# Board of Adjustment Meeting - February 10, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · February 10, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6334 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6334?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-02-10 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 28, 2026 - **Length**: 9,616 words - **Speakers**: Chair, Translation > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington Board of Adjustment convened on February 10, 2025, at 1:34 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Raquel Carter presiding. The meeting addressed 8 agenda items, all of which were conditional use permit applications submitted by various applicants. Outcomes varied across the cases: three permits were approved (Red Draw Liberty LLC, MB Construction LLC, and Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C. for 139 Garrett Avenue), two were denied (185 Walton Ave LLC and Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C. for 137 Garrett Avenue), one was withdrawn (Mazuna LLC), one was postponed (Newtown Springs LLC), and one was continued (Diocese of Lexington TR). Over the course of the meeting, the Board took 5 votes and heard 2 public comments. ## Attendance All seven board members were present at the February 10, 2025 meeting. No members were absent or late. **Present:** - Raquel Carter - Harry Clarke - Branden Gross - Bob Sturdivant - James Persley - Linda Tucker - Chad Walker ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on five items during the February 10, 2025 meeting. - **PLN-BOA-25-00008 – Newtown Springs LLC (Postponement):** Harry Clarke moved, and Linda Tucker seconded, to postpone this application to the March 10, 2025 meeting. The motion passed 5–0 with 1 abstention via roll call vote. Voting in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Bob Sturdivant, James Persley, and Linda Tucker. - **PLN-BOA-25-00009 – MB Construction LLC (Conditional Use Permit):** Chad Walker moved, and Bob Sturdivant seconded, to approve a conditional use permit for an un-hosted short term rental. The motion passed unanimously 7–0, subject to 4 conditions recommended by Staff. All members voted in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, Bob Sturdivant, James Persley, Linda Tucker, and Chad Walker. - **PLN-BOA-24-00209 – 185 Walton Ave LLC (Conditional Use Permit):** Branden Gross moved, and Linda Tucker seconded, to disapprove a conditional use permit for an un-hosted short term rental. The motion to disapprove failed unanimously 0–7, with all seven members voting against disapproval: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, Bob Sturdivant, James Persley, Linda Tucker, and Chad Walker. - **PLN-BOA-25-00005 – Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C., 139 Garrett Avenue (Conditional Use Permit):** Branden Gross moved, and James Persley seconded, to approve a conditional use permit for an un-hosted short term rental at 139 Garrett Avenue. The motion passed unanimously 7–0, subject to 4 conditions recommended by Staff. All members voted in favor: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, Bob Sturdivant, James Persley, Linda Tucker, and Chad Walker. - **PLN-BOA-25-00006 – Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C., 137 Garrett Avenue (Conditional Use Permit):** Chad Walker moved, and Bob Sturdivant seconded, to disapprove a conditional use permit for an un-hosted short term rental at 137 Garrett Avenue. The motion to disapprove failed unanimously 0–7, with all seven members voting against disapproval: Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Branden Gross, Bob Sturdivant, James Persley, Linda Tucker, and Chad Walker. No transcript timestamps were available for any of the votes recorded above. ## Public Comment Two members of the public provided comment at the February 10, 2025 Board meeting, both addressing the same agenda item. - **Zachary O'Connor** spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit application submitted by 185 Walton Ave LLC. O'Connor raised concerns about the property's proximity to another unhosted short-term rental in the area, arguing that approving the application could result in non-compliance with applicable zoning regulations. - **Lauren Clem Murphy** also spoke in opposition to the 185 Walton Ave LLC application. Murphy's concerns centered on parking, traffic, and what she characterized as an undue concentration of short-term rentals in the surrounding area. No timestamps were available for these comments. Both speakers were unified in their opposition to the 185 Walton Ave LLC application, with their concerns collectively spanning zoning compliance, neighborhood parking and traffic impacts, and the density of short-term rental properties in the vicinity. ## Contested Items Two items on the February 10, 2025 Board agenda drew notable dispute during the meeting. **185 Walton Ave LLC Conditional Use Permit** This application for a conditional use permit faced significant opposition from community members. The concerns raised centered on two issues: the concentration of short-term rentals in the area and potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed use. Community members voiced their objections during the proceedings. The structured data does not specify the final outcome of this application. **Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C. Conditional Use Permits** This item involved a procedural dispute arising from the nature of the application itself. The Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C. had submitted conditional use permit requests related to two adjacent properties for short-term rental use. Due to zoning restrictions, the Board was required to choose between the two properties rather than approve both — only one of the adjacent parcels could be permitted for short-term rental use. The Board deliberated on which of the two properties to approve. The structured data does not specify which property was ultimately selected or whether either permit was granted. Both contested items shared a common subject matter — short-term rental use — suggesting that short-term rental policy and its effects on surrounding neighborhoods was a recurring point of tension at this meeting. [timestamp: not available] ## Mazuna LLC Conditional Use Permit **Case No. PLN-BOA-24-00219** This agenda item concerned a conditional use permit application submitted by Mazuna LLC for an un-hosted short-term rental. Raquel Carter was identified as a key speaker associated with this item. The application did not proceed to full discussion or deliberation before the Board, as the applicant withdrew the request prior to action being taken. No presentation, debate, or formal concerns were recorded on the merits of the conditional use permit itself. - **Applicant:** Mazuna LLC - **Request:** Conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **Outcome:** Application withdrawn by the applicant No further details regarding the reasons for withdrawal or any conditions that may have prompted it are reflected in the available record. ## Newtown Springs LLC Conditional Use Permit **Case No. PLN-BOA-25-00008** The Board took up a request from Newtown Springs LLC for a conditional use permit related to drive-through facilities. Raquel Carter was identified as a key speaker on this item. The application was not fully heard at the February 10, 2025 meeting. No detailed discussion, presentation, or debate is recorded for this agenda item at this session. The matter was **postponed** and will be taken up at the **March 10, 2025 Board meeting**. ## Red Draw Liberty LLC Conditional Use Permit **Agenda Item:** PLN-BOA-25-00002 The Board considered a request from Red Draw Liberty LLC for a conditional use permit to operate assisted living facilities and a medical clinic. Raquel Carter was a key speaker on this item. