# Confirmation Hearing - Planning Commission - June 12, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · June 12, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6456 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6456?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-06-12 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 1, 2026 - **Length**: 5,604 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington Planning Commission held a meeting on June 12, 2025, presided over by the Vice Mayor. The meeting featured a single agenda item — a discussion with Mr. McClure — which was informational in nature and did not result in a formal decision or action. Over the course of the meeting, one motion and vote was recorded, and no public comments were heard. The session was focused and limited in scope, centering on the informational discussion as its primary business. ## Attendance The following members were present at the Commission meeting on June 12, 2025: - Mr. McClure - Council Member Gray - Council Member Morton - Council Member Lynch - Council Member Baxter - Council Member Savigny - Council Member Curtis - Council Member Legree All eight members were in attendance. No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took one formal vote during the June 12, 2025 meeting. - **Motion to go into closed session** [timestamp: 46:54]: The Commission voted to enter closed session. The motion passed by voice vote. No individual roll call was recorded, so a breakdown of votes by member is not available. ## Appointments The Commission took the following appointment action during the June 12, 2025 meeting: - **Mr. McClure** was **reappointed** to the **Planning Commission**. ## Contested Items Two items generated notable disagreement during the June 12, 2025 Commission meeting. **Urban Service Boundary Expansion** [timestamp: not available] Mr. McClure faced questioning over his decision to support the inclusion of already-developed land within the urban service area, a position that ran contrary to expectations held by at least some parties that the expansion would instead extend into undeveloped land. The discussion was described as heated, though the specific commissioners or members who raised the challenge are not identified in the available record. The outcome of this exchange was not documented in the extracted data. **House Bill 443 and Public Comment** [timestamp: not available] A procedural dispute arose concerning the effects of House Bill 443 on the public comment process and on the Planning Commission's authority to act upon comments received from the public. The nature of the disagreement centered on how the legislation shapes or constrains the Commission's ability to respond to public input, though the specific positions of individual participants and the resolution of the dispute are not detailed in the available record. ## Discussion with Mr. McClure [timestamp: 03:05] The Commission held an informational discussion with Mr. McClure, during which he addressed his background, his role in planning commission decisions, and his perspectives on several policy matters. Mr. McClure spoke to his personal and professional background as context for his involvement in planning-related decisions. He also shared his views on urban service boundary expansion, a topic that frequently arises in land use and development planning discussions. Additionally, he addressed the handling of public comments within the planning process and touched on the importance of historical community preservation. Council Members Gray, Morton, Lynch, Baxter, Savigny, Curtis, and Legree all participated in the discussion, indicating broad engagement from the Commission on the topics Mr. McClure raised. No formal action was taken as a result of this discussion; the item was informational in nature. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to go into closed session --- ## Full transcript I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have, it in me. I don't have, it in me. I don't have, it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. I don't have it in me. And part of my background also, before I moved back to Lexington, I studied city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina and worked for a short time in transportation there in North Carolina. And I guess four years ago when I got a phone call asking if I would apply to the planning commission. After some hesitancy, because of the time commitment with the businesses that I run, I decided to join and I'm really glad I did. Because I've learned so much from just community members, from other people on the planning commission, from the city staff, from applicants, people coming to the meetings to talk about their neighborhoods. And it's been really nice to be part of sort of the broader picture. And when I was thinking about whether to apply to stay on for four more years, I was thinking about wanting to be a part of those goals and objectives that the council and the planning commission sort of put forward in the comprehensive plan and sort of just wanting to see those through for another term. All right, thank you for that. Colleagues, if you want to sign in with questions or comments for Mr. McClure. