វាត្រាត្រាញ្ម្រាញ្រាត់ច្ម្រាត្រាញ្រោះ។ អ្រិចានិងនុមាបាប។ ដុំរាត្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដុំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដុំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដុំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដុំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដុំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដុំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដុំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ លម្រាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រាត់។ ដំរាត់ច្រាត់ច្រោះ។ Good afternoon, staff. Is everyone ready? Everyone good? Good. Good afternoon. So it is 1.30, so we'll get a jump on it. We've got a pretty robust agenda today, so we'll roll through what I would like to do. First of all, of course, I have called the meeting to order. My name is Raquel Carter. I'm the chair this afternoon. The first item on the agenda is approving the minutes. So we do have minutes that we have received from November and December of 2024. If the board has had opportunity to review those, did everyone receive? If there's no comment, I'll move to approve. Any additional comment? No? All right. So I have a first and a second. Mr. Gross and Mr. Clark. No further discussion. We will take a vote. All right. That motion has passed. Our next item here on the agenda is actually the swearing of the witnesses. So if anyone plans to speak today, if you're an applicant or if you even want to offer public comment, I do need you to stand at this time and raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth today and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Okay. The next thing I do like to, you guys may be seated. I also would like to make sure everyone has signed in. We did have a sign in pad outside. Everyone have an opportunity to sign in? Okay. The next thing we do is actually called sounding the agenda. So I will run through all of the cases as they appear. And if the applicant is present, I would like you to say that if the item has been recommended for approval and there's no one here to speak in opposition of those items, those items will be expedited. They'll be heard first. Our next set of items that will be heard are items that have been recommended for disapproval and we will give the applicant the opportunity, excuse me this afternoon, the opportunity to actually present their case and we could take any comment at that time. And lastly, we will do any short term rentals. Short term rentals will be on their own docket. We will first do those that have been recommended for approval without any opposition and then we will do those that are to be fully heard. Before we hear any short term rental item, we will allow staff to present and make sure everyone is aware of the rules and regulations that will govern us in those decisions. So the first item on the list is PLNBOA 24-211 Odd Jobs, Fencing and Handyman Services, LLC. Is that applicant present? Okay. That item has been recommended for disapproval so you will be the first on the heard docket. Okay. The next item on the list is PLNBOA 24-222 Master Plan House Plans and this applicant has requested a withdrawal. Is anyone here to speak on this particular item or comment? No? Okay. Well that one actually will be removed from the agenda. The next item is PLNBOA 25-14 Joe and Amanda Wingfield. Are the applicants present? This item has been recommended for disapproval so you will be heard. That will be number two on the heard docket. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this particular item? Okay. So the next item is PLNBOA 25-16 that's Gibson, Taylor and Thompson. Is the applicant present? Alright. This has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of this item? This will actually be number one on the expedited docket. The next item is PLNBOA 23-86 that's Phillip Petrie, Renew Holdings LLC. Is the applicant present? Thank you. And I surely didn't go to school long enough to be an honor but I appreciate it. They put me out. They put me out at some point. Okay. So this is a short term rental so that will be and it has been recommended for disapproval so that will be number one on the heard short term rental docket. The next item is PLNBOA 25-1 Gospel Collective Church Incorporated. Is the applicant present? This has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here in opposition of that item? Okay. So we do have some public comments so this item will be heard. That will be number three on the heard docket. Our next item is PLNBOA 25-3 Home to You Properties. Is the applicant present? This has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here in opposition of this item? Okay. So this will be number one on the STR expedited docket. Our next item is actually a continuance that's PLNBOA 25-4 the Diocese of Lexington. Are the applicants present? And this has been recommended for approval with a lesser capacity so my understanding is you'd like to be heard today? Okay. Do we have anyone from the public for this one? Do we have anyone for public comment on this one as well? We do? Okay. Thank you. And that will be number four heard. The next item is PLNBOA 25-8 Newtown Springs LLC. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Is there anyone in opposition of this item today? Okay. It looks like you will be number two on the expedited docket. Okay. So we do have a public comment on this item. The next item is PLNBOA 25-10 that's Wingspan Rentals. Is the applicant present? Wingspan Rentals 3502 Willowwood. Is the applicant present? Is there anyone here to speak on this particular item in opposition? Okay. So we'll circle back and see if there are any questions. Okay. The next two items are the same applicant PLNBOA 25-18 and PLNBOA 25-20. REMA Stars. Is the applicant present? Okay. And these have both been recommended for disapproval so they will be on the heard STR docket. That would make it number four on the expedited docket. Is that just number two on the STR heard? Okay. Felt like a lot more than two. Okay. Alrighty. The next item is PLNBOA 25-23 J&H Homes LLC. Is the applicant present? Yes. Okay. This one has been recommended for approval. Is there any opposition to this particular item? Alrighty. So that makes it STR number two on the expedited. Okay. We'll go back to number one. I always get number one right. Does that look like all of them? You guys gave me all of them? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So our first expedited item that's PLNBOA 25-16 Gibson, Taylor and Thompson. And I think Ms. Tucker is going to recuse herself on this particular item. Okay. Good afternoon. Okay. This has been recommended for approval and there are two conditions that have been listed. Have you had a chance to review those conditions and are we okay with those? Yes. We're okay with those. Does the board have any questions of the applicant? No? Alright. If not I will entertain a motion. And I'm sorry. Could you please state your name for the record? I got fast didn't I? Barron Gibson. There you go. Thank you. Okay. Madam Chair I hereby move for approval of PLNBOA 25-16 Gibson, Taylor, Thompson's request for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback of a corner lot from 30 feet to 16 feet and 6 inches in a single family residential zone on property located at 1501 Richmond Road based upon the staff's report and subject to the two conditions. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Walker has offered a second. Any further discussion? Okay. We'll take a vote. Wonderful. The motion is passed. Thank you so much. Thank you. So the next item is PLNBOA 25-8 Newtown Springs LLC. The applicant can please come forward. Brandon will be recusing. I was going to say you get Linda. Alright. Please state your name for the record. Rory Cayley with EA Partners here on behalf of the applicant. Thank you Rory. So this actually has been recommended for approval and there are two conditions that have been listed. Are you guys comfortable with those conditions? Yes we are. And I didn't have anyone here to speak on this particular item. Does the board have any questions? If not I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair I recommend approval of PLNBOA 25-8 Newtown Springs LLC request for conditional use permit for a drive-thru facility for the sale of goods in a neighborhood business zone on property located at 1425 Newtown Center Way based on the staff's recommendation and the conditions two conditions as listed. Thank you. And do I have a second on this item? Second. Thank you. This will start event second. Any further discussion or questions? Alright. We'll take a vote. There we go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Motion is passed. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Alright now to get more fun. So our first item is PLNBOA 24-211 that's Odd Jobs Fencing and Handyman Services. But sir it has been recommended, excuse me sir, it's been recommended for disapproval so we'll allow staff to present first the reasons for disapproval then give you an opportunity. Alright. Good afternoon everyone. It's been a while. Daniel Crum planning staff. The request before you is a variance related to the fence height that is allowed in the P1 zone. It's a request to increase the limit from four to six feet for a front yard for the property located at 1169 Winburn Drive, 1184 Winburn Drive, and 1804 Gerald Drive. So the zoning ordinance language that's applicable with this request is that when you've got a fence or a wall located between the private straight right of way and the front plane of the building as a maximum of four feet in any office zone. So here we have the subject properties shown here. These collection of buildings and the associated parking. We have Winburn Drive which curls around here. The school itself is shown. You'll notice the areas is sort of a mix of various forms of residential. Once again in close proximity to the school. There's also some various businesses in the immediate vicinity as well. Zooming in a little bit closer you get an idea of how these buildings are currently laid out. So once again existing structure that currently is unenclosed with no fencing there. The applicant is seeking to alter that with a fencing plan that would essentially span the entire property. So the areas shown in green along the perimeter would be areas that would have as proposed six foot tall steel fencing. They are proposing several gates that would allow for vehicular access but would otherwise limit the ability of pedestrians to operate in the vicinity. Once again any portion of the fencing that's sort of in line with the building or further back a six foot tall fence is not an issue. It's the areas that kind of present to the street that are interacted with the pedestrians especially within such close proximity to school that are sort of at issue with this request. So in order to develop six foot tall steel fencing around the property as request they need a variance to increase that from four to six feet. In the applicant's letter of justification they talk about wanting to secure the property especially after hours. Folks passing through especially sort of after hours. Staff is recommending disapproval. So when we look at variances we look at is there any special circumstances that are unique to the property? Staff did not generally find any. Four foot tall fences are a pretty consistent element as far as how commercial developments, professional office and even residential developments in the area sort of function. The second part that we look at is enforcing this portion of the ordinance going to constitute a hardship or deprive the applicant the ability to use their property. Staff found that the applicant could construct a fence to help prevent folks from wandering through and creating sort of the physical barrier that they're asking for. Up to four feet in height along the edge of that parking lot without needing a variance. And then staff found that the requested variance could have a negative impact on transit access and the walkability of the immediate vicinity especially with once again this heavy residential component in a nearby school. So this is an area that does see a lot of pedestrians. So staff is recommending disapproval at this time and I'd be happy to entertain any questions you all have of staff. Do we have any questions of staff prior to the applicant speaking? I have a question. The four foot fence versus the six foot fence, it's just a question of security if a four foot fence will provide that. Is that basically what the rub is? So the applicant contends that a four foot tall fence would not be enough to secure that. Staff's pretty consistent position has been that a four foot tall fence could keep folks from walking through. But as far as if someone wanted to hop a six foot fence versus a four foot fence, the applicant thinks that that's extra security that they could have. My other question is the proposed fence will not impede this sidewalk, the public sidewalk going all the way around the property as I can see it. Is this correct? Yeah, so it looks like this would be just on the outside. It would basically preclude some of the connections that we have as far as getting into the property, but it's not fencing off any part of the public right of way with that. This would be on the property. So in other words, I keep hearing pedestrian access, which I hear a lot, but as far as actually impeding them going around the property, the fence is not going to do that. And when we talk about sort of the pedestrian experience, it's not just the actual is this being barred off, but rather generally speaking, having a taller fence or something directly adjoining on that right of way, directly adjoining the sidewalk can lead to a decreased pedestrian experience. But no, this is not fencing off any part of the public right of way, but staff's estimation it would negatively impact the experience. Thank you. I have a question because there's nothing in the documents about this. So if in fact we were to approve this and it's a variance and the property was sold to somebody else, would the fence would just go to whoever? Yeah, so they would get the approval to construct the fence as is shown here. If that was sold to any other entity, it would stay and remain and that approval would be in place and run with that particular project. Is there a gate that's to be locked in the evenings or? Yeah, it looks like they're showing some gates here. So it's shown in red on the little site plan and we've got an existing drive here, a gate shown here, and a gate shown here. So my understanding is those would all be secured after hours and it was part of the intent on them asking for the request. What does it do for trash collection then? I'm not entirely sure on how the trash collection functions on the site. It looks like they're showing dumpsters to the dumpster area to the rear. I'm not entirely sure on how they access the site. We can ask. Yes, yes. Any other questions of staff before the applicant speaks? Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you. Yeah, good to be back. If the applicant will please come forward. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Please state your name. My name is Dwight Brown and I'm the contractor hired by Mr. John Cattrain of the Community Action Council for this project. We'd like to speak on behalf of the rejection. And I'm John Cattrain. I represent Community Action Council who is the property owner. Wonderful. Could you tell us a little bit about the project? He basically explained the project correctly with the exception there's a transit pickup in the front of this location and it's noted on the third bullet point on the project description that this will be eliminated or blocked. That's incorrect. On that drawing, I don't know if it can be pulled up, but on that drawing there's a cut out where I'm going to fence around it so the public will still have access to that. And also I was instructed by my gate contractor that there has to be an access point there. There will be a gate that can be opened if someone's getting off the bus and trying to come into the property. They won't have to go around and go through the drive gates. Daniel, can you guys put the site plan back up for us please? And we had some questions of the applicant. Have you all had security issues at the property? Yes, that's the intent of the project. So we operate the Winburn Center there and it's two businesses basically that operate out of it all run by Community Action. The first is a community service center. Forward facing, public comes in, we provide assistance. The second is we operate during peak season when we're at full enrollment, over 100 children birth to 5 year olds that are in the facility for our Head Start program. To keep the children safe, that's why we are asking for this. I have pictures of several times when there's been shootings on the property. You can see the bullet holes coming from the guns. This is during the day. We have bullet holes in a shed next to our playground for the children. We're trying to limit access as much as we can because it's been a bad problem. We have company vehicles that have been hit by bullet holes. There was someone shooting from our property across the street and actually wounded someone in the head as they were driving by. That's why we're doing this. I've contracted with Odd Jobs before because we have in the back area we have wood fencing. He's had to replace that fence at least three times in the last year because people keep tearing it down. That's why we're going to a more secure steel fencing on the property to limit that traffic as much as we can. During the day the gates would be open because we are forward facing for our community service center but I do still think with the fencing all the way around it will limit the foot traffic going through our property. At night time it would be shut to limit the access on our facility to keep our facility safe. You all had asked about the dumpster. The collection is twice a week during the day. It's by the playgrounds. He pointed out correctly on the drawings where that dumpster was. Because the gates would be open it wouldn't limit trash collection options there. So in your opinion the six foot fence would be a more substantial deterrent than the four? I do. I want to do everything I possibly can to keep these kids safe. We wrote for a grant for federal funding for this project. That's how this project is being funded through the office of Head Start. Part of the project funding includes the six foot fencing around the property and then we're also bullet proofing and putting bullet resistant film around the glass. I'm doing everything I can and if that means two extra feet on a fence I think that's more secure. What type of fencing again? It's steel fencing. It's like you see the bars and the top and everything so it's going to be very secure. You can reach your arm through it. It's got the four inch spacing minimum. In the back as he told across that back parking lot there, behind there is a very large church. From Wimberton Drive to Ward Drive which is the very last street you see from 75, it's just a constant stream of people