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, and the Board ultimately voted to approve the request. *Note: Transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item. Additional details regarding the specific discussion, any concerns raised during deliberation, and the full scope of the presentation were not captured in the available data.* ## Diocese of Lexington TR Conditional Use Permit **Case No. PLN-BOA-25-00004** The Board took up a request from the Diocese of Lexington TR for a conditional use permit to operate a childcare center as an accessory use to a place of religious assembly. The item was presented as a discussion item, with key speakers Raquel Carter and Traci Wade participating in the review. The application prompted further deliberation among Board members, particularly regarding enrollment limits for the proposed childcare center. Rather than reaching a final decision, the Board determined that additional discussion was needed to adequately address questions surrounding the scope of the permitted use — specifically, how many children would be enrolled at the facility. As a result of the unresolved questions around enrollment limits, the item was **continued** to a future meeting to allow time for further review and discussion before a final determination is made. ## MB Construction LLC Conditional Use Permit **Agenda Item:** PLN-BOA-25-00009 MB Construction LLC came before the Board requesting a conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental. Maria Alfonso was a key speaker on this item. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to conditions. The Board considered the request and ultimately voted to approve it. *Note: No transcript timestamp is available for this agenda item, and detailed information about the specific conditions attached to the approval, the property location, or any concerns raised during discussion was not captured in the available meeting data.* ## 185 Walton Ave LLC Conditional Use Permit **Case No. PLN-BOA-24-00209** The Board took up a request from 185 Walton Ave LLC for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental (STR) at the subject property. - **Presenter:** James Mills presented the case before the Board. - **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended **disapproval** of the permit application, citing a high concentration of existing short-term rentals in the surrounding area as the basis for the recommendation. - **Outcome:** The Board **denied** the conditional use permit request, consistent with the staff recommendation. No additional speakers, debate details, or conditions were noted in the record for this item. ## Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C Conditional Use Permit for 139 Garrett Avenue **Agenda Item:** PLN-BOA-25-00005 The Board considered a request from Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C for a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental at 139 Garrett Avenue. Dalton Belcher presented the item on behalf of staff, who recommended approval of the permit subject to conditions. The Board ultimately approved the conditional use permit for the un-hosted short-term rental at 139 Garrett Avenue. ## Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C Conditional Use Permit for 137 Garrett Avenue **Case No. PLN-BOA-25-00006** The Board considered a conditional use permit application submitted by Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C. for an un-hosted short-term rental (STR) at 137 Garrett Avenue. Dalton Belcher was a key speaker during the discussion of this item. Staff recommended disapproval of the application, citing the property's proximity to another existing short-term rental. This proximity issue appears to have been the central concern driving the staff recommendation against approval, as local regulations governing short-term rentals typically include distance or density requirements intended to limit the concentration of STRs within a given area. The Board ultimately denied the conditional use permit request, consistent with the staff recommendation. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-25-00008** — postponed (5-0): Postpone Newtown Springs LLC application to March 10, 2025 meeting - **PLN-BOA-25-00009** — passed (7-0): Approve conditional use permit for MB Construction LLC for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-24-00209** — failed (0-7): Disapprove conditional use permit for 185 Walton Ave LLC for an un-hosted short term rental - **PLN-BOA-25-00005** — passed (7-0): Approve conditional use permit for Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C for an un-hosted short term rental at 139 Garrett Avenue - **PLN-BOA-25-00006** — failed (0-7): Disapprove conditional use permit for Goodpaster Property Group L.L.C for an un-hosted short term rental at 137 Garrett Avenue --- ## Full transcript I thought I was dreaming, but I was right, oh yeah, yeah How that I'm gonna keep on scheming Till I can make you, make you my own So you see, I really can't live without you I'm nothing, oh, oh, just one look And I know, oh, how I'll get you Someday, oh, oh, just one look That's all it took, hey, just one look That's all it took, wow, just one look That's all it, woah, baby That's all it took, just one look That's all it took, just one look That's all it took, you're my baby That's all it took Love will abide Take things in stride Sounds like good advice But there's no other way Love will abide Sounds like good advice But there's no one in my saddened town Washes clean Loves wounds unseen That's what someone told me But I don't know what it means Cause I've done everything I know To try and make you mine And I think I'm gonna love you For a long, long time Mmm Rockin' my fears Linkin' back the tears I can't say you hurt me When you never let me near And I never drew One response from you All the world you've built All of the girls you never knew Cause I've done everything I know To try and make you mine And I think it's gonna hurt me For a long, long time Mmm Wait for the day You'll go away Knowing that you warned me Of the price I have to pay Last for the lost Who knows the cost Living in the memory Of a love that never was Cause I've done everything I know To try and change your mind And I think I'm gonna miss you For a long, long time Cause I've done everything I know To try and make you mine And I think I'm gonna love you For a long, long time © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved I've been pushed down I've been pushed round When will I, I be loved When I find a new man That I want for mine I break my heart in two It happens every time I've been made blue I've been lied to When will I, I be loved When will I, I be loved When I find a new man That I want for mine I break my heart in two It happens every time © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved I've been made blue I've been lied to When will I, I be loved When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 When will I, I be loved © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2022 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 affect any of the adjacent properties, but trust me, it will. And so, again, I don't think it's appropriate to have a child care center there at the church. I mean, it's fine if it's members of the church, they have Sunday service, they have lots of meetings during the morning, throughout the day, throughout the week, that's part of the mission of the church, and that's great. But not a child care center, so I would ask you to deny this appeal. And there's a precedence, as you mentioned, of denials, the one in 2010, and there was actually another one prior to that, where all the neighbors opposed this. So this is not the first time this has been tried and then denied by the board. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak? If not, I will entertain the motion to continue. Madam Chair, I move for a continuance of PLM BOA 25-4, Diocese of Lexington's request for a conditional use permit for a child care center accessory to a place of religious assembly in the R1A zone on property located at 1891 Parkers Mill Road to give the applicant opportunity to talk with staff about its amended application. And the postponed date will be on, give me a second here, March 10th, 2025 at 1 PM in this chambers. And then I guess before we go, the neighbors will want to come back. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. And then Mr. Walker has offered a second. Any further discussion? Okay, we can talk more about it next month. We'll open for a vote. The motion to continue has passed. We'll review it next month, March the 10th. Okay, the next item is PLM BOA 25, and we are on the STR docket now. So we have PLM BOA 25-7, I'm sorry, sir, just a moment. It was my fault, not yours. We are going to get into our STRs. Do we want to talk about the updates now? I forgot what we said. Yeah, okay. So what we will do, we have had some changes in the ordinance. So James from staff will review some of those changes with us, and then I will let each individual case know what is applicable. because some of the cases have been actually submitted prior to the changes in the ordinance. James Mills, Planning Staff. So today I want to present to you the new regulations in regard to short-term rental applications for the city of Lexington. So the new ordinance was adopted by the Urban County Council on December 5th, 2024. Effective 12-12-2024, all new STR applications will be reviewed through these regulations. You'll have one case today that will be reviewed through the old regulations. That was postponed last month, and the rest that you'll hear today will be through this new lens. STRs with an occupancy greater than ten require a conditional use permit. As of February 10th, 2025, the Division of Planning has processed approximately 1,014 ZCPs for STRs. Section 13 of the code of ordinances includes additional regulations for STRs related to business licensing and permitting. And section 13-3F states that short-term rentals shall not be used for private events such as weddings or parties in which the number of occupants exceeds the maximum limit. So our definitions haven't changed. Short-term rentals are still defined as a commercial use of a dwelling unit that is in whole and in part for temporary occupancy by transient guests for a tendency of less than 30 days where no meals are served. And our hosted and unhosted definitions remain the same as well. In regard to a host would be when someone is the primary resident and lives at the property during the rental period. So we do have several updates. One is our maximum occupancy limit has been decreased from 12 to 10. So instead of a maximum of two per bedroom plus four, it is now two per bedroom plus two. Additionally, there has been a limit on STR applications. As you all know, we have received way over ten, usually a month. So there is now a limit of ten per month that we accept, per month. And then additionally, in regard to our considerations, the board shall determine in taking into consideration the compliance record of the applicant, whether other STRs in the general vicinity have been cited as a nuisance. And one of our changes was we took away the occupancy rate and included based on vulnerable or two involuntary displacement neighborhoods. So that would be mainly our task force on neighborhoods and transition report. However, no application today falls within these ten areas. Additionally, the zoning ordinance was updated. What you will not see right now are ag STRs, which was recently updated. That will be something we'll probably touch in more next meeting, but these are kind of where the zones where it's allowed as an accessory use, conditional use, and a principal use. So the new requirements are that no short-term rental regulated as conditional use shall be located within 600 feet of another short-term rental that has either received a conditional use permit from the Board of Adjustment, or is otherwise a legal non-conforming use pursuant to section J of article 3-13. And the other requirement is the number of unhosted STRs within 1,000 feet shall not exceed 2% of all dwelling units within that 1,000 foot area in residential zones. So there are opportunities for relief from this. It is on a case-by-case basis, provided the applicant demonstrates the proposal would not contribute to an over-concentration of unhosted short-term rentals in the immediate area. And or adversely affect the housing stock in the immediate area. Additionally, the board must find one of the following reasons in order to provide relief from the 600 foot buffer and the 2% or lower or higher concentration in 1,000. These include the properties adjacent to non-residential zones that allow short-term rentals as a principal or accessory use. A significant environmental feature or a minor arterial or higher classification road that separates the proposed short-term rentals from other unhosted short-term rentals within the buffer area. Increasing this percentage or preventing, limiting that 600 foot. And then the last one is that an unhosted short-term rental within the buffer area is located on the perimeter of the buffer area, which part of the property being located outside of the buffer area. Here are all our issued ZCPs for the city of Lexington. You can see kind of where the concentration is relative to downtown. And here are our concentration percentages that include our, that should say 600 foot buffer up here. Number of SCRs within 1,000 feet, number of residential dwelling units in 1,000 feet, and our percentages over here for that 1,000 foot percentage. But our main consideration now is to start is whether something is in the 600 foot buffer, which two applications today have at least one within that 600 foot buffer. Any questions? Thank you, James. So now PLN BOA 25-7, Rentals for Rent, LLC, it's 1021 Lane Alley. I thought that was you, I'm sorry. Thank you, please state your name for the record. My name is Zachary Miller. Okay, this has been recommended for approval, and there are four conditions that have been listed. Have you had the opportunity to review those? Yes. Okay, and are you comfortable complying with those conditions? We are. Thank you. Does the board have any questions of this applicant? They are under the new ordinance, of course. If not, I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'm sure I recommend approval of PLN BOA 25-07, Rentals for Rent, LLC, request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single family residential zone or property located at 1021 Lane Island Road based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you, and Mr. Pursley has seconded that motion. Further discussion? If not, we will take a vote. Wonderful, motion passed, good luck. Thank you. Our next item is PLN BOA 25-9, that's MB Construction. The applicant will come forward, please. And if she could state her name for the record, please. This is to number of our. My name is Maria Alfonso Clara. Thank you. We do need to be sworn in. Yes, and right hand, please. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the whole truth today? I swear to tell the whole truth today. Thank you. So this has been recommended for approval. And there are four items that are listed as conditions that we would need the applicant to agree to and be comfortable with. If we have an opportunity to read over those. Yes, okay, thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant? I have a question. Does this property touch the park at all? I know that you're like two houses from the playground, but does it touch the park? Would you mind repeating that, please? Would you mind repeating that, please? The property, does it touch the park? The park that's right there? No, it is close, but it does not touch it. Yeah, okay, and then you only have one parking space, correct? Mm-hm. One parking space. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, I will entertain a, oh, sorry. For the record, ma'am, I believe you're translating. What is your name? My name is Trinidad Alfonso. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve BLM BOA 25-9, MB Construction LLC's request for a conditional use permit. For an unhosted short term rental in townhouse residential zone on a property located at 485 Larkwood Drive, based on staff's recommendations and subject to the four conditions. Thank you, and Mr. Sturdivant has offered a second. Do we have any further discussion or comment? Okay, we will take a vote. Wonderful, motion has passed. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, our next item is PLM BOA 24-209, 185 Walton Avenue. It has been recommended for disapproval, so we will allow staff to present first. And then we will ask the applicant to come speak. Okay, so it's on. James Mills Planning Staff. So today I want to present to you the request by 185 Walton LLC for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short term rental. This request was under the old regulations, so I will try to quickly review the old regulations for this case. So the previous regulations were adopted July 11th, 2023. All applications submitted prior to 12-12-2024 will be viewed through these regulations. So our main considerations as we have grown accustomed to were under Article 3-13 under the previous zoning ordinance. The number of STRs, and if any, and approximately of the property being considered for such a use. The demonstrated compliance record of the applicant. The occupancy rate of other STRs in the general vicinity. And whether other STRs in the general vicinity were cited as a nuisance. These were all considerations for the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, staff, whenever taking this framework, we used our previous methodology of the number of residential dwelling units within 1,000 feet out of the total number of, so all those STRs within that 1,000 feet out of the total number of residential dwelling units. Instead of out of the total number of parcels, which we were using previously earlier in the year. To determine the compliance record of applicants, planning staff engaged with several of the divisions. The Division of Revenue, Zoning Enforcement, Staff of the Division of Building Inspection, and the Police Department. The planning staff also used the host compliance software. And although host compliance software wasn't able to determine occupancy rate, we used data available via AirDNA. Which they define as the number of rental days per month. Staff also used nuisance information gathered by the new short term rental hotline. Additionally, for conditional use permits, other factors that require review are noise, traffic, parking, compatibility with an area, compliance with other zoning ordinance requirements. And whether or not it will have an adverse impact on the subject or surrounding properties. So taking a look at the aerial view of 185 Walton, you can see Walton Avenue running here. You can see where we've had several different cases with Kramer Avenue and Hamburg Avenue over here. We also have the Belcourt area up here. Taking a look at the Google Street View of the subject property, you can kind of see one thing that we pointed out in the staff report was the crosswalk. Here's the site plan of the subject property demonstrating the principal structure and the accessory garage and parking area, which the applicant demonstrated six parking spaces. And looking at the STR and the concentration percentage, the main thing that we focus on. We found that there was 3.88% of residential dwelling units within this area are used for short term rental. So that was a total of 14 short term rental units within that 1,000 foot buffer out of 361 residential dwelling units. Which is how we got our 3.88% number. Additionally, our average occupancy rate of all these addresses, so all these properties that we found via AirDNA was 56.1%, which is higher than the Lexington rate of 50% on average. Additionally, here is kind of that proximity to the crosswalk that we've shown, discussing the staff report. And the, and the driveway that backs into it. So our original recommendation included disapproval, which included the five reasons listed. However, the applicant requested a postponement for one month. And it was mainly one thing that they highlighted was that in our staff report we found the applicant said there was five bedrooms, when in reality, whenever we looked via the building information, there was four. And we had concerns on whether that was going to be enough to have the number of people that they wanted. So this was the approved second floor plan, which the applicant was showing this room that says kids zone as a bedroom. But the applicant addressed this question by adjusting their proposal to a maximum of four bedrooms for ten individuals and a limit of four vehicles. Additionally, the applicant opined that the crosswalk adjoining the short term rental is not a concern due to the mixed use nature of the area. Claimed that, the applicant also included the claim that using parcel data would drop his concentration percentage down, opining that only eight are used for short term rentals, eight parcels. The applicant posited that the reference air DNA data is incomplete and inaccurate, stating that listing data in unregistered