when we're traveling, has run into him on his lawnmower a few times, and I know that he is aware that we are looking into doing this. Is it maintained well? Is it mowed? It is mowed. He mows it, I want to say, at least every three weeks or so, and that tends to be the unofficial area in the neighborhood where people tend to walk their dogs. So we appreciate it when he does mow it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions to this applicant? Is there a letter of opposition? I just heard from the team there was one letter of opposition. Oh, I'm sorry. Apologies. There is one in the. Do we have any questions of the applicant? And I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of PLM BOA 24-31, Jennifer Krem's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located 229 East 6th Street based upon the staff's report the testimony given herein and subject to the condition set forth in the report. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Clark, second. just um before we vote we'll just make a comment maybe i wasn't clear on this um it is different from what staff has indicated they approved it slightly differently because it is still being owned and still primary residence and it's not a unit that's being removed from the market because they will still live there so i'm rushing today and i don't mean to do that to not give you clarity We will open for vote. And that's set forth in condition 6. It absolutely is. Yes. Yes, sir. The motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Let's see. number two all right someone will have this signal when we need a break plnboa 24-34 miss gardner good afternoon my name is Rewa Gardner pretty I messed it up the first time I didn't want to do that again very one thank you okay it has been recommend you actually have been recommended for approval for your conditional use of the home-based business there are five conditions that have been listed you had opportunity to review yes ma'am are you comfortable with those yes do we have any questions of the applicant if not i will entertain a motion their start event has madam chairman i'd like to make a motion to approve plnboa 34 rewa gardner request conditional permit for a home-based business cosmetology in a medium density R4 zone on property located at 556 Douglas Avenue based on recommendation of the staff and subject to approval of the following five conditions thank you and mr gross has offered a second any further discussion we'll open for vote motion is passed good luck with your project thank you we have PLN BOA 24-38 Alex Frost the applicant will come forward good afternoon Alexander Frost here thank you this has been recommended for approval and there are four conditions that have been listed you had the opportunity to review those conditions yes and if I may the ten individual limit is also based on that formula from the application materials and your preference would be six six okay so the conditions on item number two would be amended to no more than six individuals I had a question There was a vehicle parked in the driveway when I was down there. It looked to me like it would be very hard to open the doors on either side of the car between those two buildings. If you have cars parked down that driveway, is it going to be difficult for people to get in and out of those vehicles? Sure. It's a pretty narrow driveway. I've lived there for a couple of years myself. Usually if you unload your passengers on the sidewalk and back in, you'll be able to get a driver out on the one side. As you have parking in the back, is there room to turn around back there, turn a vehicle around? There is room. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it. You'd want to go straight in and straight back out the way you came in. The driveway extends to the width of the property in the back, so you could conceivably turn around back there. probably not if the driveway is all the way full but if there's just one or two vehicles sure I don't think I'd want one of my kids backing out of there there's a bit of an experience just a quick clarification maybe from staff we we've discussed parking quite a bit in our motion in our discussions today but in these infill areas there are not any parking requirements are there that's correct throughout our community there are no longer parking minimum requirements do we have any further questions of the applicant I don't have a question for you but I just wanted to make a comment about that there are already 30 short term rentals operating within a thousand square foot and that would be a good long-term rental for somebody who could use public transportation or something no further I'll entertain a motion yes i think everybody has it on their screen oh it was on mine i'm sorry yeah there's one that and it just says it doesn't have any context it just says it opposed and the other asked us to regulate like louisville I'll move for approval PLM VOA 24-38 Alex Frost request recognition use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in historic district overlay in a mixed low density residential zone on property located 346 South Mill Street subject I mean based upon the staff's recommendation, the testimony here, and subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Thank you. Mr. Gross, do I have a second? Madam Chair, I'd like to comment, if I might, for the vote. This is another example of where we have fairly high density. I'm sorry, we need a second before it's on the... I'm sorry, there's no second. There's no second that I see. Are you seconding? No. Oh. Do you second? I will second. Okay. Now comments, please. Now comments. All right. This is very similar to the Fincastle situation, and I agree with Ms. Tucker that 39 is too many. It's just too many. So it's 30. But the ordinance does not give us those figures. And once the ordinance is modified to give us some limitations for how many short-term rentals are in a specific area, however we define that area, is going to be really important how we proceed. Now I voted in favor, I'm going to vote in favor of this, and I voted to oppose Ms. Tucker's motion. But basically I agreed with her, but I had no basis to vote in a disapproval way. So I want to explain, and I think until we get to the point where we have some limitations of how many STRs there are in a specific area, we are handicapped in terms of our voting and making sound decisions based on the applicants that have come before us and the applications that we are reading and making decisions about. So I just want to express that because I feel like I'm voting for something that I don't really agree with. but what i don't agree with is the ordinance itself thank you thank you any additional comment no all right we'll take a vote motion is passed thank you all right believe it or not that was the end of what we would have called the rocket docket except it took a considerable amount of time do you guys want a quick bathroom break or do you want to power through all right let's go so the first item to be fully heard staff are you think you're up glenboa24-8 good afternoon All right. So, I'm going to kind of skip through our spiel about short-term rentals. I think that you all have a pretty good handle on the zoning ordinance portion now. So, the application before you is PLNBOA 24-8. This is a request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental for up to 12 individuals at 160 Alabama Avenue. The subject property is located along Alabama Avenue to the west of the intersection of Alabama and North Martin Luther King Boulevard. It is a through lot with frontage on Alabama and on Glass Alley. There's a street view there. So the property contains a single story, 1,472 square foot single family residence. It was constructed in 2009 and features four bedrooms and two bathrooms. So the applicant is proposing the 12 individuals that would be allowable under the calculation that we talked about under previous applications. So two individuals per bedroom plus four. So that gets you to 12 for a four-bedroom unit. This application did come to us because the applicant had started operating without a license sometime in the fall. So sort of between the short-term rental regulations taking effect in July and that January 11th deadline, this was a new short-term rental that began operating. A neighbor complained and the applicant was notified by the Division of Building Inspection that they needed to go through this process. So they did file that application in time for this meeting. Currently there are no short-term rentals in the vicinity that have been cited as a nuisance by building inspection or code enforcement. The Division of Revenue has not received any complaints about the subject property related to its usage of short-term rental and the police department has not responded to any calls at or in the immediate vicinity of this property within the last year. So according to our zoning compliance permit data, there are 20 short-term rentals operating within 1,000 feet of the subject property. So on your screen you see the circle there, the star property is the subject property, and then we've got this 1,000 foot circle drawn around it here. Those little green stars represent short-term rentals that have received zoning compliance permits. So getting into that data a little bit that we've been talking about a lot today, within that 1,000-foot area there are 618 parcels, 544 of those are considered to be residential properties, meaning single-family residential or multi-family residential. So that results in 88% of the parcels within that 1,000-foot buffer being used for some sort of residential purpose. And based on having an initial 20 in that area, the concentration of short-term rentals on property that have a residential use is approximately 3.7%. There are a few multifamily units in the area, so that would lower that percentage very slightly. In this 1,000 feet, they are primarily single-family structures, so about 3.7%. And