cutting through. I'll come and put a whole panel up and they'll kick the boards out of it so they can keep cutting through the property. That's costing me a lot of money over the last couple of years too. I get in and I like the steel fencing. Some of the folks have been on the board long like I have and it's come up quite a few times and we've actually studied it quite a bit that there was no difference in the four foot and the six foot as far as the security of the place. With that in mind, that's what I was asking. We still have bars so it's not going to stop a bullet is what I was asking. No, but you want to deter people from coming through. If I have to hop over this banister here, I could run from here and hop over very easily. But six foot, I have to be an Olympic athlete to get over that. And again, part of the project with the Office of Head Start Funding is providing the bullet resistant film and the bullet proof glassing. So we're doing everything we can to keep these kids safe. I don't want a stray bullet penetrating a classroom. I think you answered my question. I was just going to mention when I was by there, it looks like you're right on the corner and everybody's just shooting through there. They do. There's broken bottles, there's glass. Our staff have to pick up debris and broken glass daily. Every single morning off of our playgrounds, off of our parking lot, in our front entrances that the kids are accessing. It's daily. Yeah, and I don't know whether they're code or not. I'm neither here nor there but I noticed there's a lot of six foot fences in the area. And what I was told is that was grandfathered in. But yes, most of the properties around have six foot fencing. Ours would be a little higher quality. As a general rule, I agree that the fencing is necessary but we have been consistent on not putting six foot fences in front yards of buildings and commercial or residential. We had quite a few apartment complexes and those types of things which we hadn't allowed. And I would have some concern about the impact on the kids. I want them to be safe but I don't want them to feel like they're in jail. You mentioned the six foot fencing at an apartment complex. Just the next block over, the whole entire apartment complex and across the street have six foot fencing for their protection. I'd like to just follow up on what Chairman Carter has said. We have been very careful not to set a precedent with the six foot in front of a front yard plane of a building and we've been very careful about that and you understand we try to stay right with the law as much as we possibly can. So I'm kind of on the fence here, no pun intended. But I would like for you to explain why the difference between the four foot and the six foot, how that would really magnify your security based on the difference in that maybe you already have. But I'd like a little more if I could get it. I think it's important for the board. Is this a special case? I guess that's what I'm asking myself and maybe what the board's asking. I see it and I understand the sites and that sort of thing. We do a good job maintaining our property in the area and I take a lot of pride in that. I oversee all the facilities. The difference to me in the four foot and six foot, I'm not very tall. I can get over a four foot fence. I cannot get over a six foot fence. And I think the difference here is because we have the children's safety to think about. I understand if it's a business, that's one thing. But when we have basically a school, I think that can be the precedent here. I just want to, just real quickly, I'm a big fan of community action and I sympathize. Thank you. But for better or worse, the city council has made a policy decision that says four foot fences are what we want in our front yards. I realize there are children here, but there could easily be children at the apartments next door, at the church behind you. And the standard is, are there circumstances that are unique to you that would not otherwise apply to properties in the vicinity? And unfortunately, we have been relatively consistent in that just basic crime is not enough since that crime would affect everyone in the vicinity. And I'm going to not support this application, not because I don't believe in six foot fences or I don't sympathize with your need, but because the council has made a policy and I don't see anything unique in this particular situation that would not open us up to approving six foot fences for every adjacent property next to you. And that's the issue. So I will not be supporting your application, but it's not because I don't believe in the organization or the cause and I'm not sympathetic to crime in this area and that you want to protect your property in this area. Unfortunately, I feel that we've been told by council this is what we want and I just don't think you've been able to show us a unique circumstance to override that presumption from council. Thank you. I appreciate your support for the agency. I really do. And I understand you've got things you have to follow, but I would like to point out that the adjacent apartment facility does have a six foot fence. And sometimes the problem is that that could have been installed either, number one, illegally or two, prior to this ordinance being enacted. And so that, while it could be persuasive, it just doesn't move the needle on this one for me. So even if you're forced to put just a four foot fence in the front, is it my understanding that you're going to go ahead and fence the entire property with the same materials in the rear and on the sides? If this doesn't pass, then the back area that we're allowed to do the six foot fencing, we will do the six foot fencing. And the front and side, we would do the four foot fencing. That's what I meant. Thank you. But I'd really like to do the six foot fencing. I will add to what Brenda said. So it's not for me just that the city council has set this direction for us. I agree with that as well. I think more importantly is that we have had it studied extensively and it's been presented to us on multiple occasions that there is no distinction from the four foot to the six foot for safety issues. And it seems common sense. We assume that it is, but we have determined that it's not. And it's also similar to the way we handle the public schools. Those aren't six foot fenced in either. So I think of it in regards to, it's more similar to that to me. If I thought it would help, then I would actually think it was a mitigating factor in it. But it's proved that it hasn't. That it doesn't deter. The four foot and the six foot doesn't make a difference, but the fencing itself does. So the fencing is appropriate. The size for me, I wouldn't see that as being a reason to approve it. I understand that probably the purpose of that is for the vision. It doesn't obstruct the view of the building and that sort of thing. But I'd like to point out, like I mentioned, that we would be the only one in the area that had a four foot fence. I think that would stand out and make it look not as uniform if we had a lower fence than literally everybody else in the neighborhood. Anything further? Any additional questions from the applicant or for staff? If not, I will entertain a motion. Staff has recommended disapproval. Madam Chair, I will move for disapproval of PLM BOA 24-211I jobs, fencing and handyman services LLC's request for a variance to increase the allowable height of a fence within the front yard from four feet to six feet in a professional P1 zone on property located on Winburn Drive and on Gerald Drive based upon the staff's report, the testimony given today. Thank you. Do we have a second? Mr. Walker. Any further discussion before we take a vote? I don't know what to do then. So when you have a tie like this, essentially the fact is there's still no variance because there is no, you have to have a majority to actually approve it. You could try to do a motion to approve it, but since it's an even vote, I don't think that would have a different result. So the effect is there's no variance. The variance has not been approved. Right, yes. Okay. I'm sorry, it has not. Thank you. Okay. The next item is PLM BOA 25-14 Joe and Amanda Wingfield. This has been recommended for disapproval. I'm sorry. So staff will present first. I'm sorry. They'll present and then we'll give you an opportunity. Thank you all. Daniel Crum, Planning and Staff again. This is a request by Joe and Amanda Wingfield relating to two variances that relate to driveway width and location for the property at 3493 Aldershot Drive. Specifically, they're asking to reduce their front yard to zero and increase the maximum driveway width from 24 feet to 39 feet. So as far as the zoning ordinance regulations that are applicable, really what this boils down to is you can't have parking areas within your designated front yard and you can't have a driveway width that exceeds that 24 foot that we just discussed earlier. Here we have the subject property shown outlined in blue in this color here. Here we have Clay's Mill as it wraps around. So Aldershot is this local collective street, local street here that connects with Cromwell. So Cromwell kind of extends into the neighborhood whereas Aldershot really serves this street and then kind of a couple adjoining cul-de-sac. So residential in nature with Clay's Mill being kind of just around the corner. Zooming in, this is the kind of an older aerial photo so you can see the existing house and the previous iteration of the driveway which met the ordinance requirements and extended all the way back to a parking area kind of adjoining the house itself. Here we have the applicant's request. So essentially the portions that were between the existing driveway here extending out to the kind of front steps of the house would be paved. So this would be basically expanding the width of the driveway to 39 feet and then providing once again that paving in front of the house. So going back just to illustrate that, we would essentially, the request is to fill in this area from here to here. It is worth noting that with this particular application, the work has already been completed and so the applicants received notice from the Division of Building Inspection and are looking to kind of get this approved after the fact. They indicated that they were unaware that they needed a paving permit at the time and we actually have some images of the current status here. So once again, the home itself, we have the existing driveway on the left and then essentially enough space for two more vehicles located adjacent. So once again, basically the portion that was green space between the steps going up to the front of the house and to the side here have already been paved in along with a retaining wall and widened out to accommodate all three vehicles. In the letter of justification from the applicant, they talk about wanting an expanded parking area, not feeling safe parking their cars on the street or feeling unable to kind of back out of their existing driveway. However, in staff's review of the application, once again we found that they didn't justify special circumstances that are unique to the subject property. The driveways in the immediate vicinity appear to meet current standards and it's very similar in size, shape, layout, etc. to other properties in the vicinity. So there wasn't enough justification for that aspect. The second is they haven't been able to demonstrate how kind of the enforcing the existing driveway and parking area requirements constitute an unnecessary hardship. They do have an extensive driveway already. It has room for multiple vehicles and once again has the ability for on-street parking in this area. And then finally, as I indicated earlier, this is a result of someone conducting the work before seeking a variance and so that's running afoul of the kind of third point of what we consider when we look at variance is the circumventing the ordinance. So staff would be happy to answer any questions you have at this time. We are recommending disapproval for this instance. Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff? Thank you again, Daniel. The applicants. Hi, I'm Amanda Wingfield and this is my husband Joe Wingfield. First thing I'd like to say is thank you guys so much. They have been wonderful because they have seen me down there in a panic so much and they've really helped me a lot. I have pictures. Who do I give them to? I also have letters from neighbors. Who would I give that to? And addresses of similar driveways in our neighborhood. Should I start while he's handing those out? Yes, please. Okay. First thing I'd like to say is we really did not do this on purpose. I did not know that we needed a permit to do our driveway so there was not willfulness in this. But I did not answer the variance questions properly either because I have not been in my right state of mind in the last bit because I lost my business partner. She passed away so this has all come a lot. So this is why we can't park in our backyard and this photo shows only one of the trailers and one of the equipment but normally we have three full trailers in our back and other heavy equipment back there. We don't want to park that out for everyone else in the neighborhood to see. So that's why we can't park our vehicles back there. We also have two full size pickup trucks that will not make that turn to park in that back area. We can back one in but that's pretty much it. This is what our street looks like when there's two cars which was what our situation always was before parked right beside each other. So we got cars coming in from the stop sign pretty fast a lot of the times and then we got other cars going and usually there's two cars parked in front of my house not just one and usually there's two cars on that side of the street as well. So the flow has never been ideal and it's not been good for the neighbors getting out of their driveways either. This is how it looks now. That's a bad day on the street. That's a lot of cars and this is after we fixed our parking. So that's a nightmare with the stop sign. These are neighborhoods within a block radius of us. All these are in our other people's expanded their driveways and some of them don't look near as aesthetically pleasing and their grass is taken up. Some people are just parking in their yards. We really wanted something that looked nice and safe. After my truck got hit and my daughter's almost got hit a couple of times we just wanted it fixed and I never would have gone through the expense of doing the whole driveway had I not known I was supposed to get a permit first. So sorry about that. So I didn't do a good job about the hardship. The other thing I didn't do a good job about was the other neighborhoods that has that and I'm really sorry that I did this without asking first and I will work with you guys to do what I need to do to fix it. Thank you. Do we have questions of the applicants? Did you guys pour the concrete yourselves or did you hire a contractor? It was asphalt. We put asphalt in. I had an asphalt company come in and put the asphalt in. I put in the rock base myself. We put in 5 to 6 inches of rock base in plus we done the retainer wall too. I wanted to look curb appeal. I didn't want to look junky. We didn't want to park in the yard like some of the other neighbors do. I wanted a good curb appeal. I wanted to do it right and I've done it right. And if we need to drill a hole or whatever we need to do I mean I want to work with you guys because again I didn't realize we needed a permit for a parking spot but to me, to us it was just the most logical thing to do and put it there. And our letters from our neighbors are talking about how it's improved the safety and the flow and I didn't realize how bad Lynette had been having. And there's a bus stop right there. A lot of kids get on the bus right across, right there on Cromwell, right across from the stop sign. At Cromwell and Artichoke. Right at Cromwell. That's on Clay's Mill there. All these were in a block of our house of expanded driveways and parking in the front. And I don't know if they all got permits or not. I mean I don't know. That's on Clay's Mill as well. Okay. Additional questions of the applicant? I have a quick question for staff. Just because I can't pull this up. The front yard percentage covered, was that one of the issues? So it's not covered within the scope of the requested variances. So specifically we would be looking at, let's see, the 50% of that lot frontage. I think they end up squeezing by that. But the two being kind of identified with the request is that setback to allow it basically in the front yard and that width from 24 to 39 is the main aspects that are in play. What about the, I know we always get into the tapering. What would be the, what's the fixed? I don't know. So the tapering is usually when that's going to sort of a parking space or a garage or something. So they would theoretically have the ability to taper it out. But I don't know how that would play out with sort of how this has already been constructed. And that's sort of the difficulty when we're working with projects that are already there is that the paving is already existing. And I did want to point out as well there are some limits sort of outside of this request in the type of vehicles and equipment that you can store in a residential zone. So what they were kind of talking about in the back as far as what's taking up some of that existing parking. Some of that may exceed kind of what is typically permitted. But what you all are looking at today essentially is are they allowed to pave as much of the front yard as they have with this width. And so staff is still recommending disapproval on that. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? I'm assuming you're here for my first speech. It's a similar speech. Personally, you own the property. It doesn't bother me for you to pave your front yard. You pay the mortgage, you pay the taxes on it. However, the city has a policy where you're not supposed to be paving front yards. And we have consistently turned those down on this body for the most part unless there are unique circumstances. I think once again, just basic traffic issues and that you don't have enough room, I don't think rises to that. I sympathize for you. We have made people rip out their driveways before. I don't like doing it. So I will be supporting the staff in this decision. Today, not because I want you to have to do these things, but that we have a policy in this city that's been adopted by council. And I feel like we don't have anything unique that would have me circumvent that policy today. So I will not be supporting your application today. Anything additional? I'd just like to mention that it seems like to me that this is a residential area and it's a home. And in a way it's almost like it's turned into a business because you're having to store your equipment. And that causes the need for this. Well, our trucks won't fit back there anyway. But we store the equipment in the back so that it's not seen and not looked at. I don't want any of that seen. Our trucks won't, we can't park our trucks back there regardless. They don't fit. We can't make a turn. And there's a decline in the back. You can't see in the picture from the aerial, but it's a decline. It's a huge drop off. It's about a 10 foot drop. So if you drove off the edge, you're in trouble. I understand that. I'm still saying that a lot of the use of the pavement is for vehicles that seem to be business related rather than related to the home itself. So I think that kind of clouds my opinion. And I think I would have to agree with the other gentleman here that it would be difficult to make an exception in this particular case. And even though you have really good reasons, I certainly appreciate that. But I think we would be hard pressed to estimate, to recommend something like this under these circumstances. And I feel for you. I certainly understand your condition. Chair Carter, I would like to clarify from the staff's perspective that Mr. Clark is really on to something that is absolutely true and it's regulated by the zoning ordinance. So you are not allowed to store dump trucks or other heavy earth moving equipment in a residential zone at all. What about the trailers? One trailer. Just one trailer? One trailer for business. It's in article 3-9 of the zoning ordinance. So yeah, I don't know that our staff understood that that was the reasoning why you were... I didn't know that at all. No one said nothing to us about that at all. And so all of our like storage stuff that we have back there... Wait, one second. Real quick. You may want to pump the brakes on any further talking about what you got over there and maybe take it offline with the staff if you have questions in a future time. We get that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anything additional for the applicants? This is for staff. So how wide can they make it? 24 feet. Okay. And it's at 39 right now. Thank you. Now, I will say this. If you, after this meeting, if you want to talk with staff and look at and see if there's any way to salvage a part of the driveway, they were more than happy to work with you. Such a thing would have to come back to us more likely than not, given where this location is. I can't say that's going to... I can't say you're going to find a solution, but just so you know. So the support of our neighbors doesn't help any, they're like talking about how it's improved the traffic flow and stuff without our cars being parked out? Probably having your neighbors not hate the project is a benefit, but their support can't really get us past what the policy is. Thank you. There's nothing further. I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'll move for denial of PLM BOA 24-14, Joe and Amanda Wingfield's request for a reduced required front yard setback from 30 feet to zero feet and increase the maximum driveway width from 24 feet to 39 feet in the R1C zone on property located at 3493 Aldershot Drive, based upon the staff's report and the testimony hereby given. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Mr. Clark? Thank you. No further discussion, we will take a vote. So it has been disapproved. So the next item is PLM BOA 25-1, the Gospel Collective Church Incorporated. That has been recommended for approval, but we do have someone here to speak in opposition. If I could have the applicant come up first. Who's our applicant? Yes, ma'am. Please state your name for the record. My name is Joey Fink. I serve as the Executive Pastor at Gospel Collective Church. Thank you, Pastor. And actually, would you like to tell us a little bit about the project before we get public comment? Yes, ma'am. We moved into that building, I believe it was three, a little over three years ago. And since that time, our congregations continue to grow. And the building, as it was designed originally, did not have parking to accommodate full use for that building, the size of the sanctuary, and the kids' space. As we continue to grow, we felt the need to take advantage of the, we have almost three acres there to expand our parking. Right now we're having to park all up and down the streets, and some folks even end up parking in the grass. And that particularly being Sunday mornings during the time of our worship services. And so we've gone about the process of plans to add a kids' area, a children's ministry building or wing that you see there, and then expand the parking to accommodate the size of the building that is there. Okay. And we have received one letter of opposition that was regarding the outdoor music and maybe some drainage issues. What was the second? Drainage? Yeah, it says rainwater and drainage issues. They're concerned about the recent blacktop. Part of the plan would be a detention pond that's required by the, so I assume the drainage would be handled under regular code regulations there. Additionally, the loud music, we, as you can imagine, our church are not too loud in nature, but we do have a block party once a year on a Friday, I believe it's a Friday or Saturday evening where we'll have a lot of folks in the parking lot, like a cookout style. Right across the street from us is another church, Mary Queen Catholic Church there on the corner. We use our property very similarly to they do, except they have one of the largest festivals in the entire city there annually. And ours is a much, much smaller size congregation compared to theirs. And I also wanted to backtrack on the approval, there are four conditions that have been listed there. Yes, ma'am. Have you had an opportunity to review all four of those and are comfortable with them? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. And for the board, it says three, but number four was left off of the agenda. Anything of the applicant before we give public comment and opportunity? No? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I have a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe more for staff than you, sir. The staff's report indicates that the expansion would result in the removal of the playground area, which would result in the applicant not having adequate playground space. The map that I look at, I didn't print it out because I didn't get the whole packet. But it looked like to me that there was still room for the playground, even though you've indicated. So if staff could help me there. So I mean, I guess there is room, but the applicant's indicated that they're going to remove the existing playground and they won't be putting a new playground in. So for example, like if there was one for a daycare type use to be accessory to this, they have a minimum requirement of playground space to provide. And since they're removing it, they would have no playground space. Now in the future, if they wanted to add that use to the property and they wanted to also put in playground space, they could. But under the plans that we've seen now, the playground space is going away. So there wouldn't be. So basically a note that I think there was a playground there and they previously had the option. You know, they would have to have got proper approvals, but possibly could have had a daycare use there. But since they're removing all the playground space with this expansion, then there wouldn't be that option available unless they decide to add playground space in the future. And if I could add to that, sir, there was a church previous to ours many years ago. I'm not sure they solicited that playground for a daycare. We don't have a daycare and don't have any plans to have a daycare. So it wouldn't be under the official daycare label. So we don't care to maintain a daycare status. We would at some point, when funds allow, like to have some outdoor play equipment for our children. But we wouldn't be seeking that under the daycare status, if that makes sense. All right. Thank you. It doesn't really affect this particular application, but it was just a matter of clarification. Thank you, sir. Thank you. We're going to sit for just a moment. And we had someone from the public to speak for this item. Hi. I'm Danny Arnold. And I live directly behind the church on Yuma Court. And we got a petition. Almost every neighbor is the ones that we did not work because they were not home at the time. We've always had a church in that corner. It's not new. Laura Lynn has been in that neighborhood for 40 years, myself almost 20. We've never had an issue, excuse me, with all the churches that have come and gone throughout the years. The problem that we're having with this particular church is that they're growing too fast. And our community feels that maybe a different place would be best at the growth that they're having than themselves have just said, that from when they bought the place in 21 to now, they have significantly. And I can tell you that they have based on all the parking that they're saying. So as of now, they've been parking on the grass. We have a nice, they have about 2.69 acres on the PVA if you guys look. So there's plenty of green space around that church. They have front, side, and back lawn. However, they are asking to remove the entire back lawn, including the playground that you just mentioned, which has mature trees, in replacement of pavement. And we do have drainage issues. I saw a councilman here, which actually I got happy about, because he can tell you that we just finished the Southland Stormwater project. Because of all this extra water that comes off Clay's Mill and Pasadena and Southland Park, we've done a whole project to eliminate this. Putting blacktop will absolutely cause problems. The last storm we had, half of the block got water under their house, under their crawl space, in their basements, because of this issue. So that's one concern we have. Also, like he mentioned, we do have Mary Queen here. Mary Queen has been there a long time and we've never had issues. Mary Queen has one festival a year. I'm sure everyone sees it because they're advertised a lot. There's never been a parking issue with Mary Queen because they have substantial parking for what they require for their church. What they're asking to do is become big like Mary Queen in a small pocket that will affect our entire neighborhood. So they're removing green space to put blacktop directly at our neighbor's fence. So that's what they're not showing you. As of right now, and we've seen, like I said, several Sundays, and I regret not taking a photo this past Sunday, our neighbor's fence ends where that short wall is and their cars begin at the end of that third chair. That's what they're asking to do. So all that from that chair on, and our neighbor being there, will be blacktop and cars. With fumes, no one's allowed to have barbecues, family, all, most of our people have children or grandchildren on our block. So now we're also, I'm sorry, can I continue to speak? No, it's three minutes is the limit. Can I just say one more thing, please? I'm sorry. Just finish up your last sentence, please. Yes. So their motto is love thy neighbor. I'm asking them to love their neighbors and take into consideration, and you guys as well, if that was your backyard, I don't think anyone here would approve it. So please take into consideration that 52 Sundays a year will make a difference for 365 days for the rest of us. Thank you. Thank you guys for listening. I'm sorry, Loralyn. I don't know if she can speak also. May I speak? Yes. Oh, yeah, no, she gets her own three minutes. Okay. Yes, my name is Loralyn Colitre, and I have lived there this fall. It'll be 40 years on Yuma Court. I'm concerned a little bit that this could lower the property values for the houses on Yuma Court. The loss of a very nice open green space. As she said, the neighborhood is surrounded by parking lots, Mary Queen Church, Southland Ballpark, the Southland Pool, and the current parking lot at Gospel Collective. More impervious pavement means less permeable ground to absorb excess rainwater and increases the urban heat island effect. Most of the homes on this side of the street that back up to the church do have problems with water running through or trapped in the crawl spaces and permeating their basements. My house included. Twice this winter, excessive rain or snow, melting snow, collected under our house and caused our furnace to fail. Many of our neighbors have one or more sump pumps. The loss of the playground has been mentioned, but my concern is the existing mature trees. The mature trees, I don't know how long they've been there and grown, but they have extensive root systems which absorb the water from the runoff on the roads and the pavement. The proposed trees are small, the inkberry and the winterberry. The inkberry shrubs, they're shrubs. They don't grow more than four to six feet high. Those are proposed along that fence row that is behind the two houses there. The other trees are only going to grow about 15 feet high. The mature trees that are there, they absorb a tremendous amount of water, I'm sure. This will greatly impact the water runoff in our area. We wonder if the project could be scaled back. The diagram shows that those parking spaces extend basically right there to the fence row, which seems unfortunate for the people who live in those houses, those two houses in particular and the third house. More impervious pavement means less permeable ground to absorb excess rainwater and increases what is called the urban heat island effect. I was hoping that the current diagram says that the capacity of the sanctuary is not going to be increased. I wonder why they need all these extra spaces. Thank you so much, I appreciate it. According to the diagram, they're taking out like 13 mature trees and there's supposed to be like 33 trees. I was reading the thing on the side and it says what's required is 33 trees and they've got 23 trees now and they're going to take out 13 and there's only going to be 10 trees. Thank you. We'll give the applicant an opportunity to discuss those items. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you so much. Yes ma'am. Thank you very much. It's the first time we've met our neighbors so my apologies. I didn't know they were even coming today and I'd love to talk with them at any point. We want to be good neighbors. We do. To address a few of the points that she had mentioned when it comes to things like mature trees. We love those trees. We would like them to stay. The city has said this is what code expectations are as it comes to parking lot and the landscaping requirements and the islands so that was given to us that this is what had to be accomplished in order. I'm sorry, could we put the site plan up so you guys mind? I have one question for you. Sure. Related to the parking where it abuts the residential. Are you proposing any fencing? It's hard for me to tell from the site plan. So there's currently some chain link that maybe four feet, six feet solid kind of fluctuates a little bit. That's correct. There's some wood fencing as well as some chain link fencing. We are currently not proposing that in our site plan. We're very willing to accommodate any, you know, we have to put those bushes in for the headlight requirement to meet the code. We didn't know if that would be sufficient. If not, we'd be certainly fine. Yeah, I think that adding a six foot solid fence along that parking area would probably give the neighbors a little bit more privacy during the winter. I'm not sure how early your services are or how late they are on Wednesdays, but it could have parking lights could go into their backyard. So maybe that will say just for commentary for some of the neighbors talking about stormwater. They won't be able to push any of this water on your properties underneath our engineering stormwater manuals. That's why they're proposing the detention pond. So all that water should flow into that detention pond and not into your backyards. I will say for my state, I went to Mary Queen, I go to the Mary Queen festival. So and I live on this side of town. This church has been here for a long time. I think if you were to do the six foot solid fence, I think I would be comfortable with your proposed plan just knowing the all the sign offs that the city will do to make sure that water will not go into the neighbor's properties. And so I don't have any questions, Chair, I just wanted to mention, I would like to see the six foot solid fence if we do move for approval on this one. So noted. We're very much willing to accommodate that. Thank you. Do we have other questions of the applicant? Discussion? No, public comment is closed now. Thank you. Are you indeed taking out 13 trees? Is that correct? So we, I can't remember the exact folks that require the landscaping. I think in total, we have to have 54 trees in total. And so we will, you know, we have to remove some that are laid out where the parking will be. And then there will be islands and the trees will be put in there for the rainwater collection, the coverage of the parking, all that was laid out through the engineer's report of exactly what we had to have with coverage, the type of trees that had to go in. All that is, we don't even have choices on those things. So we will have in the end more trees than we have now because the requirement, I think when this was built or when it didn't require as many trees. And now we're actually at the end of this going to have more trees than we were. I think we in total will be taking out 12 or 13, but I think we'll be putting in whatever their requirement. I think in total is 54. So I think in total, we're putting back in maybe 20 somewhere don't exact quote on that. But we'll have more trees than we have now by the end of the expectation of the permit. Not according to the site data table. I'm sorry ma'am. Ma'am, I'm sorry. Thank you. Public comment is closed. We appreciate it. Thank you. My concern, my concern is taking out mature trees. Yes, sir. It seems like to me you can make that work even in the. We tried. We did everything we could with the layout of the parking and the islands that were required and the flow and the amount of parking spots. We did everything we possibly could to say that we want them. But with our expectations, we weren't able to accomplish the parking. So who said you had to take out the trees and even in this plan, was this was this the city or contractor or. So you see where the playground is. That's where the tree, the mature trees basically surround the. The mature trees in question are basically in this area surrounding this playground. One other thing to note, we this property here we've purchased about a year and a half ago. So maybe even some of our neighbors don't know that we own this back corner here as well. And so doing we have several, I don't know the exact number, probably two dozen very mature trees on the property that are also on our property that maybe they're not aware of. All right. Thank you, sir. And then also along this row, we have several mature trees as well. And how wide is that buffer, that landscape, the bush, the landscape buffer around? Are you talking about the bushes? Yep. I don't know the answer to that. It would be along with the easement and, you know, basically where where we would be allowed to put them. Basically that's required to be eight feet. That sounds like what I thought it was as well. I was going to say eight to ten feet. I do understand that access to Clay's