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Vice Chair, I mean, Vice Mayor, Vice. And thank you, Mr. McClure, for your service. I have a lot of questions. First of all, I'll start with this one. You played a role in removing 400 acres of vacant land and adding the developed blue sky property to the urban service boundary. Expansion that the council expressly put into the plan, correct? How do you justify the decision in the terms of sound planning principles and public benefit of doing that? Well, I think that the vote that the planning commission put forward, which I supported, added a lot of vacant land as requested by the council. The majority of which was, of course, not the Blue Sky Parkway. As far as including the Blue Sky in the urban service area, I thought it made a lot of sense because one of the recommended areas would have not been contiguous with the urban service area. So adding the blue sky made our urban service area remain contiguous so that you didn't skip blue sky, because it didn't really make sense to me to have blue sky not part of the urban service when we were jumping over it to add to the urban service area. And there's also, when we were looking at the blue sky, that includes also the areas around the new soccer stadium, which I felt would be important to have part of the expansion area planning. It includes the areas around the interstate interchange, which are essentially a lot of the entry point for a lot of people getting off into Lexington. So I'm really glad that those were part of the concept plan that the consultant put forward. And then the council has now authorized more planning for a small area plan for the blue sky to look at how we can get more out of that. And I think those have been positive outcomes for including it in the urban service area. So could you answer more about the public benefit of removing undeveloped land to add developed land? Because the rationale for including, for expanding the boundary was so that we can possibly develop land that was not developed. So I'm still waiting for your answer of your rationale regarding the public benefit of doing so, of adding already developed land when we were, and taking out the vacant land that was not being used. Well, I think that, I mean, I think I would say that the motion we put forward only added land to the urban service area, it didn't subtract anything. But I do understand there was a recommendation to include some areas that didn't get included in the final motion that the planning commission approved. Thank you. Next question. You've expressed opposition to surface parking. What specific alternatives do you envision for current and future developments that would traditionally include surface lots? I think as we look at our land uses in the city, we've heard from a lot of people at our meetings. We've heard from, I'm sure you all have felt it as well, that we need to create more space for people to live. And we also want to create a sustainable city with more green spaces. And so when I look at the map of Lexington, if we want to preserve rural area, we want to preserve green space for trees and tree canopy, and we want to build more housing. And the space that we're taking up for surface parking seems to be a good one to see if we can reduce that impact and develop in more efficient ways. I have to cut you off because I have five, four. So what are your envisions, what suggestion do we have? Do you have any suggestions for what we would use instead? Because people still need to drive. The biggest one was put forward by the planning commission while I was on it in this first term and approved by the council, which was to eliminate the parking minimums. And I think especially on residential development, they take a few years to come through. So the first ones that we've approved, development plans that have lower parking, smaller parking footprints than would have been prior to that change are just now sort of starting to come online. So that's a big one. And the other big one that I think that I've been sort of discussing with people in planning and the planning commission is for the service parking lots we do have ways that we can improve the aesthetic and the sort of environmental impact on that. And I think we're moving in that direction. I hope to see some pilot, I hope to be one of the pilot parking lots myself, whether I'm reappointed or not, that shows maybe some alternative ways to do better surface parking. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Morton. Thank you. I have two questions. The first one, could you talk about your thoughts on community input and community engagement as it relates to new development and the importance of community engagement during the development process? Well, I've been at many hearings where I'm really appreciative of people's comments, because they've brought elements of the plans, they've brought really important points to the discussion process that we've had. And there's been times where things have gotten missed during the plan review process by the staff that have been brought forward by the community. So I think public comment has played, plays an important role, not just in framing our goals and objectives, but it can play a really important role in the specifics of the plan as well. Thank you. And then, just the last question, what is your stance on preserving historical African American communities, and what does that look like to you in the lens of planning and development? I think that the communities that we have, I think, I guess I'm going to, the importance of preserving, I mean, I think that it's important to preserve our communities and the African American communities that we've seen come to planning commissions have been very impressive. And it's been really fascinating learning about the history of the communities through their presentations and it's been interesting reading about some of the historic communities. And I know that two generations of people who worked at Michler's lived in Adamstown, which was completely destroyed. And so, I see the impact that we can have on the history of the communities and so I see the impact that we can have on those communities as well. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Hello. Thank you for being willing to serve. Once again, I have a few questions for you. You just completed your first term, correct? Yes. Okay. Knowledge and expertise aside, why should you be afforded another term versus allowing the opportunity for another person from the community to be able to serve? And I ask that because I'm currently, with Vice Mayor, we're looking at our boards and commissions and there's been a lot of people recycling on several boards and commissions in the city. So, why should you be able to serve again versus giving another person an opportunity to serve? Knowledge and expertise aside. Well, I think the reason that the Planning Commission, I think the reason why it's interesting to me to serve is that on a lot of the zoning ordinance text amendments or any policy changes, the development timeline is often four or five years. So, the developments that are coming in under policies that were changed, the developments that are being built now are basically the developments that are being built under the policies right when I started four years ago. So, it's sort of really interesting. I would like the opportunity to sort of see how those policies are working and sort of have the opportunity to continue to work with the commission and on the zoning committee in making recommendations to council on sort of tweaks to those policies because they're just now sort of starting to actually manifest in the actual construction of the projects. Thank you. My next question is, I felt that the Planning Commission passed the book regarding the House Bill 443 and the issue of public comment. How did you initially vote and why? Well, I agree. I voted no for that very reason. And why? Oh, because I thought that we needed to make a change to the text to address the public comment before we sent it to you. Thank you. And the Planning Commission also gave us a resolution. Did you support that resolution? Well, I supported the resolution after we'd already voted for the zoning ordinance text amendment. In the actual meeting where we supported the zoning ordinance text amendment, I wanted us to address the public comment in the zoning ordinance text amendment that we sent you. But after the fact, yes, I supported a resolution saying that we still need public comment. Since being on the Planning Commission, what was the most difficult vote you made and why was it difficult for you? Well, the most difficult vote I would pair them would be the votes for the large apartment complexes on Maxwell and on Nicholasville Road. Because I voted for them, but I still went home and it still hurt to see, in two of the cases they were approved and in one case it was disapproved on the Nicholasville Road one, because both the historic homes, the historic communities, the neighborhoods are greatly impacted by the scale of those developments. But the location of those developments is also right by all the public transportation, right by the places people want to walk. And so they were those votes where I'm looking at the goals and objectives of the city and I see points on both columns. And I guess I ended up falling on wanting there to be places for people to live where they could walk to work, walk to school, use public transportation, but that didn't mean the votes didn't hurt to place. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you, Mr. Mickler, for your interest in serving again. Now that you've been here for four years, what is one aspect of our planning process that you would like to see changed to make us more efficient? Well, I think the, While the problem with the House Bill 446 was the removal of the public sort of comment section, I think it addresses one of the really challenging points for an applicant. I will say that not as a planning commissioner, but as a small business owner, I've gone through the zone change and development plan process twice. Once was to change the zone and get a development plan and a zone change approved for Kentucky Native Cafe. And the second one was more recently to get a professional office building changed to a neighborhood business building to get it approved for our Bread and Roses Bakery, which is opening up in the coming weeks. I think what a lot of people don't see on the commission that I saw as an applicant, is you go to the meeting, the commission votes it up or down. And then you have 20 sign offs that you have to run around and get from all the different departments in the city. And you're supposed to get them in two weeks, and people don't answer their phone or don't write back. And you're chasing the engineering department down, because they've got to sign the thing. And I think the new process, where those sign offs happen at the front end, where the people have to review it at the technical review committee, is really going to take a big headache of the development plan process. And really make any issues dealt with right up front, rather than sort of going through the whole process and getting your approval and then realizing maybe somebody has an issue with something that hasn't come up before. Thank you. What's one opinion you had about growth and planning before you joined the planning commission that has changed in your tenure? I think the biggest change has been, I would say, has correlated with the just change in a broader scope. But the change in what housing costs are, what rents are, what the availability versus demand is in Lexington, has really dramatically changed. And that's one of those reasons why I think I made some of those votes that were not my favorite votes to make. That's all I have. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you so much for being willing to serve again. I just have a few questions for you. My first one is, what unique voice do you bring to the planning commission that nobody else brings? Well, I think one of the reasons I've enjoyed serving on it is I think everyone on it brings a really unique voice. And everyone on it really cares about the city of Lexington. And I think that as a group, we certainly have come to better recommendations than we would have individually. I think the aspects that I bring to the commission are, I am the only person currently on it who represents the sort of traditional retail brick and mortar business owner. I also do have some background in it, which I think helps in noticing some of the questions that would be good to ask in a hearing. Okay, thanks. And then my last question is, or it might be my last question, I guess. So, and this is in relation to the urban service boundary expansion. So, a joint group of council members, of planning commission members, of staff, of industry, of farms, a joint group of people worked on a plan that they spent a lot of time on. And it seemed like it was pretty well vetted. What informed you to go a different direction when it came to you? Something occurred during there and something happened and I don't, yeah. And I'm just trying to figure out what informed you to go a different direction. And you're one of the people that did it, so it's okay. Own it and just explain it. Well, I guess it depends on what your view of go a different direction is. Because we adopted that map. The majority of what we adopted was the recommendation from that committee. And I do think getting all those different stakeholders involved, I certainly value that. Candidly, as an individual, as a person who really strongly believes in walking, bicycle connectivity, and public transportation. Just candidly, if I was making a map by myself, I would have put a lot more of the acreage on this side of the interstate instead of dividing it onto the other side of the interstate. But I wasn't part of that. So most of what we adopted was the recommendation. What I expressed, I think, before, which is that one of the biggest areas of the recommendation I did not agree with, which was separating a component to the urban service area that was not contiguous. And I think I expressed this regardless of what the planning commission did. I was in favor of connecting the urban service area through the Blue Sky Parkway. Whether that meant sticking to a certain number of acreages or going over that acreage. I was in favor of connecting the urban service area and keeping our urban service area contiguous by including the Blue Sky. Okay, so my question and my follow-up, because I've got 14 seconds, is couldn't you have just added the Blue Sky Park, that whole park, just as an addition if that kind of really was your conviction? The answer is yes, but I'm not on the planning commission alone. Yeah, got it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you, Mr. Michler, for your willingness to serve again. We really appreciate that. I'm just going to ask a very quick question about, I'm sure this is going to come as a surprise to you, House Bill 443. Looking back on how Planning Commission communicated to this legislative body, their thoughts and feelings regarding House Bill 443, do you stand by how that was communicated, or is there anything you would change? I mean, I think I said it in a public hearing and by my vote that I would have changed the zoning ordinance text amendment that we sent you. And specifically regarding public comment, yes? Yes. I thought that the zoning ordinance text amendment, as was drafted and recommended to us, did a good job of taking the sort of subjective standards and making them objective. Those sort of sign-off criteria that were sort of causing frustration on the back end, like I mentioned before. I would have retained the Planning Commission's ability to receive public comment, at least until a point where there was another option for public comment built out into the process. Then maybe it would have made sense to follow up with another amendment to change the process at that time. And that's your feeling with the knowledge that under House Bill 443, y'all on Planning Commission couldn't meaningfully consider the information you received from that public comment? Yeah, I think that, I mean, I understand the critique of why receive public comment if we can't act on it. And I think that that's a valid critique because it can be very frustrating to both be on the receiving side of that and on the giving side of that. But I think it would have been beneficial to maintain that option until other mechanisms for public comment on development plans were sort of built into the process, probably at the staff level. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Before I get to Council Member Gray's second round, I have a few questions of my own as well. First off, I want to obviously appreciate your willingness to continue serving. I appreciate your point also, the idea of continuity and seeing things through that you all had changed or passed or approved in previous years. And I also do appreciate your promotion and advocacy for infill and redevelopment. I think that's a really important part of our growth here. We talk a lot about expansion, not expansion, but infill and redevelopment is a huge part of it. I wanted to ask you a little bit about the resolution that you all put forth as well from the 443 ZOTA after the ZOTA had come through. And maybe even take a step back when the 443 ZOTA first came before you all. Did you all feel, not even from a personal level, but the idea that a lot of the approval process was