then you see the orange on the screen here. And this represents the census tract and block group. So the subject property is located within Census Tract 3, Block Group 1. And you may recall in the past we have talked about the Neighborhoods in Transition Task Force and Report. That stemmed from the Mayor's Commission for Racial Justice and Equality Report in 2020 and identified priority areas in our community that were at risk for gentrification and involuntary displacement. So this area that you see here in orange and the block group that we're talking about specific, actually goes along I believe Maple Ave and back to here is the the particular block group that this property is within. It is on our top ten census block groups that were identified as priority areas where gentrification and involuntary displacement may be a higher threat. It is actually and it's one of the top three census blocks within that greater top ten. So staff is recommending disapproval of this application. We feel that the proposed use will have an adverse influence on the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood by removing an existing housing unit from the market that could otherwise be used as a primary residence for an owner or a long-term tenant within one of those top ten census block groups and that using this as a short-term rental would heighten issues with gentrification and displacement. Additionally, there are already 20 other short-term rentals, which results approximately 3.7% of the housing stock within that 1,000 feet area. And then within this this particular census tract, there are nine other short-term rentals, which results in 3% of the housing stock within that particular priority area already being used as short-term rentals. So for those reasons we are recommending disapproval. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I don't have any questions, but I'm going to comment based on what Mr. Clark said earlier. This is the more clear for us in direction, you know, so I think it makes it easier to make a decision when they're giving us clear direction. And Mr. Clark pointed out on some of the other things, it's real ambiguous. We don't know how many. We don't know any numbers. but where the task force has specifically identified areas to protect it's the the clarity that is needed in making decisions in my opinion so thank you for always pointing that out for sure appreciate that um we will give if there's no other questions for staff we'll give the applicant an opportunity to speak thank you sir Yeah, my name is Muvrati David Mappigano. You want to tell us a little bit about the project? Excuse me? I said, do you want to tell us a little bit about your project or what you're asking for today? Yes. I see it says that it's disapproval. So the thing is I'm trying to know why am I the only one disapproval because you said in the area there's 20 already short-term users. So I don't know why I'm the only one disapproval because I live in that house for 15 years, 12 years, and I paid off. So it's like my retirement saving. So there's one guy who just rentled the house for two years, and he just destroyed my house. So he was in good condition. And I decided to remodel the house and do the short-term rental because they take care of the house, and whatever damage it is, they have to pay for. So, and, yeah, if you're forcing me to do the same thing, it's going to be hard for me. So, yeah, and the only question I just ask myself when I say, so why just me? They don't approve me, so why? You know, because that's opportunity for everybody. So you can give me the chance for that opportunity too. You know, so I just realized I see because they saw my name as an African name or whatever, that's what I thought to myself, you know, because I saw the letter and I saw the email they sent to me. I can't, it's already disapproval, but I said let me just go because they need me to be there. So, thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant? If not, I was going to have the staff reiterate to help understand the why. Sure, sure. So those short-term rentals that are already existing in the area that we discussed, the 20 short-term rentals, those were all operating prior to July 11th of 2023. That was when the council adopted the current regulations for short-term rentals. So they included in their regulations a sort of six-month grandfathering in period that anyone who had been operating prior to July could continue to do so and take advantage of some of the more relaxed aspects of the new rules but continue to operate in a location that would from there on out require conditional use without having to go through this process. Should those properties sell to a new owner who wanted to continue the short term rental use, they would be coming back before the board. But those 20 were all ones that were brought in under that six month period because they were already in operation when these regulations took effect. Is that helpful in understanding? Yes, I do understand. It's new for all of us. It's a new, completely new. Yeah, I don't understand. But the thing is, because I applied for first time, first time was short-term rental. And they said, no, you can't do that because you didn't start from, I think, June 11th. July 11th. July 11th. And I said, okay, so what should I do? I called them. They told me themselves, instead of using short-term rental, you can do conditional user. and we're going to approve you for that this is the process to get approved for it that is correct but before what staff was mentioning was before July 11th if you were already operating you did not have to go through this process to get approved is that helpful thank you we all we all feel your frustration thank you so um we still need to madam chair yes i had my okay i had a couple if the board does move with the suggested recommendation of staff i had a couple of minor tweaks to suggest these findings say that again if the board decides it wants to go along with the staff's recommendations I had a couple of minor tweaks to suggest the findings that were proposed. Okay. I don't know if you're ready for that yet or not. I just wanted to point that out before a motion is made. Okay. So prior to a motion, legal would like to speak to one of us. Anything additional? Okay. We'll take a brief recess then. Would you just want to give it your information? Okay. I don't think we need a recess. Let's keep this crane rolling. Look, I'm rolling somewhere. I'm rolling. Good deal. Oh, to speak on this particular case? No, that's not her case. She said she's number four. This is the one she said. Okay. That's okay. All right. So is someone willing? Okay. Okay. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that works. Madam Chair, I'm going to clarify a couple things for the staff's recommendation. On A, in the report, after the words, the proposed use prior to the words will have an adverse, I'd like to add in the words, as an unhosted rental. And then on the fifth line of A, after the words involuntary displacement and the words and the proposed use, I would like to add, oh shoot. of a large number of residential properties that are not occupied by the owner. And with those findings of fact to be modified as presented by the staff, I move that we deny the request for a condition use permit for an unhosted short term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 160 alabama avenue as set forth based upon the findings so moved thank you and miss plumley has offered a second no further discussion we will take a vote okay so the short-term rental was not approved so the next item is plnboa 24-25 ethan and lindsay jackson the applicant please state your name for the record lindsay jackson thank you this has been recommended for approval and there are four conditions that have been listed have you had an opportunity to review those yes okay if you wouldn't mind to tell us a little bit about your plans because do have some folks here concerned yeah so my husband and i purchased the property in november of 2023 really with kind of a three-pronged hope for it first we both went to school here and our family still live in the area so we are in town a lot to visit them so we were wanting a place that's a bit closer just kind of as a landing pad for us to stay in when we come the second intent is that my mother stays with my grandparents most of the time but she doesn't work in lexington so when she has early shifts we wanted a place where she could stay to help her with that commute and then the third prong is the short-term rental that we were hoping to do during those times when we're not using it all right do we have questions of this applicant we do show one item of disapproval or opposition all right if we can we do have some folks here to speak so give them an opportunity do we want to speak on this particular item It's okay, we're really nice. My name is Rebecca. I'm sorry, can we- Wait until you get to the podium, please, sorry. My name is Rebecca Kuntz and this is my nightmare. Let me just tell you, public speaking. K-U-N-T-Z. She signed in at Sunday. Mm-hm. So I, to say I disapprove is not quite good. the word i just have questions more i'm a little bit unprepared and a little bit freaked out with this whole thing but i i'm curious um how many bedrooms and how many people and all that stuff that i've been hearing and i i like how mr clark put it as far as it's kind of like everybody's approving these short-term use rentals and there's just not a whole lot of fencing around where they're going to be how many who many percentages of owner occupied versus short term and it's it's almost like i wish we could just pump the brakes until you guys had everything set up because you can't unring that bell once it's rung and so now it's coming to you know a neck of the woods that concerns me and you know i don't want to make it a personal thing i just i wish i knew more i wish i knew where it was heading i wish i knew um if