Mill is currently the way that they get to the parking lot. That's going to change if... That's not entirely accurate, although partly. This is our main access here off of Hillandale. We do currently have almost like an alley access along Clay's Mill to right here. And then because of that, we would be adding a second entrance exit here. So this is our main access and there's an alleyway along the side of the building that goes to Clay's Mill. So the main is on Hillandale. Okay. I really feel like we should have a second go. I mean, he got a second go. I don't understand why... I'm sorry. He has so much knowledge. He's the applicant and please we won't take any further public comment. Thank you. I don't think there's a main highway that goes out into Clay's Mill. Ma'am, I'm sorry. We're out of order. And you just denied the other people for the front yard and yet we're... Excuse me. Ma'am. We're out of order. There's a structure that we have to do these things in. Anything further of the applicant? I don't know if this is just a combination of question and comment, but I don't necessarily have an issue with your plan or your drawing, but it seems like churches always get a pass. This is a single family residential zone and this looks like, obviously, it's an expansion of use to a degree. And we just denied a fellow that came in here and wanted to make his driveway a little bit wider and you're making a whole big area. Now, if you were applying for a short-term rental license, you'd probably get denied outright because it's taken away from the inventory where you could build houses, you know, the parking, et cetera. So you know, I wouldn't be a fan of this just because fundamentally it is a single family residential zone. And this is a, I guess, a non-conforming use. You guys have been there for a while, you want to make it bigger and better and things like that, but this is just eating up more area for parking lot and that's never a good thing in my opinion. Actually, Mr. Walker, this is an existing conditional use permit in a residential zone for a church and they're asking for an expansion. And I would say that the difference between the last applicant and this applicant is number one is churches, while not commercial activities, are more in line with commercial uses and they are not proposing any parking or vehicle use area in their front yard, which was what our last case was. Sure, but this is still an expansion greater than what the original was. We'll get some clarification. I understand that, but I guess the alternative would be the parishioners' park in the grass or along all the residential streets in this area if they don't have parking. I just want to point out, this is not a non-conforming use is what I think Mr. Gross was getting at. That's correct, it's not a non-conforming use. This is an existing use, yeah. And so, I mean, looking at this plan, I'm not sure how they could provide this parking without removing some of the trees. They're coming back in and they're replacing those trees with new trees and the only other area that they could put this parking would be in the front yard, which we have a policy that says we don't do that. And so, I think if they're willing to give the six foot fence, I am comfortable with this project. I would not describe it as churches get a pass at all. You know, in this instance, the church, like any other activity, we've got to do more with less in Lexington because we're not expanding as often and this is one of those where we've got a church that probably has insufficient parking and the alternative is we do not let them have this parking and we push them out into the street and parking within the residential streets rather than in the parking lot itself. So that's just me. So I am going to support this application once we get to that point and we'll just see where the policy is. It could make do with what they've got. Currently, can we make do with what we have? No, sir. I mean, that's kind of. I'd love to invite you Sunday morning. You can experience it. What's that? I'd love to invite you Sunday morning. You can experience the parking shortage. I've already said churches get passes. I'd catch fire or something if I walk in. We don't want a pass. We want to comply fully within the code of the city and the expectations of this group. So the issue is what's the impact, what will be the continued impact on the neighborhood if you don't allow that because they're going to operate as a church. So making do with what they have actually requires them to continue to impede upon the rest of the neighborhood. Anything further from the applicant? I don't think so. All right. We'll get just a moment, please. While we're waiting, I think somebody did mention outdoor entertainment as well. So is that something you want to address or talk about? We would love to comply with any code regulations on sound or use of our, within our city code. We'd love to. That was part of the citizen comment stuff here. We would love to honor any expectation that the city has for us. Thank you. Yes, sir. And there is an outdoor lighting requirement that was already conditioned. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Tucker, did you? I see your finger. I was just going to encourage you to keep as many of the mature trees as you can. If there's any way. All right. If there's nothing further, I will entertain a motion. Did you have something additional, Mr. Clark? Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I hereby move for approval of PLM VOA 25-1, Gospel Collective Church, Inc.'s request to amend an existing conditional use permit for a place of religious assembly in order to expand the parking area and construct in addition to the principal structure in an R1C zone, a property located at 2601 Clay's Mill Road. Based upon the staff's report, the testimony hereby, given the four conditions set forth in the report, plus a fifth condition that reads, provide a six-foot solid fence within, oh, sorry, along the vehicle use area and within the eight-foot landscape buffer along the residential lots on Yuma Court. So you'll need to put in a six-foot solid fence as part of this approval. Yes, sir. So moved. Second. Thank you. Mr. Sherman has offered a second. Any further discussion? Okay, we'll take a vote. Okay. The motion has been approved. Good luck. Thank you. I can definitely be a good neighbor, speak to the neighbors. All right, our next item is PLNBOA 25-4, Diocese of Lexington. This has been recommended for approval with a lesser capacity. And I can't remember, do we have opposition in the... Yeah, we have one gentleman. Okay, I just wanted to note it for sure. Would staff like to speak about the less variance first or should we have the applicant... I can give just a... Maybe give the recap for, since it is a continuing... Explain some of the changes. Thank you. Okay. Dalton Belcher on behalf of the planning staff. So this case was before you last month. There were some questions about the two... One of the main things was the number of kids that would be allowed at the site. That was a question. And then also just the orientation of the inside of the building. Kind of the plans of where the kids would be inside the structure. So I wanted to jump ahead to kind of cover the changes that they have. So because we've seen some of this before. But here is the subject property highlighted in light blue. Here's a street view of the picture as well. Or excuse me, of the property as well. So here is just the basic site plan. There's not really anything changing from this at the moment. The change is in the interior of the structure and how this is being oriented. At first we saw that there was the parish hall. And then there was classrooms over here. And then a playground area. The applicant, after the meeting, they chose to continue their case. And they revised their request to have a request for 52 children. And the hours of operation have changed a little bit from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. And then the site plan that they submitted shows a little bit different. So the parish hall is also going to be used as a classroom space. And then there are a couple other classrooms. Or one other classroom space being added. And there's a nursery space as well. And then they have the playground. The applicant chose 52, I believe, just basically using the amount of playground space they have. And the state requirements of how much minimum playground space is required per child. And that's where they came up with their number. So staff does recommend approval. But we recommend approval with a lesser capacity. We find that for no more than 24 children would not adversely affect the subject or surrounding properties. The use would be located within the existing building and site. And an outdoor play area is available. Church properties are typically not used throughout the week. So they are generally well-suited for this type of use. Adequate parking is available in the church parking lot for pick-up and drop-off students. The Parker's Mill is a rural two-lane road with no turn lanes or emergency shoulder. So there is a limited capacity that is appropriate until roadway improvements are constructed in the vicinity of the subject property. And that all necessary public facilities and services are available and adequate for this use with a limited capacity. Again, 24 children. And then staff has the following conditions. Some of these are similar from our original review. But one, that they need to be in accordance with the site plan. Two, that they have to get an occupancy permit from the Division of Building Inspection prior to opening. Three, again mentions that it would be no more than 24 children or is further limited based on occupancy restrictions by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services or the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. And that the outdoor play area shall be fenced and screened. And that the child center shall at all times operate in compliance with the regulations of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. So that's what staff has. If you have any questions for us. Could you emphasize also or bring back to our attention the number of students that were denied previously? Like we have previously. Yes, just one second. So previously there were requests in 1977 for 45 children. And in 2010 for 32 children. So staff's recommendation is below the numbers that have been. And these requests were denied by the Board of Adjustment in those two different instances. So this is part of why we're recommending less than 32. But that also went into our recommendation. Do we have other questions of staff at this time? No? Thank you, sir. If the applicant can please come forward. Good afternoon. My name is Reverend Helen Vancouver. And for the last seven years I've been the rector of St. Rayfords on Parker's Mill. So I don't know about the previous applications, just this one. We are not applying for anything that will change anything physical around the building. We are, I liked Brandon Gross's name, we are trying to do more with less. In an area where we do understand that there is not the childcare in that area as well. And we're trying to use the beauty of the place where we find our church to be a nice place that children could come to. Next to the plot, I don't think this was said with that map, there is actually 15 acres of vacant land. And it's about 400 feet from the building where the children would be to our neighbours who are behind us, which is quite a distance. And so we share a boundary with one of our neighbours. I would like to say that in the time that I've been there, I know that we've had very good relationships with our neighbours. And we've responded where we can to whatever they have had a complaint about. And also we've shared our land, our property with our neighbours. Our car park is very well used by neighbours to access their property behind as well. We've recently had some security changes which have been funded by the home security to increase our security in some of the outside doors and also to use key fobs. So we feel like we're a very secure building, that children can't randomly leave the building and create any confusion or noise outside. We've had in just even this, in the last few months, we've had two or three different childcare organisations ask if they might be able to use our building because of its layout and its car park space. The peace of the area. And we would like to be able to respond to them with a conditional use permit. We understand that we have a conditional use permit as a church in a residential area. The numbers are, I know that 52 has been given as representing the size of the space that we have, the footage that's available. But it will depend on what the organisations have asked for which is why the first application was for 12. And I think we can look at the sizing to compromise with any neighbours' issues with this application. Would anyone else like to say something? Madam Reverend, are you okay with the 24 that the staff has proposed? I don't remember if you said that or if you want to request more. Or are they requesting the 24? The request was for 52. We requested 52 because that's the footage that we have available. The first person that asked us if she could use our building is actually saying she can't possibly find the numbers right now. So we will be looking for others to use that building. 52 is what we're allowed apparently on the footage that's there. But I can't say. Obviously we won't go over that. But we might be a lot less than that. So you still want the 52. The staff's recommended 24. I look to my people. It's your last time. Come on up. We've got various people here with different interests. Thank you all because this is my second time in front of you. It's more fun to be over there than over here. I'm Dave Savigne. I'm the council member for District 10. I'm also a member of St. Raphael's. And I've been there for 25 years. And so we've had a variety of things going on at St. Raphael's. But one of them is, you know, traditional churches basically can be very underutilized buildings. And we have found that there is a need for child care. Especially since COVID has occurred, the number of child care organizations that have gone out of business. It's a lot. And so there's still a need. There's still a backup. There's a variety of people that testify. But I think they can just testify at a different spot in this, I believe. I don't know exactly how you do public comment on these. Oh, no. We'll give the public opportunity. And it can be either way. But we don't back and forth or cross examine. That's right. Thank you. But the reason we put 52 on there is because we, I think the space could actually accommodate more like in the 70s. If you look at it from a state standpoint. I think 52 is kind of backing down from that number. And it kind of goes with what we've currently got already fenced in. And I do believe a church can provide a reasonable rent. Right now, you'll find that these child care businesses, so much of their profit is going towards or so much of their expense is going to rent. I think we can provide a symbiotic relationship with a child care provider. Because we don't have major use of the building during the week. And then, just as you said, I think doing more with less. We're just trying to meet a need. We realize Parker's Mill is a two lane road. We have services on Sunday there. I don't really, I don't feel when I presented the last time with 4500 cars a day on Parker's Mill. I don't actually feel like this is going to be substantially, it's going to substantially change the shape of Parker's Mill. There is not a left hand turn lane currently on Parker's Mill. But just like there wasn't on Clay's Mill for the longest time as well. So, that was a long way around to answer your question, but I appreciate it. No, I think we understand. I think that what Mr. Gross is trying to help with here is it has not been approved for the larger numbers previously. And there does not seem to be an inclination to approve for more than the last approval or disapproval of 32. So, if so, would you guys do what you could with the 24 that the staff is comfortable with? I think we would do with what you provide. I think it's a matter of what can a provider actually do in that space, right? Because we're probably not going to run it ourselves. We may provide some sort of staff to them if they need it on an as-needed basis. But we do have a provider here that can kind of speak to the profitability of a business in that space. But I think we would accept what you give us. But it also will limit the actual level of service that we can provide to the community. Thank you. I was going to open for public comment unless did you want to? But before we go on, it sounds like they have their provider. Potential provider or just a generic provider? We have a potential provider. Okay. We have a provider. Yeah, okay. Well, yeah, if she wants to come up and tell us a little bit how it works. I think that, I mean. Hi, I am Beth Scott. And I am the owner and director of Dream Care Learning Center here in Lexington. And we are a licensed child care center. We're located off of Palumbo Drive. And we actually opened in June of 2023. So we are just shy of two years old. And we are at maximum capacity. We serve children ages six weeks to fifth grade. Monday through Friday, 730 to 530. And we're just really proud of the services that we are providing for the community each and every day. And we are an interested provider in the space located here off of Parker's Mill. And just, you know, being in this space and this field for the time that we have, 24, you know, of capacity. It's going to be difficult to run a successful child care center with that few of kids. And also keeping rates for families at an affordable rate. That's something that we get, you know, very often is, you know, the rates and how expensive it is for working families to put their children in care. So that's also something that would definitely be an obstacle. And our current center, you know, with us just being shy of two years, we are completely booked. We are waitlisted for all of our classrooms. I know just from talking with other families in the community, calling other child care centers, they are too facing that same problem is we don't have the space currently for the children that need care. So we would be thrilled to, you know, partner with the church. And to create a wonderful setting for children to come each and every day to learn and to grow and to use that beautiful property. And just make a difference in the lives of the working families in the community. In your experience, what would be a number that would allow you to be profitable? In my experience? So looking at the site plan itself and doing the math equations, you know, conducive to what licensing is, looking at, you know, 71 I think is what we roughly came up with. Obviously licensing comes in from your inspection and, you know, gives you that official number. Obviously 52 would be much better. But, you know, getting maximum as it would be the best. But 52 is going to go along with what they would like to pursue at this time. So a number of 24 would discourage you from starting this enterprise? Yes, sir. Okay. May I ask you, your experience at this and the facilities within the church itself, rooms, furniture, restrooms and all that, are you, you know, the church well enough to know that it would be competent for 52 children? Yes, sir. I believe there are three, four classrooms downstairs and three commodes as well. So a lot of the licensing is a certain amount of children per toilet available. So it's 20 per toilet is the state licensing code. And then the classrooms, yes, they would be conducive. And of course all of the classroom sizes of kids per classroom would be based on appropriate ratio and the state licensing guidelines for how many kids per adult per classroom and square footage as well. And their facilities, like I was saying, the furniture and those kind of things the church would provide because you obviously can't use adult equipment for child care. Correct. So, actually, will you say that one more time? Are you asking if we would be the ones purchasing the equipment? Yes. From what I would understand, yes. Kind of beside the point, but it is a good question because the facilities, it's not just rooms. We'll go ahead, yes. Sorry. Just to say we do have our own Sunday school for children down there. We already have low tables and small chairs. Not to 72 or even 50, but we do have that. And they would use the whole, all our furniture downstairs would be for the use of the people that are renting. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. Thank you. I think we had a public comment. Go ahead. Can I have some slides when I'm ready? Can I use this? I'm Stephen Webb and I live next door to the church for 23 years now. So, I want to echo love thy neighbor because we've been good neighbors for 23 years. But I want to put this in perspective of the neighbors. And I know at least five of us are in strong opposition to this child care center. It's been, the child care center has been denied twice. And I'm a businessman. I can talk numbers about what will be profitable. And 75 is certainly going to be more profitable than 24 and more feasible. But this is a neighborhood. It's a very peaceful area. There's a beautiful park behind the church. There's beautiful homes all the way around the church. I submitted a letter on February 6th objecting to this. And then I and another neighbor attended the meeting and spoke and laid out a number of factors, valid reasons why this should be denied. And upon attending the last meeting, we were all surprised that in the meeting, it said permits should not adversely affect the subject or surrounding properties. And this is simply not true. It will adversely affect the surrounding properties, values, traffic in the neighborhood. And I agree the traffic on Parker's Mill, that's going to exponentially increase. You've got Cardinal Run North, Cardinal Run South. You've got, and I'll show you, we'll look at the development going in next door to the church. And 1,000 doors, 1,000 homes going in between Cardinal Run North all the way out to Man o' War and bordered by Beaumont and Parker's Mill Road. So you've got like 33 homes going in next door to the church. You've got a new park, 200 acres, which we're all happy about. And you've got 1,000 more homes going down the street. So you're going to have a lot more traffic. But I think the neighbors mainly are concerned about the traffic in the parking lot. You're going to have 24 to 50 cars coming, egress and coming in and out every day. Doors slamming, kids coming in and out. And I love children, and I'm fully in support of child care. I think it's great, and we need more of that. But not, can you imagine, and I'll show you these slides. Just to put it in perspective. Okay, so this is a view from my bedroom. I didn't measure the feet, but it's probably, you know, 50 feet. And this fence was put in and donated to beautify the church and give more privacy to the children and the playground and myself. The landscaping has been put in to beautify the church and the area. But look how close that is. Can you imagine sitting in your bedroom at 24 or 50? And then this is the playground, and this is my property. And most importantly, these are the five neighbors objecting to this, all surrounding the church. And Dave's our Council 10 district council member. And I don't know who he's representing, but. five of the neighbors, the ones that I know of, are strongly in opposition to this. Okay, thank you sir. Your time is up, but luckily we do have these documents at opportunity to review. Was there anyone else? If the applicant can please come back forward. Oh sure, yes, public comment. My name is Derek Phelps. I live, I'm a parishioner of St. Graff Hills, have been for maybe a year, year and a half. This is my wife Terri. We lived in, we live in the, where we live Terri, we've been married 50 years, so I look at her before I answer any questions. We live in Beaumont Park, and so we're within, as the old country sayings go, we're within a couple rock throws of Beaumont Middle School, Lexington School, we've got the ballpark that's down the road on Parker's Mill. We deal with traffic all the time, but it's one of the things, you know, childcare and taking care of our children, you know, if you deny the application, you're going to affect a number of families that would have access to wonderful childcare, and you're going to affect them, you're going to affect the children, and you're also going to affect the churches, you know, as has this wonderful space, and a lot of churches, a lot of churches have underutilized space, it's basically sitting there empty, and it's of no value, and it's really a financial drain on them, and so you have to kind of, I read numerous articles about churches that have expanded and put schools in and this program and businesses and this whatever to utilize that space, and if you deny the application, then you're basically, you're just contributing to the problem is what you're doing, so I would encourage you to, I understand you have to be good neighbors, very good parking space, there's already a lot of traffic on Parker's Mill, you kind of, going up and down that road, so it's not going to be that consequential, and it's going to be a couple times during the day, so I personally would encourage you to approve this, for the benefit of the church and the families that are going to benefit from this. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to respond because I'd like to thank our neighbor, Stephen, for being such a good neighbor, he's actually the one who gave us all that fencing around there, and I don't know, but I know that's a picture from his bedroom, but we're not proposing to do this during the evening or the night, it's going to be mid-morning to like mid-afternoon, and the children aren't going to be in that garden space, they're going to be inside for the majority of the time that they're there, that's where they would have breaks, you know, so I mean my office is directly above that, so I will also, if they're too noisy they're going to hear from me, but it's, I really don't see that it's going to be detrimental to the neighborhood, and the, I know there is some ideas for developing along that street which are nothing to do with the church, and we do need that road widened in front, but that's not part of our application now, that's for future, and all the development that, you know, that I keep hearing about along that road is going to be over the next five, ten years, it's not tomorrow, so I can't see really how this will be detrimental to the neighborhood, the road, our parking is great, the noise, the soundproofing in our building is great, thank you, and thank you for listening, thanks. Thank you, and please stay for just a moment, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, okay, thank you, thank you, any questions, I did have one for staff if no one did, this one is a little, I do also really appreciate child care, although I hope to be done with that one day, but this is a little different than the other churches that we've looked at where we've approved the school and the child care as an accessory use, I'm having a little trouble reconciling because it appears that you guys are just a landlord, I mean that you're going to actually lease the space, is that looked at differently as far as is it a conditional use? In the past the board has approved that as long as it's sort of sponsored by a religious assembly, whether or not it was a private entity that they had an agreement with, it was still approved by the board, it wasn't, you know, negated just because it was a third party utilizing a church space. Okay, okay. I have a question for staff, I know this was denied in the past, you know, we're not bound by passboards decisions since this is a new application, but is that the only reason you guys recommended 24 and not 52 as requested was to keep in line with passboard decisions or is there another substantial reason that we would not want to go up to the 52 as requested? I'll let Dalton add if he wants to, but from my recollection it had more to do with the infrastructure that's existing to the site because Parker's Mill Road has limited capacity, it doesn't have sidewalks or turn lanes available that would suit the continued movement into the property and out of, you know, in the evening, so that, it was a factor in terms of the staff recommending a lesser number, I know Parker's Mill does have more households coming and so it will likely be approved, but from the transportation section and the MPO in our office, there is no schedule for when that will occur. So it's really the same condition, physical condition, the site is in the same physical condition as it was when those two applications were disapproved previously. If there's some other, you know, improvement, turn lanes or something like that, I think the staff could consider a different number, but it's hard to know the right number, we just know that there's not been any improvements on the site to facilitate, you know, really higher numbers. Dalton, did you want to add anything? No, I mean that covers it, that was, you got it. Thank you. Do we have additional questions? I didn't want you to think that I'm not going to pick on both churches, I'm going to pick on, but I do have a question for you, and this looks overall okay, but how do you plan on queuing vehicles getting in and out, are they going to go through this horseshoe or are they going to go all the way in the back? They'll go back, the car park's behind the church. Okay, so they're not going to use this front, like the front kind of drop off at all? Yeah, well, if they're going to be using the basement part of the building, they'll go around the back to drop their children, and the car park is sorted that you could do a circle, yeah. Okay, just for my own concern, thank you, appreciate it. I guess I've got a staff question, maybe I didn't get your, Stacey didn't get your explanation. Tracy. It seems to me that it's 24, kind of an arbitrary number, was there a formula for that, or? Well, the applicant asked for 12 originally under a different provider, where they indicated they would be outdoors most of the time, and now their application changed during the hearing last time. I guess the staff just felt like it should be less than what was disapproved the last two times, which were 45 and 32, so I think 24 had to do with the number of kids associated with caretakers, there's a ratio of children to caretakers, it's usually an even number. Can I, the original application was with a certain organization in mind that was asking for that number, this has taken three or four months for it to all, you know, with the paperwork and everything, and she has lost interest, so we are actually open to another organization and we don't know what their numbers would be, but that was, the previous applicant was asking for space for 12. It's just what's happened. You take whatever they give us. Additional questions? Other than that, I will note that the one for 45 was denied in 1977, I don't think you were alive yet, Ms. Carter. We'll pretend I wasn't. Yeah, and then the 32 was in 2010, which is a decade and a half ago. I will say, overall, I live across the street from Scapa High School, I mean not Scapa, the Scapa Elementary and Middle School, and so I've got probably almost 3,000 cars in front of my house every single day, and the recess is right outside my office, now it's across the street, but it's right there. It all starts blending in, you don't even notice it after a while, it's like living next to a train, which I've done before. After about a year, you don't even hear the train coming, it's just part of the background noise where you live. So with that being said, I am going to be supportive of this application, I am, I'm also okay with the 52 children, personally, but I can live with the 24 depending on where we end up as a board, but that's just kind of where I'm falling into place. I'd actually be okay with the 52 as well, I feel like either we're going to allow it or not. If we feel like it's an issue, I would hate to put constraints on it that they can't make it work. I would also be in favor of the 52, not because I don't have any questions, but I think in this particular case, we ought to let the church do what they need to do. I don't think there's enough negative that we should turn this down, and so I think the church has the right ideas, and I'd like to see them try it, but I also would suggest that probably 52 may be a bit much, but I think we give you the option to do that if you can, and make it reasonable. So I'd be happy to make a motion when that time comes. Is he allowed to? Oh no, I'm sorry, we closed public comment. I have to be consistent on once public comment is closed, but thank you. I will entertain a motion at this time. Madam Chair, I will make a motion to approve PLN BOA 25 number 4, Diocese of Lexington request for a conditional use permit for a child care center accessory to replace a religious assembly in a single family residential zone on property located at 1891 Parkers Mill Road based on the conversations today and staff's recommendation, but with the change in condition number 3 for enrollment to be limited to no more than 52 children. Also finding A references, you need to correct finding number A as well? Finding A, it also references the number. Oh, I just assumed the original application would be that. I will make a friendly amendment to your motion and say I hereby revise finding A in the report from 24 to 52. And I second the motion. Thank you. Thank you sir. Okay, any further discussion? If not, we will take a vote. Motion is passed. Thank you. Good luck. Alrighty, at this time we are going to take a short five minute break, if that's okay and then we will actually switch chairs. That would be a wonderful idea. I'm bringing us back. Ms. Carter had to leave and so I will be taking over the chairship for the next hour or so. So we are back in recess for the BOA. We are now to the point where we are doing the short term rentals and we are going to be hearing first the cases in which staff has both recommended approval and there is no audience members who want to make public comment. So we will be hearing the first case will be PLM BOA 25-3 Home to You Properties request related to 3441 Laredo Drive, Unit 7. Please state your name for the record. My name is Tom Cravens. Mr. Cravens, are you the owner of the LLC that owns it? Janis Fenton. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval and that approval is conditioned on four conditions. Have you seen those? We have, yes. And are you in agreement with those? Completely agreeable. Thank you. Does anyone on the commission have any questions? I have a point of order, oh you just got it up there. I think there is one document in opposition. I am struggling with the parking on this property when I was there and looked at it and then you share walls on both sides with your neighbors? We do, yes. Yeah, it looks like. So where, it seems like parking was kind of all over, there was like hardly any room to park when I was just driving through the lot looking. Yeah, usually in front of our place there is no problem. So the, if you are looking at our place, number 7, one on the left only has one vehicle, one on the right only has one vehicle, and then the one on the far end is not, doesn't have anybody living there right now. So in those areas there is, you know, there is almost always open parking in front of our place and we do have one covered spot and then officially one other spot. Okay, so do you know how many cars you are planning on having come? It looks like you have got up to 6 people. We do, yes. But I mean a large majority of those are, you know, 4 people, 3, 4 people on average. But we, as far as I know, we have not had any with 3 vehicles that have been there. The parking has never been an issue. You know, we have never had any of our neighbors say anything, you know, we have never had any of our guests say anything that is a problem with the parking there at all. Okay, because in the way that is tucked in there too, it is not like you can really go out on a street either and park because it is way kind of. It does have an entryway into it, yes. But I mean, just there has never been an issue with that at all. I mean, when we go in there, there is usually parking areas on both sides, you know, for in front of our spot, our townhouse there, and on the other side as well. It looked pretty sparse when I went by, but thank you. Any other questions? Anyone want to make a motion one way or the other? Mr. Chair, I will move approval of PLN BOA 26-3, home to you properties, request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in the Planned Neighborhood Residential Zone on property located at 3441 Laredo Drive, based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. And we have a second. Anyone want to discuss the motion? Hearing none, then I will put it to a vote. Good luck with your project. Thank you. We will now be moving on to the second item. Is Chad, is Mr. Walker coming back in? He left, but he didn't recuse from that one. Oh, Wingspan Rentals? Okay, that's okay. We'll just make sure to stop him at the door when he shows up. So I guess in that instance, we just mark him as absent. The next one is PLN BOA 25-10. I believe the applicant has arrived. Come on up. Wingspan Rentals? Okay. And this is related to 3502 Willowwood Road. Good afternoon. And if you could, I need to swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Amy Soner. Okay, Amy, looks like the staff has recommended approval based upon four conditions. Have you seen those? Are you agreeable to those? I am. Thank you. So given that, does anyone have any questions from the board for Ms. Soner? Seeing none, then do we want to make a motion? Mr. Gross, did we ask if there was public comment on this one? Oh, I apologize. Is anyone here to comment on this one? This is case PLN BOA 25-10 Wingspan Rentals. There was no one earlier when... Yeah. Okay. Yeah, there was no one. Amy wasn't here, and no opposition was here. Yeah. Well, hearing none, then I'm ready for a motion if the board is. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLN BOA 25-10 Wingspan Rentals. Request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property. Seconded. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 3502 Willowwood Road based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Bob seconds for us. Does anyone want to discuss the motion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. I'll just mention that if you do have one letter that's appropriate for one of your neighbors Yeah, there was a we got one comment and you may not have received that and so if you want Dalton can get with you to get you a copy of that one comment from the neighbors. I'd love to see that. Thank you. Well Amy, it's been approved. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. So we have one more case that is at this point Mr. Walker has returned. We have one more case that we did not have any public comment or we have staff's approval and this is case PLM-BOA 25-23 J&H Homes LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental for property at 1216 Telluride Circle. Applicant? Thank you. Is anyone here? Alright. Well in that case, if you could please state your name for the record. Heather Grable. And you were sworn in earlier? Yes. Okay. And you have seen the staff's report and their four conditions? I have. And you are agreeable to those conditions? I am. Thank you. In that case I will open up the questions to the board. And seeing none, I will ask if anyone wants to make a motion on this case. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLM-BOA 25-23 J&H Homes LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental on a single-family residential zone on property located at 1216 Telluride Circle based on staff's recommendations and subject to the four conditions. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Clark seconds. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Thank you ma'am. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Now the next step is we're going to take a little bit out of our normal what we've been doing in that we have one case which is, and this will be the first case we hear, which is on page 2, item D1 23-86 This one is governed by the old regulations and so the staff is recommending disapproval so Dalton will give a presentation on the old regulations and then we'll hear the case and it will be limited to the old regulations, not the stuff that is current. Once we've made that decision, we'll move to the next two cases which are on page 5, number 7 and 8. Those are the new regulations and I'll have Dalton come up and give another presentation to remind us. I just want to make sure, keep the two separate. Are we recusing from this one? I just recused from this other one. There's only two. This one and the one before. I just want to make sure you don't get confused. I just want to make sure you weren't confused Mr. Walker. So I just want the board to remember this case we're getting ready to hear is on the old regulations not the new regulations. So just act like it's December of 2024. Or January, we also heard the old regulations. So with all that being said Dalton please proceed. Thank you. Oh wait, yes you're going to give your presentation and then for the applicant then we'll call your case and have the case heard. That's how we handle these. Thank you. I'll do the general overview of the regulations then we can get into the presentation for the case. So this is Dalton Belcher, licensed and planning staff. So the short term regulations again this is the previous regulations. They were adopted by the council on July 11, 2023. All applications submitted to the division of planning prior to December 12, 2024 were reviewed under these regulations. Any that were legally operating before this date were allowed to be grandfathered in assuming they have 6 months to get in under that grandfathering end period which ended January 11, 2024. So basically STRs with occupancies greater than 12 required if they were already existing or new required a new conditional use permit as well. As of February 10, 2025 the division of planning has processed 1,014 zoning compliance permits for short term rentals and section 13 of the code of ordinances includes additional regulations for short term rentals related to business licensing and permitting. Also note that short term rentals shall not be utilized for private events such as weddings or parties in which the number of participants exceeds the maximum occupancy limit and no private events shall occur between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Special events for a commercial purpose shall be prohibited at all times. So some of this is a little bit of old hat the old regulations but a few distinctions that come up the definitions haven't necessarily changed with the new regs but the one of the changes is the number under the old regs the maximum occupancy for a short term rental two individuals per bedroom plus an additional four individuals or a total of twelve whichever is less and the board had the option to allow additional occupants when there is sufficient evidence that a greater occupancy will not result in overcrowding or create a nuisance here is the zoning ordinance just showing the zones and the regulations at the time for whether it was conditional use or an accessory use and some other criteria about the number of short term rental units some things that factors that were considered were noise, traffic, parking, compatibility with the area, complying with other zoning ordinance requirements findings for approval were that it would not adversely affect the subject or surrounding properties and necessary public facilities and services adequate for the proposed use are there so article 3 13G states that for short term rentals regulated as conditional use the board shall take into consideration the following the number of STRs of any in proximity of the property being considered for such use the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant the occupancy rate of the other STRs in the general vicinity including those operated by the applicant whether other STRs in the general vicinity have been cited as a nuisance including those operated by the applicant as you can see here are the issued ZCPs the green houses indicate one so this is zoomed out a bit so staff uses several resources and frames of analysis to find these considerations the concentration numbers are found using our ArcGIS tool that measures the number of residential dwellings uses STRs within 1,000 feet of the total number of residential units instead of the out of the total number of residential parcels that was a change to determine the compliance record of applicants staff engages with division of revenue zoning enforcement staff, division of building inspection police department and we also use the host compliance software to see if there's any citations or notice of violations that have been sent for any number of reasons although the host compliance software has not been able to determine the occupancy rate of STRs we have used data available via AirDNA which they defined as the number of rental days per month and staff also uses nuisance information provided by the and any information passed along through the new short term rental hotline there's also the task force on neighborhoods and transition report the task force was established in 2018 the purpose was to identify ways to protect vulnerable residents from the consequences of neighborhood redevelopment and transformation especially displacement with an emphasis on preserving the history and culture of communities purpose was redefined at the first meeting to include displacement, an important consequence of development and transformation the discussions focused on the complicated topics of infill and redevelopment preservation, race, gentrification and a variety of other factors associated with neighborhoods and transition task force worked to identify factors that make a neighborhood vulnerable to involuntary displacement and where those factors are most prevalent in Lexington so this is the concentration this is specifically just for the one case that's under the old regs, the newer cases will be shown on a different slide later but so for 316 Nelson which is the upcoming case there are 5 short term rentals within the buffer 268 dwelling units in 1000 feet which equals a 1.87% number of dwelling units in the buffer and this is within one of the top 10 census block groups that was identified so are there any questions with that? I've heard that quite a few times at this point but just wanted to give you a refresher before we go into a case with the old rules ok ok so that was the presentation so I will now call case I'll go ahead and do oh that's what I was going to say I was going to call the I only have to call the case you're going to call it off sounding the agenda announcing the case yeah so I don't think I've officially yeah it's ok so now I'm going to call PLM BOA 23-86 Phillip Petrie renew holdings LLC's request for conditional use permit at 316 Nelson Avenue my recollection was that there was no public comment on this one ok and since staff has recommended this approval we will have staff present first then we will permit the applicant to present staff can rebut and then we'll let the applicant also have an opportunity if they have any last closing remarks before we bring it to the committee as always you can ask questions as we go through the process. Thank you. Thank you. So as mentioned this is a request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 316 Nelson Avenue Council District 1 on screen you can see in the light blue highlight is the subject property 316 Nelson here's a street view of the property that shows it just here at the corner here's a site plan that was submitted by the applicant for the request and then this map shows the concentration you can see again maybe it's not as easy to see as the other one but there are the greenhouses here that are showing short term rentals within the area within the 1,000 foot buffer and again this was shown before so a distinction that I'll get into in a minute is that as of the time of writing the staff report the Division of Revenue found that 4 of the 5 short term rentals that were in the 1,000 foot buffer did not renew their license so while 5 was the number we had before it really is as of the new year of 2025 there's only one short term rental operating within the 1,000 foot buffer which brings the percentage down to .04% and so I'll note that well actually that's what I was saying there and the average occupancy rate based off ARDNA of the 5 short term rentals in the vicinity was 44.8% which is lower than the county wide average of 50%. So I will note and this is part of staff's recommendation for compliance the applicant was issued a notice of violation on November 7, 2024 by the Division of Revenue for operating without a license after receiving notice the applicant removed their listing. According to the Granicus host compliance software there was a documented stay at this property in April 2024 which violates the requirement to have proper permitting and licensing for the short term renting the property since the applicant so a little bit of history the applicant did previously come before this board and was disapproved by the board and they appealed this case or appealed their case and while that was going on this is the interim period where there was a documented stay so at that time they did not have the proper approval to be operating short term rental so staff looks at that as a violation of the ordinance speaking to their compliance record so staff recommends disapproval for the following reasons first of the four factors in article 313G of the zoning ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100.237 second that none of the short term rentals in the area have been cited as a nuisance but the number of short term rentals within the 1000 feet of the property which was 5 together with the occupancy rate of those rentals 44% indicates that there is a lower demand for short term rentals in the area and this can be further substantiated by the fact that only one out of the five short term rentals in the area has renewed their license to continue operating this suggests that the use of the property as a short term rental is not the highest and best use for the property in this neighborhood next that the further the property excuse me the proposed use of the property as a short term rental may 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 utilized as a primary residence for an owner occupant or a long term tenant within one of the top 10 census block groups identified as a priority area as mapped with the task force on neighborhoods and transition report these priority areas are vulnerable to involuntary displacement and the proposed use would heighten existing issues with gentrification and displacement and finally that the applicant has a documented history of compliance issues with the short term rental regulations including knowingly operating without a proper permitting and in 2024 the applicant has willfully violated the rules and regulations set forth in the code of ordinances chapter 13 article 5 and in subsections this documented history of non compliance provides strong evidence that the operation of this short term rental will cause an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood by creating a nuisance and that's all for status presentation at the time do you have any questions for me anyone have any questions okay applicant want to step forward please state your name for the record thank you my name is Matthew Henderson I'm an attorney for the company Renew Holdings that has made this application thanks please proceed thank you Mr. Chairman and board members thank you for your time today thank you for your work and thank you for the opportunity to advocate for my client that was an excellent summary of where we're at I just would add I got involved in this process after the first application that was made for this same property on Nelson Avenue and our request today is that you would approve the application for a short term rental and I'll explain to you why we think it would be appropriate Mr. Phillip Petrie is the owner of Renew Holdings he's here too I don't think he's going to share anything but he's welcome to answer questions if you all have any questions from him he purchased this property and has done a significant remodel on the property with the expectation of running a short term with the hopes of running a short term rental on the property I got involved after the first hearing and I think just to summarize jump in if you want to at all we worked together on this on the underlying civil case so I welcome you to share any thoughts so what happened in the first hearing it was primarily based on that third reason which was the task force neighborhoods report and what we asked basically what we asked the court to do is say hey our understanding is that Airbnb or short term rental should be approved or disapproved based on the four criteria that were articulated today and that's what the court held basically that you can consider other reasons but we want the board to consider the criteria and so I think they have I think the staff did an excellent job of they incorporated all four of the criteria our argument today that we'd like you to hear is that we don't think that they're applying those criteria appropriately okay and so the reason and just to give you the background for this the reason we don't believe is we believe what needs to be proved is whether an adverse influence exists on the is caused by the short term rental on the existing or future development of the surrounding neighborhood and if you'll note there's a unique phrase that you see in the requirement here is that they say that this suggests the property as a short term rental is not the highest and best use for the property in this neighborhood we don't believe that's an appropriate criteria under the standards that you've been given and the way they get to that conclusion is criteria 1 and criteria 3 okay so criteria 1 is how many short term rentals exist in a thousand feet of the neighborhood now if you look at that criteria I think the expectation of the legislation that adopted this regulation was that that is a criteria to prevent overcrowding or oversaturation okay so if there are a lot of Airbnbs within a thousand feet that would be a rationale for the board to say we don't think we need another one here okay I want you to notice there is one short term rental in the thousand feet that are within this so we think that criteria is actually a positive that is a plus for why you should approve this Airbnb but what the staff does is they take criteria 1 and they couple it together with criteria 3 which is the occupancy rate of those Airbnbs and they note that the occupancy rate is 44.8 for I wasn't really able to determine whether it was the 4 or just the 1 but it has an occupancy rate of 44.8 and they deem that to be a low occupancy rate we also take issue with that as you know they say that the county wide occupancy rate is 50% so you have a 5% difference between the county wide and this particular area we don't think that's statistically significant we think that's essentially about the same so we would argue the opposite that this isn't actually a low occupancy rate but that being said together with the fact that there's only one in this area and it's occupied at a rate of 44.8% the conclusion that the staff comes up with is that there's not high demand for short terminals in this area and we think that's just not an appropriate rationale the focus of these regs are to determine whether additional Airbnbs in the area would change the character of the neighborhood what the demand is addressing is whether or not it would be profitable or be successful and our argument is that kind of decision making process should be left up to the owner or someone that might want to purchase the property maybe they're better at operating an Airbnb than the other Airbnbs in the neighborhood maybe this is a different style Airbnb than the other ones maybe it has a different number of rooms better parking those kind of things and so we don't believe that that's an appropriate criteria for the board to address and so when you actually look at the criteria there's only one Airbnb in the area it's roughly on par or slightly lower occupancy than the others there haven't been any nuisance in the area, and that leaves us with one, which is the compliance issue of Renew Holdings themselves. And we want to be forthright with the board, it's true, in April of 2024, there were actually two guests that stayed for a weekend, for two days each, on different weekends. One was April the 12th and the 14th, the other was April the 5th through the 7th. And we wanted to share with you a little context for how that happened. Mr. Petrie has a property management group that was new, and they were the ones that listed that and initiated those stays, and we agree that those violated what he was permitted to do. As soon as he found out about it, he informed his property management group and said, hey, we can't rent this as a short-term rental. You'll notice that beginning at the end of April, when he communicated that to her, there have been no other short-term rentals of this property. And so he fully wants to comply. That was an oversight, a miscommunication between him and a new property manager. That will not happen. So just in conclusion, we think that based on the four criteria that you're supposed to consider in this situation, three out of the four all, you know, uncontroversially point towards, let's get an Airbnb in this area. And then the last one is mea culpa. It won't happen again. I think that concludes my comments. Yeah? Were you sworn in? No. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And then state your name for the record, please. I'm Philip Petrie. All right. Now you may proceed. I just want to add one thing. We got the notice about that violation in December, and we had ceased that activity as soon as I found out that it was happening. So it was just a mistake on the part of the property management company. It was no intent on my part to rent that as an Airbnb. Other than that, it's been midterm rental the whole time. Thanks. Real quick, I just want to talk a little bit about that. So it looks like you received a notice of violation in November of 2024. Is that because someone listed it? I think it was they, well, I'll ask them. I think it was because there were two stays that occurred in April of 2024 that they were able to look up and see. And there are need for it too. Okay. That's what I was trying to get. We admit two people stayed for just two days each. The rest of the stays on this property have been 30 days or more. Okay. So I'm following now. I was making sure I was understanding the report and then what you were saying. So you had stays in April, and the city notified you in November that that was against the rules? Yeah. And I think according to his testimony, they had already remedied that issue, and there have been no compliance issues since. Okay. Is there anything else you want to add? All right. Anyone have any questions for the applicant? Anyone? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. You have a seat. Dalton, is there anything you want to add? I do have a question about, I just want to clarify to make sure I'm following the April and November. So is the applicant correct in that it looked like there were stays, and then in November we sent, you sent a letter, or somebody sent from the city, Revenue sent a letter to them? Yes. There was, I don't know exactly when the letter was sent. I don't have that off the top of my head. But a letter was sent out as a notice of violation for the documented stays in April. So they were using their, the Granicus tracking software that basically, you know, combs the data and found that there was a stay, and then once they got that, they initiated enforcement action after that. Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else you want to add? No, I meant the question of the 40, the occupancy rate was based off the five that were in the area. So I know there's a question about whether it was based off one or four or five. It was based off the ones previously that were there. Let me ask you a quick question. So there were five, four have not renewed. Does that mean their licenses expire, or do they have to come back and ask for a new? So each year you have to renew your license in January, and they have not done that to this, to this point. So yes, I mean, I guess technically. Is there still time to renew, or is it? And I'm sorry, some of these are probably technical questions. I just want to make sure I'm following. The report implied a little bit that they could come back, and I wasn't sure if that, if how they could. The division of revenue had sent out notices for renewal in December, and again, at the 1st of January, because the deadline is January 31st. And then they gave another grace period at the end after that through February to see what mail showed up, because obviously we've had some weather issues and other mail issues. And I am assuming, Dalton, then as of the writing of the staff report, those four had not submitted their paperwork to renew. If they want to, now it's expired, so they would have to come back through the process. That's what, I just want to make sure, that's what it sounded like, I just want to make sure. Unless a piece of mail shows up that was dated before January 31st. Presumably their licenses have expired, unless they can come up with a defense to somehow renew them. Yes. Outside of the time frame. Okay. Yes. Anything else? Dalton. I'll give you a chance. Yeah, don't worry. Anything else? Nothing else from my side of things. Okay. Yeah. Come on up, sir. I was going to ask you if you had anything else you wanted to add. Any clarify? Not a whole lot. I just point out with that, so, and I wasn't certain if that data was based on the five or the one. Since you know that that data is based on the five, I'll just point out one other thing. If there's a 44.8% occupancy rate on five homes, and now there's only one there, I think that would undermine, be additional information that would undermine the claim that there's not going to be high demand. So now you'll have only just, if you were to grant this new short-term rental, there'll be two instead of five, and presumably they would be occupied if there's the same demand as before at a higher rate than that 44.8%. Thanks. That's all I have. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. With that being said, I'll bring it back to the board and close the public portion. Does anybody have any questions or discussion at this time? I have a comment, since you're looking at me. I just think that I understand what he's saying, but I also agree with the top ten sentence block. There's a walking distance to William Wells Brown Elementary, which provides free lunch, free breakfast, and after-school program for the kids in this neighborhood. There's also a lot of public transportation provided for caregivers, and it's next to a park. So I would have to agree with the staff's decision. Anyone else? Okay. Let me ask this question to the staff, if I might. The implication is that we can't use the task force decision in our decision-making. That was implied by Mr. Henderson. And so we see that, and frankly, I agree with it, that we should take it into consideration. And so I'm concerned about making a decision that would be based on that if it indeed is not our privilege of making the decision based on that. Can you help me with that? So it's not that you can't consider the task force. If you find that persuasive evidence, that you have to consider the factors that are provided within the ordinance that we're looking at. And so how does the task force help you interpret those factors? So it kind of has to fit together. Does that help? I think what she's saying is it's not dispositive. Yes. It's not dispositive. Just because the task force has made a recommendation and there's a list of census tract does not mean that you have to abide by that task force recommendation. Is that correct? It's not the task force in and of itself and nothing else. That's not dispositive. Correct. You have to consider the factors. And so that can be one piece of evidence amongst others that you're looking at when you're considering the four factors that are required by the ordinance. Does that help? Yes. Thank you. Any other comments? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion to agree with staff and disapprove PLM-BOA-2386-Philip Petrie renewed holdings requesting a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone on the property located at 316 Nelson Avenue based on the four reasons that are listed. Is there a second? I'll second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. Please enter your vote. Mr. Clerk, there we go. The motion passes. Your application was denied today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, this brings us to our next case, which is on page five. Matter number seven and matter number eight are the same applicant, but they are different properties and located in different areas. So I will have Dalton come up and give us a summary of the new regulations. So for this case, we will be looking at the new regulations, not the old regulations. And then once Dalton does that, then I will call the case, Ms. Smith, after he does his presentation. All right. So as mentioned, this is going to be about the new regulations, which is what short-term rentals are evaluated under moving forward. Chad, come back. So on December 5th, the Urban County Council approved updates to the Code of Ordinances and the Zoning Ordinance regarding the regulation of short-term rentals in Fayette County. Effective 12-12-2024, all new STR applications will be reviewed under these regulations. So short-term rentals with occupancies greater than 10, existing or new, require a conditional use permit. As of, again, as of February 10th, 2025, we processed 1,014 ZCPs for STRs. And then Section 13 includes additional regulations for STRs related to business licensing and permitting. And then, as I mentioned last time, you cannot use it for private events, weddings, parties, those kinds of things. So we have our definition of a short-term rental has continued to remain the same. It's a dwelling unit that is rented in whole or in part for temporary occupancy by transient guests for a tendency of less than 30 consecutive days in duration where no meals are served. It does not include hotels or motels, extended stay hotels, bed and breakfast facilities, boarding or lodging facilities, or farm employee dwelling units. And then also, an unhosted short-term rental in which a primary resident does not occupy the property during the short-term rental period. So under some of the updates that we have under the new regulations, that the maximum occupancy limit has been changed a little bit so it's still a maximum of two individuals per bedroom, but instead of being plus an additional four, it's plus an additional two or a total of ten instead of a total of twelve, whichever is less. And then the Board of Adjustment, this entity may only consider a maximum of ten new conditional use applications for short-term rentals per month. And then for short-term rentals regulated as conditional uses, the Board shall take into consideration the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant if they operate other STRs in Lexington, whether other short-term rentals in the general vicinity have been cited as a nuisance, including those operated by the applicant, and whether the property being considered is located within a neighborhood that may be vulnerable to involuntary displacement based upon socioeconomic demographics. Some of those things continue to carry over from our old regulations. Here's our, I already spoke about the task force so I won't go over that again now, but a new requirement that came into place, or two new requirements, one that no short-term rental regulated as a conditional use should be located within 600 feet of another short-term rental that has either received a conditional use permit from the Board or is otherwise illegal non-conforming use, and two, that the number of short-term rentals shall not exceed 2% of all dwelling units within 1,000 feet and residential zones. If these criteria are not met, so for example you have a 600 foot buffer and there is one short-term rental within 600 feet, or you have over 2% within the total 1,000 foot buffer, there are relief provisions that are allowed that the applicant can show that this would 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 the three factors that the Board can consider as these relief provisions are that the property is adjacent to a non-residential zone that allows short-term rentals as a principle or accessory use, or there is a significant environmental feature or minor arterial or higher classification road that separates this proposed short-term rental from other short-term rentals within the buffer area, or that an unhosted short-term rental within the buffer area is located on the perimeter of the buffered area with part of the property being located outside of the buffer area. You saw one of those last month. That was the relief provision that was applied for. Here's a, just showing from our ordinance, again, hosted, unhosted, and some of the regulations that I've already spoke about here. This gets into the, this is just the relief provision, so basically, if I can, this one right here that you see, it's separated by a road, then that could be a consideration that it should not be counted as part of the 600-foot buffer because there's a road of a specific classification that is being separated there. Relief, another provision is that you could say that we have the 600 feet, there's one right here that's on the edge of the 600-foot buffer, and because this line separates the property, it should not be counted against the 600-foot calculation of having one within the vicinity. Again, show this before, this is our issues and issued CCPs and licensed STRs. So we had a couple of these already go by our agenda, but for the two cases that are coming up here, they are the 2009 Polk Lane and 2351 Harrods Point Trace. So the applicant, or excuse me, there are no STRs within 600 feet and there are zero within 1,000 feet, so the percentage is not an issue here, and I'll get into staff's reason for disapproval when we get to those cases, though. Any questions for me before we get into the specific case? Okay. Okay. Anyone here to speak on this case? I think she's saying on the next. The next one? On the next. Perfect, ma'am. Sir, are you for the next case, too? On Polk Lane. Polk Lane. Are you for Polk Lane? Yes. Okay, then we'll call that one next. So you sit tight. Okay. All right, Dalton, since the staff has recommended disapproval, I will let the staff go first, and after that, sir, you can come up and talk just after Dalton's finished. Proceed. Okay. So this is a request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential R1D zone on property located at 2351 Harrods Point Trace, Council District 9. As you can see on the screen, I'm highlighting here. Here is the subject property in light blue. Here's a street view of the property, and here's a site plan presented by the applicant noting that there is two parks. You can park. They're going to allow two parking spaces in the front. They're not letting the garage be used as parking. So there are zero short-term rentals within 600 feet as well as zero short-term rentals within 1,000 feet, so the 600 foot buffer as well as the 2% concentration number are not at issue here, so the applicant does not need to provide one of the relief provisions here in this case. Staff's focus is on the fact that the applicant's compliance record is an issue. This property as well as two other properties, including one on the agenda, received citations from the Division of Revenue for operating without a short-term rental, and the applicant has since paid them, but they paid the citation right around the time they were applying for these short-term rentals, either the day before or the day after, right around that time frame. And so while the concentration is not an issue here, staff does believe that the compliance record is an issue, so staff recommends disapproval for the following reasons. Three factors listed in Article 313G of the Zoning Ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance and KRS 100.237. The second that the applicant has willfully violated the rules and regulations set forth in the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13, Article 5, and its subsections by operating without a license, and the review of those factors show that no short-term rentals in the proximity have been cited as a nuisance, but the proposed unhosted short-term rental for six individuals has a documented history of compliance issues with the short-term rental regulations, including citations. This history of compliance issues suggests that the continued use of the property as a short-term rental could cause an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood by creating a nuisance. And that's all for staff's presentation. Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, come on up now. Were you sworn in earlier? Yes, I do. Okay. And please state your name for the record. My name is Anto Yawanta. I am the owner of Remastered LLC. Okay. And so the staff has recommended disapproval. It appears that the main reason is that your compliance and the fact that you were running a short-term rental without a license, and that when notified, you did not pay your fees until late. Did you continue to operate as a short-term rental after receiving the notices? As soon as I... Let me... Yes, please go ahead. But that's the question I'm going to ask you later. Okay. So think about how you're going to answer while you're giving your presentation. Let me say I am not a lawyer like Matt Henderson, so I'm not as eloquent as the way he's doing it. And my English probably is not perfect either. Okay. Neither is mine. Okay. I hope you understand. The way I look at all this thing, I'm compliant or fits into the criteria that being told to me within 600 feet, the concentration, I have 0%, just like the way he's telling you guys. The only thing that I feel like I'm guilty of right now is the compliant issue. The compliant issue itself is because of my misunderstanding. There is... In the year 2024, it's been rough on me. I have several occasions that I have to go overseas because my 90-year-old mom was ill. When I come back, I have to hurry up and finish my taxes that I have done extension on. And then I have five properties that I have to get fixed and re-rented because this is losing money. Because of that, I have done something on all of my utilities bill, insurance, mortgages. I automate the payment. This citation come in, in an envelope that look almost like Lexington lecture. Because of my situation, I did not open most of my utility bills and mistakenly, this got into that category. I didn't open. As soon as I got the last one that looks a little bit different and I found out that they told me I'm in violation that I did not know of, I start curbing from short-term rental into 30 days and more. So I am not violating anything as soon as I find out. So those are the story of what's going on. I kind of like... And I have paid hefty bill because they cited me. I paid $2,500. The reason I didn't pay right away because $2,500 is very much for my business. It's a lot of money. And I asked them for payments. And they told me that somebody going to call. A month later, nobody have called, so I called back. And at that time, I decided I take a loan and pay the whole thing in full. So I will be in compliance. I don't owe anybody else. And I have the receipt that I have paid $2,500 in full. So that's what I'm saying. I kind of want to show you two things and then I want to read my little notes. I didn't know you can look at the... I'm sorry. It is in here. While you're shuffling through your notes, when did you start using this property as a short-term rental? Oh, three and a half years ago. Speak into the mic, please. I started this three and a half years ago and I did not know that regulation changed since I think they told me 2023. So that's the initial thing that I did not know things going because of the situation that I am in. Otherwise, I don't have to go through this thing. If I was in there in January, I will be over grandfathering in through all this thing. This is one thing that I want to show. If you pass it to the back, they'll put it on the overhead. That's the similarity in the envelope that look like the citation and the lecture. You see the top one is the citation envelope. The bottom one is the lecture envelope. You see how similar they are? When they come, I look at it, I just pile them up with my lecture envelope. So that's my mistake and I pay for that mistake with all this work that I have to do that I am not very familiar with, all this situation I am not good at, and the amount of money that I have to spend, like what I said, the initial citation is $2,500 and then all this that I have to send, it requires so much envelope costs and times. And here is the payment that I have paid $2,500 to LFUCG. And again, like what I said, this is not little money and I have to go through bank loans to pay that $2,500. I take this mistake, I don't want to use this as my excuse, but the overall of this is my not understanding that there is a new rules in there. And whatever that I have to do, I like to continue. I like this place, I like Lexington, this is my hometown, and I'm very proud of, I'm doing very well entertaining guests from outside. And when those people come in here happy because they come to see our bourbon, our horse park, the horses and things like that, I'm very proud of this place and I want to continue to be that way and contribute to this city. And I don't want, on top of all this thing, my neighbor, this is not to boost myself up, but all those people around my immediate neighborhood love me because I took care, my place, much better when I rented this thing long term. The place become nicer because that's one of the criteria you have to be in the short term rental, the place need to look good. And they praise me, they said, Anto, I want you back. I want you to continue doing this thing. Nuisance, just like Matt Henderson said, doesn't go with, because there's no STR in there, meaning there's nobody wants to be there. It is not true. So in any case, I don't know how to present this thing correctly, but I want to get back to it. If I have to pay the fee again, I pay the fee. Whatever that mistake that I made that's citing me that I'm not compliant, I have to pay hefty $2,500 for that. It's not little money. So I am hoping by bringing this up, I can get back to it and contribute more to this city that I like. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? Dalton, do you have anything you want to add at this time? You can sit down for a second. Oh, okay. Thank you. Just a clarification, just so it's known, the citation was paid on February 6th, 2025, and our application deadline for this meeting agenda was February 5th. So it would have been the day after the filing deadline that it was paid. Thank you, sir. Okay, so at this point, public comment is closed. Open up for questions or discussions amongst the board members. And if there are none, I will entertain a motion. I just wanted to make a comment, too, that I'm kind of struggling with this because the main gist is that he didn't open his mail. The main gist is, his excuse was that he didn't open his mail. So I'll make a motion to agree with staff and disapprove PLN-BOA-2518-REMA-STARS for conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in the single-family residential zone on the property located at 2351 Harrods Point Trace with three recommendations for disapproval from staff. Thank you. Is there a second? Okay, seeing none, the motion fails for lack of a second. In that instance, I will probably take, I guess at this time, is someone going to make a motion to approve the application? The chair cannot make motions, so somebody's going to have to give me directions. Either need a second? I'll second. Okay. So I will then see that motion is renewed and a second has been made on the record. Any discussion of that motion? Hearing none, then I will put this motion to vote. A vote of yes would be the application is not approved. Okay, so your application has not been approved today for that, so you can no longer use that. You cannot use that property as a short-term rental, do you understand? That case is closed. We're moving on to the next case of yours, so you'll have a chance to talk about that case next. So we are going to move on to PLM BOA 25-20, Rema Starr's request for a conditional use permit at 2009 Polk Lane. Once again, the staff has recommended disapproval, and so the staff will present first, followed by the applicant. Then we have people in the public who want to speak, we'll give them opportunity, and then the staff and the applicant will have one last chance to tell us anything else they want in or rebut comments. So Dalton, please proceed. So this is a request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 2009 Polk Lane, Council District 2. You can see highlighted here is the subject property in light blue. Here is a street view of the property as well. Here is a site plan provided by the applicant. Again, two parking spaces provided in front of the garage. Here similar to the previous case, this does not have any short-term rentals within a 600-foot vicinity or within a 1,000-foot vicinity. The staff has similar, the same logic with our recommending for disapproval, being that there were citations on this property, and as mentioned before, they were paid the day after the application deadline, but there was this property as well as the previous case and then a third property that had citations issued. Again, zero STRs within the buffer. Staff recommends disapproval for the following reasons. First of the three factors listed in Article 313G of the zoning ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of Article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100.237. Second, the applicant has willfully violated the rules and regulations set forth in the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13, Article 5 and its subsections by operating without a license and third, review of those factors show that no short-term rentals in the proximity have been cited as a nuisance, but the proposed unhosted short-term rental for six individuals has a documented history of compliance issues with the short-term rental regulations, including citations. The history of compliance issues suggests that the continued use of the property as a short-term rental could cause an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood by creating a nuisance. And that's all I have for staff's side of things. Do you have any questions for me? Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff? Okay, thank you, Dalton. You may come back up, sir. And once again, please state your name for the record. Antoio Huanta. I'm the owner of the Dreamer Stars LLC. It practically has the same argument as I have. Again like what I said, all this thing is because that one little thing that I did not understand. I don't want that little spill milk ruin the whole thing. And again, like what I said, my neighbors love for me to continue as a short-term rental instead of a long-term rent in that area. That's because I improve the area and they improve their environment, their value of the house going up. They want me to be there. They want me to take care of the things and I understand the board concern on the only thing that I misunderstood about the compliance part. But that is an isolated incident. It's not something that I purposely do. So again, all this thing happening because of my situation in 2024. It's demanding so much that I forget one little things in there. And I have remedied all this thing by paying whatever that they cited me on and that has been taken care of. Again beyond all this thing, I have acknowledged my error and have taken full responsibility to rectify it. The circumstances surrounding this oversight were exceptional and do not reflect my commitment to the compliance. I have demonstrated my dedication to rectifying this issue by paying the required fines and spending countless hours organizing all the paperwork. Furthermore, my short-term rental operation has positively impacted the neighborhood by maintaining high property standard and contributing to our city's appeal. I'm deeply proud of Lexington and its unique attraction and I'm eager to continue contributing to its success. I respectfully request that the board approve my application, recognizing my commitment to compliance, my demonstrated accountability, and my positive contribution to the community. I have learned from this experience and have implemented very new procedures to prevent the future occurrences. I'm confident that I will be a responsible and compliant short-term rental operator. Thank you sir. Any questions for the applicant? You can have a seat for a second. Members of the public have an opportunity to speak. Sir were you sworn in at the beginning? Did you take an oath at the beginning? Are you going to speak ma'am? You did take the oath. Perfect. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you sir. If you could state your name for the record. James Lee. Please there will be my accent a little bit strong so be attentive. You have three minutes. Yeah. My thing here is security concern because you don't know the person coming into the house. You don't know the whereabouts. There's no background check, nothing. And opposite the house, we've got a big school that our children go to. Yeah they've got a school in the area. And we know where the people come from, where they're going. The other time we had shooting in the area and they couldn't find the person. Police have to come to my house if I had a camera and all that kind of stuff. So my concern, the safety of our children going to the school and getting people opposite the school living in the house and you've got no information on that. That's my concern, that's just a concern I've got. Thank you sir. Any questions? Yeah. Where do you live? Sorry. Where do you live? Do you live on Polk Lane? No I live one street from Polk Lane, yeah. Thank you. Thank you sir. You can sit down. Ma'am you're up. And please state your name for the record when you get to the microphone. Hi I'm Therese Dials. I do live on Polk Lane. I didn't even know there was an STR on Polk Lane at this current time. I did not know we had that. In the past, I can't, don't have me quoting what year because I don't remember, we have had a couple of STRs on Polk Lane. One of them was two doors down from me. Never had an issue. Never had any kind of issues. Often times it would even have conversations with people that were renting it. I'd also like a copy of the short term rental ordinance if I may have it. Whoever has that. Okay. Anyway. Ma'am we don't have extra copies of that. How do I access it? If you go online, Imagine Lexington, no not at Imagine Lexington, but Dalton can give you the address of where to go at the end of the meeting. Thank you. Fabulous. I don't have a problem with an STR being on Polk Lane personally. It's not even an elementary school. It's the STEM program and the success program that are in the big building across the street from where I live. That's my neighbor that way. I know my neighbors this way. Whoever he has had in previous months, last year, whatever, staying at that house, didn't even know anybody was down there, didn't even know it was STR. I think that speaks to his good management of the property. The property is always in good shape. I know y'all use this word on here, nuisance. I don't understand that usage, but I'm not familiar with that terminology. So I would say it's not a nuisance as one that's lived there. We have lived there, oh, 15 years? And on Polk Lane, on that section of Polk Lane, and it's always been peaceful, even when there were people with short term rentals. And I'd just like to encourage you to continue to encourage this man. He's brought business into the area, and this is his business and part of his livelihood. So I want to speak on his behalf. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for that member of the public? Okay, Dalton, is there anything you want to add? Sir, is there anything you want to add? Not that you've, anything new that you haven't already told us. And if you do, come up to the mic and I'll give you two minutes. As it is contested by one of the neighbors, which proves that people approve, that people approve what I am doing in there compared to little things that I miss. I don't do any harm. I'm a good citizen. I love abiding citizen. I don't intentionally try to break anything. And again, like what she said, it is part of my livelihood as well. That's income for me, and it's good for everybody. It's good for me because I maintain my properties well, I take care of my loans, and it's good for the neighborhood. It's good for the city because we bring in tax money. It's good for me because I earn income in there. So I respectfully hope that you guys can see what I can see. And this is not the way to punish me because I miss something. If I knew all this thing in January, I don't have to go through all this thing. I will be grandfathering in. I'll be going through all this thing. I don't lose my income. So please, look again in there, and I'm hoping this will bring good to everybody. Thank you. Thank you, sir. At this point, I'll close out the public comment and open it up for the board to discuss, ask questions, or make a motion for me. I should have probably spoken up a little bit more on the last one. We have contractors and architects who come in here that have code violations against them and we still see them for different usage. You should have, shame on you, you should have gotten your license. But, you know, I don't think, I said on Board of Adjustments, we've gone through several reiterations of the rules and it's confusing and now we're going to have agriculture in there. It's confusing. I don't know why we expect the general public to be any less confused, especially somebody that should be grandfathered in and when's the last time that a neighbor came in support of a short-term rental? I don't recall that happening in a long time. You don't have any code violations and basically it boils down to you didn't get a piece of paper and you had to pay, what was it, $1,500 up to this point, which is a lot. So I'd be in support of this. I don't see that you've, at least for your neighbor's testimony, have done anything other than you were confused on the rules and I can't say I blame you because I'm sometimes confused on the rules as well. So I'd be in support of this. I'd like to ask the staff if the applicant has other STRs other than the two we're considering today. Do we know others? Yes, there is at least one other one which also got a citation and I do think the applicant has two other ones that they're interested in operating but there were three citations for three separate properties at one time so there is at least one other one that's operating or that the applicant has been operating. So the $2,500 that he paid involved all three properties, is that correct? That was added together from the three properties, correct. Okay. I'm also kind of struggling with the safety of this because the map that they had, the STEAM Academy is right there. There's no fence between, there's like a road between, there's poke lane between his house and the STEAM Academy. I know that that academy hosts for at least two weeks of the year the homeless students of Fayette County and there's a lot of foot traffic with kids in the area. So that's, there's no fence. So that's kind of a concern of mine. Okay, let's take it to the next level, Ms. Tucker. Does that concern me? You are not supportive of his application? Yes. Okay. Thank you. How about you two gentlemen? Are you, are you supportive or non? And the reason I'm asking is I'd like to move this application on. I'm not supportive. Mr. Clark? I'm not supportive. Okay, then please, if somebody would make me a motion. One way or the other. So we can move it. I will make a motion. Thank you. To agree with staff and disapprove PLMBOA 2520 Rema Stars requesting a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a planned neighborhood residential zone on the property located at 2009 Polk Lane based on the staff's recommendations of disapproval. Thank you, Ms. Tucker. Do I have a second? All right, Bob has seconded for us for the record. Any discussion? So a vote in favor is a vote to not get an application. This application has been denied. I will say that I believe under our bylaws you can seek one year from now. So one year from today you can seek to have this as a short-term rental again. This is not a permanent prohibition, but you have a one year underneath our bylaws before you can apply for this conditional use permit. Thank you. That now covers all of our cases for the day. At this point, are there any board items? Does the staff have any items? I have a question for staff. Are we going to be doing any of our quarterly training meeting things that we did last year? Have you talked to the chair? I forgot to ask her. We did not speak about it this morning, but I will tell you that the Division of Planning is looking to have KLC come do training for both the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission related to bylaws and conducting meetings. So we're hoping for that to happen in April, but it could be a little bit later. So I will definitely let you know when that is scheduled, but it will probably be during the Planning Commission's work session and then ask you all to join in that particular thing. They typically meet the third Thursday of a month. So April 17th would be the next time that Mr. Duncan mentioned there would be an opportunity for that. If not, then perhaps in May. And we will get our continuing education. You would get continuing education for that particular presentation. I believe, do you all receive an email from our staff related to APA training on webinars? Yes. Okay. Sometimes those are weekly and sometimes they're not. But those are always options as well. I don't know that there's another scheduled opportunity at this point, though. And for those of you who have it not done, so the Ohio branch of the American Planners has a really good website, and that's usually where I get my continuing education when I cannot make them in person once they have a good website selection of things. That's excellent. Thank you, Tracy, for that update. Our next meeting will be April 14th, 2025 at 1.30 p.m. That is spring break. So no, it's not spring break. It's the Monday after spring break. Okay. I will still not be here. So Margo from SCAPA, the SCAPA class is singing at Carnegie Hall that weekend. And so I'll be in New York City with the SCAPA class. And so I will not be here on Monday. You guys will have to find somebody else to entertain you that day. So with all that being said, I will now adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.