SDRs should not count towards density limits. And lastly, the applicant stated that their compliance record reflected positively on their application. Staff's response is that, does not believe that the information provided by the applicant addresses the other four reasons provided for disapproval. It does address finding E, which staff recommended removing for a disapproval staff report, but additionally, the applicant's statement that the concentration calculation should be conducted differently does not alter the number of SDRs within that 1,000 foot buffer region. Additionally, regarding air DNA, the applicant has not substantiated how the occupancy rate data is invalid. The concentration percentages do not use data from air DNA, only internal zoning compliance data from the division of planning. Staff evaluated the applicant's compliance record in our original staff report, so there was not a concern with our disapproval. And while staff's disapproval recommendation has not changed, we do believe finding E should be removed. So this is our recommendation for disapproval, the four factors listed. And if you have any questions. Any questions of staff for the applicant to speak? Okay, thank you, James. Will the applicant come forward, please? Good afternoon, staff. My name is Seth Hillemeyer. Thanks for taking the time to hear my case today regarding my application. I appreciate the work that each of you guys do to make Lexington a special place and keep our community positive and a great place to live and have a business. Addressing the staff concerns, last month my application was recommended for disapproval based on the several factors that James just mentioned, and I wanted to address those. First and foremost, occupancy and parking. One of the concerns raised was the number of guests. I originally requested 12 in response to the staff's concerns. I revised my application to the occupancy of 10, which he just acknowledged. This change really demonstrates my willingness to work with the board and the city of staff to ensure my SDR operates within reasonable guidelines. Additionally, parking was stated as a concern, and while my driveway can accommodate up to six vehicles, I have limited the number of vehicles to four to minimize any potential impact on the neighborhood. Importantly, all of the parking is off street in a private driveway, which is not shared, and I don't believe will affect street parking or traffic flow, which ensures that our STR is not going to create congestion or parking issues for nearby residents. In regards to the proximity of the crosswalk, obviously that was a concern that James just highlighted. I find that to be an irrelevant factor for the approval, and due to the fact that there's not going to be more than four vehicles parked in a driveway that's off street. So I don't think this minimal vehicle presence will create a significant traffic or pedestrian concerns. In addition to that, there is a business that's a CPA firm that's located right next to that same crosswalk, and that hasn't been a factor in any public records that I could find of being a nuisance. As far as the STR concentration in the neighborhood, the staff reported there are 14 STRs in the area. And after reviewing the information, I found that half of those STRs in the neighborhood were in a multi-unit building. Meaning there was, I believe the number was seven or eight, I don't want to misspeak on that, seven or eight actual dwellings that have STRs in them. And I personally believe that that's a low concentration in a 1,000 foot radius. I absolutely understand the staff's recommendation and respect the staff's desire to ensure that Lexington is not overrun with STRs. But in reality, I don't think that seven parcels is an overwhelming number of STRs within 1,000 feet. Again, when you take seven parcels into consideration, I believe that will drop it less than the 2% requirement. Another thing is the projected occupancy rate, actually I would like to skip past that for now. As far as the housing stock considerations, I recognize that Lexington is highly sensitive to the amount of housing that's available and housing units. And my property was a purpose built STR. It did not remove a housing unit from Lexington's inventory. And many STRs are created by converting existing homes to an STR. I intentionally designed and we built this home to be an STR, ensuring that no existing housing stock would be removed from the market. I feel that this aligns with the city's goals in maintaining a balance between the STRs and long term housing availability. Earlier, James mentioned seeking relief under the existing regulations, and I wanted to address that. Lexington regulations explicitly allow operators to apply for relief for a 1,000 foot rule in residential zones if the property is adjacent to non-residential zones that would allow an STR. I think it's important to note that Walton Avenue is a mixed use corridor with many businesses on both the north and south side. And in fact, located directly adjacent to my property is a commercial office building. And so I'd respectfully ask the board to consider my application in light of the intent behind that regulation for relief. In conclusion, I've taken the concerns of my staff and believe my STR will not impact the neighborhood, traffic, pedestrian safety, or the housing availability. The city's own regulation provides a framework for approving STRs in mixed use areas like I just mentioned. And I believe my property meets that criteria. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have questions of the applicant before we allow some public comment? Okay, what we'll do is allow public comment, then give you an opportunity to come back. Thank you. Good afternoon, please state your name for the record. Hello, my name is Zachary O'Connor. Thank you. I'm here to speak in opposition to the conditional use permit for 185 Walton. I live in the area within a half block of this particular house. I'm speaking in opposition to this today with regards to a different property that I believe shows why this property should not be granted its conditional use permit. To start with, I'd like to speak to VRBO, Vacation Rentals by Owner. This is a website that, like Airbnb, allows for short term rentals. In this case, the Walton House number three, a beautifully furnished cottage in the heart of Lexington. You'll notice that on this URL, this is unit 4018374, that's highlighted at the top. It's hard to see, but it is up there. Now, this website does not allow owners to post their actual address, but it does allow them to post pictures. This is a picture of the Walton House, as posted on the VRBO website. You'll notice that the URL matches, 4018374. If you look, it's a little hard to see in this picture, but if you look very closely, you'll notice that it says, on the exterior, 175. That is the actual house number as posted by the owner on this short term rental website. This is a Google Maps street image for 175 Walton Avenue. It seems pretty obvious that this is the same house. So 175 Walton is for rent as a short term rental on the VRBO website. Now, what do we know about 175 Walton? Well, according to this, which is from the Fayette County PVA, this house, which is in an R2 zone, please notice, is owned by