there's going to be permanent and then parameters put in a lot of peas in that sometime soon so i don't know if you're familiar i i do appreciate some of your uh... some of you folks that seem to have gone to these places and pulled up and driven up to notice the guys car door having trouble opening and who owns a lot so that means you doing your due diligence And I appreciate that. So that area of town, there's a lot of stuff going on in that part of town that I wish were fixed before we started adding more traffic. People fly down Clyde, they fly down Liggett. It smells bad over there, the water treatment. It's like nobody can fix that. but now we're going to put all this energy into these temporary places to rent and so i i guess i have more questions than i do i disapprove of this i you know i'm i'm an entrepreneur too i want everyone to have an opportunity to to be landlords and to get that additional income and to contribute but i don't know what's i don't know what's happening at this particular address how many people are going to live there how's the parking on that street in general I know that where Goodfellas and all that it's escaping me the whole distillery district the big booming businesses it is insane parking cruise down there any night we have a place on Willard that I don't know how my tenants get out of their driveway without taking out cars on either side. And so now we're talking about more unregulated parking and stuff. So I guess my question that I have is how many people are going to be living in this place? And I guess that's the only question that I can voice because there are no other real regulations. or how many short-term rentals are there in this vicinity? And maybe there's not a lot, and that's swell, but maybe there's a lot, and if there's a lot, that's a bummer. So those are the questions that I have. Thank you. Thank you. You did great. We'll allow the applicant to respond. Was there anyone else? I thought so. Frances Heisel, and I think she did great. I don't live in the area, but I do have a rental, long-term rental property in the area and have had it for years. I've heard some of the same concerns voice that I have. I'm a real estate broker as well, but I'm not real active. But I know they say the average starter home in Lexington is $300,000. Generally, properties in this area sell for some less than that. You know, just the average working class person probably would have trouble qualifying and affording a $300,000 home. That's a concern. long-term tenants you know they get established they know their neighbors and both sides of the property I do have there and rent our owners so I think it's a concern about taking away from available residential property as well as long-term rental I know I wouldn't want a short-term rental next to me or in my neighborhood I know my neighbors I mean we may not interact a lot but we wave and we're friendly and the power goes out we help each other out and I agree with the lady that spoke before me you know we just don't know what's going to happen with a lot of this and we have opened the dam and people are just going down over with the water and I just I just have concerns because I've been a long time Lexington resident and I appreciate our city and I just don't want to see it lose some of the things that are so good about it so i'm just concerned thank you thank you appreciate that and um if the applicant would like so if you are uh able to let us know anything additional about the the rooms or the parking or some concerns that they expressed yeah so as far as the number of people that would ever be staying there at one time it we had intended just six so two in each bedroom and there's a couch in the front living room and in the sunroom in the back really the thought was that it may be like two families that have a child apiece and then parking wise the driveway is very long so i know that like i have been there with my family and we've had three at least cars parked easily behind one another in our parking uh in our driveway and there is a garage as well that we currently are storage have storage stuff in but could be opened if we needed additional parking but I don't really think that we would as far as like knowing your neighbors and things I know like we've met either side of our neighbors personally and they both are aware and didn't have any concerns they were telling us that our yard looked really good and so they were complimentary on how we've been taking care of the property so really I'm just hoping you have a question it it mentions in the narrative here that there is a Providence Montessori school close how close are you all to that we have walked to it it's maybe a couple streets over and then back around I don't have a good estimate of like mileage but you can't see it I know that like we were kind of walking around the neighborhood just to get a feel and I know we definitely could walk there but it was several minutes of a walk blocks wise what would you guess be maybe like five once you get the turn thank you and as far as one more comment I thought I've just based on some of the opposition like parking considerations for the distillery district it is far enough from there that I've been there weekdays weekends and have never seen any overflow parking from that area on our street it is close to Lee's Town Road so it you can walk to the story district as well but it's several minutes to you thank you my question is on the application there is a Louisville address for the applicant is that your address do you live in louisville i do thank you any other questions before i do open for motion i will just make one comment um because harry and i are talkative today aren't we we're supposed to be in a hurry but anyway just regarding the open up the flood gates I do think even though we are maybe slightly critical of what council has done or the way the ordinance is written as it speaks the short-term rentals have been going on anyway so I mean we are opening the floodgates I actually think it was an attempt to get some regulation on it because they had been in place with no regulation with minimal regulation and without the ability to track and know and understand where they were previously so this is the step towards tracking and having some understanding what was going on but it was definitely not the opening of the floodgates they they had been going on without any um approval or regulation on our part and probably use some of the incorrect words i'm sorry legal but the general consistent the concept is the same that this is a step towards getting a handle on it understanding it seeing what's going on we just um on the board wish for a little more clarity right and i should say that my conversation with council members say that they are going to look at this again uh they said first said april then then they said may so i think there's there's uh additional discussion that's going to follow and i think that's that's a that's really a good thing that's that's a promise the council some council members have made to me thank you thank you for my colleagues comments and I I think those are valuable and regarding the ordinance it would seem that the ordinance does not want us to question it and it does not want me to say that this this property sold last November for two $224,000. And again, we're talking about permanent residence, whether it's either for a permanent tenant or permanent ownership. And again, if you're in the 30% that affordability, down payment, whatever, you could afford this house. And that's just, again, I know you all don't want to hear this anymore, but that's what I want to say today again. Thank you. I think I would just ask, has the house been renovated? Have you? It had already been renovated when we bought it. So it was, I think, improved from the last permanent resident in between. Thank you. Alrighty, anything further? Not I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 24-25, Ethan and Lindsay Jackson's request for conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single family residential zone on property located at 141 Clyde Street based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the four conditions as listed. Thank you. We have a first. Do we have a second? Mr. Gross has offered a second. we'll take a vote if no further discussion the motion is passed good luck with your project thank you I believe my next item is. Are we? BLNBOA 24-37, Ms. James Reynolds, the applicant, come forward. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, please state your name for the record. james reynolds now this has been recommended for approval however there are four conditions that have been listed had you had the opportunity to review those yes i agree thank you and i'm sorry i'm not sure do we have opposition on this one okay okay i was trying to figure out why was heard in just a moment so do you want to tell us a little bit about your plans yeah this is um it's a single family house and um we we have uh two children who are on the autistic spectrum and one of them is in college and he's going to be graduating within a year and we intend to eventually have him live there you know after he becomes independent and and finds a job and so forth so in the meantime we want to you know make some income off of it and that's the main reason why we're renting it you and this one in particular I think what we'll do is we'll let the public comment and then we'll we've got some other citizen comment that we'll go over okay you'll have a seat there Hello, my name is Whitney Dostart. I am the president of the HOA for the Mayor Haven neighborhood. I know that our HOA lawyer that we've sent in wrote a letter detailing why we would not want this to be changed to a short term rental. We do have a deed restricted community. It is supposed to be single family dwellings. should be we do allow rentals but I think it at least has to be over 30 days to be considered what is in the deed of our neighborhood it is on the main street coming in our neighborhood already has very small driveways there are numerous cars parked all over the streets we've had issues where the streets are so congested that people are having to park on other streets we've had to have them come in and paint lines so that ambulances can get through because people were parking so much that ambulances and fire trucks couldn't get down certain cul-de-sacs. I know this is on the main strip but there is limited parking on that strip already and it's the main area coming in and out of the neighborhood. I also talked to the other board members and they would also just didn't want the idea of people coming in, staying a couple days leaving the random people coming in. This is a working-class family community and we didn't really want a bunch of strangers coming in and disrupting kind of what's going on, most people work, we don't want any noise, so it's just kind of a concern of having these people that are here. And I go to Airbnbs too, but you know when you go somewhere you're usually visiting, especially with Airbnb it's more of a vacation instead of work or business. So we just kind of wanted to keep the noise down, keep the congestion down, and make sure that our neighborhood stays a working-class family neighborhood. Thank you. Thanks. Was there anyone else here to speak okay I'd like to comment on that we use we have a company that hosts our air I say Airbnb because that's what everybody knows but it's it's really it's a company called evolve there's a minimum of two nights day so that weeds out a lot of people who would just come in for one night like for a party or to to go to see the game or so. There's also background checks, and anybody who rents the place, you know, their credit card is on file if they damage anything. Plus, we have a management company that's available 24-7 if there's any concerns. I've spoken to both neighbors on both sides, and they have my number. They can call me with any concerns. And I'm going to give them the number for the management company as well. And I really don't see there being any issue with parking. There's a garage that holds two cars. And the driveway is big enough for a third car. And we're limiting the maximum to five people. So I don't imagine there being more than three cars. We have security cameras and a security system so we can see how many people are coming and going. And we can get our management company right on it if they start bringing too many people in there. We also have rules and regulations for all the tenants in terms of noise. They can't be loud, they can't be making noise. It's part of their contract, they'll just get kicked out. So, I think a lot of those concerns are addressed already. And we have one other rental in another neighborhood, and we have all, mostly five-star reviews and no complaints. So, I think all of the concerns of the community are addressed. Thank you. and have you had the opportunity to see the letter from the attorneys no copy of that we will you know I spoke to staff about this whatever agreement or deed restrictions or HOA related stuff doesn't pertain to us any decision we make doesn't have anything to do with whatever interaction you have with the HOA is that correct okay so the restrictive deed covenants don't cover well no what she's saying is whether we issue the conditional use permit or not if we do issue the condition use permit it may not trump the private agreement that the neighborhood has and generally historically we have not denied one based upon a private agreement. We base it upon the facts before us. Well, if it doesn't allow it, how can we approve it? Well, let me add something here. The deed restriction itself, this board doesn't have any jurisdiction to issue any findings or judgment related to the validity or the interpretation of a deed restriction. That is purely a matter that is on that property, according to what the attorney said, and that would have to be enforced in a circuit court. You don't have any power to issue a finding about that. So if you issued a conditional use permit and he used it in violation of that, that would be a civil matter that has nothing to do with you. I guess my question is, shouldn't that be taken care of before it comes to us? Well, that is a matter for the applicant, but that's not a matter for the board to consider because the board can't do anything about that. And on the reverse, Bob, you know, a private agreement also couldn't put constrictions constrictions on what we're allowed to do or not. That's a separate agreement to what's in our purview. So they can't also manage us. I understand that, but I would think that it would have bearing on it as to us approving something that was unapprovable. Well, can I also add that all we have is the assertions of an attorney who objects to this. If there were a suit, he would have the right to defend that and we don't know what the outcome would be. All we have is an assertion that this would violate a deed restriction. We don't have anything else more than that. That is very one-sided. Do we have any other questions? The applicant. so are they saying this is like uh not allowed by law i mean i'm blindsided here i mean yeah we this board can't advise on you know a legal threat that might be raised by another attorney so so i don't understand what's the next step is it just denied or what oh no we haven't voted on our motion and we just wanted to make sure that you had that information what you do with that information is different we still have to have a vote and are there any questions i was just scrolling through quickly here. Yeah, what we do here does not impinge at all on deed restrictions. We'll make our decision, and then if there are further action that the community wants to make after that, then they can do that. Right now, all we're doing is approving or disapproving. So there's nothing else for you to be concerned about at this point. Okay. And there are, I was looking, I couldn't remember how many, there's zero short-term rentals in this area. Zero. Zero. first time we've had a zero i'm sorry okay all righty do we have any further questions or discussion yes ma'am uh thank you to the neighbor who came and made comments it's always good to be part of the process when you're in the neighborhood and uh i know you all just waiting for might just say this but purchased sold June 16th of the 23 for $234,000 and 900 again the same old record thank you what is that comment what is the same old comment I was just I was quoting that this would be possibly a house that could be for a permanent resident. Well, I started my testimony by saying that we bought this for my son to use in a few years. Okay, I'll just- And he's going to be a permanent resident. Thank you, yes. Thank you. All right, anything further? Not I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I recommend approval PLN BOA 24-37, James Reynolds' request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 2669 Trailwood Lane, based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you. And do we have a second? Mr. Gross has offered a second. no further discussion we'll open for vote okay the motion is failed the short-term rental was not approved all righty okay we're gonna we only have a couple left but we're gonna take a quick five-minute recess because they do both need to be heard so maybe you guys need 10. somewhere between 5 and 10 and someone go check outside and see if we have light daylight i can't look i didn't bring my glasses Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. All righty, so we will call back to order. and our next item is PLN BOA 24-30 Chris Johnson this is an administrative appeal and staff will present first so this application is a little bit different since this is an administrative appeal contesting the division of planning's refusal to issue zoning compliance permits for five unhosted short-term rentals so since this is an appeal of a decision that was made by the division of planning we don't make a recommendation we just sort of present a timeline and sort of how we got to the decision that we made and then the applicant can speak of course on their behalf and say why they think that decision was incorrect and then you all weigh in and make a decision so thank you All righty. So the subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of North Limestone and Burnett Avenue. It's located in a single family residential zone and it contains a 2,360 square foot residential structure which has five apartment units. So again it's located in the blue circle there, or the blue rectangle. you can see the zoning of the property the yellow is is all single-family residential zones there's some B1 in the area some I1 and some R3 so this is the section of the zoning ordinance that addresses administrative appeals and discusses the types of applications that you all hear and decide when it's alleged by an applicant that there has been an error in a decision made by either planning or building inspection in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance and then I want to touch on a couple of other sections of the zoning ordinance sort of how we got here is through the new short-term rental regulations we talked a little bit earlier about the grandfathering in period and article 3-13 I sort of outlines how that worked so any short term rental that was operating in a principal dwelling unit prior to July 11th would here have to be regulated as a conditional use but can continue to operate provided that they get their license and the date that was included in the code of ordinances portion was January 11th so the applicant was operating prior to July 11th and they came to us in the fall to request to be grandfathered in effectively so what sort of threw a flag to us that this was possibly an issue is that when the applicant applied they applied for short-term rentals at three properties in a row here that were let me go