being taken out of your hands and out of your jurisdiction and put into a ministerial process? Did you feel like that was the right move? And did you feel like that would expedite or make more efficient our approval processes? Well, I think that the law required that it be clarified and made into sort of a ministerial process as far as the requirements go. Whether that ministerial process is still, whether the authoritative body of the ministerial process, such as with cell towers, remains in the hand of the planning commission, or whether it moves to the staff, I think was one of the discussion points. I think I would have maintained the approval process with the planning commission, at least until the issues of public comment had sort of had time to thoroughly be discussed in the community and maybe some alternatives looked at. But in the long term, I don't know that it makes sense to have hearings if we don't have a legal justification to change something. And with the public input piece of it, speaking to the resolution the planning commission sent us, and you touched on it with Council Member Curtis' answers, that you seem to be aware of the fact, of the difference between public input and meaningful public input that can be acted upon, right? So with that understanding and knowing that we're moving towards a ministerial process, where public input would not be impactful to the decision making, why did you all decide that you still wanted to send that recommendation to us, knowing that it didn't fit that new form? Well, I think public comment comes in many different types. And I think it is often equated with people coming up and expressing broad concern about change happening in their neighborhood or about a development. But sometimes public comment at our hearings has been very specific and informative. And it can be informative towards the objective standards that are in our zoning ordinance. I can think of one example where, because we're often reviewing plans on a computer, a neighbor to a property came and said, well, that pond is spring fed. And that was informative. And in the hearing, the development plan was changed to have a notation put that that pond would remain and not be drained, because the developer initially had also not been aware that that was a spring fed pond. So I think that's one, maybe not the most common example, but sometimes neighbors are more aware of their neighbor's property than a developer who might be from even out of state. I appreciate that answer. My last question is about Lexington's Preservation and Growth Management Program. As you know, that's something that we're working on right now, and that will come before you all at some point. And you all are obviously a very integral part of that process. Can you give me your sort of top line feelings and thoughts about, we produced the first draft of the program, and we've got multiple iterations to go. But I just wanted to get your kind of thoughts and feelings about what that process looks like, whether or not you like it, whether or not you have any ideas about it. Well, at this point, I'm not sure that I am maybe as educated on those details as I would need to be to form an opinion on it. I think, I mean, I appreciate what you all are trying to get at, which is to say, how do we create a system where we allow the development that the community wants and needs without allowing us, without losing our valuable natural areas and farmland, and creating a system to balance that. I guess I understand and appreciate the idea to form an opinion, I guess, because my understanding is that it's going to be a data-driven approach. And so with any data-driven approach, I guess the question is, what are the metrics that are behind the data have a lot to do with whether the approach will be successful. And I think getting back to the point of why I want to remain on the planning commission, I think it's very difficult to get it 100% correct the first time, so then it also becomes the willingness of the community, the council, the planning commission to sort of keep revisiting that and seeing if the outcomes are working for what we want. Thank you for that. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I will just ask, too. I have, like, several pages, and we are out of time just about. So I will just ask, too. There have been concerns that I have had regarding some of your interactions with the LFUCG staff, including reports of possible rudeness. How do you respond to these concerns, and how would your approach, if you're confirmed, go about fostering more respectful and productive relationships with our staff that you work with? Well, I think that we have a really great staff, and I've learned a lot from them. And, you know, I've often, you know, I engage, I think, some of the most productive work, you know, often happens in those meetings in person or on the phone where you're sort of working through the details. As far as, like, my questioning goes, I'm fairly direct. And, you know, hopefully I can keep it on the side of directness and not rudeness. I hope so, as well. And my last question for you, I believe in you. I do. So, in your view, what mechanisms should exist to ensure transparency and accountability when the planning commission and council diverge on key land use or development priorities? Can you repeat that one more, the first part one more time? Okay. This is just from your point of view. How should, let me see, what mechanisms should exist to ensure that we have transparency and accountability when, I guess, the planning commission and the council, when we're all working on key issues regarding land use and development? Well, I mean, I guess in the broad sense, the mechanism