CW Investments LLC, not by a person, but a business. According to the Secretary of State's website, CW Investments LLC has its principal office not at 175 Walton, but at 115 Walton, and its registered agent, Colt, sorry, could you move that down a little more, Colt Lickenhus, is also registered at 115 Walton Avenue, not 175. So why does this matter? This matters because an unhosted short term rental is a rental where the owner or the primary resident does not occupy the property during the rental period. So my apologies for going over what James just did, I didn't know he'd be reiterating these before I printed these out. And the primary resident is either the owner or the individual who consents to be the agent of the owner, which in this case would presumably be Colt Lickenhus, who does not, as we saw, identify his residence as 175. I should further note that using unregulated information from the public records, I did look up Mr. Lickenhus' personal address, but out of privacy concerns, I am not going to raise that here. I will simply ask you to take my word for it when I say that it is not within the city of Lexington. This matters because an unhosted short-term rental in the R2 zone requires a conditional use permit. Sorry, there's only a few more of these. I promise I'll hurry through them. If you could- Well, if you could get to the conclusion for us, please. The conclusion is that 175 Walton Avenue is an unhosted short-term rental that is within 600 feet of this 185 Walton area. And according to this final map, which is from Google Maps, you can see that it is actually within less than 200 feet. So even regardless of the concentration, that this provision alone is reason enough to deny this conditional use permit. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. And before the next speaker, real quick, but this application's being reviewed underneath the old ordinance. So that 600 foot limitation was not applicable yet when the application was filed? That's correct. Yeah, that's correct. But also the proximity to commercial or office zoning, as Mr. Hillmire mentioned, is also not part of, was not part of our review. Additionally, it says adjacent, which also means adjoining, so the properties next door to this property are not zoned. Yes, they are. P1. Yeah. He has a P1 zone right next door. The P1? The point being is, that's not also for us to review unless the applicant decides he wants to proceed underneath the new regulations. Right, so we heard testimony from both parties so far about the new regulations. That we should ignore at this time. Right. Okay. Thank you. Next get. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for your time. My name is Lauren Clem Murphy, and I'm the homeowner, along with my husband John Kerry Murphy, and a resident at 177 Walton Avenue. Here to disapprove of the application to turn 185 into a short-term rental. Could you adjust the microphone just a little bit? Not loud enough? How's that? Okay, thank you. 177 Walton, homeowner and resident, disapproving this application for 185. As the previous person noted, 175 is a short-term rental, and I would like to state for the record there are technically two of the five units are short-term rentals at 175. So I'm not sure if the staff were able to pull that, but it is noteworthy. I also want to make sure that the board saw the Mental Neighborhood Association's letter in disapproval of the short-term vacation rental as well. The group is nodding, so thank you for that. My primary concerns are, again, parking and number of vehicles. I appreciate that the number of occupants proposed is brought down to ten from 12, and vehicles from six to four. That said, four vehicles is still allowed, especially for a single lane driveway. And I think we can all understand the practicality and actuality of that. The crosswalk is frequented by elementary school students, accompanied and non-accompanied, which is a block away to North Ashland Elementary. Also, the proponents stated that this was built to be a short-term rental. However, the house was for sale for over six months and then taken off the market before this was put forward. Again, just concerns about the number of short-term vacation rentals. As the staff has pointed out, seven parcels within 1,000 square feet. As the proponent kind of stated, that is not a concern of his, it is a concern of the homeowners and residents. Although Walton does have a lot of businesses and some mixed use, there are a lot of people who live there. I think that's all I have to say. So, thank you for your time, again, and considering this. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to speak? No. Would the applicant like to say anything additional? Okay. All righty, thank you. So, back to the board. Do we have additional questions for the applicant? No comments, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Madam President, I'd like to make a motion to disapprove BOA 24-209, 185 Walton Avenue. A request for a conditional use permit for unhosted short-term rental with defined infield and redevelopment area in a mixed low-density residential zone on property located at 185 Walton Avenue. Thank you, and Ms. Tucker has seconded that motion. Any additional comment? If not, we'll take a vote. Okay, the disapproval has stood. Thank you. The last item on our agenda is PLN BOA 25-5 and PLN BOA 25-6. And someone want to get Chad? It's up there, I'm sorry. And Chad technically recused, not abstained. Yeah. Yeah, but I meant to talk about this. It was up there. No, I knew that. I was just looking at the. Okay. Is he asleep? Was he taking a nap? Okay, thank you. All right, state your name for the record, please. Zachary Goodpaster, Goodpaster Property Group. Thank you. We actually have two items here, 139 Garrett Avenue and 137 Garrett Avenue. One has been recommended for approval, one for disapproval. They're next to each other? Yes, ma'am. Okay, so I did this. We could either have staff approval, would you like to just tell us a little bit? I mean, staff to, which way do we want to go? Yeah, it's up to you, but I can present the case and then we can kind of let him talk if that makes sense. They're right beside each other, so it is a similar conversation if you want me to go ahead and present first. Would that be helpful to hear staff's- Sure, that's fine. Okay, thank you. And it's very interesting, you got stuck in that approval, disapproval, because they're next door and it is 600 feet, right? Right. Okay, Dalton Belcher, Lexington Planning Staff. So just a reminder, because I know we've bounced back and forth a couple times. This is the first case you're going to be hearing, you've had a couple on the abbreviated agenda, but this is under the new regulations. So the old regulations do not apply to this one. This is including what James presented about. At a very broad level, it says that you should not have a short term rental within 600 feet of your parcel. You should not have one, or more than 2% within a 1,000 foot buffer. There are three exemptions that you can potentially have, factor in, and one of those does apply in this case. So this property, and I'll mention there are two applications here. They are directly beside each other. It's 139 Garrett, which is the first one I'm presenting, and the one staff has