ahead and go forward and then I may come back so the applicant owns the three subject properties that you see here this is the the property that we're discussing today but he also owns this one and this one and they've all been operating as short-term rentals. He did receive approval for the short-term rentals at the other two locations. One is a single-family dwelling and one is a duplex, and we were able to find that that duplex was what we called legally non-conforming, and I'll go back now to this section. So Article 4-1 talks about non-conforming uses, and those are uses of land or structures that were lawful prior to the adoption of this zoning ordinance but would be prohibited today. So that's kind of the most important section that we're really looking at in this discussion. So in reviewing these requests for the particular property here at 908-910, staff found that there were only two address points, and the applicant was saying that there were five units. So again, that sort of threw up a red flag that there might be an issue. since it didn't match the number of units that we had on record and since this is a single family residential zone where typically you could not have a property with five dwelling units. So in order to determine whether or not there was some sort of legal non-conforming situation, staff began some research and asked the applicant to provide any documentation that they had to indicate that this was a legally non-conforming use, meaning that the property had been permitted at some point to have these five dwelling units. So through staff's review, we looked through our records, through planning records, the county clerk's office, building inspection, and we also looked at aerial photography and Google Street View. So based on those things, we were not able to find any documentation that five units were ever permitted or approved by LFUCG. We did find that the blocks along North Limestone between Arlington Elementary School and Whitland Lane were rezoned by a comprehensive zoning map update in 1969 from an R2 zone to the R1C. So at that time, when the structure was likely constructed, it was in that area that had R2 zoning, which at that time would allow for a duplex. It would not allow for any greater number of units unless for a dormitory adjoining a public or private college, which would not have applied here. So they would have still been limited to two. So based on that and on information that we found in the city directory, staff believes that it's likely that this could have a non-conforming status as a duplex. However, at some point, staff agrees that the structure was converted into five units. So the applicant provided some additional information to staff. Things that we requested were signed leases by previous tenants for each of the five units. The applicant did provide some previous leases, but only for three of the units. We asked for photos taken prior to 2020 when the structure was remodeled that showed five units. The applicant did provide an MLS listing that indicated that there were five units, but the photos were only of three of the units. We did ask for floor plans and utility bills demonstrating that there were five separate units. We asked for something other than KU because KU did not have record of there being five separate units. And things like a real estate listing, which I already mentioned. So the applicant did confirm that the utilities were paid collectively, both currently and historically. so there were not five separate utility meters on the property. So that's something that could indicate that there were five units at some point, but we were not able to make that finding. The structure today does have five address points, but again, that is because whenever we started processing this application, we found that there were only two address points, and the applicant contacted the addressing office to confirm that, and whenever the addressing office heard that there were five units, they assigned those address points without consulting with planning whether or not those were legal units. So that is kind of how that situation occurred. Let's see. So based on this status, we were not able to find that the five units were legally non-conforming. They are certainly non-conforming, but they are not legally non-conforming because there is no evidence that they were ever permitted or approved by the city to be there. we think we could agree that there could have been two units on the property legally at some point in time so so we are agreeable to that but as far as getting to five we recognize that they've been there for a number of years but that they were never legally permitted to be there so based on that non-conformity planning staff did decline to issue the zoning compliance permits for the five short-term rentals this is sort of a change in use to a more intense use than a day-to-day rental of someone who lives in a structure long term. So we have pretty serious concerns about utilizing five unpermitted dwelling units that we don't know how they were constructed. Since they didn't receive permits, we don't know if that was done correctly or to code. So we do consider this to be a life safety issue that we don't want to have too many units in the location that may not have been built correctly to be five units in addition to the issue of the zoning wherein you're only allowed to have a single family dwelling unit in an R1C zone today. Let's see. So the question for the board is whether or not planning erred in refusing to issue the zoning compliance permits. So if you do rule in favor of the applicant that there are five units, that there are legally non-conforming, and that planning staff should have issued the zoning compliance permits, then that is how we would move forward. and then if you were to agree with staff and disapprove this application finding that staff did not err in our decision not to issue the zoning compliance permits the applicant would always have the option to appeal to circuit court like any applicant to the board does another option that we see that the applicant could pursue would be to apply for a zone change to a zone that would allow for multiple units so that's kind of where that is and then I think it would be appropriate to let the applicant speak. Thank you. Autumn, real quick, just to summarize. The issue is that you have not found any evidence in which five units would have been permitted by law. Correct. To be able to become non-conforming when the law changed. That's right. Okay. And nor have we found any indication that somehow something was approved that shouldn't have been approved. There's no evidence of any kind of approval. But you're correct that there is no point in time when five units should have been allowed. And legal, is that the standard we should be looking at is you can't be a non-conforming use if you've never been a conforming use? Well, I think even KRS-100 says a legal non-conforming use. So I think that's generally accurate. Yes, I would agree with that. Okay, thank you. So planning staff could find no evidence in five units, and was it incumbent upon planning staff to verify that, or is it incumbent upon the applicant to show documentation? Typically with non-conforming uses, we do put the burden of proof onto the applicant, but staff did, you know, recognizing that we have some more resources that the applicant may not have, we did go through our records. We conferred with the Division of Building Inspection, and we have the ability to access their historic records as well, so they weren't able to find anything. We weren't able to find anything in those records. So we did do some research as well, but typically it is sort of the burden of grief on the applicant. Thank you. Do they currently have occupancy permits? No. thank you so we hear from the applicant at this time madam chair board members my name is Zach Cato I'm an attorney for the applicant Chris Johnson who's here with me today we also have someone in the audience back here is here to speak in in favor of this as well this is a situation that's different from the as staff has indicated that's different from the other applications you've heard today because this short-term rental use has been in effect since 2020 when this property was purchased for that for that purpose. I want to be considerate of your time here so I'm going to go through some of these things that's already been touched on. What you're looking at here is basically 20 years difference. On the left you'll see this is the property as it looked in March of 20 2004 and then this is what it looks like today other than the vinyl being replaced some maintenance the structure itself is essentially the same this is from previous this is as far back as I could get information from good quality pictures from 2007 at some point there is a unit upstairs there's one unit upstairs at one point there were two external sets of staircases no one involved today knows why before the applicant purchased this property one of those sets from the rear was removed so we're left now with this set you see here on the side of the house that's that's there this is more or less what the property looked like when the applicant purchased it in January of 2020 you can see from the prior summer you can see there's trash service being provided for multiple units here from the city for for these units so did I kind of have to discuss how we got to this point to give you full context and what the situation is here so when the applicant bought this property one of the things he did was knowing that there's been some deferred maintenance and some upgrades internally need to be made he went applied for a building permit a commercial building permit and said here's what I'm going to do there's five units there and I'm using for short-term rental long story short he was told if you're not changing the structure if you're not adding square footage you don't need a building permit for this so