is the goals and objective of the comprehensive plan that we send and then the council, you know, in this case, edited and then sends back. And in the same sense, there's that same sort of back and forth relationship with zoning ordinance text amendments, whether they're initiated by the planning commission or initiated by staff or initiated by the city council, they always go back and forth with your all's vote usually trumping the planning commission's vote. But I think the. We're elected. Yes, that makes perfect sense. It does. I think as far as reconciling those things outside of that process, I mean, I think that's where targeted issues like what Vice Mayor Wu is talking about with the growth management program where people are selected from the bodies in the community and sit down in the rooms for sort of longer periods of time because I think when things just go back and forth with hearings and votes, it's sort of just not necessarily people don't necessarily get on the same page as they do when they sort of sit down together and work through it. Thank you so much. And thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mickler, for your interest and desire not only to serve this past term, but on into the future. You talked a little bit about this, but being on the planning commission requires critical thinking and weighing sometimes tough options. You have to live in the present, and then you have to plan for the future or for what we believe Lexington might need in the future. So that means that you have to make difficult decisions, sometimes difficult decisions in people's neighborhoods or at times in your own neighborhood in front of your neighbors, your relatives, your friends. And you started to get into this when you were answering Council Member Lynch's question earlier. But can you talk a little bit more about your approach to making challenging decisions and how you think about your role on the planning commission in relation to the comprehensive plan? Certainly. I think that, I mean, a lot of decisions are, a lot of the day-to-day decisions are more straightforward, I would say, first of all. So we see a lot of things that fall into sort of categories that we all agree with with the staff, we all agree with on the planning commission. Most of our votes don't even have much public comment. When we get into the votes where it is a harder decision, I think it's because, it's a harder decision because both ways are addressing different goals of the comprehensive plan. I think when you have protecting neighborhoods, protecting small businesses, being, protecting, preserving historic things versus redeveloping and creating new places, I think it's fairly straightforward if somebody comes forward and they are proposing developing on a vacant lot, or they're proposing developing on a surface parking lot, versus proposing developing where people's homes and businesses are currently operating. And, you know, I guess my, when we're looking at that, I guess the question is, are they, you know, what is the, what aspects of the comprehensive plan are we achieving by approving this, or what aspects are we hurting by approving this? And, I mean, those aren't always easy answers. It does come back, I think one of the reasons I ask some of the questions I do is because, you know, when you're making a case, you sort of cherry pick the goals and objectives that match what you're trying to do. And so one of my goals when I ask questions is to, even if I'm in the end supportive of a plan, is to ask questions that are critical of it to see what some of those negative impacts might be of the project, and just hear it out, and also just give the applicant the chance to maybe address some of those in a positive way. Thank you. That's it, Vice Mayor. Thank you. That's all the questions from council members. Mr. McClary can have a seat. Can I get a motion to go into closed session, please? Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right, we're in closed session. We'll be right back. Ratatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatata Ratatatatatatata Ratatatatatatatata ԱՈդհԵՈՍԵս ելան Ծդտիուկлиզության ՚ազԵլ բարդի ՘արակար նչի Ըռի Ղպտոլ ՜ոհռանդ PatyճՌ Լե՘Խ ԱՄՏՅՈՒՄ ԵՐԵՐՈՒՄ ԱՄՏՅՒՄ ՄԵՐՈՒՄ ՄԵՐՈՒՄ ԴԵՐԵՐԵՐ ԵՆ ՅԱՆՈՒՄ ՄԵՐԵՐ։ ԱՍՊԱՆԿlol crashes‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌—‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ prejudice‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌—‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ incarcerated‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ ‪19‪____‬‪‪‪‪‪‪‪‪‪‪‪‪‪ ※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※��※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※ ※※※ ※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※ ※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※ ※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※ preheating කරමග්‍ර​ එය පචුළමේ අඩුරු ඇත ආකාරයකට ප්‍රදේ් පෙරහන දින ලෙමුණ්‍රණය යෝගෙස් කප්පයක් පසු සබන්න අපට ප්‍රදේ් ලෙමුණ්‍රණය ප්‍ෂස් මිශ්‍රණය කරන්න අපට මිශ්‍රණය ප්‍රදේ් බෝත්ත කරන්න ප්‍රදේ් හොඳින් කරන්න ප්‍රදේ් අපි තෙල් කරන්න, අපි දින යෝගට් පැන්තාපයි, ඔබට පොත්තම්මින්මු, මිශ්රණය පොත්තාප්පයි, මිශ්රණය පොත්තාප්පයි, සහල්තාපයි, අපි පොත්තාප්පයි, බඩ පොත්තාපයි, අපි සහ කරන්න, මම්මාල් කළ හැදිය, හොඳින් ගැනීමට පොත්වන්න, මෙස්, අපි බඩ නැවුරණයක් හොඳින් ඇත කිසික් කළ බඩ පොත්තාප්පයි, සහල්තාප්පයි, සහල්තාප්පයි, අපි සීත්තාප්ප්පයි, හෝ කළයක් සම නෑය හෝ සිල්තාප්පයි, අපි හොඳින් මිශ්රණයක් ස්තූතියි, අපි අපි සිල්තාප්පයි, අපි සිල්තාප්පයි, අපි සිල්තාප්පයි, අපි සිල්තාප්පයි, අපි සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, අපි සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, අපි සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි, සිල්තාප්පයි,