recommended approval for. And 137 Garrett, which staff has recommended disapproval for. So here's a picture of the property. Here's a floor plan, site plan presented by the applicant. So the distinction here, you can see on the edge of the red circle there, let me see if I can zoom in on it. Right here is a short term rental, and there's one, it's a little hard to see, but it's right on the line here as well. So one of the exemptions that is carved out in the ordinance is basically if there is a short term rental that is on the edge of the buffer, then you can be considered, that can be an exemption to say, well, there is one within 600 feet, but it's on the edge of the buffer, so it shouldn't be counted. Which is what the applicant has mentioned here. Staff does agree with that, and that's why staff recommends approval for this one. We find that these are very much on the edge of the buffer. They're actually being kind of cut in half by the buffer. So staff does not have an issue with approval for this one, and I'm going to talk about both of these a little bit together, because they do sort of kind of go hand in hand, because of that same provision. If you approve this one, the next one would not have that exemption, because it would be right beside each other. So that's why staff is recommending disapproval of the next case. So that's a little complicated, because they kind of go back and forth there. But on the merits for this one, staff does recommend approval. The concentration with the buffer area, we find that that meets the exemption. So we have six different reasons for approval. One being that it won't have an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood, and I'm paraphrasing these. But two, that the proposed use should not have an adverse impact on traffic in the vicinity as adequate parking is available. Three, that no short-term rentals in the area have been cited as a nuisance. Four, and this is what I've kind of spent the majority of the time talking about, that the applicant meets one of the three relief provisions or exemptions of the ordinance. Although there is one short-term rental within the required buffer, the applicant demonstrated this short-term rental is located on the perimeter of the buffer area. And allowing for a short-term rental on the subject property will not contribute to an over-concentration of unhosted short-term rentals in the immediate area or adversely affect the housing stock in the immediate area. And then the concentration within the 1,000 foot buffer is less than 2%. And I think I said there's one within the short-term rental area, but there's actually two, so just a clarification on that. There is no record of a short-term rental compliance issues with the applicant, and all necessary public services and facilities are available and adequate for the proposed use. I'll also note that we received multiple letters, but I believe they were all in favor in support of the application. I don't believe we had any opposition, so. So just to shorten it for you, you would have approved one or the other? Yeah, so really- Did we pick the one to approve for any particular reason? Basically, which one was first in our case order. So if the applicant, if you want to work it out with the applicant, if they would prefer, depending on what you go with, if they prefer one or the other, staff doesn't have an issue with one or the other, it's once you approve one, then we have an issue with approving the second one. In the 600 feet. The applicant did state, whenever applying, that they wanted this one to be the first one, because this is the one that they would prefer to get approved over the two, but if I'm incorrect on that, they can. Okay. If you approve 139, that doesn't kick it up to more than 2%, does it? Well, we have the new ordinance. This one is under the new ordinance, so it's 600, within 600 feet. Okay. There's two provisions you're talking about. I don't have that number off the top of my head, but the 600 feet would be what would cause the issue here. If you approve 139, 137, the exemptions, it's whether there's one on the buffer, whether there's a commercial zone nearby. And they don't meet any of the exemptions according to, from what staff has looked at, so, because they are right on top of each other. But I see, I think they are saying, it would not increase over 2%, but it's still the 600 feet. Sorry, I interrupted your question. I can double check the math, but I don't think it would go over 2% based off, yeah. Okay. I'd like to just mention that the maps are different between each one of these. And if you look at the disapproval 137, that's the one that staff says that the SDR existing already is fully within the buffer zone. And yet the other map shows it not in the buffer zone. So, I mean, the buffer does move a little bit because it's based off the parcels. So, the buffer does move slightly. These aren't exactly the same. So, the parcel does move a little bit because you have 137 Garrett, and we do the buffer from the parcel that way, and then we do 139 Garrett. So, the maps are a little bit different, just a little bit. I think both of my maps still show the red line cutting through the property. So, the greenhouse you're seeing. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, you see the greenhouse. Yes. That is just showing the icon, but those properties are still being split similarly. There's more parcel around the house icon. Thank you, appreciate it. I'm sorry, anything else? We'll give the applicant an opportunity. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Thanks for planning, for putting that report together. It was really in depth. I was very impressed. I just wanted to, I guess, give some more information. I actually got out of the military to work on these two houses, and I've been working on them with my dad for the past two years. Every single weekend I get off work, I've literally put everything I have into these houses. So, I've always thought I was in compliance because I have LegalZoom. LegalZoom says, we keep you compliant, everything. So, I actually didn't know about these ordinances. I've been working on 139 since May, literally coming down every single weekend and working on it, top to bottom, I put all my money into it. They're actually the two houses next to my grandma and my parents on the other side. So, in terms of keeping the peace and everything, I have security cameras on the front. All my neighbors have given their okays via emails. And obviously, my parents and my grandma always look out for the properties. I think that's it, I'm a little nervous. No, that's okay, that's okay. Yeah, and I think we have quite a few letters of support that we have received. Have you already been operating one or the other of them? Yes, ma'am, 137. I was actually a top 5% on Airbnb with a 80% occupancy. So, do you actually have relatives on both sides of 139 and 137? A family friend on the left side, and then both my parents on the right side, and my uncle, he actually lives around the corner. So, if anything happened where they weren't able to help out, my uncle and aunt actually live around the corner as well. Thank you. And so- I guess the question is, on the 600 foot limitation, my recollection, there is no relief? In the ordinance, it just says