he said okay that's fine he withdrew the permit got his electrical permits to do some repairs and upgrades for the existing units and and moved on at that time he was candid with what his intent was what the purpose of the application was raised there were no issues raised at that time and he started renting short-term rentals in 2020 so this is we're now in the coming up on the fourth year of when this use started so last year when these regulations go into effect the applicant makes a request for a zoning compliance permit he's already gone to the Department of Revenue done the other things he needs to do this is the last step at this point is the zoning compliance permit and he said I've got five units here they said okay as you just heard give us some more proof so he did that he provided the leases that just so happened that at the time he bought the property to the units were vacant so there weren't leases for those at that time but he provided the leases for the other three floor plans photos that go back to 2009 which I'll show you a few here the utility bills which weren't really helpful because of the way the utilities were done on the property there weren't five separate accounts kept he provided all this information here's a rent roll from December of 2019 showing that there's five units total in this property two of which as I said were vacant at the time due to leases lapsing but five units again a property listing from 2009 showing that it's listed as a five plex one-bedroom apartments okay so this is going back to 2009 we're not sure exactly what the PVA card when this information was put in it's my understanding that it's shown as commercial improvements and that there being five apartment units listed as you see here when the property was purchased in January of 2020. Importantly we have proof that we've entered from two prior owners one of which Kendall Seaton owned these units from 1997 till 2009 stating that it was operated as five units the whole time during that ownership the next owner Kevin Watts a I believe a retired police officer he and his company owned it from 2009 until 2020 when the applicant purchased it saying it during the years that he had the property same thing it had always been five units so this has all been provided previously there have been no structural changes to these properties they've the outside has been upgraded as far as replacing the vinyl there's some deferred maintenance that stuff's been done but no no structural changes the majority of the improvements have been to the interior of the units which were pretty run down at the time they were purchased there's been the most the resources have been spent there this is what it looked like in 2009 okay these are what basically what the units look like these are the pictures that we have such as they are but you can see they're small you know efficiency type apartments then versus now that you know the floor plans you can see you're essentially the same they're small one-bedroom units and then that's the next exterior as it appears today it's hard to see because of the colors but staircase for the upstairs unit still still there by the way this third door in the back that's a storage mechanical room that's not another unit so there's a quadrant on the ground floor than one unit upstairs there have been no reported complaints that we know of since 2020 for this property there's a good relationship with the rear neighbor there's been discussions with the applicant the rear neighbor fence has been installed and improved back there to help improve privacy the property manager who's here today lives in the neighborhood comes by frequently walks by there frequently is directly available for this and to help manage this unit so the situation that we have is the reason we're here is because the applicant came to get a permit to comply with the new regulations that came into effect three years after he started running the Airbnb he's provided everything he can provide he's he's He's come with clean hands, I think is a way to put it. He's come into this to say, okay, let me get this approval. He's already done so for the other two buildings that you were showed a minute ago. There's three in a row. The other two have already been approved. This one just has this issue on where did this approval come in for these units? The units have actually had separate mailboxes for years, and there's been deliveries to all of them for years. I know that that's a different issue from 911 addressing. Those are separate issues, but a fact of the matter is there have been deliveries from the post office, from Amazon, food deliveries, rideshare, all that stuff have used these addresses at least since 2020. And there's not been any reported issues about there being confusion over where things need to be delivered at this property. one thing that I did find in my research on this that I think is important is in 1991 there was a letter from a code enforcement officer referencing conversion of single-family residences into several apartments this is basically the only information we that I've been able to find the The point of this, and why I think it's relevant, is that this has been an issue that's not been hidden. It's not been even under prior owners. Nobody's taken any steps to obfuscate what's going on at this property. In fact, the city was aware of it at some point in time and ultimately took no action. My takeaway from that is either it was resolved in some way that was not documented or that nobody has been able to find documentation of, or the issue's been waived over time. That it just, you know, why between 1991 and September of 2003 when this application came in, there have been no concerns, but now there's a problem. Okay, so that's why I think these older letters are important. I'm not going to get into a legal argument here, but I just want to raise this point and what this point is. And I've tendered a letter that addresses these things. The point being here, though, when a property owner spends money improving property and later on the regulations change, the law in Kentucky allows on the facts of the case for that use to continue. So not only do you have the ability to say that division of planning was in error by not issuing the zoning compliance permit, but it's happened in other circumstances, okay? Again, these are legal questions that would come up in court potentially, but I raise that just to show that this has come up previously in the state. It's been an issue before. The fact is that when you adopt a new regulation, I think what I've heard today listening is not every issue was thought through or addressed in the short-term rental regulations that were adopted last year. There's still work to be done. the point is for this applicant though he's done things the right way he's complied he's come to the city with clean hands saying just let me continue what I'm doing it's not a new use there's not a single-family residence being taken down or people displaced he just wants to continue doing what he's been doing for the last four years so I would ask that you all vote to overrule Decision and Planning's Commission and ask them to issue the zoning compliance permit. Mr. Cato, a couple questions. Number one is, on what date do you contend that this was a legal use on this property? At some point between 1991, some point after that, I guess is all I can say, is that it looks to me like the best evidence we have is that these units were subdivided in some manner by that time. But wasn't the zoning at that time prohibiting five units on this lot? I think that's still an open question. Like the problem is here is there's not really proof that it's A or that it's B. It's somewhere in between the two. The second question I have, So I'm not seeing any evidence that pinpoints exactly when this was a legal use. And then your second case you cited, honest mistake case, where's your permit that your client relied upon? What government action did your client rely upon the honest mistake doctrine? So in this situation, it's a little bit different from that in the sense that it's not a permit. In that case, for example, it was about a commercial building permit that was being issued. It was actually in a residential zone. They read the zoning map incorrectly and issued a building permit. This is a little bit different in the sense that the mistake is we have all these contacts, all these opportunities for this issue to have come up and been resolved for 30 years. And it's not come up until now. So the city had noticed, we have these letters, the city had noticed in 91. But for all I know, they called Mr. Roberts in 1991 and said, okay, I'm not going to have three units anymore. And then he didn't have three, he didn't have five units for a number of years. and then went back to I guess my thing is I haven't seen anything I'm just I understand your point I feel if your client I understand this is why when you buy property you should check to make sure the zoning is in compliance when you buy it but so far I'm not seeing anything that the Planning Commission or code enforcement did took for your client to rely upon what appears to be a non-conforming use that was not pre-existing a change in the zoning ordinance i'm just having a hard time finding it yeah that's something he wants to add so that that's all my questions madam chair uh just to kind of touch on chris johnson the owner of the property uh if i whenever i went to apply for the uh the the remodel permit in 2020 whenever i was here's my property and and And I was told that as long as I'm not changing the floor plan, if at any point at that time they had said, hey, can we come inspect the property to make sure it's going to conform or whatever, I could have made a business decision such as like, hey, this needs to be converted back to a duplex or something of that nature. But they're like, as long as you're not changing it, you're good to go. And I was like, okay, so