one in every 600 feet, is that? I can't recall. There is relief. The relief, it applies to both the 2% concentration with 1,000 feet and the 600 feet. It's one of those three provisions, like I mentioned the exemption here. So, within the 600 feet, or if it was within 1,000 feet, but focusing on your question here. With the 600 feet, what staff is looking at is the two short term mills we're seeing are on the edge of that buffer. So, that's one of the provisions that you can basically say that, yes, there is one within 600 feet, but it's right on the edge of 600 feet. So, it won't create an over-concentration. So, there is a relief provision here that applies. Our staff's distinction is, that applies to one of these. And then once you approve one of them, none of these exemptions from staff's perspective would actually apply because of the fact that they're right beside each other, because the other short term rentals that we're seeing in the map are on the far edges of that 600 foot, the inside circle there. That's why we say that at least one, we say one of these, we're okay with approval. If that makes sense. It's a tough one. Somebody always tests the, you have to be the first one, huh? I had to put it forward. I was like right at the finish line and I was like, I'm going to put this forward. I just hope you all take all that into consideration. The moral of the story is legal, no. I'm sorry, it looks like you were trying to do the right thing, so I appreciate it. Okay, so real quick, just this is for staff again. Make sure I'm following. So, the 600, for both the 600 and the 1,000, you can seek relief if you fall within one of the three exceptions. Yes, sir. And then he can use that exception once, in this instance. He could do it number three, because it's a perimeter. But once he uses that, that is no longer an exception, because now he's right next door. However, though, if his second one was next to a commercial space, then maybe another exception would apply. So, in this instance, we don't have a second exception to give him for that second short-term rental, is the staff's position. Yeah, the two other exemptions are whether he's near a non-residential zone, which this property would not be, or whether it's separated by an environmental feature, minor arterial, or higher classification road. But these are right beside each other, so they're not separated by the roads. You have it correct, yes. So, for the second one, our hands are really kind of tied by the language of the ordinance. So, we're out of it. Yeah, okay, I mean, yeah. Okay, so the first one is PLN BOA 25-5. So, that's 139 Garrett Avenue, and it's my understanding that would be your preference. Yes, ma'am. I will entertain a motion at this time. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN BOA 25-5, Good Pastor Property Group, LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a single family residential zone on property located at 139 Garrett Avenue, based upon the staff's report and subject to the conditions set forth therein. Thank you, and Mr. Persley has seconded that item. Any further discussion or comment? We'll take a vote. Wonderful. That one has passed, has been approved. So then on PLN BOA 25-6, that's 137 Garrett Avenue, that has been recommended for disapproval. I will entertain a motion for this particular item. Let me throw something in there too, this is a hypothetical, so this is just for my own. Hypothetically speaking, if you had two separate applicants, right? Let's just pretend for a minute, you had two separate applicants. And both were going to be heard the same day, all right? And- First come, first serve. I'll get right to the point. First come, first serve. First one in. So even though staff may recommend approval on both, then the day sitting here, you would still have, now we're changing, now it's disapproval. Even though the staff report and everything would probably say it for approval. Well, staff's report would be first come, first serve. So if they had already recommended, I'm sorry. But I guess what Chad's saying is, if for some reason we disapproved the first one because we disagreed with staff, we could then approve the second one, but it's a first come, first serve, so. And I guess that's kind of the thing, is you would have, and I'm just, I am trying to help you out, I promise. That even if you had two similar restaurants or something like that, whatever it was, whatever the condition you just happened to be. And you go through all this work and you basically look at them separately, because you never know what this crazy board's going to do. We might disapprove of one and approve another. But the day that it's all sitting here and being presented, you know what I mean? I mean, if you hadn't applied for both, would that not be looked at it from different eyes? Because you have the ability to look at them side by side and go, well, if we approve this, then what if? If we approve this one, then definitely not this one. We're not actually looking at them separate. Tell the Daganites, you're not first, you're last. Unfortunately, that's just how the first one in is the first one in. Wildly ludicrous, I understand, but this is just, yeah. Yes. Okay. And Chad, they actually do, staff does review them at the order that they come in. I hear you guys reference that often in our chair meetings, that they're really conscientious about when they come in. Are they timed or stamped or dated? So. That's right. Thank you. Yeah, and we do, and I really appreciate all the support, you know, that you were giving as well. We don't see that as often. We usually see that many letters when people are opposed. It became tougher than- I can't recall, did I make my motion or did Mr. Walker and run? No one has made a motion. I was getting ready to make it. Make it, dude. Okay, so for PLM BOA 25-6, good pass for property groups LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short term rental within the defined infill redevelopment area in an R1C zone at 137 Garrett Avenue. I recommend disapproval based upon the staff's report and the fact that the adjacent property has just been approved for a short term rental. So moved. Thank you. And Mr. Sturdivant has seconded that. Any further comment? We'll take a vote. There you go. Okay, that one has been disapproved. Apologies, but good luck. All righty. Thank you. And I think that's all on our agenda as far as cases. Let's see. Does the- Real quick, I can't recall, did we do officers in January? We did, you weren't here. And so you're chair. That's right, I had to leave early. Forgot, okay. But you are vice chair. Am I vice chair now? Okay. Yeah. Thank you for the responsibility. I shall impress everyone with my skills. That's right. I want a smaller gavel. Just a little bit smaller than Raquel's. And a, that's good. So the, any other board items? Any staff items? So we did receive the, thank you very much for the summary of the updates on the ordinance that everyone received those. Did we have any questions? Okay, we do still have some. Did you have any item for the board? Thank you for allowing me to attend. Okay, anytime. Anytime, welcome. Welcome. Okay, if there is nothing, nothing less, our next meeting is March the 10th at 1.30. And I will adjourn today's meeting. Thank you. Thank you.