I can continue. And I made decisions based on that to modify the properties and spend a lot more money on the improvements, rather as it being an Airbnb or a short-term rental versus it being a long-term rental. So now that I have this property that's been, I've spent probably an extra six figures on the property, improving it to the state that it's in now so that I get a good clientele or a good stay for my guests, I could have made decisions accordingly. I understand that the permits could be researched. I looked on the PVA it stated five units there my bank they sent a commercial real estate appraisal out to come out and Conduct the appraisal there. I had to pay more of that my my construction or the sorry the loan is a commercial loan So anywhere they've done the research. They've also not found that it was not in compliance Just a touch there. I've got a question Did you get documentation in writing or an email when you? got a response on your remodeling permit? I did not, no. Whenever it was down there, it was just, it was an interaction. Another question is, I've read the documentation from the previous owners and everything, and, you know, that's kind of an opinion piece, but I think what we're looking at here is the proof that the five units were legally approved. Isn't that right, Brandon? That's the issue. I think that's kind of the standard. unless they rely upon this other get-out-of-jail-free card because the honest mistake that somehow they relied upon the government, but I don't see where that is applicable here. Well, I would offer a— But in either case, I think those are all for the courts to decide. I think right now we're just looking on whether or not this was ever a conforming use. For me, from a non-legal perspective or non-attorney perspective, maybe would be the better word for it, is there did seem to be several actions that a consumer would take as government approval. Like on a PVA, if things are listed as five units, if there are actually five people, five units receiving mail from the United States Post Office, If the city government has delivered five garbage cans with five different addresses written on it, a layman, not an attorney, may construe that. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the city is aware of it. They're charging them like serve bills for five different units or five different based on the trash cans that they've delivered and the mail that they've delivered. So, I can see it, you know, how I can see, I understand the letter of the law, but I can see definitely how this happened. One thing that I would like to add here is the circumstances here are a little bit unusual in the sense that there just doesn't seem to be a clear answer of what happened and when it happened here. the takeaway though is what i would ask you to consider at least is the message that it sends when you have someone who's come here done everything acted in good faith that has has been has come here to comply with the regulations has done so at the other properties and you say sorry something the city should have done something sooner you should have done something sooner whatever it is you don't get to operate there at least not as five units what is the next person that that has this issue gonna say are they gonna come and ask for approval or they're gonna see if they how long they can get by without somebody making a complaint in In this case, as far as I know, there's been no complaints made about this property. So had he not come, it may not even be on the radar right now. So I would just ask you to consider, when you use your discretion on this, that fact, that he's come here voluntarily as he's trying to do things the right way and that this is not the typical situation that you all see. I would just ask you to take that into consideration, please. I appreciate that. I have a question. I'm not sure if it's staff or legal, so I'll just look this way, and you guys answer accordingly. Is there a path that would allow approval of the zoning permit subject to them or giving them a time period to go through the rezoning process or the appropriate process? they could go through a zone change process to a zone that would allow for multiple dwelling units I'm not sure about sort of including them in the grandfathering and provision if they have to go through that process I don't know I'm just trying to consider your concerns a little bit staff concerns that these units clearly have been operating since 91 or 97 ish or so with that being said to ensure that they are you know structurally sound and appropriate and those types of things having someone go in there and verify those things looking for a path that allowed you know satisfaction of each of those issues to the oldest offer to the extent that there is a life safety issue about whether these units have safety issues and that we have no proof that has ever been reviewed I believe you're okay with that right yeah so the applicants agreeable to do that of course or have the have it be conditioned on on that passing or getting in compliance with a review whatever it takes that's not the issue he's more than willing to do that I think that if you all were to to vote in favor of the applicant and find that staff had aired in our decision to not issue the zoning compliance permits we would request that that that be a requirement that the fire marshal inspect the units or something to that effect again that's if you find that these are legal units then do we also have to make a statement or are we still saying that this is a grandfather in user I mean do we still also have to address that it depends on how you find if you find that we aired incorrectly then you would functionally be finding that that we were wrong and that they could be grandfathered in if you find that staff was correct and should not have approved these zoning compliance permits I think maybe this is where you're going what would the applicants prop what would the applicants next steps be to move forward with making this illegal use is that the question Florida I guess the error the word error is subjective for me I just they did provide information and staff decided it wasn't sufficient and i'm saying i guess they are saying if we do feel more comfortable with the information that was provided is there a path i mean i just i don't know why he would why anyone would have thought anything differently sure so if you find in favor of the applicant then that would mean that you you found staff to have issued who have there are refusal to be incorrect so we would then issue the zoning no no i'm not i'm not being I'm just saying that that's what the finding would be, would be in favor of the applicant and that we were in error. So our next steps from that point on would be to issue the zoning compliance permits. Because you would have found that we should have issued them. That would be the finding that you would be making. Would the property then be classified as a nonconforming use? Yes, I think that would put it into the legal nonconforming category. That's the whole CTP process for the grandfathering in, essentially. So, yeah. Essentially, yes, because you're grandfathering it in. So that's what you'd be saying. Thank you. Right now, it's neither fair nor foul. It's not one thing or the other. It's kind of in no man's land. This is a way for us to, at least in this point in time, to say, moving forward, we're going to prove this. Moving forward, here's the rules, and it's going to be subject to the same thing that everything else is. So if it changes owners, if the use changes, all those other protections that are in the zoning ordinance are still going to apply. But this would clear up this question mark we have in the history of this property, allow him to move forward the way he has been the last few years, and still the city, the public have protection as far as future use, future compliance, all those things that are in the ordinance. So these units are already being rented? They have been since 2020, yes. Also, I don't like the idea of the staff erring. It bothers me. The staff did exactly what they were supposed to do. On the other hand, there's lots of evidence that the applicant did what he thought was the right thing to do. So I'm right in the middle of this. So it's kind of who are we going to reward, who are we going to punish. and that's kind of where I stand it's difficult I'll say from the applicants perspective this isn't about us dumping on staff or that they did anything wrong it's not that at all this is just a question of how do you interpret this information and it's reasonably both sides of that there's more than one reasonable interpretation here shocking to hear a lawyer say that right but it's true here and it's not about they're wrong they're bad they didn't pay attention they they did their due diligence we just disagree on what the outcome of that should be and ask for you to break the tie and just let this use continue it's not a new thing to let this continue as is and bring him into compliance like he's trying to be thank you thank you would the staff like to discuss anything further no okay i'm happy to answer any questions but i don't think i have any further information have any questions staff legal so what we would have to do is there would be a motion to what you would the way i've drafted actually um just as to fill in was either you're moved to disapprove the appeal or approve the appeal that's how i drafted it so whatever you would want to do and i would point out if this helps or not we're really just dealing with this with the zoning compliance permit even if you if you decide that you're going to follow staff and disapprove the appeal there is still the conditional use permit process technically no because the since these would have have been in operation prior to July, they would be grandfathered in. But they could still seek one at some point now, correct? If you were to rule in favor of the staff, is that your question? Not to issue the zoning compliance permit. Right, so if we ruled to not issue the zoning compliance permit, there would not be a path forward for them to apply for a conditional use because we would have found that there were not five legal dwelling units. I think that staff thinks that there were probably two if the applicant wanted to move forward with with grandfathering in two short terminals they could do that. Does that answer your question? Yeah. no no i don't get to move what um someone want to take a shot with legal and coming up with a appropriate response or someone want a motion without it or if um we move for approval of the appeal with to this does the movement movement need to have findings of fact for this for an appeal yes okay so if someone wants to make that motion you would need to talk with legal to get findings of fact yes whoever wants to make the notion and what they want to move for I can't make the motion but I'd be in favor of the appellant moving forward. My concern is the lack of permitting along the way. I think we can condition that accordingly. And Madam Chair, you could relinquish the chair for the purposes of making a motion to your vice chair. Just throwing that out there as a possibility if you want to make the motion, there is a mechanism for that to occur. I've already done all the heavy lifting today, Brandon. Come on now. Oh, my apologies. There was someone else in the eye. You were as patient as you should have been. I apologize. I did sign in, but I need to be sworn in. Okay. If you could raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth today? Yes, I do. Okay. State your name for the record, please. I'm Sydney Bevan. There you go. Okay. So I'm Cindy Bevan. My husband and I live on 136 Glen Place. We're one block away from the 910-908 units that we're discussing today. We've lived in the neighborhood since 2018 on various different streets nearby. I frequently walk my dog a lot around those blocks and before Chris had purchased them I specifically would avoid that corner because there was a ton of riffraff and those units to my knowledge when I was just a neighbor and this is my opinion were really condensely occupied so to my knowledge it seemed as a neighbor that there were for sure five units and many people occupying those units too like I would see five people coming out of one of the small dwelling spaces so when Chris Johnson had purchased the spaces and cleaned them up now it's really great to walk by and I really enjoy being able to be in that area and there's not as much riff-raff or cops being called and and ambulances, et cetera. I'm also really passionate about this movement because we manage the spaces. So we live like a block away, and we're able to run over and bring a blanket to the guests. And I mean, partially of us being able to purchase our home on Glen Place in 2021 was because we have the income that's provided from us managing these spaces for him. And what I believe is these units are pretty small, and they've always been small since I've walked past them in 2018. And they really only should have two people in them. And short-term rental gives them the option to just only have two people. So we're able to regulate that. And if people are like, oh, can I bring my mom? we have to know that and we're able to take care of that space and regulate how many individuals are in that. Whereas if it was a long term, maybe there'd be four people in a one bedroom home. And that's kind of creating a lot of occupancy in such a small space. So I really believe that short term rental is great for these units. And I'm really passionate about it and we really love hosting people in these units as well. And yeah, like I said, we live just a block away. so it's nice for us to be able to run over and take care of people's needs and make sure the space is um you know well obtained so that's kind of what i had to say thank you need a few minutes five minutes i might figure out what to do Okay. All right. Brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Come forward. We'll entertain a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I move regarding PLN BOA 2430. Chris Johnson requests an administrative appeal to contest the division of planning's refusal to issue zoning compliance permits for five unhosted short term rentals on property within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single family residential zone on property located at 908, 910 North Limestone. I move approval of the appeal. With regard to PLN BOA 2430, Chris Johnson, an administrative appeal of the Division of Planning refusal to issue a zoning compliance permit for five unhosted short term rentals in an R1C zone. I move to approve the appeal based on the following finding. A, the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to determine that five units exist on the property and have existed for at least the past three years. And B, the applicant has also provided sufficient evidence to determine that these five units were used continuously for this use prior to the change in a zoning ordinance requiring conditional use permits. The staff is herein directed to issue the zoning compliance permit, which will include the following conditions. A. All units shall be inspected by the local fire marshal, and all changes requested by the fire marshal shall be made. B. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy. C. Each unit shall have no more than two occupants. So moved. It looks like Mr. Sturdivant has offered a second. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Are you okay with those conditions as listed? Yes. We have a first and a second. We will open for vote. Also, the motion has passed. You can move forward. Thank you. All right. And last but not least, we have PLNBOA 23-107, Mr. Mike Adams. Let's make your name for the record, please. Mike Adams. My name is Matthew Jones. Matthew Jones. Thank you. I think this is maybe just my second one of these ever. Yes. So good deal. And I'm sorry, should staff have spoken first? I don't think we have to unless you want us to. That's fine. So we have requested, you have requested approval for early rehearing instead of the 12-month period. And would you like to tell us why? Yes, ma'am. Originally, we had submitted on a three-bedroom single bath for occupancy of 10, based on the manner in which the ordinance had been written. We were rejected for that. We were rejected on the grounds of occupancy was too high. And then the short-term rental will remove a dwelling unit from moderate income residential availability and introduce a commercial use, therefore causing an adverse use impact to the area. that time we had been recommended by staff for approval as well during that time we were enhancing the basement of the house we were not finished with the construction of that since then we have finished that construction it's an additional 700 square feet it includes an additional bedroom an additional bathroom and living space to it and so we feel like we have satisfied those concerns So that is a substantial change so the staff has recommended that we approve them over here. And closer to discussion I'm ready to move for approval. Madam Chair I move for approval of an early hearing on behalf of Mike Adams PLN BOA 23107 related to an unhosted short-term rental in the single-family residential on property located at 1783 Glen Eagles Drive based upon the staff's report, the testimony of the applicant, and the conditions set for, not conditions, but the findings set forth in our report because there are no conditions. Do we have to make any findings? This is just the re-hearing so they'll just be real. Yeah, yeah, so moved. And Mr. Clark has offered a second. There's no further discussion. Yeah, I guess we'll see you again soon. Is there any chance we could ask for favoritism just to do the rehearing while we're here? Do you really want it now at this hour? It's costly. I think you still have to go through notice. We still have to go through the notification process and all that. For the third time? Yes. Yes. So you've got until Wednesday to file your application to be heard next month? We've done it twice. We're really good at it. Yeah. neighbors are probably tired of getting letters in the mail thank you we'll see you next thank you all right i think we did pretty good yeah oh there's something else on my agenda hold on board have any items does the staff have any additional items Brittany, I know Autumn is speaking with the applicants. Let me make one comment before Autumn finishes. We did have a conversation earlier. Thank you. Autumn and I spoke briefly earlier about maybe next month having a slight legal brief. legal brief, a lot of these ones that are circling about are things out there in the world with the short-term rentals. Short-term rentals? Well, I think we have some cases that have some legal that are somewhere in the process that we've talked about, Autumn. Just some of the appeals to circuit court that have been made that are still working their way through the process just to sort of update the board on where we've had appeals and that kind of thing. Where we add on them? Yeah. Yeah, or just the ones that we even have. So, um, you could prepare for next month. It wasn't on the spot. No, no. Okay. I was giving you a heads up that we would like to know. Duly noted. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, no, we don't want anything else today. Nothing else today. And also perhaps giving us some feedback on potential legislative action. All right. If nothing further, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Second. There we go. I think I just normally adjourned. I'm out. It's the way you cry, the way you move when you walk by. There ain't nothing about you. Don't do something for me. In my life I've been hammered by some heavy blows. That never knocked me off my feet All you gotta do is smile at me and down I go And baby it's no mystery Why I surrender