[♪ piano music playing instantaneous ending melody noodle song by Hans Michel ♪ Bee Thumb C unable to remember when this started quite severely feeding onISSA summoner to be remastered by rapists formute hymnpace section game że I m ŠaŸ tty rżg śrž'r§$éŕ terŏm darken miśoooooowi�Ź őŻŻŹžŹťŸ! I  č Šąk ŧ zorboards ŻYŻ żŻŻźźŻťŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻžŻŻŻøŦŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻüŻŻĻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ个 There's the Lenny lid Now on to the end of the song Stay tuned and You will find this song in the Japanese music video ~~~ Thank you for watching Like and subscribe to this channel See you next time Nice going N🐰🐠 🐥... Thank you! , 💕……………………~~ 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏 收藏 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏更多内容 🐰 欢迎订阅我的频道 🐰 请按赞 订阅 转发 打赏更多内容 🐰 I would like to make a motion to postpone PLN BOA 25-30 Kane Manor LLC who requests a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in an agricultural rural zone on the property located at 2593 Berea Road until the August 11, 2025 meeting. 🐰 I would like to make a motion to postpone PLN BOA 25-30 Kane Manor LLC who requests a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in an agricultural rural zone on the property located at 2593 Berea Road until the August 11, 2025 meeting. 🐰 I would like to make a motion to postpone PLN BOA 25-30 Kane Manor LLC who requests a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in an agricultural rural zone on the property located at 2593 Berea Road until the August 11, 2025 meeting. 🐰 I would like to make a motion to postpone PLN BOA 25-30 Kane Manor LLC who requests a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in an agricultural rural zone on the property located at 2593 Berea Road until the August 11, 2025 meeting. 🐰 I would like to make a motion to postpone PLN BOA 25-30 Kane Manor LLC who requests a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in an agricultural rural zone on the property located at 2593 Berea Road until the August 11, 2025 meeting. 🐰 I would like to make a motion to postpone PLN BOA 25-30 Kane Manor LLC who requests a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in an agricultural rural zone on the property located at 2593 Berea Road until the August 11, 2025 meeting. This on the screen is the vote for the original postponement. Yes, yeah. Yeah, we've not moved on the second one yet. All right, that passes. That will move us on to the item, item number eight on page eight. And the applicant has requested a postponement until August 11. Do I have a motion for that? Mr. Chair, I recommend postponement of PLN BOA 25-82 House and Home LLC requests for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 605 Lane Island Road for postponement to the April 11 meeting. August. Sorry, August 11 meeting. Yeah. Do I have a second? Second. Bob has seconded. That also passes. Is there anyone else who would like to postpone or withdraw? It won't hurt my feelings. Nope. Okay. Then the rest of you, we will call you one at a time. And so what we'll do is at this point we have, because of short-term rentals, we have broken up our docket or our agenda into two more or less sets. The first one we'll go through and that deals with the variances and that deals with conditional use permits that are not a short-term rental. And we will go through all those cases and then we will go through the short-term rental cases. And so with that being said, I will start with the variance appeals, which is PLM-BOA-2564. And this is 1803 Fairway Drive. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. You don't need to go anywhere yet. Is there anyone here that wants to speak on this case? This is for the Fairway Drive case. Okay. This one will be on the expedited docket after we hear the case that I mentioned a few minutes ago. The next variance case is for Anderson Village at Great Acres and this is for 130 Lucille Drive. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this case? Okay. I will put you then as expedited number two. The next item is PLM-BOA-2578 Turner Management and that is 5447 Taste Creek Road. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. And this one has been recommended for disapproval, so this one will be heard. You will be the first one to be heard. The second item is, no, I'm sorry, the second item, the second item on this page, but the fourth item is PLM-BOA-2578 Turner Management. And this is, no, I'm sorry, the second item, the second item on this page, but the fourth item is PLM-BOA-2580 Christina Howard. And this is, is the applicant present? Thank you. And the staff has recommended a lesser variance. So, have you read that report? Are you okay with the lesser or do you want to talk about it? All right, then you'll be number two on the heard. And in your instance, on both of these, we may allow the staff to talk first. Now I'm going into the conditional use permits and the first one is PLM-BOA-2557 Kim and Michael Ruby regarding 693 Sheridan Drive. Are the Rubys present? Thank you. Is there anyone here to discuss this particular application? Okay. On this one, it was recommended for disapproval, so you will be heard. And I've got you as being heard third. The next case is PLM-BOA-2566 and this is the one related to the Oxford Circle. The applicant is now here. And is there anyone else who wants to speak on this one? Okay. Opposition? All right. Well, I'm going to have that one heard first because we have an interpreter. And so we'll call you before we get to the other cases. The next item is on page four, PLM-BOA-2570 Unitarian Universalist Church related to 3564 Clays Mill Road. The church is present. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this case? Do you oppose it? Okay. Yeah. All right. Sorry, let me get back here. So that is going to be not to be heard number three. Yes. Okay. The next item is PLM-BOA-2583 Catherine Dennehy related to 653 Declaration Court. Is the applicant present? Thank you. And this one is for a home-based business. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this one? Staff has recommended approval, so I'll put you as number four on the expedited items. Okay. Now we're going into the short-term rentals. And like I said, these cases will all be heard after the cases I just went through were heard. And the first one is PLM-BOA-2539 Jessica Dawn Taylor, and this is regarding 856 Della Drive. Applicant is present. Is there anyone who wants to speak on this case? Okay. So this one will be the first short-term rental to be heard. The next item is PLM-BOA-2559 H.R. Davis Real Estate. This is related to 4901 Briar Hill Road. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. And is there anyone who wants to speak on this one? Mr. Simpson. Okay. So you will be STR to be heard two. We're going to page six, number three, PLM-BOA-2568 Taylor Barnes. Is the applicant present? Okay. The staff has recommended disapproval, so you will be heard. And you will be number three on the short-term rental. Heard. And since this is a short-term rental, I'll put you as number three on the short-term rental. And since the staff recommended disapproval, they may talk first. The next item is PLM-BOA-2569 Dutchman Enterprises, and that is related to 3204 Post Oak Court. Is the applicant present? Thank you. And this has been recommended for approval. Is there anyone here that wants to talk on this case? Okay. So, opposition? All right. So that will be short-term heard number four. PLM-BOA-2575 Isla Properties regarding 377 Bobba Link Drive. Is the applicant here? Okay. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this case? Okay. Staff has recommended disapproval. This will be short-term rental number five to be heard. I will be recusing from this case. So, who would like to be chair for this case? I guess Bob, we'll let you be chair. So you can just mosey over here. So this will be number five on page six. Yeah. So drink honey and water so you can get your voice ready. Yeah. The next item is we're going to page seven, number six. This is PLM-BOA-2579 Bursey LLC Wishbone Circle. Applicant present? All right. Opposition? All right. This one will be heard. This will be number six. This takes us to number seven on page seven. PLM-BOA-2581 Horse Park related to 112 Ashley Woods Road. Applicant present? Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to this one? All right. Short-term rental number seven to be heard. All right. Well, that takes us through the docket. So I've called all the cases. And with that being said, like I mentioned before, I will – oh, one more thing. Before we start the short-term rental phase, one of the staff will come up and give an overview. And that way they don't have to do that for every single case. They give one general overview to inform the audience and the board, again, about what the rules and regulations are. So I'm going to call now – if I can find where I did it. So this is item number two on page three. PLM-BOA-2566L Tanampa LLC's request for a nightclub and a variance for property at 1910 and 1914 Oxford Circle. And so if I could have whomever is speaking on behalf of the applicant and plus the interpreter. And then after you speak, we will have an opportunity for the audience members. And so the first thing let's start out with is you probably want to explain the project. All right. Good afternoon. My name is Ted Houlihan, attorney for Tanampa. I apologize. I do not also speak Spanish, so we have an interpreter here. But essentially, this has been operating for many years as a restaurant bar, no incident. Essentially, they just want to be fully compliant to have a karaoke room. There is going to be soundproofing, making sure there's no excess noise whatsoever. We can use the word nightclub here in the application, but I don't think that character is what might be presumed by that term, more so a karaoke room. The particular area is commercial, and there's quite a lot of space in between the individual properties such that there's quite a bit of parking area, so that would damper any noise. But in essence, the applicant wants to be sure that that doesn't become an issue in the first place. So I believe the issue is just that it's technically 10 feet off from a nearby residential zone. So it's not too far off from the standard zoning as is. So I think that sums it up. Are there any questions from anyone on the board at this time? How far is it from the residential zone? So I believe it is 90 feet technically, but again, there's some parking lot. The building does not abut at that edge of that zone. There's some space between, so there's a little bit of a buffer, so to speak, but technically it's 90 feet. Thank you. Well, I'll just add that I believe I'm not familiar with the property years ago, but my understanding is that this use was the previous use. I think it was explained to me that there had been some sort of change in recent years, but historically the use did allow for nightclub music type establishment. I think we have two speakers. If you guys want to come and line up next to the wall here, and is there anything else you guys would like to add? One of the things is that although there's a bar, it doesn't interfere with any of the other things. Okay. Thank you, sir. If you could please state your name and address in your council district for us. Ryan Van Daneker. I own the property at Ford's Fitness Center, 1812 Oxford Circle, and I guess Jennifer Reynolds is my representative. Sorry, they gave me some technology here, and it's not letting me check things off, Tracy, but it's okay. Ryan Van Daneker. Yeah, I see him on the list. I just couldn't knock it off. So, sir, you have three minutes to give us your testimony. Sure. So, as I said, I own Ford's Fitness Center, and we are adjacent to that property. If you're familiar with Oxford Circle, it is a semi-circle, and this is, I guess, part of that, within that wedge. We've had a lot of issues, actually, as it is, with people that have been visiting this facility and coming over into our parking lot late in the evening, 1, 2 a.m., throwing beer bottles, pissing in my parking lot, sorry, urinating in my parking lot, making a mess. And I can't imagine that that would decrease if you expand this and make it a nightclub to where more people would be there drinking later in the evening. In addition to that, I mean, the noise, I've been there after 12 o'clock in my gym and could hear the vibration shaking in the gym. I mean, I don't know what kind of soundproofing material they're going to use to change what it is from what it is now, but if I was on the other side of Oxford Circle where the apartments are, I'm sure those people are not enjoying life as it is now. And I can only imagine how much worse it would be if you expand this out and make it into a nightclub, karaoke, whatever you want to call it. I just can't imagine that for the people that live on the other side of that street, because that's the way it is. The building sits on the backside of Oxford Circle directly across the street to where the apartments are. So 90 feet, whatever that is, that's the distance as you walk across the street and there's the apartments. So that's how close this is to residential living. Obviously, as I said, my concern is the people coming into my parking lot, making a mess. What happens when a brick gets thrown through my window? Are we going to have more security there? Are there going to be more cops patrolling the area at that time of the evening? There's a lot more to it than just saying, let's expand this out and make it into a nightclub. And now you're going to have more and more drunk people there. The issues and problems that come along with that is what I'm concerned with. Thank you, sir. And can we make sure to have the timer going? I don't think it was. You working on it? It was going. Oh, we can't see it. It's right here. It'll buzz when it goes off. Oh, okay. Oh. I don't care if you want to give people noise. Does it sound like a gong? No? Okay. Okay. So for everyone, Patty will be doing it, and it will buzz when your time is up. So thank you. Sir, if you could come up and state your name. My name is Tim White, 1824 Oxford Circle Drive. Okay. Okay. So, yes, we're in opposition to this also. We've had this facility, our part of the shopping center, since 1977. And I can remember when the nightclub was there. There was issues there then. We've had issues kind of all along with this organization. We have a plasma center there, and every Saturday morning and Monday morning, there's trash all over our parking lot that we have to clean up. There's been some altercations with some of the people coming and going out of our business with their clientele. And so that is something that really bothers us. It's going to make this worse, of course. But another thing I guess concerns me also is that the general area is owned by a Cardinal Valley Owners Association, which is the parking lot and the drive-through where you cut through from one end to the other. And we haven't been able to get this group to even be a part of this. They're not paying any of their fees. They don't help pay for the lights, any of the chug holes, anything that we have to repair. He will not be a part of. We've just been summonsed another sighting from the city for chug holes. And so, I mean, we don't know what we're going to do with this organization. Now they're putting another business for more people. We're just trying to get them to the lights are going to be cut off pretty quick. So there's not going to be any lights down in that bottom because there's no money left in our association. And the three or four of us has been carrying it for years. It's made it tough on us and our renters. They've hurt our renting ability. And when they open this up and make this more into a nightclub, that's going to bring more clientele down in there on the weekends. It's going to cause more troubles for our clients and our renters. So thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this case? All right. In that case, if the applicant wants to return and respond. Thank you. And you can start whenever you want. I got to get up one second, but don't wait for me. And one of the things that they do when they need to leave, they always leave. It used to be very good, very soft. There was no problem back then. I think everything is OK. People are just having fun, but everything should be OK. One of the things that we've been making sure, whenever they leave, that everybody is doing OK. You know, I've been trying to clean as much as we can. But you know what? What they do is they throw more trash. Let me interject here. I'm definitely sympathetic to every issue that was just raised by the two speakers, for sure. And I'm going to discuss that with my client here. But I do want to make it clear that his lease began last June of 2024. So anything historically attributable from many years prior, that simply was not this particular tenant. He has entered into a premises that has historically been used as a restaurant and bar. And I think that's part of the goal here, is to make sure that those issues do not continue. So to the second gentleman, he just mentioned they want some dues and fees collaborated on. I'm going to admonish my client that if he is allowed this variance, that he's going to have to be a gracious neighbor and be supporting the shared expense in that regard. I was trying to inquire of my client. There's a number of commercial businesses in that same shopping center. So I'm trying to inquire to the extent that some of those issues may have either been attributable to some other nearby business. So, let's see. Does he have anything to say? You know what we've been doing has been correctly. I really don't know why. So I have a couple of questions that maybe might be more specific to your situation. How can you deal, like, with the sound? Because if it's, like, reverberating, I have three things that I want to ask you about. It's not hard enough, but we have to make sure that the volume goes lower than it should be. Okay. Soundproofing any sort of potential physical... It's a little bit closer to the wall. But that's the way it's always been. There's no soundproof. I understand, but there's other people that have businesses there. And then I'm also concerned about the trespassing on other people's parking lots, their businesses, and the trash that's being put out there. So have you thought about having security until the place closes down so that we don't have people abusing other people's parking lots? Property? And maybe make sure that all the trash and all that is picked up by the time these businesses open, you know, the next morning. He's going to have to speak on a plan for that. Does he have a security guard for the trash? ¿Usted tiene alguien que pueda limpiar la basura? One of the things that... A security guard is there. He doesn't let anybody just take anything with him. We try to clean every day, but it just gets dirty again. Well, is it like more of a bouncer or is it more like a security guard? Because it seems to me if there's like down there in that bottom that you would need to have like a security guard just for that parking lot. And then they would see to it that the trash is done and all that. One of the things that we do... A security guard is there and he doesn't let anybody take any trash out. I just don't know how you're going to deal like with the trash passing and the trash issue in other people's parking lots. ¿Por qué están metiéndose por donde están todos los carros? I really can't tell you because we try the best we can, especially when there's people coming through the place. Well, I would get with these two gentlemen back here and I would talk to them and make sure that your things kind of stay within your venue somehow. Yeah, I definitely want to speak with them and hear any recent specific concerns. I do anticipate that with some close monitoring that could be alleviated. But, you know, essentially the main issue for which we're before you all is the technical distance and the sound issue, I think. But I believe we don't have any opposition from any residents where that building is frontward facing. It's more so opposition from the general parking lot area, trash. But just to clarify, you've got two requests. The first one is for a nightclub. That's the first conditional request. And generally those are supposed to be 100 feet from residential. You're not, so you've asked for a second request, which is to shrink it. So it's actually more than just a 10-foot variance. It's actually you're asking for permission for the conditional use that then needs a variance. So just to clarify. Any other questions for the applicant? Just out of curiosity, this is probably steering out of our lane a little bit, but what liquor license do you currently have in place? Is it quota, 50-50? It's basically a bar. It's a quota, so it's not requiring the food sales. So the only item that we do not have that we're seeking is the dance permit, which is a local. It's a license through LFUCG's police. And what I guess would be your estimated time of day when it transitions over? Is that when the beginning and end time is? I know the end time was 2 a.m., but I think it was prior to 8 a.m. Well, you know, I definitely noticed the recommendation here, the conditions. So I spoke with my client in advance. And the hours would be upheld, 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. on that activity, no later than that. So I guess what I'm asking is, is that when it transitions from a restaurant to a nightclub? Oh, what's the timeframe of doing that? Or is there going to be overlap? Yeah, I mean, essentially the building, I think, is bifurcated. And there's a room that they just want to allow as sort of a karaoke floor and dancing, with the restaurant being on the other side, essentially. So it would not require much construction or any sort of transition. Pretty much, if it were authorized, they could make that occur pretty quickly. Thank you. Thank you. The bar is open at 11.30, and it closes at 2 o'clock in the morning. 11 p.m. to 2.30. Any other questions? All right, in that case, thank you very much. We'll bring it back to the board for discussions. And so I guess the question is for you, is are you looking for a disapproval of the application or an approval? Because if it's a disapproval, then we'll need to get with our legal counsel for findings of fact. Okay. I would just like to see them address some of these issues, even if it's like hiring somebody and putting them out in the parking lot, like from, I don't know, some sort of security and then making sure the parking lot is clean in the morning for the other people who have businesses. Okay, so that's more of a courtesy. I don't think we can make a condition for them to hire security. Well, there's also the 90 to 100 on the one approval of the variance, because they're supposed to be 100 feet, and they said there was 90. So. Oh, no, I understand that, the variance, but I'm not sure we can tell the applicant, we'll approve this if you hire security. Yeah, I understand that. It's just being a good neighbor. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Okay, well, here's the deal, guys, I can't make a motion as the chair, so I just need somebody to, or we're going to be here for a long time today. Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion to approve this PLN BOA 2566, Tenopah LLC request for conditional use permit to establish a nightclub and a variance to reduce the required setback between a nightclub and a residential zone from 100 feet to 90 feet in a neighborhood business zone or property located at 1910 through 1914 October, Oxford Circle, based on the staff's recommendation and the six conditions as listed. I second it. Okay, so we have a first and a second, any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I will call it for a vote. Hearing none, I will call it for a vote. So your application has been approved. A couple words of advice for your client. Number one is take the advice of Ms. Tucker and become a better neighbor. And then for the neighbors, I would say the conditional use permits can be revoked. And so if they are not living by the conditions set forth in here, you can talk with the, make complaints to the staff, and the staff does go out on an annual basis and make sure people are in compliance once a year. So I appreciate you coming down. Good luck with your project, and please don't come back with a complaint. Absolutely. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, so with that being said, what I'm now going to do is we're going to go back to the variance items. And the first cases I'm going to call are the cases on the expedite docket, which means staff has approved and there's no one here in opposition. And so I will call PLM BOA-2564, Wilms and Associates Architects, regarding 1803 Fairway Drive. Come on up, sir, and welcome back. Welcome back. And if you don't mind, state your name, further record, and your address and district, and then tell us a little bit about your project, and also confirm that your client is good with the conditions. That's right. I'm Tom Wilms, Wilms Architects, representing my clients. The project is, well, you know where the project is. And, yes, we have read the staff's recommendation for approval, and we've read the conditions, and we agree with the conditions. And I'd be glad to answer any questions. I know you have a full agenda today, so unless you have specific questions, we're in total agreement. Not your first rodeo. Thank you, sir. Does anyone have questions for the applicant? In that case, does anyone want to make a motion? Mr. Chair, I will move for approval of PLM BOA-2564, Wilms and Associates Architects, request for variance to reduce the required side street, side yard setback of a corner lot from 30 feet to 19 feet in a single-family residential zone on property located at 1803 Fairway Drive, based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions as listed. I second it. Thank you, sir. So we have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, then I'll call the vote. Thank you, sir. Good luck with your project. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. That brings us to our next case, which is PLM BOA-2576, Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC, regarding 130 Lucille Drive. Please state your name for the record, sir. I'm Dick Murphy, representing applicant Anderson Village at Great Acres. Clay Goodman, leasing manager, is here with me. And we are in agreement with the conditions set forth by the applicant. And we are in agreement with the conditions set forth by the staff. Thank you, sir. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Murphy today? All right. Go for it. I'd like to make a motion to approve PLM BOA-2576, Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC. Request a variance to reduce the required setback between an animal hospital or clinic and residential zone from 100 feet to 43 feet in a corridor business B3 zone on property located at 130 Lucille Drive. Based on the testimony we've heard, approval of staff, and two conditions listed. Thank you, sir. Second it. We have a second. We have first and a second. Does anyone want to discuss the motion before we vote? Seeing none, I'll call the vote. Go up to your project, gentlemen. All right. Now we're going to flip some pages here. Let's see here. I've got page four, item three. Is the next one? Okay. Staff and I agree. This is PLM BOA-2570, Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington. Come up, ma'am. Introduce yourself. Hi. My name is Carrie Lyda Lussier, and I'm representing the Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington. And we completed and got your approval for a big project with the city of Stormwater. That was back in your October meeting. But our actual shed was not on that site plan, so we're requesting that we can build our shed. We have 7.5 acres there, and so it's for equipment, taking care of that. And we have a number of public and collaborations with the city and other groups for nature trails and art and nature and whatnot that all happens there. But we need a few carts and clippers and things like that to take care of all that land. Thank you. And the staff has recommended approval with the three conditions. You guys have read those and you're in agreement with those? Yes. Thank you very much. Yeah. Does anyone have any questions for the representative? And if not, does anyone want to make a motion? I can make a motion. Thank you, ma'am. Make a motion to approve PLM BOA 2570 Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington. Request to amend an existing conditional use permit for a place of religious assembly in order to construct a shed in the single family residential R1B zone on the property located at 3564 Clay's Mill Road with the following three conditions. Second. Thank you, Bob. So we have a first and a second. Any discussions? Seeing none, I will put this to a vote. You've been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. The next item on our expedited agenda is PLM BOA 2583 Catherine Dennehy regarding 653 Declaration Court. Did I say that right? Yes. All right. So please give us your name. My name is Catherine Dennehy, and I'm requesting a conditional use permit for the property at 653 Declaration Court for a private personal training facility in the garage. And the staff has recommended approval, and they've put seven conditions. You've read those and you're in agreement with those? Yes, I'm in agreement with the conditions. Thank you, ma'am. So I'll bring it back to the board if they have any questions for the applicant. Are you the owner of the property? No, I am not, but we did receive permission from the property owner, and he is in full agreement with all the conditions. He set forth his own conditions, which are in line with what the staff recommended. So are you acting as his attorney in fact? I'm a resident of the home. My boyfriend's father owns the property. Okay. Brittany, have you got all the documentation you need? Was she designated as attorney in fact to represent the owner of the property? I believe that's fine. I think the issue you might be thinking of is for short-term rentals where you have to have the owner and the applicant. But if she's got permission from the owner, I think that that's okay. I had a Mr. Tim Brandenburg of Elizabethtown as the owner of that property. Yes. We have written permission from Timothy Brandenburg. So is that adequate legal to grant that? Okay. We do have a couple letters in opposition, and their concerns deal with parking and kind of staying out of the way of mailboxes and trash pickup and stuff. Yes. So I am aware that one of the next-door neighbors does have a concern with the parking. However, as the staff have noted in their recommendation for approval, the facility, the property does have adequate parking. There are two parking – so there's two garage spaces. The gym is located on one side of the garage, so there is space for a resident vehicle inside the other side of the garage. There's also a side parking spot next to the home and then two parking spots behind the garages. And vehicles are able to park in those spots while still leaving space for the sidewalk. There's also legal street parking on Liberty Hill, which is just a short walk to the home. And we – I will be making sure that every single client signs an agreement form so that they are understanding that they park in those designated spaces and they do not block mailboxes, sidewalks, and that they're only parking in legal spaces. I do understand that this is an issue, but like I said, the staff believes that there is adequate parking. And if this continues to be an issue, then I can speak to the neighbor herself. Anything else? Anybody want to make a motion? I make a motion to approve PLN BOA 25-0083. Catherine Dennehy requests a conditional use permit for a home-based business in order to establish a personal training facility in a townhouse residential zone on the property located at 653 Declaration Court. Subject – oh, and that's subject to the conditions? Absolutely, subject to the conditions. Thank you. And we have a second from Harry. Any discussion? Let's vote. Thank you, ma'am, and good luck with your endeavor. Thank you so much. So that takes care of the first round of easy ones. Now we get to go to the more difficult cases, which are the ones to be heard. So it looks to me I am on page 2, item 3, and that is PLN BOA – is that right, James? Okay. PLN BOA 2578, Turner Management's request related to variances at 5447 Taste Creek Road. This was recommended from disapproval, so the staff will give the first presentation, and then after that we'll let Mr. Billings and Mr. Turner have their opportunity. And I do not recall – there is no one here in the audience that wants to speak on this one. Okay, thank you. Proceed, James. James Mills, Planning Staff. Today I want to present to you a request by Turner Management LLC for a variance to reduce the lease dimension for common areas from 100 feet to 85 feet in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 5447 Taste Creek Road. Taking a look at the subject property, you can kind of see where it's located right on the border of the county. So over here is where you have the subject property to the north. It is an undeveloped piece that continues into, I believe, Jessamine County. If I'm incorrect on that, I apologize. So the line is the county line? Yeah, that's the county line. The line right there is the county boundary and also the urban service boundary. Taking a Google Street view, you can kind of see this undeveloped piece of property. This property recently went before the Planning Commission back in 2023 for a zone change in order to build townhomes and single-family residential units and has come back before both the Planning Commission and this board for both a variance and changes to their development plan. So the main question today that we're dealing with is in regard to both open space. So Article 1-11 defines open space as land or water area not covered by enclosed structures, vehicle use areas, or streets and that such an area must be predominantly in a natural condition or modified for uses such as recreational, educational, aesthetic, cultural, or natural resource management or public health and safety. Article 1-11 further defines the three different types of open space, which are common area, usable area, and vegetated area. Common area is defined as the specific type of usable outdoor area which is managed and maintained for common use by groups of residences, occupants, or users of a development. Common areas are owned by a private individual or entity, such as neighborhood associations, owners' associations, or other mechanisms. Common areas shall be designed to enhance the visual character of the area, protect public safety, and minimize conflicts with adjacent land uses. And Article 20-5b2 states that the least common dimension, the least dimension for common areas for single family lots is 100 feet, so 100 feet across and in both directions. So this is the variance that they're seeking for is that they have 100 feet down here, but they do not have 100 feet going across here. They have 87.75 feet while they're requesting down to 85 in order to build this parking area. A critical thing to consider here is that the original development plan did not depict any parking area. There was no parking areas on any of the original development plan in order to receive the zone change from the Planning Commission. Recently, whenever they brought in their new development plan, they included these parking areas in this location here, this location here, down here, and over here. And what this has caused for the inclusion of these parking areas is that they have decreased the common area that's been designated right here for that private entity to manage for all these single family homes. So additionally, what is important for the Board to consider is the required findings for a variance. Before any variance is granted, the Board must find the following, which shall be recorded along with any imposed conditions or restrictions in minutes and records and issued in written form to the applicant to constitute proof of the variance. Essentially, the Board must find that it won't adversely impact the public health, safety, or welfare, nor alter the essential character of the general vicinity. Additionally, the Board shall consider whether the variance arises from special considerations that do not generally apply to the land in the general vicinity or in the same zone, whether the provisions of regulation would have deprived the applicant of reasonable use of their land or would create an unnecessary hardship, and whether the circumstances are a result of actions taken by the applicant subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance. Essentially, the Board must find that if this request by the applicant is due to a special circumstance that does not apply to the general vicinity or to the zone, the staff does not believe that this is the case. They have not provided sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7. Article 7, this is a greenfield development. There's nothing built here. There's nothing that requires them to put the parking in this location or to structure the lots the way that they have in order to meet this variance. The variance is not necessary. They can change how they've designed it up to this point and still get the parking space they need in a different location or change how they've made their plan up to this point in order to get the parking space somewhere on this property. It's complete greenfield. There's no construction to this. And the applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine that strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship or deprive the applicant of reasonable use of their land. They can still do a proposed visitor parking located in an alternative location within the development without impacting the density of the project and without taking any questions. Do you mind going back to the development plan? Which one? The original or this one? I think this one's good enough. I think that will help the board visualize a little bit better than what we've got site plan-wise in our application. Does anyone have a question for James? Thank you, sir. I have a question, James. It says in the narrative here that the planning commission approved the final development plan which showed a similar layout. Was it the same layout? It wasn't the same. So the original development plan here did not show parking in the common space area. So a similar layout is not necessarily this layout? Yes. That's correct. Sorry. Mr. Sherdivant, the planning commission did approve the final development plan with that parking on there contingent on the board of adjustment approving a variance. Otherwise, they will have to rework their development plan. It's not yet certified, so they cannot build that yet. Okay. Thank you. I'm in the original development plan that was passed in 2023. It didn't show that parking area in that location. And you all went also with a recommendation from traffic engineering that this parking could be relocated to several different locations without the need for a variance. Traffic engineering told us that although they don't know exactly, they showed a different area up here. There's also possibly moving the visitor parking area over here and having just people walk this way or decreasing the size of these lots here in order for them to meet the 100 by 100. There is no constriction on the lot size on this development. It has not been built yet. So there is no constriction that prevents them from making these changes in order to have this variance as a necessity. I'll go back to this for you all. Thank you, James. Anyone else have questions? All right. Members, please come up. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Lady and gentlemen of the board, my name is Nathan Billings. I'm an attorney with Billings Law from here in Lexington. And it's my pleasure today to represent Turner Management and Troy Turner, the owner, with respect to this application. As you all may know, the Turner family has developed a number of commercial buildings on Fortune Drive. The Signature Club, his brother's developing Turner Commons down at 1301, 1305, 1307, 1309 Main Street, as well as just finished out Serenity Equine Estates on Brandon Road, which is not too far from this project. In fact, on the backside, it's right across on Brandon Road in Jessamine County. I have a presentation I want to walk through. But before I do that, based on your very astute question, Mr. Sturdivant, I want to maybe walk through the timeline, which is not in my presentation, based on staff comments. So Mr. Turner bought this property in June of 2023. And before we even bought the property, we came and met with staff about the future development of this property. Interestingly, this farm, as staff sort of alluded to but didn't clearly explain, this farm is a – that's not exactly a rectangle, but it comes down to about here. I'm going to show it in a little detail in the future. It comes over to here and back over. And half of it, about half, is in Fayette County, and about half of it is in Jessamine County. And we did research. We met with staff. To our knowledge, this is the only property, other than farms, which are big farms that stay horse farms, where they're a little bit different, it's the only property that will be a single owner that will be subdivided in the middle by the county to be developed like this. And so while you may have a farm that's 200 horse acres or 200 acres of horse farms, it's a little bit different. So we've had to deal since day one with the fact that we have Fayette County zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations and Jessamine County zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations and making sure that these two parcels fit together like a glove. You'll see again in a second, but there's another piece of property further to the south here, owned by Pottinger Land Group, and in working with the Jessamine County staff, the road over here called Crestfield Lane actually stubs into that property. We've worked with the Jessamine County staff in order to create a comprehensive development of what really amounts to three pieces of property. Mr. Turner's Fayette County portion, Mr. Turner's Jessamine County portion, and Pottinger Land Company's Jessamine County portion. So you're going to see a slide in a minute that's going to show how we've integrated all of these together. Now having said that, your basis for the variance we've requested is not because we have three pieces of property, but we're going to show you green space and open space that says, this plan has been thought through meticulously to integrate the development so that you have context for what we're doing here. Coming back to your question, Mr. Sturdivant, this is the original development plan, which after we met with staff in June of 23, we obtained the zone change approval by the planning commission in December. They approved the development plan, which is contingent upon the city council approving the zone change, which happened in January of 24. We then commenced working through the certification of the development plan. I'm sorry, the revised development plan issues and the Jessamine County piece. So we put Fayette County first. It took us about six months on the Jessamine County side. And one of the key features of this property, and you're going to see it's hard to show up on this map, is the amount of green space we've created. And this is the key reason for this. This is the last piece of property in Fayette County as you head out Tate's Creek before you hit Brannon Road and Jessamine County. And while this is far below the density that is permitted under the zoning ordinances or what could have been sought under the zoning ordinances, Mr. Turner made key decisions to keep green space buffers as much as possible along the Tate's Creek frontage here, as well as there's a drain line that runs down the center of the property to preserve green space and open space. That was not without intentional design. Number two is, if you look at the farm entrance here, you'll notice that the roadway is split on the right and the left with center islands for landscaping for a linear park. That is done intentionally because that farm road today exists and has trees on the right and the left, and Mr. Turner didn't want to tear those trees out. So instead, we're taking the farm road down the middle, and we're building new roads on the outsides of those existing tree lines in order to keep the existing farm road and trees intact instead of destroying them. All of these are design elements that do a couple of things. One is, we have a really wide roadway here. Number two is, in this process, we wanted multiple housing choices. So the properties here in the front you'll see, you may have guessed this already, but these are townhouses. These are townhouses, they're all attached single-family dwellings. These lots, one to nine, that staff recommended we reduce the size, are actually single-family lots that imitate or mimic the same house styles on Crestfield Lane to give honor and keep the rhythm of the existing neighborhood. Then when you come down into the Jessamine County side, you hit estate lots, which are, it's an R1V variable zoning over there, so approximately one acre lots, but it goes up and down depending on various things. I tell you all this because the green space that we're showing here is over four and a half acres of green space just on this parcel alone. And when we originally came through here, we did not have, as you'll see, there's no parking lots along here. As we've gone through the zone change and we have met with the probable purchaser of the townhouses, one of their design comments was that we need to add parking spots for the townhouses other than the driveways. And so we said, okay, we've got to go back and do a revised development plan to add parking spots. Number two they said is, along the Tates Creek corridor here, you should maintain as much green space as possible instead of just budding up the driveways or parking lots on the Tates Creek. One is for visual appeal, but two is to preserve the nature of what you're building. You want to create green space. So I'm going to show you, we have had to add a little parking spot in this area here, but everything else is on the backside of the townhouses. In this area, we contemplated adding a parking space here, but the designer said, look, you've already got to add one on this side because there's no other place to put it. We suggest that you put it in this place here. We also took out a townhouse here, by the way, because the pump station that's up here is going to be removed to this location. So we added green space and took that townhouse out, and then we added another parking buffer there. So all of these changes were not made willy-nilly. They were made with intentional design based upon feedback from end users and the builder of the townhomes. Please go over to my presentation now. So I said that with some context because it wasn't in my PowerPoint, but I think it may be helpful as I walk through some of these slides. So let's be frank. You only approved two variances here today. We have a rule in Fayette County that says when you're doing your open spaces, they have to be 100 foot by 100 foot, which staff interprets to be a box, a square on a piece of paper. And there's a reason for that rule. It's because at some point in time, somebody, probably a developer, or somebody in the development community believed that we needed to have 10,000 square foot of green space and a box, a literal box. And there was probably a well-intentioned belief behind that. But this is one of those cases, this example of where the rule results in bad design. We're going to provide 4 1⁄2 acres of green space, of open space, 20 times the minimum requirement. And we're not asking for a waiver of that. We're asking for a variance to say, let the 100 foot by 100 foot box, which is one of the requirements that has to be on the road. If it wasn't on the road, I could satisfy on other areas of this plan. But to say, instead of 100 foot by 100 foot box, give me an 85 by 112 foot box, because that's what the engineering is, inside of a much larger green space. So the development plan I'm going to show you in a second, Mr. Sirdevant, was approved by the planning commission two months ago. Upon their approval, conditioned upon a variance, that is why we're here today. We're in the sign-off phase of that. I think we have all of the sign-offs except for two, one of which is the open space planner. And you'll see that we're providing for 4.7 acres of green space, 200,000 square feet, not 10,000 square feet. Mr. Billings, is that typo? It should be May 8th, 2025. May 2025. Yeah, it is a typo. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. It's for everyone. So this is the new development plan. And you'll see here, this is the parking lot I pointed out a minute ago, where we needed to add parking for these four units based upon the designers, the townhouse designers' comments. You'll see we've taken out the townhouse here and added parking here, again, away from Tate's Creek Road. We added a parking buffer over here. So the question here was how do we satisfy the parking that we think is recommended for these five units? And we drew it in various locations in this area, and the feedback was, one, that it would look better being on the other side of the road. It's better away from Tate's Creek because of the desire to have the green space, four-board horse fence that is designed for the property. Second is it makes for a better flow when people are coming in because the mailbox kiosk is right there. So there's a couple of different reasons for that. Plus you'll also see, it doesn't show on this plan, but there's a landscaping plan you'll see in a rendering I have in a second that comes in here and it's mimicked on this side, that putting the parking on this side actually starts to cut into that landscaping box. So there's reasonable justifications why we've put the parking on the inside of that subroad for the townhouses. Here's our green space. This is what was submitted to the Planning Commission back on April 28th with our development plan. This isn't one of those developments where you have a small green box that's literally 100 foot by 100 foot with 10,000 square foot of green space. And you have 200,000 foot of open space, green space. It's usable by the owners, by the residents, for walking their dogs, for taking walks. This will be owned and maintained by an owner's association. It's not at the city's dime. It's not at the city's cost. And now you can finally see, if you see here in the middle, that white line is actually the old farm road that's going to be kept and maintained. And you'll see the trees and the light shaded area on each side and the new roads on the outside. So it's designed in order to preserve a character of a horse farm that, unlike a lot of other developments, might tear that out. But for this development, we thought it was the right thing to do. But it causes us other concerns. So the variance request is pretty simple. We provide over four and a half acres of open common space on site already. The ordinance requires 10,000 square foot for single family developments of 25 units. And it says at least. So staff interprets this to be a literal 100 foot by 100 foot box. They're probably right, but it creates a need for a variance here. So our request is pretty simple. It's to modify the minimum dimension for common areas from 100 feet to 85 feet. The dimension by our engineer says it's 87.65, I think. We said 85 is a rounding error to make sure if we have curbs we have to put it on that sidewalk that we're okay. To allow for an alternative common design area as proposed on the final development plan. Which, by the way, staff recommended approval of that development plan at the development plan stage. And the planning commission unanimously approved back in May. We are not asking for any waiver of a common area space. We're just asking for a waiver of a one dimension in that box because of all of the other factors that we have submitted and the amount of green space that we're providing. This is the standards that staff cited to you under zoning ordinance 20-2B, which shows the 10,000 square feet minimum. 10,000 square feet minimum. And the least dimension is that 100 foot that we're trying to seek a variance on. So if we were to draw that 100 foot by 100 foot box back on the existing plan, this is what it would look like. It would encroach on that parking area and we would have to move it up to here. We think that's a silly result. We think that this is the rule that is, while there are well-intentioned people behind it, that it's going to result in a product that is not as desirable as one that should a variance be granted. See that staff showed that again. And, again, this is the minimum dimension that's 87 foot right here. You'll see along the roadway here it's a little bit longer than that. Back here it's a little bit longer than that. These dimensions lengthwise are 111 or 112 feet. So we think that staff's report unfortunately ignores the fact that while there is a requirement and while that requirement has good intentions, there are sites like this one where we are providing more open space than is hardly ever provided in a residential development in Lexington. In order to keep the character of the development that's intended in place. Again, here's another dimension showing the green space calculations. There's the box that we would be required to do. Now, I told you in a second I was going to show you the other piece of this property just for context. This is the portion that we were just looking at. It goes up here and down to here, down to here. So this is the Fayette County portion. This is where the roads will connect between Jessamine and Fayette County. You'll see just across the county line we have more open space on the Jessamine County side. This is Bill Justice's farm here. You'll see we've created a green space buffer and additional HOA space on the Jessamine County side. Again, it's not on the Fayette County side, but I want you to have context for the entire development. And you'll see, let me go back actually. You'll see the road comes in stubs to Jessamine County right there. Oh, I forgot to mention this green hashed area here. There is a marathon pipeline easement that goes to the back of the property. One of the staff's comments was we could just redesign the site. That's a 100-foot-wide marathon gas line easement, which requires us to push this road farther away from the property line because this is a no-build area. So while it is not open space because it will be individually owned lots, it is green space because it cannot be built upon. An owner can't put a pool, can't put a patio, can't put a pergola. They can put grass and they can put a garden. They can't even put trees in there without going to a marathon. That's how particular they are. And we're not including that area, which can't be built upon, in our green space calculation. Here's the next area for Jessamine County where the stubs end to Troy's farm here. This is the existing connection to Crestfield. This is a new connection to Brandon and Serenity Estates is right across the way right here. There's an additional open space green space here. I show you those things not because you can rely upon the Jessamine County plan to make your findings. I show you this so that you can understand the context that green space for this development, between two property owners doing it together, is very important and integral to believing to preserve green space, although we're going to use property because it's on the border of Fayette County and Jessamine County. Here's the overall development that you can sort of see together, how it all fits together with our green space. Typically, if we were further closer to the urban core, the city wouldn't even like this because it's too much green space. They would be telling us to get rid of green space and add density. This is one of those things that because we're on a property that buffers a neighboring county that has different zoning ordinances, we're trying to fit two properties together like this, and it's challenging. Criteria for a variance. Staff sort of talked to you about these. You must make a finding that the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. There's no argument here that's been made by staff that it would affect public health, safety, or welfare adversely, that it won't alter the essential character of the vicinity. It's not going to alter the character of the vicinity. You can see that the minimum variance we're asking for, 15 feet, does not significantly decrease the green space. There's been no argument that it's going to cause a hazard or nuisance to the public, and there's been no argument that it would result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning regulations. The one argument was, well, we could have requested this at the zoning stage. The argument is that we could have. We also didn't have a zone change then, and so we hadn't talked to the end user who's going to build the townhouses. We don't have a signed contract yet, so I don't want to say who, but their feedback provided us necessary things. We lost the townhouse, we added parking. We actually made a couple changes to the green space area that don't really matter here, but we got feedback after we got a zone change to the development plan in order to make a better development, and we actually lost density as a result of that. So then you have to consider a couple things. One is, does it arise from special circumstances which do not generally apply to land in the general vicinity? I would submit to you that, yes, this is the last piece of property in Fayette County on Tate's Creek before you get to Jessamine County. Number two is, this piece of property is split down approximately the middle between two different counties, so we have two different county zoning ordinances that we have to deal with. Three is, we have a creek that runs down the middle of it. We have to relocate a pump station that doesn't apply to other properties in the area. So there are a multitude of factors that we believe are special circumstances that exist on this property. Next, we have to say that the strict application of the provisions would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. The designers told us that if we put the parking on the front there, it will devalue the townhouses and take away from the curb appeal. If you think about this, go to the townhouses on Tate's Creek Road across from the churches that were built in the last four or five years, and imagine putting all of the parking instead of the sides where they are now right in front of those units. Would they look as good? No. That would be a hardship. So what do we do? We moved as many as we could behind. We have one parking lot still in front. We put it on the other side of the entrance so cars coming south would at least mitigate that, but it's still there. But we do believe that that would impact. It would be a hardship on us to keep the parking lot where staff says to put it. Or we just take it out, or we have people crossing a road, which is not desirable either. And then finally, the circumstances are the result of actions the applicant has taken subsequent to the adoption from which relief is sought. And so it doesn't say that you have to make a finding regarding each one of these. It says the board shall consider whether. It doesn't say if you find one of these, you shall deny it. It just says you shall consider these factors, by the way. It's not an either or test. And then it says the board shall deny any request for variance arising from circumstances that are a result of willful violations of the zoning regulation, which we have no allegations of here. This is zoning ordinance 7.6b regarding how to seek dimensional variances. I put this in the record just for the law. So the considerations, I think, for the board today are, does the variance arise from special circumstances that do not generally apply to the land? Would strict application of the regulation deprive the applicant of the reasonable use or create unnecessary hardship? Are the circumstances the result of actions of the applicant taken subsequent to the adoption of the zoning regulation? So we go through the criteria. I could answer each of these questions. I think if you walk through these, I've already said them in my presentation. The answer is it makes sense to allow us a 15-foot variance for this site because of its special location in Fayette County, the design to have multiple types of density and housing types. It's not because the applicant did something wrong. It's because as we talked to the end user of the townhouses, they suggested we needed parking and we tried to put it in the area that works best. And for that, it does require a variance, and that's okay. That's why we're allowed to get variances. To stick by the 100-by-100-foot rule would result in a travesty here because we're gonna put parking on Tate's Creek, which is not the best place for it. Here's some renderings. These were done before we did the parking, but you can see here. So the parking staff wants us to put right here. You'll see how that's gonna interfere with the trees and landscaping. The other parking we're gonna have is right here. You'll see it's already hidden back behind the stone wall as you come south on Tate's Creek. These are some other renderings of our linear park along the front. Same things. You'll see our drawing here for the parking where it's hidden as you come down south on Tate's Creek. Our landscaping features in the wall hide this parking lot. However, this one over here would not be hidden. That's the one in Jessamine County. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions the board may have. Thank you, sir. Questions from the board members? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. If you wanna have a seat. James, anything you or, yeah. All right. I'll try to be quick. So first, he keeps mentioning green space, the applicant, and what this is about is not green space in particular. It's about common area. So this is an area that's designated for use by the community. Green space can exist anywhere on a site, while common area is being used by the entirety of the community. So there are three different types of open space, and common area is a particular type of open space. It is not, it is a part of a green space equation, but it is its own unique type of green space. Additionally, what we're talking about is 15 feet. The applicant points out that if they move the parking here, that it's not gonna be buffered, but this is a choice to buffer this. They can buffer this as well if they want with landscaping. They also did put parking that fronts on Takes Creek Road, so that, I don't know how that's, just because the location is different doesn't mean that it doesn't front onto Takes Creek Road. Additionally, maintaining the green space for character of a horse farm, reducing lot size, let's see. The development plan that staff approved always operates under the assumption that a variance, a zone change, is granted. So whenever a development plan is approved by our staff, it is operating under the assumption that a zone change goes through, that a variance goes through if those are needed for a development plan. It doesn't, it's not a granting or approval of the particular design. If it meets the ordinance, it meets the ordinance. And if they need a variance for it, then our staff operates that, okay, they're gonna get the variance. Would this meet if they get the variance? Yes. And lastly, this is a greenfield development. They can relocate the parking. They can buffer it if they want to along Takes Creek Road. One argument he used was, well, it will look better if it's back here. That is not a justification for why we grant variances with a Board of Adjustment. Are there special circumstances that arise that do not generally apply to the land in the general vicinity or in the same zone? And staff did not believe that that was the case. Thank you, sir. All right, I'll close that portion out, bring it back to the board for discussions or if anyone wants to make a motion. Mr. Chair, I don't know how other board members feel. I'm tending to think that the variance is appropriate. And I don't feel that fairly strongly, but at the same time, it's appropriate to me and relative to the plan itself. And if that was to be the case, I would like to kind of have some idea of how other people feel about it before I make any kind of motion. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? I'm supportive, it seems like a literal square peg in a round hole and it doesn't necessarily justify 100% because, yeah, you're doing all these other good things, but I'd be in support of it as well. I don't know how it's possibly gonna be written, but absolutely, I think it only makes sense. I'll support approval. Okay, well, in that case, I guess we'll need to take a couple minute recess. I guess maybe one thing that legal may wanna look at is the fact that while it's not 100 feet by 100 feet, it is over 10,000 square feet. So they do cross that threshold as a potential finding to support the board's thinking. So appreciate it. We'll take a 10 minute recess. Thank you. Thank you. Will. Will. Will. Will. Will. Will. Plum. Plum. La la la la. ხარაებაება იკაებადი ვროი მებამება. ოები მება იკინუიუის დის რებე ივიდ. ოებაებადი შოინი ლინიდინინინი... შოინინინინი. ოებაებადი შოინი ლინინინი. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵. 𝘜𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵𝘵. Sorry, ma'am, I did not see you before. So what we'll do is we'll let James from staff speak, then the applicant, and then I'll call you up. Thank you. James Mills Planning Staff. This is a request by Christina Howard for variances to increase the allowable size of a driveway from 24 feet to 40 feet and reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 5 inches in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 2208 Harrisburg Road. The section of the zoning ordinance this is in regards to is the front yard and driveway size. So Article 1-11 defines a front yard as the open space extending for the full width of the lot between a building and the front lot line. The depth of the front yard is the shortest distance measured horizontally between any part of a building and the front lot line. A residential driveway is defined as a private paved vehicular access extending on the shortest reasonable path through the front yard or side street side yard to the off-street parking area. Article 8-11 states that the minimum front yard in the R1C zone is 30 feet. Article 16-5 states that outside of the infill and redevelopment area where the lot frontage is 40 feet or more, the maximum driveway width shall be 24 feet. And Article 16-5A4A states that no parking, loading, or unloading space shall be located with any required front or side street side yard. Taking an aerial look at the subject property, it's located near the intersection of Harrisburg Road and I recall correctly, do you recall what this road is, sir? Spring Ridge. Okay, Spring Ridge Drive. Taking a street view of the subject property, you can kind of see how close it is to this intersection over here. The subject property is, the applicant is requesting on the subject property to pave a vehicular use area up here that extends about 40 feet across, 12 feet wide, in order to turn about onto Harrisburg Road without having to back up into Harrisburg Road. Talking with traffic engineering and our discussion of staff, Harrisburg Road is a very highly traveled road. It's a very busy road. We were fine with a turnabout spot. However, wanting to remain consistent with making sure that we were limiting parking VUA in the front yard, traffic engineering first suggested that we do this kind of design right here that decreases both the width and puts it a little bit further back. Looking along Harrisburg Road, we couldn't really find a lot of turnabout spots. The one we did find was set back about 15 to 20 feet. That wouldn't be reasonable for this property because 15 to 20 feet would put it up closer to the garage. Staff, trying to find a balance between the two, had traffic engineering design this where it's set back five feet, allowing that turnabout spot for the applicant or property owner to pull into, back at, turn around and then back and go into Harrisburg Road. That is the purpose of the lesser variances in order to maintain that kind of front yard setback, meeting between the only other turnabout spot we could find on Harrisburg Road and not having it all the way up onto the sidewalk and reducing the front yard of a lesser variance. The only other one that we did for a lesser variance for a front yard was on Alexandria Drive. Harrisburg Road is busier than Alexandria Drive, so this, we thought, should not adversely impact the public's health, safety and welfare, make it safer because the average annual daily traffic is more than 32,000 cars, vehicles. And shouldn't create an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning ordinance because the applicant applied for it before building or starting their project. With that, any questions? Yeah, can we flip back? I got a couple questions. There we go. Yeah, that's the one. So, trying to get my bearings. So, on the left is what he's proposing. So, I guess you're, so one idea. This is what the applicant's proposing. Okay. The applicant is proposing this larger vehicular use area. What I, what's shown here is what traffic engineering first drew up. We wanted to try to maintain and see if there was any other turnabout spots on Harrisburg Road to try to get a similar design. The only one we found was about 15 to 20 feet back from the right-of-way. We didn't think that would be appropriate in this location, so we tried to find a middle ground here with this design. Okay. So, the, on the design on the right, the idea about making the, essentially, this way this is not a parking space. It's a turn. Is that the intent? Yes. That's the intent of both designs. Both designs. Okay. And then you pushed it back away from the property line, but it looks like there's already a pretty good buffer between the sidewalk. Like, it looks like the right-of-way is pretty wide, and there's what? It looks like there may be five feet. It looks like we have existing sidewalk, then we have six feet, and then we have the property line. Yeah. Okay. And so I guess my only question would be, with this design, is there enough space to have two cars parked in front of the house and still have enough to move around if we push it up further versus having it a little bit closer to the property line? Traffic engineering believes so, yes. Okay. Okay. Does anyone else have any kind of questions on the? It sort of seems it's kind of small. It's a little bit easier over here, Harry, for guys to look at it. Yeah. Let me zoom in over here. Sorry. On the right-hand side. Yeah. We're all going to do it. Yeah, I just want to make sure we're all. And then on the right-hand side, you guys are fine with the expansion of the driveway. You just want to taper it a little bit. Yeah. All right. I'm assuming the traffic design was for a turnaround only and not necessarily for additional parking. Is that correct? That's correct. This is to maintain consistency with ones that we've approved in the past where we have also, where there's been a turnaround spot, it is used strictly for turnaround to get out onto the road on a roadway that's usually very busy. Well, I would say that Harrisburg Road is treacherous at all times of the day. I go by there two or three times a day, and I can tell you if I lived where this gentleman lives, it would be really hard to get out in traffic. It is horrible. So anything we can do to help make this work, I'm for it. Staff felt the same way. When we saw this request, we knew that, essentially, the only other one that we've been approved for that wasn't for a medical necessity was on an Alexandria Drive, and this Harrisburg Road is significantly busier than Alexandria Drive. Thank you, James. Any more questions for staff? Okay. Mr. Howard, come up. And so I guess this is what staff is proposing, which looks like it will work, and it will cost your sister less concrete. So let us know why this won't work. Thank you. Is this remote? Do I just press the top button to? Yeah, there's arrows that go back and forth, and then one of them, there you go. Beautiful. Okay, thank you, sir. So Mr. Gross and Mr. Clark, as you two have already mentioned, there are significant challenges when it comes to actually entering and exiting this driveway from Harrisburg Road. I can tell you that because I spend a lot of time at my sister's house, and I've seen more than one instance of people getting into wrecks right in front of the house. I'm the one that designed this site plan, and I'm also the one that took my car, went into the driveway, and as you were stating, Mr. Gross, if you were to have two cars, one parked here and one parked there, and you were to actually start backing up and turning at the same time, what you would find is you actually need this little area that's been tapered off here, you do need that to turn into as you back up so that then you have enough room to complete the turn and then turn back out and get onto Harrisburg Road. So what we are seeking is absolutely not a parking space. There's only two people that live here permanently. We just want a place where we can turn around safely so that we can be facing the road. We don't have to shift from reverse into drive when we exit the driveway. Let me ask you this, Mr. Howard. Is this one in which it would behoove you and traffic engineering to sit down and actually draw something and figure out what may work? Certainly. I'm open to cooperation. Is this a super hurried project like you've got to start? No, sir. And I guess with staff, I mean, would it probably make sense for him to meet with traffic and then present us with a site plan that, okay. So what I'd like to do is continue this case until next month. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We'll let the commenters speak first. And then what we can do then is we can then continue the case. We don't have to rehear testimony. And you could then essentially look at traffic's design, look at your design, see if there's something you guys can come with. James and Dalton will get you together with that person at that time. But we'll listen to the public comment first before we make a decision on whether or not we want to continue it. I would like to quickly note that I personally have been here to stake out a, you know, we came to those dimensions because I took my car there and I performed a three-point turn there at the house in the drive. So this was not really like a Google Earth survey or something where I just picked points on GIS and I thought that it looked good. This was a very practical design that we came up with. But, again, I'm willing to cooperate with anybody to make the design work for everyone. In my experience, both the staff and traffic are very easy to work with generally. And one of the engineers may actually come out to the site. Sounds good. If you meet with them. So have a seat real fast because we may have more questions for you. Okay. And you have one first. I've got one question. It looks like I'm with our chairman on this. It looks like that you all are just down to what a turning radius is on that driveway. Yes, sir. So that sounds like a minimum problem that you all ought to be able to work out. Yes, sir. Ma'am, you can come up now. Welcome. I'm sorry I oversaw your hand earlier. I'm sorry, Steve. My name is Henrietta Johnson, and I live at 2216 Harrodsburg Road, two doors over. Okay. My family moved there in 1952 when Harrodsburg Road was a two-lane highway. It has obviously changed. There are, in the 2100 block, three houses that back directly into Harrodsburg Road. There are four houses on our block of six houses that back directly into Harrodsburg Road. And there are two houses at the 2300 block that back directly into Harrodsburg Road. We are going into the driveway, out of the driveway, backing. We do not have turnaround spaces. We go straight into the traffic. There is a stoplight at Spring Ridge, two doors over. There is a stoplight at Larkspur at the other end of the block, not quite at the end of the block. The traffic situation is underestimated. Even in your description of it, it's horrible. It starts at 5.30 in the morning and goes till 10.30 at night. This includes ambulances, fire trucks, the whole bit. My objection to this plan is several points. At that location of Harrodsburg Road, there is an incline going down towards town. If a car is coming out of Spring Ridge, visibility is very poor at the best of times. There is also a hill that the cars come flying over. And if there is parking, and you can't say it will not be used for parking, if there is parking there, the visibility is zero. That is one issue. The other problems are the drainage. We have had significant flooding behind the houses between Longview and Spring Ridge. This cuts off more space. There is a garage at the end of the driveway, at the end of the house, where the car can be placed. The person who lived there for 40 years before this group has come in did so. She was able to turn around in her driveway. That was why it is 12 feet wide rather than the normal 6 feet that we have. So I would suggest, for safety reasons, visibility for the cars coming. There is right this minute, if you care to go out, tire skid marks for 2 1⁄2 houses where the car almost didn't stop at Spring Ridge. And if a car had been coming out, even with the green light, there would have been quite another incident. So while I understand the problem, I think something more should be done for the area. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, I agree about the concerns in that area. And so if you look at, for example, Clay's Mill, when they redid it, they put extra parking spaces and turnarounds in most of those driveways from Rosemont down to Piccadilly School. And so thank you very much for coming today. Thank you. So in addition, and is traffic here today? No, hopefully they're watching. Oh, there we go. In addition, related to whether or not where we put that parking, potentially would be the site triangle, which I'm sure you guys would make sure that works. So with that being said, do we want to carry on or we want to continue this until next month? Okay. So if somebody would not mind making a motion. And then in the very back, turn around. Wave. There he is. There's your traffic engineer. So chat with him and you guys will get together. Mr. Chair, I recommend postponement to the August 11 session for P&L. Continuance. We want to continue it. What did I say? Postpone. I'm sorry. We'd have to start over again. You're right. This would be a continuance of PLMB 0825-80, Christina Howard's request for a variance on 2208 Harrisburg Road to the August 11 session. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you very much. I'll put it to a vote. Quickie. Thank you. I'll see you next month. Okay. So now we are moving to our next case to be heard. We're moving on to the conditional use docket. And the first case. Wait. Let me make sure I've got this right. Yep. So this would be PLMB 0825-57, Kim and Michael Ruby's request related to 693 Sheridan Drive. As the crow flies, not very far from our last case. James Mills, Planning Staff. Today I want to present to you a request by Kim and Michael Ruby, an amended request for a conditional use permit for a market garden and a variance to increase the allowable size of all buildings accessory to the dwelling unit from 625 square feet to 1,216 square feet, or 103.9% of the existing residence in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 693 Sheridan Drive. Taking a look at this aerial view of the subject property, it is located just off of Harrodsburg Road over here in the middle of your screen. If we zoom into the aerial, you can kind of see the look of the subject property. You can see the existing principal residence and the accessory structure garage located to the rear. The zoning ordinance defines a market garden as an area of land less than five contiguous acres in size for the cultivation of food or non-food crops by an individual or a group of individuals to be sold on site. Such a garden may be located on the ground in raised beds or on rooftops and may utilize greenhouses, hoop houses, high tunnels, vertical gardens, hydroponic systems or aquaponic systems alone or in combination with other techniques for growing food or non-food crops. Article 1-11 defines a home office as an office for record keeping and administration of work. Article 8-7D1, by reference to Article 8-5D13, lists market gardens as a conditional use in the R1C zone. And Article 15-6C states that total size of all buildings accessory to dwelling units shall not exceed 50% of the total square footage of the building to which they are accessory or 625 square feet, whichever is greater. Looking at the site plan for the subject property, you can see the applicant has shown their principal residence here. This is the existing accessory building, which includes a garage and a canopy. They have been using this, so what has caused this to be an amended request, is that they were using this as an indoor climate controlled operation for growing of microgreens. The applicant is wishing to build an accessory building, a climate controlled indoor greenhouse in order to move their microgreen growing business out of their garage. This was a result of a miscommunication or understanding of what home office means. The applicant thought they could operate their microgreen business out of their garage with a home office permit that was received, I think, back in 2020. And through this process, we came to the conclusion that they needed to receive both this conditional use and a variance in order for them to become compliant with the zoning ordinance. Staff does recommend disapproval of the variance. The applicant hasn't provided sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance for KRS-100. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine that strict enforcing the zoning ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship or deprive the applicant of reasonable use of their land. The purpose of this mainly being that once it exceeds 100% of the principal residence, it no longer becomes an accessory use to the residential component on the property. It becomes the primary use of the property. And this is located in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It's not adjoining any zones that kind of were precluded to a commercial use. However, staff is in approval of the conditional use. It should not adversely affect the subject property or surrounding properties, as it should not create disturbing levels of traffic noise or odors. And all necessary public facilities and services are available and adequate for the proposed use. The applicant has been operating for about five years. They have received support from the neighborhood for their business. So the applicant can continue using their business in their garage accessory structure and or modify their property in order to get more accessory square footage to make sure that that market garden remains accessory to their principal residence. We have made it subject to the following four conditions. All lighting shall be designed to not trespass onto adjoining properties. On-site sales shall be limited to Fridays from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. All necessary permits, including a zoning compliance permit and certificate of occupancy, shall be obtained for the division of planning and building inspection prior to initiation of the market garden use. And the conditional use shall become null and void should the applicant no longer reside at the residence. Thank you, sir. Quick couple questions for me. So the first one I have is the house is 1,170 square feet, so technically they would be only permitted to have 585 square feet. I hate to tell you that you're incorrect on that. It says. Well, that's what I'm asking. Yeah. It says shall not exceed 50 percent or 625 square feet, whichever is greater. So they're allowed to have up to 625 square feet. If their building grew in size, they can have more than 625 square feet. So the existing garage is the 625 feet? Essentially. It's permitted more or less? More or less, I think. So in conversations with building inspection, their accessory detached garage is 336 square feet, but their canopy on their accessory structure counts towards that square footage as well, and that adds 280. So that's basically 600 square feet of proposed accessory structure currently on the property. So they don't really have much they can add wiggle room wise. Thank you. Anyone else have a question for James? And I cannot recall the applicants. Please come up. And then was there anyone here on this case? Anyone? Okay. Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Sure. Kim Ruby. Mike Ruby. So the staff has recommended approval of your conditional use so you can continue doing what you have been doing. They are recommending disapproval for your variance to expand the accessory structures. Are you okay with that, or do you want to argue to receive more? We would like to get the variance to build the secondary building. Okay. We're trying to – well, one, we built the garage years ago, and we retrofitted it kind of to make it a greenhouse. Plus half of it is the shed roof, which is just a deck with a shed roof off of it, which is not enclosed. To grow the microgreens, we have to have a controlled climate. So we need an enclosed greenhouse. And retrofitting the existing garage, we're having issues with humidity mostly. But what we need is a dedicated space that's climate controlled so that we can continue to grow the greens year-round. Let me ask you this. Is that a garage that you would not want to just take down? I'd prefer not to take it down. That's just an option. Right. Well, we discussed a ton of options, including adding on to the home, the existing home itself. But that just doesn't make sense. I mean, we're not trying to – we're trying to build a 20-foot by 30-foot rectangle, basically, that's just going to be a climate-controlled area where we can do the microgreens that are – I didn't bring any pictures or anything because – whatever. But it's a racked system. So you have stacked racks, and the microgreens grow on those racks. The existing structure has a shed roof, so it's higher on one side than the other. So keeping the climate control in it is very difficult. It's also – it's just not – it's wood and drywall. We really need a more – Waterproof environment. Right. Where we can clean the walls and the floors and have a floor drain as well. Anything else? Well, this is our livelihood. This is what we do. This is how we make our income. We also have a very large lot. Oh, yeah. Like the – if you look at the – can you show the picture of the garage? It's up there. Oh, I'm sorry. If you can look at that, like where the garage is, a 20-foot by 30-foot section right behind that, it's not visible from anywhere other than next door. It's not going to have any exterior lights or noise, and it doesn't really expand – I don't feel that it expands that much on the acreage of the lot. Our lot is almost twice as big as all the other lots in the area. So I guess that's it. Right now there's 12% usage of buildings on the property, and the average building usage in the vicinity is 16%. So maybe consider the actual size of the lot as opposed to the size of the principal building. That might even the playing field or thoughts on being able to expand. If it was approved, the accessory building that we're proposing would bring the total square footage percentage to the lot to 15%. So it would be comparable to other properties in the vicinity. Anything else? Are you sure? Let me mention some questions here. Let me mention very quickly, I really admire what you're doing. Thank you. As a matter of fact, when I was on council many years ago, one of the things I was doing was encouraging this kind of thing with hydroponics and aquaponics and greenhouses. But there was so much red tape involved and so forth, so I was no longer on council. But I felt like this is the kind of thing we ought to be doing. Having said that, the ordinance doesn't let us be that free to give you the permission to do it, and that's our problem. You can understand that we have to go by what the ordinance says. So I think I would have a hard time agreeing with this. At the same time, I love what you're doing, and I wish there was some way we could help you. But I think I would be hard-pressed to go against the staff or the ordinance itself to agree, but I wish we could. I have a question for you. Have you all done any comparative cost estimates versus, you know, building this additional unit versus, you know, renting some climate-controlled space? Is that an option? Is that not? We're trying to keep our local footprint as small as possible. So if we have to rent a space, we run into rental issues. We run into delivery issues. The microgreens, it's a fragile climate, so we have to kind of monitor it all the time. If it's off-site, we can't be monitoring it as closely as we need to. Like if it starts to dry out from a fan or the heat goes or they're not getting enough water, they're not getting too much water, we can't monitor it as closely as we can. If it's right out the back door. Thank you. Anything else? And I'm assuming, Mr. Clark, you're in agreement with granting them their conditional use permit. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. James, anything you want to add? Nope. Staff looks good. So at this point I'll bring it back to the board and you guys can decide what you want to do. I think we could make one motion to disapprove the variance and approve the ‑‑ but we can also break it up into two if that seems like it would be too complicated. Yeah. So, but, yeah, you can break it up and have two separate motions if you so chose. Yeah. Do you want to keep it in one? Or you can do it in one. Yeah, I think it works either way. I'd like to make a motion on PLN BOA 2557, Kim and Michael Ruby, amended request for one conditional use for a market garden and two variance to increase allowable size of all buildings accessory to the dwelling unit from 625 square feet to 1,216 square feet in a single family residential zone on property located at 693 Sheridan Drive. As part of the motion, I'd like to go with the staff recommendation in disapproval of the variance for the reasons stated and also go with the staff approval of the conditional use permit taking into consideration the testimony we heard today and the recommendation of approval based on the listed four conditions. And then on those, you guys have seen those conditions and you're agreeable to them? Okay. So I have a first. Do I have a motion? Second. James has seconded. Any discussion? All right. We'll put it to a vote. Thank you. Sorry about that. 57. Thank you. Thank you. It looks like we're ready to move on to the short-term rentals. Is that what it looks like? So James or Dalton, I can't recall who's going to come up and give an overview. And so at this point, what we'll do is we're going to move into the short-term rental cases. Staff will give an overview. That way they don't have to do that for every single case. We'll just do a general overview and then we will then move on to the short-term rentals that do not have opposition, which is zero. And so then we'll move straight into the ones to be heard. So Dalton, please, carry. Yeah. So this is a little bit old hat, so I won't go into complete detail, but this is just a review of our regulations and we'll also touch on some of the applications today as well. So basically on December 5th, 2024, the County Council approved updates to the Code of Ordinances and what we're going to see coming up are some of these changes. One of the changes is the maximum occupancy limit for principal and accessory uses, a maximum of two individuals per bedroom plus an additional two individuals or a total of ten, whichever is less. And then STRs with an occupancy greater than ten require a conditional use permit. The Board of Adjustment may consider a maximum of ten new conditional use applications for short-term rentals per month. And then there's also some regulations about the business licensing and permitting. And then this was carried over, but 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 commercial purpose shall be prohibited at all times. This is just the definition of some of the definitions for the short-term rental. Basically it's a temporary occupancy by transient guests for a tendency of less than 30 consecutive days in duration where no meals are served. So for short-term rentals regulated as conditional uses, the Board of Adjustment shall take into consideration the following. One, the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant if they operate other short-term rentals in Lexington. Two, whether other STRs in the general vicinity have been cited as a nuisance, including those operated by the applicant. Three, whether the property being considered is located within a neighborhood that may be vulnerable to involuntary displacement based upon socioeconomic demographics. Further, no short-term rental regulated as a conditional use shall be located within 600 feet of another short-term rental that has either received a conditional use permit from the Board or is otherwise a legal non-conforming use. This is not for ag-zoned properties. This is just for the non-ag-zoned short-term rentals. Next, that the number of unhosted short-term rentals shall not exceed 2% of all dwelling units within 1,000 feet. And then here's our Task Force on Neighborhoods in Transition report, which is getting to the third criteria there to consider. So if there is, for example, an application for a short-term rental and they have another short-term rental within 600 feet, there are relief provisions provided in the ordinance. These three relief provisions are that the property is adjacent to non-residential uses that allow short-term rentals as a principal or accessory use. Second, that there is a significant environmental feature or minor arterial or higher classification road that separates the proposed short-term rental from other unhosted short-term rentals within the buffer area. And third, that the unhosted short-term rental that is causing the issue within the 600-foot radius is within the buffer area and is located on the perimeter of the buffer area with the property being located outside of the buffer area. This is just a review of which zones allow for short-term rentals. And so for that relief provision, this hasn't really came up. It hasn't been tested at this point, so we haven't seen this come before us. But if somebody was to make an argument that there's a business zone that allows it as a principal use, and they might be able to make some argument, but that has not been presented to us, and that doesn't apply for any of our cases today. Next, if it's the arterial road, so if you can basically see right here, say here's where you want your short-term rental. There's a minor arterial or higher classification road separating this property from these properties over here. You could say, well, make the argument that these two are separated so they should not be counted and please grant approval. And the third option would be, you see the red here is the short-term rental. Here is the short-term rental in question. If the property on the buffer, if that property is dissected by this buffer line, this 600-foot buffer line around the property. And then for the ag zones, there are some different requirements. In the AR zone, you can have a maximum acre size of 10 acres. And then it's a conditional use if it's allowed at all. And then AN and AB zone, it doesn't have the maximum 10-size acre on there. There are also some other requirements that are provided for ag-zoned STRs. One is documentation from the health department that kind of verifies the condition and the capacity of the septic tank that is able to handle the number of people that are proposed to be on the property for the short-term rental. And then also some of these other considerations are overlapping with the non-ag STR, you know, not having an adverse influence on uses occurring on the subject or adjoining or adjacent properties. The adequate safety measures are present within the unit. The adequate parking is available and that there will be lighted entrances that are easily visible from the roadway. That there is a spacing of one mile between the short-term rental units. There is no relief provision in the ag zone that is provided. And then also that permitted detached ADUs and farm employee dwelling units may be used as short-term rental. And, again, as I said, there are no relief provisions. Here is the map showing short-term rental's license as of June 1st. We still haven't fully got to the point where we've reached the compliance numbers that we've found saying there are 938 units. That always varies. Some people don't renew their license. Some people just decide it's not for them. They don't want to operate anymore. Various reasons that these numbers can be in flux. It would be hard for us to ever get to 100% exactly, but we're always trying to get closer to that number. For the cases today, these are the non-ag STR cases on the agenda. You can see that three have a short-term rental within 600 feet. One has one within 1,000 feet but does not meet the 2% threshold. That's the 856 Stella Drive. But 605 Lane Allen Road was postponed, so that one will not be on the agenda today. Skyview and Boba Link, they have one within 600 feet. And then Post Oak and Wishbone Circle do not have one within 600 feet. And then for the ag STRs, there is two on the agenda today. One has a 112 Ashley Woods Road, does not have one within a mile. And then 2593 Berea Road does have one within a mile. Any questions? All right. Okay, so some people have expressed a desire to yield time. Public comments are limited to three minutes each. And you may yield your time to somebody else if you're present up to a maximum of nine minutes, just so everyone is clear. And when you come up with yielded time, please state who has yielded time so that Ms. Wade can keep track of who has given it. And then, of course, staff will keep up with the list. So with that being said, our first case is PLM VOA 2539, Jessica Dawn Taylor, regarding 856 Della Drive. Applicant present? Come on up, please. And real quickly, state your name for the record. Jessica Taylor. Thank you, ma'am. And the staff has recommended approval. It's subject to four conditions. And you've read and you're comfortable with those four conditions? Yes. Okay. And who is here to speak on this application? One? Anyone else? Two? Okay. So what we'll do is you give us – take a few minutes, tell us about your project, and then at that point we'll let the neighbors come and speak. Okay. Thank you. So I am the owner of 856 Della Drive, and I am the primary resident as well. I live there with my son, and we don't have any plans to move. So this short-term rental is just me trying to subsidize some of our monthly bills. So in the justification statement, I did include things that I thought would help keeping it from impacting the neighborhood. I could ask for up to 10 people because it is a four-bedroom house, but I only asked for six. I did put hours of operation, so check-in at 4, check-out at 11, and a minimum stay of two nights. Since we do live there, it would usually be on the weekends, or, you know, maybe if we're out of town, I do have someone that will be available if I'm out of town and I do rent it out. I included things like house rules, no party, no events, quiet hours from, you know, starting at 10. Guest activity will be monitored through the entryway with security cameras, and then parking could be an issue because we do have a lot of street parking in our neighborhood. I do have room for three cars in my driveway, and that would be clearly stated, that they would have to park in the driveway if they stay in the property. I did also talk to several of my neighbors that are right next to me, and they did, you know, voice some concerns. After having a conversation with them, they all were okay with the conversation that we had. The ones that I talked to obviously didn't show up. So, you know, I do think that I want to be respectful of the people around me, and I will be very selective of who stays there because it is my home. You know, it's not like a corporation is coming in and only using it as an Airbnb. I think that's all I have right now. Thank you. Any questions from any board members? So that is your residence? Because on here it doesn't have your address. So you are at Delo Drive? Yes. Okay. I do live there full-time. It's my primary residence. Okay. So I went by because I go by and look at all the properties because I have to be a visual person. So you had out-of-state plates in your driveway. Are you still renting that out? I don't rent it out. This weekend? Well, I did have a guest at my home this weekend. Okay. Well, that's fine. You're allowed to do that. I was just curious. Okay. Sorry. Any other less creepy questions? No, I'm just kidding. Yeah. No, it is a valid question. So, no, we do drive by these properties and look at them. So when you see a car the weekend before slowly passing, it's probably one of us. So anyone else have any questions for the applicant? So you are going to manage the property yourself, right? Correct. Okay. All right. If you want to have a seat in the first row, I'll invite anyone who wants to speak on this matter. So come on up. And if you want, you can get in line. And then when you come up, state your name and your address. And then, of course, you can sit down in the front row if you need to while you wait your turn. And then each have three minutes. Thank you. I'm Richard Anderson. I live right down the street, 888 Dela Drive. And had you come and talked to me, I wouldn't be here today. Would you mind leaning a little bit closer to the microphone so Chris can pick you up? Sure. So Jennifer Lawrence. No. I'm sorry. That was Jennifer. No. Who is it? Jennifer Reynolds. I guess she is our representative. Counsel. Yeah. But I've never met her. Never seen her. And the first contact I had about this was a letter from you all saying that I had the opportunity to speak about it. Not that you had already approved it. When I came here, I found out that you guys were already ready to rubber stamp this into existence. We already have a bunch of people. Real quick. So the process works is the applicant submits information. Our staff reviews it. And they give us their recommendation. And as you've seen so far today, we don't always agree with it. So then you then have an opportunity to try to get us to change their minds. I was just saying that it was kind of convoluted. We should be the first to know about this. What's that? We should be the first to know about something that's going to change on our street. And we don't hear anything about it until it's almost, you know, ready to go through. It was really kind of frustrating to see that. I didn't even know who my council rep was until today. So, anyway, she has a really good idea. I have no objection to it. I think it's a pretty good idea. And as long as you keep the traffic down. You know, that's the big thing. Dela Drive is turned into a drag strip. We've got traffic on both sides of the street. You come in after 7 o'clock and it's a single lane road. And it is an emergency route. There's ambulances on one end and ambulances on the other end. And this is a single lane road now. When I moved into Dela 42 years ago, it was a two-lane street, a very quiet place. It's turned into a really loud and very, you know, dangerous area. And I think at this point somebody's got to stand up and draw a line in the sand and say enough. You know, we can't keep doing this. We can't keep accommodating everybody. We have to say, you know, this is a point where we just have to draw a line in the sand and say no. But I'm all for it. I think she's got a great idea. I just didn't know. I didn't know what it was all about. And so there you go. I yield the floor. Thank you for coming. Sir? Oh, sorry. Other sir. Sparks, 880 Dela Drive. We've been there since 1955. We know the area, okay? Parking is nothing. Traffic is miserable. If we're going to have a business in the middle of a street, in the middle of a block, is somebody going to be there to monitor this? Parking, there is no parking. There is no parking. We park up on the edge of our utility strip and the city comes along and tickets us for parking there. We were wondering about the traffic of one of these events. Are these people going to park? Are they going to park just in the driveway or are they going to park out on the street, wherever? There's none there. Who's going to monitor the people coming in and out, okay? We have small children that walk and ride their bike up and down that sidewalk. Are they going to be obstructed by all this extra people? We don't need this. We don't need this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Does the applicant want to come up and respond to any of the comments? I do understand that parking is a big issue in our neighborhood, and so that's why I included in my statement that they would only be able to park in my driveway. I will be monitoring that, and I will do my best to make sure that everyone that stays there is only parking in the driveway. As I said, I will keep cameras outside, and I can also include that they request or I can request that they tell me what kind of vehicle they're driving, and I can have a discussion with them about only parking in the driveway. I'm also happy to give my contact information to everyone in the neighborhood, and then if they have any issues with it when it moves forward, they can absolutely contact me, and I will take care of, you know, what they're finding as an issue. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? All right. I'll close out that part, and we'll bring it in, see if anyone has a motion for me. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLN BOA 2539, Jessica Dawn Taylor's, request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 856 Delta Drive, based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. And James has seconded for me. Any comments, questions, discussion? All right. Seeing none, I will then bring it to a vote. Congratulations. Your application has been approved. Good luck. And you may want to chat with your neighbors and exchange information on your way out. Thank you. Okay. This brings us to our next case, PLN BOA 2559, H.R. Davis, real estate LP. And if you would remind me, did we start this and continue it, or did we just postpone it? Okay. Good seeing you again. And how much time do you think you'll need to present? One minute, probably, Mr. Chair. Okay. That's perfect. Yes. And so I'm going to limit Mr. Simpson, so we'll let him gnash his teeth when he comes up in a minute. See, perfect. Equal time for Mr. Simpson. That's right. I'm going to say he's going to want more than that. And then, other than Mr. Simpson, is anyone else here to talk on this particular case? All right. Perfect. Well, then, please proceed with your matter. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Tom Travis here for the applicant, H.R. Davis, real estate. Very quickly, this is just a 10-acre rural short-term rental attracting a relatively quiet clientele. Staff has recommended approval of this conditional use, and we're fully comfortable with the recommended conditions. And, in fact, we've already obtained the septic certification referenced, and I believe we've corresponded with staff about that in the preceding week or two. So we're actually ahead of schedule. I know Mr. Simpson's here to bring up a few concerns from another individual, I would say, in the area. I don't know if I would say a neighbor. But none of those concerns strike to the fitness within the ordinance for approval today. But, nevertheless, we have worked with him, and we've come to an agreement on, if not all, the vast majority of that individual's concerns. And with that said, the applicant is here to answer any questions that the board might have. But, otherwise, we would ask that this gets approved. Thank you. Quickly, for the record, you have withdrawn the variance since you no longer need it. Correct. And you're comfortable with the conditions? Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay. With that, are there any questions for the applicant? All right. Well, then, have a seat, and we'll bring up Mr. Simpson. Now, Mr. Simpson, how much time do you think you need? Three minutes. Three? Mark it down. We'll see. I'd love to see you get this done in three minutes, Mr. Simpson. Please proceed. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of Louise Nally, a property owner nearby. She has a farm. It's a general agricultural working farm with horses and cattle. Mr. Travis is right. We have discussed proposed additional conditions of approval. We've agreed to all but one. I'll submit these to the staff and amplify on the one that we'd like to have. The seven conditions are because this property is way outside the urban services boundary, deep in agricultural areas, horse farms and general agricultural farms, cattle farms. And those operations I've learned over the years, both representing them and proposing developments next to them, how sensitive they are to certain sounds and issues that spook horses and cattle, very valuable animals that can be easily spooked and cause damage to themselves, if not death. So we've agreed to six conditions that the applicant has agreed to. One would be no fireworks. Two, no outdoor lighting except for security lighting. Three, no littering on the property that goes onto adjacent properties. Four, no occupants or guests of short-term rental shall be permitted to have any dogs or other domestic animals on the property. Frequently horse farms and general agricultural working farms are concerned about dogs getting on their property and spooking the animals or doing damage. They've agreed to that. Five, occupants of the short-term rental and their guests shall not touch or disturb the adjacent farm animals. They've agreed to that. Six, the rental agreement shall include the conditions that I've enumerated thus far, plus this one and one more. And that would be that a copy of these conditions will be placed conspicuously on the primary kitchen island in the home place. The last condition is an important condition that we have not come to an agreement on, and that is that we do not want any sound amplification system, outdoor sound amplification system. For the reasons that I've mentioned previously, that the animals are, the horses particularly, are easily spooked, run into fences, run into trees, get injured, do serious damage. These are very expensive animals, and we don't believe it's necessary. This is way outside in the rural area of Fayette County. There needs to be outdoor sound amplification that ought to be instituted in these areas of Fayette County. This is not like inside the urban services area where there's more noise and animals won't be easily disturbed. So we would ask that there be no outdoor sound amplification in connection with the property and this conditional use. And we ask the board to adopt the other six conditions that they have agreed to, and I'll tender this to the staff. Okay. I would say the staff would need to look at any of these. They appear to be more than we would normally do. And so give us a minute while they look at those. In the meantime, are there any, does anyone want to hear from, I'm going to let the applicant come back up because obviously you would need to confirm you're comfortable with these. But any questions for the applicant? So please proceed. Yes, Mr. Chair. I can confirm the seven that Mr. Simpson just read into the record. As for the last with the noise, like I said, there's not complete agreement, but we're close anyway. We've already promised to, of course, adhere to any noise ordinances or regulations and comply with all applicable federal, state, and local law with respect to any noise in the area. And we respectfully would submit that should be good enough for this board for approval. Just a couple questions about the site itself. Is there double fencing? Is there screening between the properties? How is that coming to play? Yes, I have Mr. Davis here who can speak to some of the intimate details of the property. I know there is wood fencing that surrounds the property. So, yes, we do have double fencing across the back of the property. We do not have double fencing on the west side of the property, nor do we on Briar Hill Road. So do we want to put a diagram up there that we had before? You had a diagram for the last meeting of the property? So, yes, there is double fencing on part of it. Yeah, there we go. So there's double fencing at the back. You can see at the very top, that's double fencing. Down the left side, it's single. And across the front, it's single. And you're okay with the seven other than the amplification? Yes, and we have animals on the property as well. We fully understand noise. I will let the staff have any concerns or because, yeah. And in the meantime, it looks like Linda may have a question for you. Yeah, it looks like that you live in Houston, Texas. We have a property in Houston, yes. Okay, because your address on here is Houston, Texas. So I'm assuming that you have somebody, a rental company or something, who's going to be in charge of this? So we also own the property that is to the right of this one. And we have another farmhouse there that my wife is in 80% of the time probably. And I go back and forth. I just retired for the second time. And so I haven't decided if I'm going to be here full time or back and forth a little bit. But she's here 80% of the time. Okay. I just noticed that, and I thought, well, if there's any concerns or something, Houston is a little ways away. A little bit far away? Yes. Yeah. We live on the property a good portion of the time. Thank you. And which property is the one with your neighbor? That neighbor? Yeah. That neighbor is quite a ways off. Oh, so Mr. Simpson's neighbor isn't like an immediate neighbor? It doesn't join us in here. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for anyone? So the neighbor involved in the discussion is not an adjoining property? Correct. Okay. Thank you. So I just want to note a few of these conditions. I'm just going to speak on behalf of our zoning enforcement staff. I don't think they're here right now. But I always have a little bit of hesitation about conditions that are going to be difficult, I'll say, to enforce. Some of these conditions, I mean, I think there's a noise ordinance. There's a firework ordinance. Some of these things should be being followed anyway, because those are ordinances that already exist on the books. But in particular, the outdoor lighting, I just want to make sure, because the ordinance does have a requirement that, excuse me, that there are lighted entrances that are easily visible from the roadway. So I don't want us to put a condition on this that then runs in conflict with one of the standards of what you have to have for an ag STR. So that's something I want you all to consider. Another, I'm not entirely sure about just how our zoning staff would really enforce some of this stuff about, you know, whether you have a dog or a domesticated animal or whether they're touching or disturbing the farm animals. I know to some extent that's going to end up just being if this gets reported, if somebody has video or pictures. But I have some concerns about the enforceability of some of these conditions. I do, too. So, Mr. Simpson, how about you explain my biggest concern? I mean, I appreciate that you and the applicant work through these or your client and the applicant work through these. But I've got a concern with some of the micromanaging that's listed here, but also I have a concern that your client doesn't even live next door to these people. No. The sound in the country travels pretty far, Mr. Chair. And so, like, for example, fireworks are already prohibited in Fayette County. I'm sorry? Fireworks are already prohibited in Fayette County. Like, there's an ordinance that you can't have fireworks. I mean, the applicant's agreed to all these. And in terms of enforcement, the government doesn't go out inspecting conditions, all the conditions, mainly complaint driven. Well, they're supposed to every year. They're supposed to do it every year. I know they're supposed to. I understand what you're saying. Okay. So, anyone have any questions for Mr. Simpson? Yeah. Mr. Simpson, it seems like number eight there is rather vague. It's not tied to any sort of a decibel level or anything. That seems like it's pretty subjective to me. Is there some way that that could be tied down a little bit more to be something that could be enforceable? Well, just a flat prohibition on any outside amplification of sound would take care of that. I recognize you get into decibel level, that would be very difficult and a whole lot of uncertainty about that. So, it would be a simple prohibition to eliminate that. We're trying to preserve the rural nature of this area. There's a lot of these 10-acre tracks that are going to be coming online for you all to deal with for short-term rentals. And they're next to major agricultural factories that have gone on for hundreds of years. And we are trying to protect the integrity of those operations. And eliminating outside noise is one of those. These will be guests coming in. They're not regular 10-acre homeowners living there. These are people coming in generally, of course, as visitors to our community, which we want to have them enjoy our community and enjoy their time here. But it's not their home. And as when most of us visit, we want to have a good time. And sometimes we get too loud. And we believe a reasonable prohibition on outside amplification of sound, given the area that it's in, this rural area, is appropriate and reasonable. Sorry, someone playing a radio as opposed to them laying on their car horn would be obviously two different sound levels. So amplification is very subjective. I just don't know how you'd enforce that. Well, if there's no sound, it's pretty easy to enforce. Now, let me ask you, is your client going towards the Blue Grass Army Depot or away from? I'm not sure in connection with that particular point of reference. They're not contiguous, but they're concerned about the noise. I mean, the noise in the country does travel. For those of you that live in the country or have lived in the country, it's not like living in the city. You have ambient noise that blocks, creates other noise that mutes it. This noise, particularly if it's in the country without any ambient noise, travels pretty fast and directly from any angle. Okay. Any more questions for Mr. Simpson? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it. Can I just, one thing on that, on the amplification. The way it reads right now, it sounds like you can't have any sound. Oh, yeah. So no trackers, no conversations or anything. I mean, I'm just saying we need to have some sort of measurable thing there for our enforcement staff to have, you know, an idea of what this actually is. What's the maximum amount of sound that there can be here? I understand you don't want somebody having a raging party, but, you know, there's a middle ground somewhere that's got to be found here within reason. We're not talking about talking or speaking. We're talking about amplification, electronic amplification of sound. I guess, Mr. Simpson, a radio that I park on my tractor while I'm. . . No. That is amplification. It's sound that's being electronically. . . that's what the point is, is that. . . I'm talking outdoor speaker system, Mr. Chairman. Okay. I'll clarify that. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Okay. So while I appreciate the parties working together and I don't like the idea of undermining parties working together, I am in support of this application. I am not supportive of these eight conditions on this piece of paper. So I will let the rest of the board determine what they want to, how they want to proceed. I'm not sure that we need all this in the motion, but if they've agreed to it. . . Number seven, a copy of these conditions shall be conspicuously placed on the island of the subject property's primary condition. How would that ever be approved by staff? I'm not saying it should be on the. . . It's something that we approve, but if they've agreed to it as neighbors, then they can just kind of have that in their home, but it doesn't have to be on the application is what I'm saying. Oh, yeah. No, if they want a gentleman's agreement for all eight of these, I'm perfectly fine with that. I just don't like these. . . I don't know that we need to put it in the motion, but I think that if they want to put it in their home and say. . . Or the people who are applying to stay in the short-term rental, they can add that to their list of things that are included. That's all I was saying. Okay, that brings me back to. . . Anyone want to make a motion? I think we ought to approve it up or down. Pardon? I think we ought to approve it up or down. What do you mean up or down? The way it is. Oh, the way the staff is presenting it? Yes. Please proceed with the motion. I'd like to make a motion for PLN VOA 25-59. H.R. Davis Real Estate, L.P., requests a variance to reduce the spacing requirements between short-term rentals from one mile to 2,100 feet and conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental on agricultural zone on property located at 4901 Briar Hill Road, taking into consideration that the variance has been withdrawn. Recommend approval of conditional use based on the testimony, recommendation of the staff, and subject to the following seven conditions listed. Thank you. And to clarify the record, while it was mentioned, he did mention that the variance was withdrawn, so we're not actually moving on the variance. So I have a first. Is there a second? Second. James has seconded. Anyone want to discuss? All right, let's put it to a vote. Thank you very much. That is approved. Okay, so our next case, we're going to move on to the next page. We are now at page six, item number three. This is PLM BOA 2568's request for a short-term rental at 588 Skyview Lane. The staff has recommended disapproval, so they will actually go first. The staff will? Yeah, if you want to have a seat, that's okay. And then is there anyone here who plans on testifying on this application? We have one public comment. So what we'll do is we'll let staff explain their reasoning. Then you can come up, explain your project, and try to convince us that the staff is wrong. And then the gentleman in the back can come up and either support you or staff. So please proceed. Okay. 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 588 Skyview Lane, Council District 2. You can see the subject property here in blue, aqua blue, off of Skyview Lane. Here is a street view of the property. And here is the applicant's site plan showing the property and then also noting that they have two parking spaces provided for this. They also have a wooden fence in the backyard, which you can see with the dashed line moving around the back there. So the relief provisions were mentioned earlier. I won't go back over those in detail, but I will say that staff has not found that the relief provisions have been met here, any of the three relief provisions, whether it's adjacent to non-residential zones or a significant environmental feature or about a property, or excuse me, the short-term rental being on the buffer area. So in this case, you can see there is one short-term rental within 600 feet. It is the green house that is highlighted right here right around where the mouse is. The red rectangle is the subject property. The red line that's going around is the 600-foot buffer, and then the blue line is the 1,000-foot buffer around the property. So because there is one short-term rental within 600 feet and staff has not found that any of the relief provisions have been met, staff is recommending disapproval. We know that the four 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. No other STRs have been cited in the vicinity as a nuisance, and the applicant has no history of compliance issues. However, based on a review of ArcGIS concentration mapping data, there is one short-term rental unit operating within the required 600-foot area buffer, and that the applicant does not meet any of the relief provisions provided in the ordinance. And that's all for staff's presentation. If you have any questions for me. Thank you. Anyone have any questions? And would you mind taking the screen back to that one? Because I think that's going to be the whole discussion. So please, you may now come forward and explain to us your counterpoint. My name is Taylor Barnes. This is my husband, Alex Barnes. We're both teachers, recently former teachers with Fayette County, and my husband actually served with the middle school that serves our neighborhood. This has been our first home. We've lived there the past five years as our primary residence. And our goal throughout our time there was to be good neighbors to those around us and steward our house well. But recently we've ended up moving back home to our hometown just for family reasons. And so we still want to be good stewards of this property as a short-term rental and be able to serve the community. This is a place that we love, that we've been a part of for 10 years since college, and somewhere that we still want to continue to be a part of. So as they stated, we do have one short-term rental within that 600-feet buffer. They are about 400 feet from us, but they are the only short-term rental within 1,000 feet of us. So currently the percentage of residential dwelling units of unhosted short-term rentals is 0.23%. I know the ordinance requirements is 2%, so we're currently at one-tenth of that requirement. So while we do have one within the 600 feet, we're well below that threshold of the percentage allowed. We will, if we were to be approved as hosts, we would have strict rules just to ensure that it will be no disturbance to our neighbors. So we do have the two parking spots, so parking would not be an issue. We are applying to allow for eight guests to stay. We have two parking spots, so they would all be able to park within the driveway. That wouldn't cause any issues with the neighborhood. We also would have cameras as well as noise sensors, just to ensure the amount of guests, to ensure that it's being used appropriately. And so while we do currently live a couple hours away, we're still in the state, and we do have someone locally as well who helps manage a couple of Airbnbs, who would help us if there was an issue, they could get here quickly. But also, we would still be very involved, still planning to be in the Lexington area very often to help with any issues as well. And so also, in addition, our area is growing a lot. We're getting lots of local businesses in our neighborhood and around, and we feel that this would help to bring business to those different local businesses around our neighborhood. Being a short-term rental, it wouldn't just be a business to us. It's our home, and this is also our second community. It's a place that we love, and we'd be very eager for the opportunity to continue serving it. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? All right. Do you want to have a seat? And then the gentleman in the back can come up, and just state your name for the record, sir, and where you live. And then you'll have three minutes. My name is Jeff Swain. I live at 2907 Emond Drive, Lexington, Kentucky. I'm also the vice president of the Masterson Station Homeowners Association. Do I ask you to go ahead? Okay, because I was eating my time up already. Okay, today I'm speaking on behalf of the association and other property owners in close proximity to the property. To convey our collective objection to granting the conditional use permit to the applicant for a short-term rental business at the property in question. The property is located in Section 1A of the Greenhills Subdivision, in accordance with Section 31 of the deed of restriction associated with the property. It is part of the Masterson Station neighborhood and falls under the jurisdiction of the Masterson Station Neighborhood Association. In accordance with the deed of restriction, Section 1 of the property can only be used for private, single-family residence purposes. Section 11, no business may be conducted on the lot, and nothing shall be conducted on the lot which will become a nuisance. The applicant should receive a copy of the deed of restriction during the closing on that person's property in 2020. The association recently sent a letter to the office of the mayor as well as to this board, detailing our objections to short-term rentals, a reference to Kentucky Supreme Court case Hensley v. Gadd, 560 SW 3rd, 316, and a request that the Lexington-Fayette County Urban Government cease issuing conditional use permits and licenses for short-term rentals in the Masterson Station neighborhood and its important subdivisions. We ask that a copy of that letter, a copy of the deed of restriction for Greenhills Subdivision, Unit 1A, and a transcript of our objections today be entered into the record of these proceedings. It has come to our attention that the Lexington-Fayette County Urban Government granted conditional use permits to at least nine other properties without notifying the association as required by city procedures. There are at least two other properties that may be operating short-term rentals without city approval, with some violating the city-stipulated district requirements. The Board of Directors has begun notifying short-term rentals that they are in violation of the deeds of restriction and that are applicable to their properties. We want to use the remainder of the time to ensure the applicant is fully aware of the consequences and continue the process of establishing an SDR business in the Masterson Station neighborhood. We understand the business, if a business permitted by a conditional use permit receives a certain number of noise or nuisance complaints within a year, the code enforcement or other department will revoke the conditional use permit. Neighborhood and property owners may report complaints to the government for loud noises, noxious behavior, parties, trash parking, or other situations. In accordance with the deeds of restrictions and governing documents of the association, any property in violation of those restrictions subject to fines and other legal proceedings may be outlined in the finance reports and policies of the association. Specifically, the property may be defined up to $2,000 per month for operating a business or becoming a nuisance. Such as fines not being properly paid, the association may report a lien with the property and initiate foreclosure proceedings. While many of us in the association do not agree with some of the provisions in the deeds of restrictions, when we purchased our property, we agreed to abide by those restrictions. To restate, the Masterson Station Neighborhood Association and Neighborhood and Property Owners strongly object to and encourage the Board of Justice to deny the applicant's request. Thank you for your time today. Thank you. And, sir, I've got a couple comments for you before we sit down. Just to let you know, vis-à-vis deed restrictions, this body does not weigh in to those. Those are private. We understand that, and we got the letter back from the attorney that said basically not our problem. So that's why we want to make sure the applicant is understood today. And then the second thing is… I get approved, but then here's what happens. The second thing is there is a hotline, I believe, for complaints, both for legal short-term rentals that people are not doing what they're supposed to be doing, but also for you to turn in illegal ones in your neighborhood. And so if you don't have that number, one of the staff members can get it. We have it, and Councilperson Lynch has shared that with us. So what we have found, though, a lot of our folks that have been calling and registering complaints about nuisances, they just never get answered. So a lot of these short-term rentals that operate in our neighborhood have had nuisance complaints against them, and nothing ever happened. Well, I can tell you for a fact we see lots of applications based upon our staff reaching out to people and saying, or Treasury or one of the people from the city saying, you are not allowed to be doing a short-term rental. You're not licensed. So if people have submitted them, you may want to submit them again. Maybe they got submitted before we had this hotline in place. But I do know that—I don't think we have any today, but we do have one. Okay, we have one today. We do on a regular basis get cases where someone has been doing a short-term rental when they shouldn't be doing a short-term rental. But I appreciate your time here today. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. So if you want to come up and rebut anything he said, but I'm going to tell you you're going to have a hard time since the 600 feet is a threshold issue. But you're more than welcome to try. Okay. All right, that sounds good to me. Okay, so does anyone have any questions for the applicant? If not, I am ready to hear a motion. I'll make the motion. For PLM BOA 2568 Taylor Barnes requesting a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a planned neighborhood residential zone on property located at 588 Skyview Lane, I'm going to agree with the staff for disapproval for the reasons mentioned there. Thank you, ma'am. Do we have a second? I'll second. Mr. Clark seconds for us. Any discussion on the motion? All right, seeing none, we'll put it to vote. And your application has been denied. Have a good day. Thank you. So that's going to take us to our next case, which is PLM BOA 2569 Dutchman Enterprises, LLC, short-term rental request for 3204 Post Oak Court. I see the applicant is here. And do we have anyone in the audience who is going to speak on this matter? And we have an audience member. So staff has recommended approval. So first state your name and your address. Absolutely. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Tanner Hoogerheide, and we live currently at 3204 Post Oak Court in Lexington, Kentucky. So I'm here today applying for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental at 3204 Post Oak Court. As you just mentioned, the staff has recommended approval for my permit, but I do understand that a couple of my neighbors are here to object, so I did want to give some background of who I am and what my goals are with this property. So who am I? I'm not some big investor. I'm not some development group. I'm a kid who was born and raised in Lexington, went to Maxwell, Henry Clay Center graduate, U.K. graduate, and then I work now locally for Gray Construction downtown. So family-owned, obviously, well-known business in Lexington. So I'm not some nameless face. You know, I bought this house. It was my first house. I'm a member of this community and plan to stay a member of this community. So that's who I am in general. You know, within the neighborhood, within Lexington, I care about it. I've lived here my whole life. And then next is kind of why I've decided to go the short-term route. Of course, I could have chosen long-term, mid-term rentals, why I went short-term. So the reason we're moving, I actually had no plans to live out of Lexington, but my fiancee, she's currently in a Ph.D. program at the University of Kentucky. She's wrapping up that program, and it requires like a one-year internship. So she's done her match process, and they have matched her in Durham, North Carolina. So for that, we have to move for at least one calendar year to Durham, North Carolina, so she can, you know, do her in-person residency to fulfill her requirements to get her Ph.D. So that is the reason for our move. We plan to come back after that move. You know, it is a minimum of one year. It is a maximum of two years. We love this area. We plan to raise a family in this area. Even in this exact house, we just need to temporarily leave so she can fulfill her requirements for her degree, and then we come back. And luckily with my job, I'm an engineer, and I have remote work capabilities, so I will still be based in Lexington, based out of our home offices, the gray home offices in Lexington, working remote in North Carolina, and will be frequently having to, you know, come back for meetings, projects, and other things. So with that being said, you know, the possibility of us coming back in a year or two years, I've been a long-term rental client before. I didn't want to move someone in and have to kick them out one calendar year later. You know, I would say the majority of long-term renters rent for longer than one calendar year. Of course, it would have been in my legal right to terminate that lease, but I didn't want to do that to somebody because I've been in that situation where I had to get removed because the owner wanted to give it to a family member and they didn't want to renew my lease even though I wanted to stay. The second thing is, as I mentioned, where I'm local, I have family in town. My parents live just in Chevy Chase area by the Henry Clay home. My work is here, and I'll be traveling back here not only for holidays but for work events. And there may be times during the week, if it's not rented on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, that I may elect to stay at my place. Of course, it would not be rented at the time since it is unhosted, so there would be no overlap between a guest stay and my staying at the residence. But I would like to have that flexibility to be able to use my residence if I need to when I come back for Thanksgiving, for Christmas, for a work event that brings me into town. And, of course, not having it rented at the same time. It would completely be separate. And then, you know, I'm not going to lie. Financials played into the decision. So I bought my house roughly a year and a half ago, and we've lived there the entire time. A year and a half ago, interest rates were 7.5%. My interest rate is very high. Looking at what I could reasonably get from a long-term renter, I would most likely be in the negative. And my goal here is not to get rich off this property. It's to just pay the bills, have the property maintained, have the flexibility to be able to use it when I come back, and, you know, keep it upkept without having to kick out a long-term tenant if I do decide to come back. So, again, as I mentioned, this is our home. It's my first home I've ever bought. We put a lot of sweat equity into this house working it up. I have no intent to rent it out to nuisance guests who are going to destroy my home when we come back. So, you know, with that being said, you know, we're going to have a lot of policies in place to try to protect that. One, exterior security cameras on the front, and then we'll have a side camera that covers the yard, and then we have a gate access to kind of get you into your backyard, so we'll make sure we have coverage of the gate so if people come in and out of the gate, we can see. We will have a guest limit, which was mentioned, so no more than 10 guests. We do have adequate parking, so our driveway has four spots. I'll just be completely honest. And we have a garage with two spots as well, so we do have six spots. If it is two SUVs back-to-back, it slightly encroaches into the sidewalk, so then we make sure that they park in the garage. So we can comfortably park four SUVs on the property without interfering into the sidewalk space, and we can park up to six SUVs or six vehicles in the driveway if two of them are smaller, compact, or like Corolla Camry-sized vehicles. So the guests, similar to the other applicant, will be stated that they're required to park in the driveway, and we'll use the security camera monitoring to ensure that, you know, they're not blocking the sidewalks, they're not parking on the street, they're not having too many vehicles per what they're allowed to have. With that also being said, we'll have guest screening in place, so every guest that applies to stay at this rental will have to go through verification. They'll have to submit their ID through Airbnb. This is a common format that Airbnb offers. With that, myself will be able to review that applicant, see if they have had any negative reviews or ratings or issues with previous Airbnbs in the past. So if they have been a nuisance guest in the past and a previous owner has reviewed them, we're not going to allow them to stay at that property. The point of this property is to have families and other members come in and be able to utilize it. So, you know, no parties, nothing like that. Again, it's not meant for that. So those are the main reasons, and then, of course, you know, we did pass the 600-foot and 1,000-foot requirement. There's actually zero within 600 or 1,000. So this would be the first one within 1,000 feet of that area. So kind of to summarize, you know, I have discussed this with a lot of my neighbors. Many had nuisance concerns, and as I'd kind of gone through that list of our control plan, I'd say most of them, their concerns were alleviated. And, you know, and really kind of, as you mentioned earlier, Ms. Tucker, with the being a good neighbor on the first variance, that's my intent here. So to any of my neighbors or anyone in, I'd be more than happy, similar to the other folks, to give contact information and be that good neighbor. So if there were issues going on with the short-term rental as it was operating, you know, we could correct that. And kind of how I would do that, of course, I mentioned I'm moving to North Carolina. I'll be performing roughly half of the management responsibilities around guest screening and all that. I will have a local professional property manager who manages another short-term rental in Lexington be the day-to-day. So cleaning, guest communication, that kind of stuff. So if there is an issue that requires immediate assistance, I will have someone local that is responsible for addressing that immediately, as well as, you know, secondary layers of protection around family and friends in the area who have been more than willing to help out. So thank you all so much. Thank you, Tanner. Staff, any comments from what you heard? Perfect. Ma'am, you can come up now. And state your name and your address, please. I'm Karen Hawkins. I'm 1349 Post Oak Road. I live right next door to this Motel 6 we're about to have in our neighborhood. The world has definitely changed, and I appreciate people trying to make money. I understand that this young man has bills to pay and he wants to be an entrepreneur. But I ask you, we have been here 30-plus years. This is a quiet residential neighborhood. We would appreciate you all reconsidering this man's request due to the fact that we just do not want to be the first in this thousand feet or whatever it is, circle that it is, to have the first Airbnb. Please reconsider this. A lot of the neighbors are very upset about it, but they felt like it was no use coming here because it's a done deal. We've elected you all to help us, and that's what I'm asking you to do today. Please deny this. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Tanner, would you come back up? I forgot to ask you. Would you confirm that you would be agreeable to the conditions if this application is approved? Yes. And then my only other comment is, again, my goal is to not move away and have this place operate as an investment property for years to come. I mean, obviously the future for me is TBD with my fiancé's work, but my goal is to maintain the community within this neighborhood and the property itself because I plan to come back to this neighborhood and maybe even raise my family there someday. So, thank you. Is it currently being rented? It is not. So we are currently in a transition process. My fiancé started her post-doc program actually this week, so currently I'm actually paying two mortgages. Pending approval, then we would begin to operate this as a short-term rental if I can get my other business licensing. If for some reason it was rejected, then we would have to consider another alternative approach, and I would just be paying out of pocket for both in the meantime. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, hearing none, then I will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLN-BOA-2569, Dutchman Enterprises, LLC, request for conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental and mixed low-density residential zone property located at 3204 Post Oak Court. Based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as are listed. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. And James has seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll call the vote. Your application has been approved. So at this point, the next case is going to be PLN-BOA-2575, Isla Properties at 377 Bobolink Drive. I will be recusing from this case, and so Bob will be chairing. So feel free to move over. Okay. Yeah, I know you've got to go first. Playing little musical chairs here. Our next case to be considered is, as Brandon said, PLN-BOA-2575, Isla Properties, LLC, request a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential on property located at 377 Bobolink Drive. Staff has approved this for disapproval. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Is there anyone speaking on behalf or opposed? Raise your hand, please, on this. No? Staff will present first. All right. As mentioned, this is a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential R1D zone on property located at 377 Bobolink Drive, Council District 10. You can see the subject property here highlighted in blue on Bobolink Drive. Here is a street view of the property. Here is the applicant's site plan. I'll note that the applicant did have a notice of violation about not renewing their license that, I believe, went to Code Enforcement and Appeal and was upheld at the appeal last week. So, again, we've mentioned the relief provisions. Those are in play here as well, or whether they are in play or not, because there is one within 600 feet. You can see here on the screen up here is the short-term rental within 600 feet. Here is the subject property. Staff has found that none of the relief provisions have been met here. The property is not adjacent to non-residential zones that allow short-term rentals as a principle or accessory use. There is not a significant environmental feature or minor arterial or higher classification road that separates a proposed short-term rental from other unhosted short-term rentals within the buffer area. And the short-term rental that is within 600 feet is not on the perimeter of the buffer area. So, as mentioned, there is one within 600 feet. As a result, staff is recommending disapproval, because 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, no other SCRs have been cited in the vicinity as a nuisance. However, based on a review of the GIS concentration mapping data, there is one short-term rental unit operating within 600 feet within the 600-foot buffer area. Third, that the applicant does not meet any of the relief provisions set forth. And fourth, that the applicant has a documented history of compliance issues with the short-term rental regulations, including a citation. The applicant has willfully violated the rules and regulations set forth in the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13, Article 5, and its subsections. This documented history of noncompliance combined with the concentration of SCRs in the vicinity provides strong evidence that the continued operation of short-term rental will cause an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood by creating a nuisance. And that's it for staff's presentation. I can leave it up here if you'd like. Do you have any questions for me? I got one. Questions for staff? Yeah, I've got one for you. So did they – it was formally licensed. Did, in the meantime, another one pop up, or did they crisscross? Like, how did that happen, or was it grandfathered in? I believe it was grandfathered in and then, you know, lose the license and then you've got to meet the regulations at the time of applying. So this one was grandfathered in, then another one came in. Okay. I think that's the case, right, Chris? Yeah. I can confirm. Let me do a little – let me look on that and see, and I can get back to you on that. Just give me a couple more. Yeah, okay. Thanks. But this had some compliance issues as well? Yeah, with the non-renewable license, yeah. Right. The only compliance issue, though, was not having a license, correct? It wasn't loud parties and anything else. It was just the paperwork. My understanding, correct, yeah. Okay. Thanks. I think it was continuing to operate without the license, I guess. Okay. Could you have your name and address, please? Joe Nolasco, 420 Queensway. I own 377 Bobblink as well. Can I get those images up and if you can tell me how to go through them? I just wanted to pull this up. And, again, I mean, going back to the violation, this is just – and I will just claim ignorance. I mean, I see this as a reinstatement. We bought it in 2022. This was a property that my son-in-law and I bought. I've got kids in Colorado and Florida. Basically, this has been our way to have them stay here and to supplement and have income while they're not here. We've had a great time with the property. The property is in great shape. This is actually the other property that is within the buffer zone. And I am not sure what they're doing with this property or how they're operating with this property or what they intend to do with this property. But this is not representative of what we've been operating since 2022. And what you can see here on the right-hand side was the picture from Google Earth, this bottom right-hand side. That was before we bought the property. You can see all the work that we've done after we bought the property, extensive work inside and outside of this house. And, again, my granddaughter's three-year-old. When they come from Florida, they stay here. This is our only rental. And this was me making a mistake, paying everything up, grandfathered in. At the end of the year last year, there's been a lot of changes. I missed this. I just missed it. And so now I'm back and I'm going for a variance. But for me, this is like just a reinstatement back to, like, normal business. The inside of the backyard was extensively we took out a bunch of trees. We've worked with both of our neighbors during renovations of their properties to let them have access to our property to take trees down off of their property and maintain their roofs. Had I known this was a disapproval, I would have asked them to come and speak on my behalf. I'm four miles away from this property. We've got landscape folks who take care of it. We've got cleaners that take care of it. It's an extremely well-maintained property. So the top is what it looks like now. The bottom is when we bought it. The bottom is when we bought it. The top is what it looks like now. We just modernized everything. Everything's in place. All of our guest books, all of our rules, all of the cameras, there's this is operating. There's nothing wrong with this property. It's in immaculate condition. You can see extensive kitchen renovation that we did. We took out a back door to make this kitchen larger, bathroom renovations, bedroom renovations. We took out a window here and made access to the back patio so people could have access to the back patio from the dining room. And can you go back around to that first image? And then this is what I'm competing with in the 600-foot range, which is right at the edge of the range, nothing within 1,000 feet. You know, we're at, I guess, 0.5% if you take into 1,000 foot. We've maintained 93% occupancy in this. It's been a great little place. We've been very particular. We've got a five-star rating. We accept people that have five-star ratings. If people haven't rented, we don't let them rent there. We've not had any issues with this since 2022. The only issue is my stupidity not going in and re-upping this thing at the beginning of January. When we found out about it, I tried to be proactive. We worked with Annie and Josh downtown. Didn't realize that we were still operating while we were trying to get everything reinstated and apply for the variance. We got dinged. I paid the citation. It's done with. I'm just here trying to get this back in operation. There are a lot of folks that are repeat clients of ours, a lot of folks that are using the hospital there, a lot of folks that are bringing their kids for UK, a lot of contractors, health care folks. I really don't want to do a midterm just because we've been operating so well since 2022. It is my misunderstanding. It's not willful noncompliance. I just screwed up. Once the citation, once it was issued and it was clarified, then we immediately deactivated everything, and I went down this road of trying to make good on what I had messed up. This is family owned. We're not a commercial STR. I'm not looking. And, again, I'm sure that's just you hear that all the time, but, again, this is my competition. I mean, this is, you know, this is what we're providing people, and we're providing people with a backyard. We're providing people, if we approve it, you can bring your pets. We've got really good folks that have been staying here. I don't see this as a risk. The neighborhood hasn't been identified as being vulnerable to displacement. We didn't remove any dwelling units. We didn't displace anybody. This is a stable neighborhood, a stable property, and I just want to continue, you know, operating a positive property. I'm a little shocked, and I know there's a lot of changes with STRs, and I'm trying to keep up really honestly just being a family owned STR, and hopefully there's precedence of other, you know, applications similar to this that have been approved, but I'm here basically, I guess, maybe begging for forgiveness, but I would hate to see this be off the market for Lexington. I think we've got a really good product here on Bobbaling. So you just received one notice of violation and then took care of it? Took care of it immediately, yes. To clarify, there was a citation. There's a difference in notice of violation and citation. This got a citation, which has a monetary fine with it. Notice of violation are what you get before you get the citation. They send those out. Understood. So I did the grandfathered in, paid all my stuff, got everything up and running at the end of last year. Didn't realize it had to be re-upped in January. Missed a notice, and when I got the citation, we went into trying to figure out how to fix what I had done, which was not re-up my STR. And so as I was doing that, I didn't realize I had to shut everything down while I was doing that. I wasn't allowed to operate while I was doing that. And so once I got that citation, actually I did appeal it just on principle because I felt like there was a lot of changes in rules and we were kind of struggling to keep up. But it was more just for me to have a grounds to tell them that I felt like it was a little over the top. But as soon as they said, hey, we're going to uphold it, I just went ahead and paid the citation. Any other questions for the applicant? I agree. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or in opposition to this application? No. I can give a clarification to Mr. Walker's question. The other short-term rental, the one within 600 feet, they came in during the grandfathering end period and got a zoning compliance permit. So the one you were asking about, yeah. We do have someone who wants to speak. Oh, okay. Thank you, sir. State your name and address, please. Okay. Wayne Parent, 1585 Bluebird Lane. I just wanted to say a couple of things. I've owned property in this area for 45 years. I've raised three children. I'm a dentist. My son, Otis, is a cardiologist. My middle daughter is an attorney. My youngest son is an electrical engineer, Toyota. They all went to school and lived in this neighborhood. I feel like we're more than passively respectable. I purchased the house I own there when I was in dental school. My father did, and I later bought it from him. I don't want to call anyone out. We've all tried to make a living. I just hate to see a neighborhood that's very fond to me turned into a commercial venture. I have no problem with real estate, this and that. I just think that when you mix commercial real estate with residential, a lot of the people suffer that own homes, that have owned homes, low to moderate level. And, actually, this house has provided rental property for medical students and so forth after we left. I just want you to consider, and I see a trend. I got a letter in the mail, and I wanted to listen and talk and have nothing other than an appeal that we don't totally abandon the things that's been good and keep some of this residential property where people can rent to people that are productive citizens and will be. Not that everybody isn't, but I think a short-term tenant is a whole different ballgame than someone that owns a home and is actually renting it out to someone. The property owners in that area will have little to no control sometimes with short-term tenants. And I don't mean anything. The gentleman's done a good job of making his home very attractive, and I get that. I really do. The issue pretty much is who owns what, though. Is it residential or is it commercial? Thank you. That's all I need. Thank you for coming down today. Appreciate your patience. Additionally, staff wanted to add that Revenue sent out a renewal notice and then sent two notices of violation two weeks apart and then sent the citation. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. James, are they all in our packet? Because it looks like there was one sent December 9th, and then there was one sent in March, and then there was one sent in May. Would you like any rebuttal? So it looked like that he had, like, three notices sent. Is that correct? Is that what you're talking about? I believe so. I believe that's correct. Okay. Did you have another one, or were those the three? Yeah, the renewal, and then there was a violation March 17th, and then another one May 16th. We've got enforcement staff here. They can clarify. Just give them one second. I will say that these come to my house. The one that I was very aware of was the certified letter. I mean, I don't feel like I miss mail, but I'm also, you know, people get busy, and you've got life happening. And like I said, we did this at the end of 2024, and I just honestly didn't expect it was going to be January 2025, that I was going to be back in renewing things. Listen, I own and operate a business here. I'm a sole proprietor. I've got an architectural business of 15 people on the corner of 4th and Martin Luther. I work for the City of Lexington. Just finished the Pam Miller Downtown Arts Center. I did Davis Bottom Community Center. I absolutely 100% want to do what's right for the community. And by Fayette County, I don't want to miss notifications that I may be coming in and paying something, especially on a property that is important to me and my family because of my visiting kids and granddaughters. So, you know, this is of owners that would be in neighborhoods that are going to take care of the fabric of the neighborhood. I understand short-term rental. There's a lot of longer-term rentals on the street that are in extremely rough shape. And I would argue with about anybody that our property is the best-kept and maintained property, one of the best-kept and maintained properties on that street. And that's just because we care and we are citizens here, and I live four miles away, and this is important for me and my family. So, you know, this is, again, this was a bad mistake on my part. I would hate to suffer the consequences, and I really honestly don't want to be selling the property. I can make good money off of the renovations that we've done, and I've got folks who are long-term rental folks that live right next door that would love to buy it, I'm sure. I just don't want to do that. We use it for our family. We use it when our granddaughter is coming into town. So I just want to keep doing what I've been doing since 2022, which is maintaining a very well-maintained property and being no risk to the city and being an asset to the city, because we've got a lot of repeat clients that come in that are at the hospital, that are at U.K., that are, you know, contract workers. This is, I feel like this is an exception. I just wanted to ask you, too, whatever came of the appeal, did you actually get to the appeal process? Yeah, it was upheld. He paid the fine. He paid it because the appeal was upheld, correct? Correct, yeah, and it was the same information that was being presented. I didn't say that. I basically went to the appeal process just based on I felt like I wanted to represent, I felt like there was a lot of changes happening with STRs. I felt like I kind of got caught in the middle of changes, and, again, I messed up. So I guess when you – I just wondered if it was still pending or not, or if you'd already paid it, or what the status was. Well, as soon as they withheld it, I paid it immediately. It was just on principle that I wanted to show up, and they told me at the meeting we're not council members, we don't make these rules, we don't enforce the STRs. You know, probably not the right platform, but I at least just on principle alone. I mean, the name of my company is Integrity Architecture. It's named that way for a reason. I mean, I'm a transparent, straightforward guy, really have tried to maintain it. Well, we have. We've maintained a great property there. Absolutely nothing wrong with what we've been doing. And if anything, like I said, we've been a good neighbor, let people use our property to access their property for maintenance. So I just want to continue what we're doing. Mr. Tucker, to clarify for your question, so in your packet, the December 9th, 2024, it's STR renewal notice. That was something that went out to, I think, anybody that had a short-term mill saying, hey, you need to renew your license by January 31st. That's the renewal deadline. So that went out. If somebody did not renew, as in this case, they gave really in February was when they were going to start doing this, but to try to give people a little bit of grace. I think in March and April is when they started sending these notice letters out. So that's where you see the notice of violation in your packet. And then in May is when the citation was actually sent out. I think that citation was only for a couple of days, and it probably could have been for a more significant amount, but it was just for a thousand instead of more, because I believe it's $500 a day is what it can be. And I think it was 38 days roundabout, so it could have been more. But, yeah, so just to clarify from your question about the notice of violation and what you're seeing in your packet. Thank you so much. And then I just wanted to clarify that the relief provision of the ordinance doesn't really give a whole lot of flexibility to the board. It's very specific. So if there are no higher level street, higher classification streets within the area, if you're not adjacent to non-residential zones where this is allowed as a principal use, and if the approved short-term rental is not on the edge, then there's really no relief for the board to grant. Regardless of the quality of the short-term rental or the integrity of the applicant, the ordinance is pretty black and white about what the board can approve. And if the applicant does not meet those three things, you're really not in a position to grant leeway. Any other questions? I guess where I'm stuck, and I know this is just getting back story about where you're at, the former license really has no relevance on this at all. It's just kind of anecdotal. But, I mean, what is the distance between this property and the relief zone? That's got to be two feet, it looks like. The circle. I mean, how close is it to the circle? It's particularly close, but Relief Provision 3 particularly states, with part of the property being located outside of the buffer area. So Relief Provision Number 3 clearly states that a part of the property has to be located outside of the buffer in order for relief to be granted. And a part of that STR property does not extend out of the buffer. Okay, part of the property has to be outside of the buffer. Okay. In essence, the 600-foot line has to cut through a parcel, right? Actually touch that parcel. Is there a way to determine, like, what that other property, I mean, the other property just looks like it is unused? I don't understand, like, what, we're operating this pristine, great, has been in working condition, has all the bells and whistles, and this property that is right on the edge of the 600-foot looks like it should be condemned. If they have renewed their license, though, they are still in compliance. I'm sure they have or I wouldn't be here. Yeah, I'm not sure, you know, that short of a code violation and not, you know, not meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the code of ordinances. For instance, if they get complaints about noise or if they get code enforcement complaints, then they may be subject to losing their license. But that's not up to the Board of Adjustment to determine, so. I was just curious, like, how that works. I mean, I know that there's investigations, like, literally just driving by and looking at license plates in the driveway. I mean, I appreciate that that's kind of how you have to control these because it's investigation, right? I mean, people can sort of hide on the Internet for a while. Until we got our software. Yeah. Yes. So that would be my question is, is 1571 in good standing at this point? I think that's what we're going to be sure of that. And we reach out to all the relevant divisions to ask questions about the cases. And Revenue's pretty good about informing us if there's an issue with other short-term rentals. And we didn't receive any information from either Revenue or Building Inspection that that other property within the notice area had any issues. So we would know if they were not in good standing and their license was not up to date. We'd have all that, right? Yes. We're sure about that. That's just my question. Thanks. Thank you. Well, let's wrap up our discussion. I'll entertain a motion. I do know that on a case last month that there was a citation noted but ended up not being a citation. So, you know, I don't – it seems like you're trying to do the right thing. We don't question that. It seems like that it's right there at the edge, you know. Once again, we're stuck because I don't see a perfect direction to fix this. You know, if you wanted to continue to next month or something to have that conversation with or, you know, could verify that the other property isn't in violation or something like that, that would be the only thing I would know other than just having a straight-up ruling today, which doesn't sound like it's going to be favorable. I mean, if I could continue to next month, I mean, I would do that. Just to allow me some time, just because, I mean, when I saw that it was up for disapproval, I guess I'm a little shocked just because I know how well we've operated this, and it's just sort of a shame. I mean, I can sell the property and make money. It's not – it's the principle that this is a value to the city, and so I'm looking at this other property and it's like I don't even know what I can't even imagine that they're renting that out to anyone. So, I mean, I don't – if it means that I get a ruling today and then I'm done or I can continue it to next month, I would prefer to do that. Part of my concern with that, though, is the violations as well. It's not just the – like what you're talking about. It's the – because even if the other short-term rental was in violation, we still have the fact that you didn't renew your application and then they sent you a couple – I completely understand. I mean, I – Those are kind of some of the parameters that we have to look at. I'm learning. I mean, things are changing. You guys – Yeah. You guys put it in law. I've got to follow it. Well, we didn't put it in law. It wasn't us. It wasn't – yeah. Thank you. I understand. Thank you. But, I mean, it's – you know, it is – I am stuck. Well, to grandfather in, you had to be in operation for a certain period before. No violations. All the way up until the point that you didn't renew your license. No violations. The only one is that. And I think that's a hard one to gauge against. And I don't – this gets into a whole different – you get philosophical. I've got other licenses with the city that – it's no problem. You know, pay it later on. It's no big deal. We'll take care of it. I feel like it's easier to run a 15-person architectural firm. It is. And STRs are much heavier, you know, regulated in that regard. So that would be the only thing I would know to head a direction with if you want to try that. It speaks volumes that you don't have opposition from neighbors and things like that. And it's obviously a good property. Yeah, I could have had neighbors to come and speak on my behalf. I mean, literally, I've made friends with the folks beside us because they needed work done. I think we've run out of discussion time here. I do want to just clarify. As of April 23rd, 1571 Heron Lane is listed as one that has a license. I mean, I don't know if they've got a violation or a citation in the last little bit. But as of – I know I'm going back through emails and looking at the list that we get from revenue of the license, short-term rentals. So, I mean, if you want to postpone or continue it to evaluate that, I guess we can. But that would be what you're postponing basically to see if there's a compliance issue with the other short-term rental, I guess, is what we would be postponing on or continuing on, rather. Yeah, I'm going based on looks alone. I mean, if I look at that building, I can't imagine who would – I can't imagine that they're doing anything with it. And I know that it's held by a company that owns a company that flips houses. So I don't know why they've got it marked as an STR. I mean, it's just a big company that does house flipping. And this is just me, you know, investigating my own online PVA, see who owns it, what do they do. I mean, it's a house flipping company, so I don't know. It's actually – we actually have – it's still compliant since June 4th. So it's been compliant – unless something's happened in the last month, it will still be in compliance more than likely. Thanks. Okay. Any more discussion? I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion in regards to PLN BOA 25-00075, Esla Properties, LLC, requests a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone, property located at 377 Bobbo Link Drive. I will uphold staff's recommendation for disapproval. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Let's take it to a vote. We have a 3-2 vote. Thank you. We're going to bring our chairman back now for an encore. So we are now hitting the 4-hour mark. Can I just get a confirmation on the vote? Are you voting against the disapproval or are you voting for the disapproval? It looks like the vote was 3 in favor of upholding the staff's recommendation. Yes. So your application was denied. Thank you. Yeah. So we are now hitting the 4-hour mark. We're going to take a 10-minute recess and let people use the restroom. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ PYM JBZ Welcome back. I'm going to call us back in. We appreciate your patience tonight. We have two cases left, and so I'm going to call the next case, which will be number six on page seven, PLM VOA 2579 Mercy LLC's request for an STR at 901 Wishbone Circle. The applicant, please come on up to the podium, and then set your name for the record. Hi, my name is Stephanie Quinn. Hi, my name is Stephanie Quinn. The staff has recommended approval. The approval is subject to four conditions. Have you seen those? Are you agreeable to those? We have people here to speak. Why don't you go ahead and tell us a little bit about your project. We have an opportunity to speak again, and then we will bring her back and we'll have a vote. Perfect. Okay. I wrote a little letter just so I had all my thoughts together. Thank you so much for having us today. We are Simon Gerke and Stephanie Quinn, and we are here to seek your final approval of our property, 901 Wishbone Circle, and if this may not be necessary, please allow me to give you some background information about us to give you some context. Our family moved into our property shortly after we began renovations in 2010. We have been a part of the neighborhood for almost 15 years. We love living in Shadeland East, and we have put a lot of resources, love, blood, and sweat into 901 Wishbone Circle. Some of our neighbors have become lifelong friends, and our family has treasured memories in that house. Any house that you bring home babies to and raise your children is a special place. Our priorities being God first and our family, Simon and I made the decision two summers ago to move our family to Cincinnati to be closer to my aging mom and my family, as well as sending our four kids to an all-girls and all-boys Catholic high schools. This decision was best for our family, and it was not one that we took lightly. It was after many, many months of prayer and discernment. Truly, we didn't want to leave Lexington and our home, and since then, over the past two years, we have maintained two homes to help ensure the best transition for our four children from Lexington to Cincinnati. Quite some time ago, many friends on different occasions suggested we use 901 Wishbone as a short-term rental. It was not something we had considered doing, and we began to think about it, and we began praying about the idea. Since the house is not occupied by our family as much as we originally thought on the weekends when we moved, the idea has grown more and more in our minds. Simultaneously, we started to receive several instances of friends beginning to ask us if they could rent our property from us this weekend or that, or for different events or different reasons. We have had our cousins ask us to rent our house. We have had Lexington friends ask us if we could rent our house to their family members who are coming to town, and we've even had someone whose family member was having surgery at UK ask if they could rent our house immediately following the surgery. We were not prepared or ready to open our home at that time for that purpose, Currently, we are here to do this right. 901 Wishbone Circle would be a great home and house for our friends, family, or even just visitors to stay. Lexington has so much to offer the community, and with tourism having a substantial economic impact, it makes sense for us to pursue this. We did not pour so much of our hearts and souls into this house just to let it go and have no plans or intentions of doing so in the near future. With a short-term rental, it will require us to keep the property maintained and in tip-top shape both in and out. Our intention is to set up and situate the property as a house suitable for families or mature visitors. Having a family of six and sometimes traveling with an additional seventh person, it is very hard to find accommodations that are family-friendly, especially with young children. One of our visions is to stage the home in a way that is family-friendly and has the flexibility to accommodate a family with younger children. Our intention is not to set up a venue for huge parties and neighborly disruption. We are planning on pricing the property and setting contractual terms for possible tenants to avoid what most people fear when they hear the stereotype short-term rental. We do not condone underage drinking and drugs. We do not condone people hosting parties and inviting individuals outside of the contract into the home. The property has security cameras, a ring doorbell, and we will be installing noise sensors as well. And although they are not obligated to do so, we do have some neighbors that will be quick to report any appropriate activities or behavior to us directly. With this endeavor, we would like to add that within the last week or so, we have decided to be working with a property management company to help monitor the property and uphold the rules and guidelines of the City and what we think are best for 901-Wishbone. We will be working with Pure Property Management, who we believe has a long and strong working relationship with the City of Lexington. This will also ensure our guests are vetted appropriately for our rental criteria and we will be selective. Currently, we plan on setting the property up as an occasional extended weekend rental. Our family wants to maintain access to our house when Simon and I are both in Lexington throughout the week for work and we want to be able to go home when we want to or need to. We love Keeneland, UK sports, and our children have loved being there with their Cincinnati friends to stay at our house and do all the things that make Lexington special. We do believe that having the property approved for a short-term rental gives us better control of its condition and its tenants rather than a 30-day plus rental or a long-term rental might, but we could be wrong and we will remain flexible with that thought process. We realize that some of the particulars could change or evolve as needed and as we learn, but we plan on ensuring that the property is up to the standards of the City of Lexington. We realize that some of the particulars could change or evolve as needed and as we learn, but we plan on having a very conservative approach with this. In terms of the neighborhood, please be assured that we are open to feedback and have been this entire time. We apologize that the letters sent to our neighbors arrived earlier than we anticipated and that was our mistake because we did not have the opportunity to be up front and proactive with some of the people that we respect and trust. In trying to hold neighborly courtesy, we did try to initiate conversations with some neighbors, but to no avail. I would also like to add that we have not met complete aversion to this process from everyone, as some here would like the Board to think. As owners of the property, this decision should be made objectively between the Board and Simon and I as the owners. Simon and I truly want our property to be an asset and a complement to the Southern hospitality that Lexington represents. When and if granted with this final approval, we hope and trust our neighbors will also show respectful kindness and courtesy, as well to the visitors or friends of ours who would perhaps consider Lexington a new home, UK as their new school or place of employment, or as a community that welcomes a place to work, grow, and raise a family. We intend to structure this so people can't wait to come back to Lexington, and that is what Lexington has been to our family. Simon and I are doing our best to navigate this life and raise our family, and we have been very busy with our four kids and are getting ready to send one off to college. We apologize that we are unable to practically reach our neighbors, and if any neighbor has a question or concern, please give us a call or a text. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Ms. Quint at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. Do you want to have a seat? For people who want to speak today, go ahead and start lining up against the wall here. People will have three minutes each, unless they have yielded their time. For the time to be yielded, you can get up to nine minutes, and the person yielding must still be here. And then just state your name and your address as you come up, and then I know some people may have come in a little bit later than we started, so if you were not sworn in, just let me know, and I will swear you in when you walk up to the podium. So please, ma'am, come on up. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jane Brannan. Jeremy Richardson is a speaker, has signed up as a speaker, and he is seating his three minutes. Thank you. That's the only one seating, and I should be able to let her rip. All right. Thank you. Again, my name is Jane Brannan, and I live with my family at 945 Wishbone Circle. We've been there for 14 years. Obviously, you have lots of comments to make. I'm to focus my comments today on remarks about the public policy behind zoning and conditional use permits and the conditional use permit process. And I'm here to request that this conditional use permit be denied. Our neighborhood is zoned R1B. The zoning ordinances state that the intent is to provide for low-density, single-family residences, and supporting uses. And then there are three principal uses, purposes, listed for these types of properties. The first one is single-family residences. The second is parks and playgrounds operated by the government, and the third use of these properties is single-family residences, and that's what the zoning ordinances are meant to promote. The conditional use permit process is meant to allow flexibility in the event that there are changes in a neighborhood or changes in a city, needs of the community that need to be addressed, and to be an end run around the zoning regulations that are in place. It's meant to be a release valve. It's not meant to be something that is used in the ordinary course simply to get a change in the use of a property because you no longer like that or want it. So the presumption is that the prevailing regulations are the ones that are enforced unless there is some compelling reason to change that. And in this situation, there has been no reason at all stated, and certainly not a compelling one. Now, an individual may believe that their personal financial interest will benefit from a change in the use of the property, but that's not the sort of exception that is meant to be a reason for such an exemption or for such a conditional use. I mean, do not get me wrong. Financial benefit, I'm all for it. That's what gets me up in the morning. That's why I go to work. But in this case, simply because it benefits an individual is not a reason to grant an exception. It needs to align with some other purpose for the neighborhood or the community. And in this case, the application is bereft of any justification whatsoever for why this exception should be extended. There's no hue and cry from the neighbors wanting space for short-term rentals in the neighborhood. I'm not aware of any situation in the City of Lexington that we are having any shortage of accommodation for travelers. I think it's important also to remember that denying this application does not deprive the homeowners of any rights that they have currently or any entitlement that they have. They bought the property subject to the current restrictions. They've lived there for 15 years. They have benefited from those restrictions. They have lived with their family. They have prospered there. But now that they are leaving the neighborhood and the community entirely, they want to change the atmosphere and the character of the neighborhood on their way out. Our family lived in Kenwick on Owsley Avenue for years. We lived right across from where the Kenwick table is, within walking distance of Wilson's. You could see a junk shop and a barber shop and a salon from our front porch. We have no objection to a mixed-use community. Now, my son Allen over there, who has an intellectual disability, when he was small, about three or four, got out of our backyard and crossed Owsley Avenue, headed over for Wilson's. And at that point in time, we realized that we needed to be in a neighborhood that had less traffic. We didn't want to be on a through street. We needed to be on a cul-de-sac. We needed a neighborhood where people would know who he was and know what to do in the event that he escaped again. He's not done that. But we found that home and that community on Wishbone Circle. So in considering whether to grant a conditional use permit, I think it's important to step back and refocus on the overarching reason for zoning. If it were simply that my personal pursuit of my own financial self-interest were the guiding reason behind these sorts of regulations, then we end up in a situation where there is no encouragement of a community, encouragement of a neighborhood. And that's what this zone is meant to do. And it's what it has done. And it is something that should not be changed absent some sort of compelling reason for the change. It's an exception. It's an exemption. It's asking for a favor. And simply because some of the conditions that the government requires the board to consider does not mean that those are the only things that are to be considered. The fact that you have enough bedrooms or enough parking spaces shouldn't be the beginning and the end of the consideration. The consideration, again, should be what's the nature of the neighborhood and is this consistent with it. And with that, I conclude my remarks. Thank you all for your attentions and your patience. Thank you, ma'am. Sure. Come on up. Just one more and it finishes. The next one, walk on up. State your name and address. You got it. Good afternoon. I know this has been a long day for you all, too, so thank you for your time. My name is Zach Moskow. I live at 949 Wishbone Circle. My wife, Madison, and our two kids, Max and Claire. You might have seen Claire here with me earlier getting a lesson in city government for three hours, so I guess I'm grateful for that. But I'm here to respectfully oppose the conditional use permit application. For context, I grew up in this neighborhood. My brothers and I went to Cassidy, Morton, and Henry Clay. We played baseball at Eastern Little League and rode our bikes down these same streets. Now it's come full circle and I'm raising my own family here. Property at 901 Wishbone sits less than 300 feet from the western boundary of Ecton Park, one of Lexington's most active public spaces. It's home to baseball fields, tennis courts, an always busy playground, and community events like the big band and jazz concert series. Now these events aren't programmed for visitors or tourists. They're for the families who live here. I'm really appreciative that you all took the time to drive by these sites to get a sense for the neighborhood. It really means a lot. I'm not sure when you made these visits, but if you've been around Ecton Park in the fall or spring baseball seasons on a Friday or Saturday, which of course are prime time for short-term rentals, you know what that means. Our streets, Turkeyfoot, Galaxy, Wishbone, Teakwood, get jammed. Cars line both sides of the streets. Kids dart into the street. Just getting in or out of the neighborhood becomes a frustrating and sometimes dangerous ordeal. A short-term rental at this location would only make that worse. Guests who are unfamiliar with the neighborhood, traffic flow, and most importantly, the number of children on foot will naturally be less cautious. And this isn't hypothetical. We've heard plenty from our friends in nearby neighborhoods. Visitors aren't vetted. Safety concerns are exacerbated. Ordinances go ignored. It chips away at the safety and character of a long-established, tight-knit community. Furthermore, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Congestion concerns have already shaped other local government decisions for this specific area. The new Publix on Romney Road faced serious scrutiny from neighbors and city planners due to its expected traffic impact. That store hasn't even opened yet, but when it does, it will add to the concerns I'm raising today. Now, imagine adding a revolving door of short-term guests at a property less than 300 feet from an overcrowded park and busy commercial corridor. It's not just disruptive, it's unsustainable. This isn't about being anti-short-term rental, it's about a unified front, as you can see, of neighbors who are aligned and determined to protect the character, livability, and most importantly, safety of our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Thank you. Hi, my name is Jessica Hastings. I live at 905 Turkey Foot with my husband and two daughters, ages 12 and 15. And I'm here to talk about traffic and traffic impact. And so the first thing I'd like to do is just share with you some data that I have. In November of 2022, well, actually before that, in October, our neighborhood petitioned to get a speed study on Turkey Foot Road. And those of you, I'm sure you all know, Turkey Foot Road is the only road that feeds into Galaxy and then into Wishbone, so it's the only road that feeds into that. So we were able to get the city to do a traffic study for us. And so I have that study here, and I actually sent an email with the study attached to it as well. But in October 2022, the Division of Traffic Engineering conducted a study over a 120-hour period. During that time, there was an average of 1,506 vehicles per day on Turkey Foot Road. And that's not on the whole road. That's on the portion between Tate's Creek and Romney. So an average of 1,506 vehicles per day. As you know, the speed limit is 25 on our city streets. The average speed of the vehicles was 30 miles per hour in that section. And the 85th percentile, the average was 35 miles per hour. This is on a very crowded street, lots of children playing. And just to note that this study was in September, October, so it was not during the absolute busiest time that we know about in the summertime. So it's for that reason. Actually, after the study, the city came and said to us that we could qualify for speed tables if we so chose. And the neighborhood chose not to do speed tables. However, the fact that we did get justification for adding that potential for speed calming on that portion of Turkey Foot, I think is a case for watching for traffic in the area. And I would add, too, that a vehicle that was unfamiliar with Turkey Foot Road actually wrecked into our fence in our yard, crossed a city sidewalk, and knocked our fence down. And thankfully, it was a time where we did not have pedestrian traffic. So I'm really thankful for that. So I do hope that you will consider declining this. And also, because I have 30 seconds left, I just wanted to invite anybody to stand up that's here to oppose but who is not speaking. Thank you all so much for your time. Thank you. Hello. Thank you for staying late and listening to all of our concerns. My name is Christine Hankins. I live at 908 Wishbone Circle with my husband and our three children. I'm also a professor of finance at Gatton in the U.K. And so I think about the world as costs and benefits and tradeoffs. And I very much appreciate the role of this board taking the time to think about the benefits to the owners, their property rights, as well as the larger potential concerns to the community of a short-term rental at 901 Wishbone. That said, I just want to highlight to be very sort of succinct with our time one concern that I think should lead you to oppose making this a short-term rental. And that is what I see as a deficiency in the staff report. Clearly, you have amazing staff that do a lot of due diligence on these properties, but the staff report does not cover Acton Park traffic at all. And I don't want to belabor the point, but the image of a galaxy which runs directly by this property and is actually where the driveway drops onto, that is all of the Seastern Little Lake baseball traffic, all of the summer jazz in the summer traffic. Two sides of the street, you cannot get a fire truck down there. The neighborhood deals with this, and we love that people love Acton Park. But as far as the cost of transforming this one particular property into a short-term rental, I do feel the staff report was deficient to not recognize that there's very different feeling between making this a long-term rental where someone would be in that house and understand the neighborhood dynamics versus having people rotate in and out all the time with, as we said, it is like running a gauntlet, getting a car down there, and there are children darting about. And so I think this is really, yes, the neighborhood is here to object and oppose this, but this is really a safety issue that will be a potential issue consistently for the hundreds and hundreds of families that regularly use Acton Park. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Hi, my name is David Mack, and I live at 916 Turkey Foot Road, and I promise to make this quick because I'm a father of two little girls 4 and 16 months, and I would like to make their bedtime. I just want to appeal as a father against this. I share a fence line with the property, and I am very afraid of people I don't know around my little girls, and it's just a little scary for me. Again, I don't have anything prepared. I just thought I'd come and talk. Thank you guys for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Brandon Quinn. I live at 929 The Curtilage. I formerly lived on 917 Wishbone Circle. We have lived in this neighborhood for 18 years. In fact, my husband just retired from R.J. Corman as president and CEO. We could have moved and lived in Nicholasville. However, we chose to remain in Lexington because we love the neighborhood that we live in. We feel this would greatly impact our neighborhood, having a short-term rental. Our kids have grown up. I see many faces, lovely faces, as I do every single day, and I can promise you, being on the other side of real estate, because I am retired in real estate after 18 years, Airbnbs, you don't know who you're going to get. You do not know who you're going to get to invite into your home, and so the neighbors around you can be affected by it. I have nothing against the Gherkies. I understand that. But I feel if they were standing up here, as I am, on the other side of it, that they would be a little bit nervous and not want this to happen in their neighborhood that they live full-time in. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Kit Rutherford. I live at 609 Galaxy Drive with my husband and our four children. Two of whom are relatively new drivers, and I can certainly attest to the fact that the complexities of traffic on our street and adjoining streets is worrisome at best. When we are trying to back out of our driveway or get into our driveway, far too often with Acton Park traffic, which is exponentially substantial. I've lived at this residence for 16 years, and prior to that I lived 10 years on Turkey Foot Road with my husband and children. So we have seen the growth and explosion of activities at Acton Park throughout this 25-year duration, never more so than now. And I have grave concerns about the proximity to the park, the people that are traversing the park on a regular basis, some of whom should not be at the park. And we have made repeated calls in the past about some of the more nefarious activities that are ongoing up there. I don't think that inviting unvetted new people that are unfamiliar with traffic patterns and the neighborhood community in at this point is a wise decision. Most regrettably, relations between the neighbors have completely eroded over the last few years. I wish that you all had at some point approached me as the neighbor who follows the largest property line that abuts yours. I wish that we had been able to talk through some of these things, but relations were shut down long, long ago. And that is the case for the majority of the neighbors involved here. We had no prior knowledge of this as an upcoming issue. The first I ever heard of it was a letter that came in the mail. And I would also like to say that no fewer than ten separate neighbors have hoped to be here, and you should have 30, 40, 50 emails in your inboxes about this issue. It's actually, I don't know if anybody knows this, but it's the SWIM conference right now. So that took a large number of people that were hoping to come and speak out of the ability to do so with their small children. But I would very much implore you to think about denying this and giving the Gurkys an opportunity to use the home for a long-term rental, if they so choose, but to err on the side of safety for our children and our neighborhood and deny the short-term request. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. I'm Lila Fleming, and I live at 1309 Sweet Bay Drive. I have lived over in Shea Linney's neighborhood for 42 years. My neighbor next to me has lived for 45 years. Two houses down the street, they've lived for 46 years. Our neighbors do not leave. The sad part is the only reason people do leave is either we die or we need it. But there's a lot of two-story houses in Shea Linney's. We need houses that have one floor or a downstairs bedroom. But I want you to remember today that this is called Shea Linney's Neighborhood, and one of the best parts of a neighborhood are our neighbors. We love our neighbors. We want to know our neighbors. And our neighbors don't leave, and we don't want them to leave. So I thank you so much for listening. Thank you, ma'am. Good evening. My name is Lou Reeves. I live at 912 Turkey Foot. We've only been there a short time, 40 years. I would urge you to disallow this. The obvious commercial use of this, if you said you all went out and toured the area, you know this is walking distance of Kroger Field, U.K. baseball fields. All the U.K. fields are right there within walking distance. So the obvious commercial use of this, and saying that there's seven parking places kind of alludes to the fact that there's going to be parties from U.K. football games and baseball games is the obvious commercial use of this. And we certainly don't want to change the residential aspect of the neighborhood to a commercial aspect. So thank you. Thank you. Hi. I'm Yvette Childress, and I'm here on behalf of my mother-in-law who lives at 912 Wishbone Circle. She's lived there for over 50 years. She's one of the original owners. So with everybody touting all the number of years I had to get up and tell about this, she's her and her husband still live there. They're raising their fourth generation great-grandkids that come to visit there and everything like that. And with the house here on the corner, I think that's just a personal wish, a personal decision. It would personally benefit them, but it wouldn't benefit us as a neighborhood. It wouldn't benefit us as Lexington. I was born and raised here. I still live here. And I think with some of the housing issues that we hear about on the news and everything like that, it may be attributed to this Airbnb situation that we have before us today. It's because, like this one lady said, people stay. They don't leave. So these houses don't come up for sale. It doesn't have the natural turnover because it's a great place to live. But for individual people, this is what is good for them. It's not good for Acton Park. It's not good for my mother-in-law and father-in-law who have lived there for 50 years. This is an individual want. And maybe if we didn't have so many Airbnbs of 700 to 800 that we have licensed, but more around 1,000 that we don't have licensed, then maybe we could have the trickle-up, trickle-down of families expanding and needing to buy a bigger home, and there would be more homes available if there weren't individual needs of certain families that they don't want to sell their house. They're leaving Lexington. They're leaving Kentucky. This is not going to be their home anymore. So I'm just saying from I joined a family that has lived there for 50 years, and they love it. They love their neighbors. And it's good to see houses come up for sale in the natural turn of a neighborhood, but for an Airbnb, I think it slips in something that's unnatural. Thank you. Thank you. Does the staff have anything they want to add at this time? Okay. You can come up if you want. If you want. If not, you don't need to. It's up to you. I have a couple things I just wanted to add. Thank you all for your thoughts. I really appreciate hearing them. We certainly don't want to upset anybody by this endeavor that we're taking on, but I really, really appreciate all of your honesty, transparency, thoughts, everything, all of the above. First of all, I just wanted to clarify, too, that Simon and I have not decided that we have officially left Lexington. I have an aging mom. She's the only grandparent left of our four children. We are now five minutes from her. We also decided that with our kids, that we are devout Catholic and we wanted our children to go to all girls' and all boys' high schools. When Simon and I kind of go back and forth because, you know, Simon says, you know, we're really only going there because our kids are going away to school and we're just going with them. Simon and I both work in the state of Kentucky. We are in that home throughout the week, and we continue to want to be able to do that, which is why we're going in this direction for a short-term rental, because there are weekends that are appropriate for hosting. The safety concern really tugs at my heart because I, we're parents. I think that's one of the things that led us to discussing and kind of interviewing some property management companies this week, because we want to do this right. We really do. We do not want this to be a party house. We will stipulate that. I did read all the letters today from the community, and one of the things that jumped out to me was the seven parking spots in the application. We have two driveways on the property. One is on the side that is connected to the garage, and that backs up into Galaxy, and the other one is the front circular driveway. So literally when Simon and I were filling out this application together, we counted how many cars can fit. Three fit in the front, four fit on the side. It was nothing more than a mathematical thought, a mathematical computation. Now, the house has five bedrooms, but we have set the tenant maximum occupancy at eight. Eight is not a large party house. And like I said, we are trying to differentiate this property and market it towards families. One of the bedrooms Simon and I have discussed is possibly converting it back to a nursery, because like I said, when we were younger and we traveled and we'd bring my mom along or his mom along for the seventh person, we did have a hard time with the younger ones and them sleeping well. ECTM parking is an issue, has always been an issue the past 15 years that we've been there, but it is not every day and every night. There are seasons for it. It's a pain. It's a nuisance to everybody, including us, when we are at the property as well. But we can also, I mean, we're flexible. We can stipulate cars have to park away from Galaxy on Wishbone in our circle driveway. We can stipulate, and we are willing to do that, that cars have to park in the driveway. We are open to changing the car sound from seven to three. We don't want this to be a party house. We don't even drink alcohol. We don't want that. We can't demand that people don't, but we are not setting this up for that purpose at all. Do you all have any questions? No, but I will say events and parties are prohibited by the ordinance. Right, right. I know, but I feel like I just have to reiterate that because I apologize for being redundant because I know this has been a long day for everybody, but when I was reading the letters, it just kept coming up that that was a concern. So I just wanted to say it out loud again. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? All right. Well, in that case, we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and or a motion, however the board sees fit on moving forward. Part of my concern, too, is the safety issue with that park being right there and them having a corner lot. Every house that surrounds them twofold or so, because I kind of checked them off, is opposed to this. And there were 38 letters. Who was asking about letters? There were 38? Yeah. Well, but anyway, there were 38 letters. So that's kind of concerning for me is the safety and the traffic and the neighbors. May I ask a question about that? Or no? Sure. Real quick and then. Yes. Okay. I appreciate that concern because I just got the letters myself today. And I agree. That's valid. But if we can change the cars down to three, is that a possibility? Well, we can talk about that. And if we have that kind of stuff, we'll bring you up to ask you. Okay. Yeah, you can have a seat. Thank you. You can sit down. Okay. Yeah. You can sit down again. Okay. Okay. So personally, I mean, I understand the neighbors' concerns. At the end of the day, the zoning ordinance approves allow short-term rentals. They just do. Every neighborhood, every neighbor that comes before us, they're all special. We all love our neighborhoods. And so I think that this applicant has supplied the information. I'm willing to support this application to move forward with no changes. But I'm only one person up here. But if people want things, because we're at 620, I would like to kind of move it along and for us not to navel gaze for the next five minutes. So that's kind of where I am. And I would – I can't make a motion since I'm the chair or second, but I would support if someone did move to approve. Thank you. Mr. Gross looks at me when he talks about what time it is. I just have to say we've been through so much SDRs in the last year or so, and it's not been a pleasant thing for us. And as a matter of fact, we have made great overtures to the city council to say that this ordinance is not well written and it needs some serious revision. And so the city council listened. And now we have disapproved some applications simply because there was an SDR within, you heard it, 60 feet of another one, can't have that. So we have done a lot to make it so that we're not putting an SDR every block or so. So I just have to say that as we've gone through this, I've listened to you many times, and I agree with you. If I was you, I'd be doing exactly the same thing. I would not want an SDR in my neighborhood. I just wouldn't. But that's not what the ordinance says. That's not what the law says in Lexington. There's nothing in this application that says that there's something wrong with the zoning, there's something wrong with the traffic, there's something wrong with parties. We don't talk about those kind of things because they're not pertinent to the application itself. So I would have to approve this, but as I've done so many times, there was almost nothing I could do before an application came up. I had to approve almost every single one because the law was written. So we had no reason to disapprove. But now you're in a situation where the law is much more severe. But at the same time, it doesn't affect you because there's nothing there to prevent us from approving this application. So I just have to say that, and these people are looking at me saying, why are you going on, Harry? But I just needed to say those things because you people need to understand that. I'd like to make a motion to approve PLN BOA 25-00079, Mercy LLC, request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 901 Wishbone Circle. Staff recommends approval, and this recommendation of approval is subject to the following four conditions. Thank you. Do I have a second? I will say that I do appreciate all the neighbors coming down, and this is your neighborhood, and so it's important. So we always like to hear from people who are concerned about what's going on in Lexington. So I just wanted to say thank you for coming. And Mr. Clark has seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we'll take it to the vote. Your application has been approved. Thank you. That brings us to the last case of the evening, which is PLN 2581 Horse Park LLC's request for a conditional use permit at 112 Ashley Woods Road. I see the Applicant's Council is here, and then we'll let the room clean out before we— I think staff's going to clarify a couple of items. Yes, yes, yes, they are. And then we'll let the room clear out, and then we'll— I feel like I have to work in the middle. This is Horse Park LLC. And I can't recall—so this is one for Ashley Woods Road. Was there anyone here objecting? Okay. Gotcha. So we'll let—staff is going to make some clarifications on a couple items in the report for the record. Yes, so if you look at your staff report, so there's several issues within it. First, I want to clarify this is for an unhosted short-term rental. There is, on the second page at the top, it says establish a hosted short-term rental. That is incorrect. That is for an unhosted short-term rental. Another issue is it says the rental is proposed for the pool house, which features two beds. The entire property features, I think, six-plus beds, if that's seven beds in total. I think the principal residence has five beds. So this is for seven beds. So that's why this request, if you look at the top of it, is for ten individuals and not four individuals. So to correct that. And this is also for nine—there's also nine parking spots on the property. So in the middle of the page, the occupancy calculation, it is actually for a total of seven bedrooms, which would allow for a maximum of ten individuals. And for parking, that can accommodate up to nine vehicles instead of four. Thank you. And then real quick before you leave, I believe also in the reports that were sent to us, there may have been a couple pages that were not applicable to this case. Yes, there was a couple pages that weren't applicable to this case, and they got mixed in with the packet information that was sent out. I think for our purposes, for the members, after you go to the application and then you see the vision drawing, there are two pages, one, two, and then the last page. Then you get back to the aerial, and then you get to the answers, and then the last page should be vision engineering's letter. Yes. So we have a couple pages. And then real quick, so you stated the factual changes to the so if we approve this on our conditions, condition number two will need to be changed from four to ten. That's correct. And the following reasons, E should say the property has adequate parking spaces for nine, I should say nine there instead of four, to accommodate the proposed number of users, ten. Perfect. So if we get to a point where we make a motion, we just want to make sure that when we say subject to the seven conditions, they are the seven conditions as amended right now by James. Yes. Is that legal? Are you good with all those clarifications? Okay. James, I had a question. Wait one second. I think Tracy wanted to make a comment. I was just going to say the staff report says unhosted, but I think at least my agenda says hosted. So I just want to make sure. Let's see here. Does the agenda say hosted? Yeah, the agenda says hosted. Our reports say unhosted. Okay. So it should be unhosted. But it will be unhosted. It is an unhosted short-term rental. The property is in that ten-acre or less threshold. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Any other clarifications? Okay. Perfect. Linda, go ahead. The project under project description, the third bullet down, it says the subject property is ten acres in size and contains a one-story, 5,921-square-foot single-family residence, da-da-da-da-da. But then it says the rental is proposed for the pool house. So the pool house is part of the rental, but also the principal structure. So the pool house has bedrooms that can be rented out, and the principal structure has bedrooms that can be rented out. Okay. But just one application for the structure on the property. Yes. Okay. Add this more. The entire property will be rented as one rental. I think the issue was probably that it was trying to clarify that there's bedrooms in the pool house and also bedrooms in the principal structure that got missed, that didn't get reported. No problem. That's not clear because it says the rental is proposed for the pool house. That's incorrect. No, that's incorrect. It is the rental is proposed for the entirety of the property, not just the pool house. That's what I was questioning. Okay. All right. Any other questions to put? I missed that, I guess. Okay. Thank you very much. So with that being said, we have staff has recommended approval. We have clarified items in the reports. We know what we're supposed to do with our conditions if we vote to approve. So, Scott, come on up and introduce yourself. And then confirm you are good with the changes that have been made and that you're good with the conditions. And then explain your project. Yeah. Scott Chew on behalf of the applicant, as well as Matt Carter from Vision Engineering. As we talked about a moment ago, the staff report does talk about it just being the pool house. This is going to be one rental for the entire property. It's a 10-acre lot that's located just behind the new soccer stadium. I'm sure many of the people here objected tonight. We're at the soccer hearing. Zone change, as well, objected to that. What this project is trying to provide is an accommodation for the motoring traffic. It's obviously close to I-75. It's close to the soccer stadium. It's an ideal location for people to come in that may be at a soccer tournament at the soccer stadium or children that are playing in the tournaments. Their parents want to rent a house. There's a pool associated with it, long driveway, more than ample parking available. The applicant does live within the area. It will not be an issue to regulate this and to keep it safe. With that, we're fine with all the conditions, with the caveats that we just discussed of a max 10 individuals, max 9 vehicles. Again, I don't think there will ever be a time when there are a total of 9 vehicles, but it can accommodate that many if needed. And we're accepting of all the conditions and happy to answer any questions you all may have. Thank you. Go ahead. Sorry, I don't have questions. Is this on a septic or a sewer? Septic. Okay. So would this need septic approval? So the only problem is the way. It may be easier for the staff to explain where we are with the septic, given the fact that the health department is not going out and inspecting existing facilities. And so. It was permitted when built. Yeah. Now they just, I'm assuming likely for liability reasons, they don't want to go out and recertify that everything is appropriate and accurate. They just give you the initial permit when built that says, yes, your septic can handle the size property and residence you're building. And the reason I was saying staff may want, because we are accepting alternative items from the health department. We're not from the health department, but a process that gets us comfortable from the government side. So the health department has a list of certified septic installers. They have a list of, I don't know, 10 or 15 different people that can go out and do it. And the septic department is not doing it, but they have people that they are okay with having go out and do it. So the board has in the past allowed somebody as part of a condition basically to follow up with one of those letters from one of the people that are approved by the health department to be a septic installer, septic pumper. And we can follow up with the, it's an Excel document. We can follow up with that if you don't have it already. That way you got it after, if you need it after the meeting. And we're fine with that being. Well, I think that's one of the conditions, number four. So if we approve it, then they still have to provide that for you to approve it, correct? Yeah. Okay. You said several questions. That was only one. I'm sorry. Anyone else have questions for counsel? Okay. Thank you. If you want to have a seat and then anyone who wants to speak can now line up, take your turn. And then we also have some letters that we have received and we're looking at those also. So please state your name and your address. My name is Andy Pearson. My wife and I have lived at 111 Ashley Woods for 31 years. And I yield my time to Charles' wisdom. But before I do, I want to say if I only have one day left on the face of the earth, I hope it's this meeting because it lasts forever. And Mr. Hastie, I see you're here. You drug yourself from the vote. I'm glad to see. My wife needs to say that she's yielding her time. Okay. He just said it. Good evening. I'm Amy Samples, Ed and Beth's daughter, and I'd like to yield my time to my dad as well. Okay. Thank you. Ed, come on up. Give your name. You'll have nine minutes, up to nine minutes. Okay. I won't take nearly that long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good early evening to everyone, and thank you for sticking this out along with us. My name is Charles E. Hastie. My wife, Elizabeth B. Hastie, is here, as you just heard. We live at 141 Ashley Woods Road. We oppose the conditional use permit to use 112 Ashley Woods Road. I will be covering two topics today. First, historic background, and secondly, the deed of restrictions for Ashley Woods Estates. Several other topics, including pertinent Kentucky case law, will be addressed by Mr. Wisdom, in fact, for the homes on Ashley Woods Road. Number one topic, historic background. My wife and I bought our 10-acre lot in 1978. We built our home in 1980 and 81. We moved in in the spring of 81 and have lived there continuously since, which by my count is 44 years. Our home is the closest one to the single-family residence at 112 Ashley Woods Road, which was bought from the family living there by the applicant, Horse Park, LLC, in November of 2024, along with an adjacent 10-acre lot to the south of 112 Ashley Woods Road that has never been built on. It's vacant. To the west of these two lots that are owned by the applicant is the Lexington Sporting Club Stadium and related development, which it remains to be seen what all the related development will be. They're parcels for sale. And, of course, on the other side, on the east side of that property, is I-75 itself. Since November of 2024, when the property changed hands and was purchased by Horse Park, LLC, the house at 112 Ashley Woods has never been occupied and is still vacant. It seems clear now, more than eight months later, that this single-family residence will never be occupied as a single-family residence, but instead will only be used solely as an unhosted short-term rental if this Board of Adjustment grants the applicant a conditional use permit. In my prepared remarks, I did not add the sentence, but I think it stands to reason and is common sense that to have a facility that can house this many people, ten, within walking distance, if you walk along, I guess, Athens-Boonesboro Road to get to the stadium and all the related things that may be built there, that it's inviting party central. I know they're not supposed to be parties. I also know what human nature is. As I say, our home is the closest to this property. Second topic, the deed restrictions for Ashley Woods Road, which I have provided a copy for you, a written copy, filed simultaneously with the Platte of Ashley Woods Estate, subdivision, states in paragraph one, no lot shall be used for other than a single-family residential purpose. This restriction is unambiguous and straightforward. The applicant, Horse Park, LLC, is attempting to circumvent this restriction and use 112 Ashley Woods Road solely as an unhosted short-term rental. A copy of the deed restrictions, as I said, is attached to the handout that you were just handed. Those are my remarks, and I wish you a good evening, and thanks for listening. Thank you. Good seeing you, Ed. Sir, you're up next. Hi, Darren. Can I have the rest of Ed's time? I've got Andy's time, but I just don't want to be cut off in what I have to say. I have passed out to you, or I've had passed out to you. Would you mind stating your name and your address for me? My remarks. But my name is Charles Wisdom. My wife, Ethel, and I reside at 195 Ashley Woods Road. Now, Ashley Woods, our residence, our lot, is a part of Ashley Woods Estates. Ashley Woods Estates consists of six 10-acre lots. The applicant owns two of those lots. One is undeveloped. We oppose his application for short-term rental use of that property. But I need a point of clarification, because notice that we got from the Board said he had applied for unhosted short-term rental. But the agenda that you ---- Well, we've clarified that. He's asking for an unhosted rental for ten bedrooms. So there are ---- I'm going to give you two reasons. Ten people, sorry. I'm going to give you two reasons why you should reject this, why you should disapprove this. There are legal reasons. I understand you're not too concerned about the equities of the situation. You're looking at the ordinances and the law. But there's two legal reasons you should disapprove this. One is the deed restrictions. The deed restrictions restrict it to single-family residential use. And just as Van Meter said in 2018 in the published decision from the Supreme Court, that when he was considering a similar covenant in a deed that restricted the use of property to single-family residence, that the term residence didn't include people who rent. And I'll give you the cite in my notes that I passed out to you. So he rejected the short-term. He found that a short-term rental would violate a deed restriction that had this same covenant in it, the same covenant that we have. And I'll give you a second legal reason. Your agenda says that your staff recommends approval of it, and for the following reasons. The way is that the proposed use should not have an adverse influence on the uses occurring on the subject adjoining and adjacent properties, and it does. And here's how it does. This piece of property that we're talking about does not front on state or county roadway. It fronts on a private roadway, a roadway that all of us own, a roadway that all of us maintain. And that use is going to cost the rest of us. It's going to cost the rest of us. I don't see how you can subject us to that increased cost because that use of that road is a private road. It doesn't get cleared when it snows unless we clear it. If we get a pothole, nobody comes out and fills it unless we do that. And so this short-term rental is going to adversely affect all the rest of us. Now, your bylaws say that in Article 8, Section B, your bylaws say that the Board shall give consideration to, in addition to sewage, the road system that's relevant to the proposed use. Now, this road system that leads into this property is going to have an adverse effect on the rest of us, contrary to what your proposed recommendations say. I'm not sure that the staff knew that, but that's by our deed also. It's our road that they're going to use for this commercial property. And I don't think that's right. I don't think you can subject us to that additional expense, you know, that they're going to cost us. I'm happy to answer any questions you have, but we strongly oppose this. And I understand that you've got to look at the law, you've got to look at the ordinances, you've got to look at the zoning law. This is not a zoning issue. This is different from the other cases that you've heard. This is not about zoning. It's about a deed restrictions and what's allowed on this piece of property. So I appreciate your consideration of this, and I would ask you to disapprove it. Thank you. Thank you. And once again, I just want to remind everyone that deed restrictions or private covenants between private Wait, sir. Private. I was asking you a question. Private individuals, this body does not review those. That's for the courts to handle. Even if we were to approve a permit, if for some reason that permit is not permissible underneath your deed restrictions, that's between you and the parties in the court and not necessarily something that we get into. Because if we did, every single person up here would drag up documents and making us read them and try to interpret them. Unless someone else has a question, I think. I just want to point out that second legal reason is you are looking at the issue of the roadway. And then we are now aware of the roadway issue. And so with that being said, does anyone have any questions right now before I have anyone else come back? Okay. Number one, my question is, does the information so far given to you by the opponents change staff's recommendation? Nope. Okay. Perfect. Scott, do you want to come up and respond? Just a couple points. I mean, the closest residence is about 650 feet away from this residence. There's plenty of space in between it. Just as much as they are bound and obligated to pay for the road repairs, so is the Horse Park LLC. So it's not as though he is going to cause more damage and then not pay his portion of that. He will be paying that. And again, like Mr. Gross said, I understand the 2018 case that's been cited to you all. The Supreme Court came out in the last year and reaffirmed what Mr. Gross is saying, that these restrictive covenants do not bind you all as a body or a fiscal court. So again, we'd ask for approval and accept the conditions. Thank you. Thank you, sir. So at this point, I'm going to bring it back to the Board. If the Board has questions from anyone or wants to discuss or wants to move for a motion, it's at your pleasure. Thank you. Just a quick housekeeping thing, too, because I do remember this from, you know, last month or two months ago. On the septic, that can happen, that certification can happen post-approval, because I remember seeing that that was a reason for denial either, like I said, last month or two months ago of an application that was actually recommended for disapproval because that paperwork wasn't in. I think we recommended postponement because the applicant had a con. I think there was other reasons why we recommended postponement along with the septic issue. However, we do have a condition in this current iteration of the staff report that does allow for them to get that certification post-approval. So, yeah. Yeah, I think part of that was also because of the growing pains. Yeah. The ordinance being relatively new and staff and us working through the particulars and making sure we're lining up with what can actually be obtained by our applicants. Just wanted to make sure you're heading forward. That was the only thing. Thanks. On that, I guess I'll make a motion if you guys are ready for it. Yes, sir. I'll try to fix these as I go. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLM BOA 25-81 Horse Park LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in agricultural rural zone on property located at 112 Ashley Woods Road based on staff's recommendations with the alteration of item F, the property's adequate parking spaces for nine vehicles, and subject to the seven conditions with the alteration to number two, the reading occupancy of the short-term rental shall be limited to no more than ten individuals. Did I get that right? I think you mean you said item F. It's actually item E. Right. I said item E already. And then the alteration of the conditions was number two, which was instead of four individuals, it was ten. Yeah, I think you may have said F, but I think he meant E. Yes. In the proposed number of users, ten. Okay. Yeah. Okay, go back. Okay, all right. Yeah. Is that good? E? My E's and F sounds similar. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second. Mr. Clark seconds. Any discussion? We'll call for a vote. This application is approved. For the opponents, I will say just because we approved this today does not mean that you don't have other remedies based upon your needed restriction. Thank you very much. Okay, so that takes us through all of our cases. Now we have some board items. As we discussed, Ms. Carter did not seek a third term, so we have a vacancy for the chair position right now. After we do that, I would like to ask if we're having a time where Raquel is going to come and do photos. Has that been discussed? Well, the staff is all busy. Okay, well, we'll go on to the elections and then we'll go back with what we're doing. So right now, as interim chair, does anyone have a nomination for the seat of chair? I do. I would like to nominate Bob Sturdivant. All right, so we've got a nomination for Bob. Any other nominations from anyone? Any other nominations? Going once, going twice. Okay, I will then close the nominations. And since there was only one, I think we can do this by just say aye if you're in favor. Aye. Oh, yeah, he's accepted earlier. Did you accept the duties and responsibilities of holding this gavel? I do. All right, awesome. So with that being said, Bob will be our new chair starting next month. I will continue as the vice chair, and Linda will continue as the secretary. Or I'm the chair. Yeah. Well, you have already volunteered for the year. We only had one vacancy. So unless you moved me up, no one else is switching seats. So I was asking about have we coordinated with Ms. Carter about coming and doing her thing yet? Okay. So hopefully either next month or the following month, we will get her here, give her her little certificate, et cetera, and we'll have photos and stuff. So that is still going to be done. Then anything staff wants to mention? Okay. Do you think we'll be having any co-training with the planning commission or training ourselves any time through the end of this year? If not, I think the last one was well received, and if the planning commission would like to do some co-training with us, we'd be more than happy to come to one of their work sessions for that. So if you want to pass that along to their new chair and let Mr. Davis know that. And so with that being said, our next meeting is August 12th, 2025 at 1.30 p.m. And since there's no further business, I will – 11th or 12th? August – oh, I got August 12th on this sheet. I thought so too. Is it the 11th or – it's the 11th? Okay. Well, the one I have says August 12th. Okay. I was just reading the words that were given to me. I'm like the politician with the teleprompter. I'm just reading what's in front of me. That's right. So August 11th will be our next hearing date. I appreciate everyone's time, the board's patience, the staff always. Great job, and I'll see everyone next month. Thank you. Too much. ♪♪♪ ♪ All she wants to do is ♪ ♪ All she wants to do is dance ♪ ♪ And no romance ♪ ♪ She can't feel the heat ♪ ♪ Coming off the street ♪ ♪ She wants to party ♪ ♪ She wants to get down ♪ ♪ All she wants to do is ♪ ♪ All she wants to do is dance ♪ ♪♪♪ ♪ Well, the government bugs the men's room ♪ ♪ And the local disco lounge ♪ ♪ And all she wants to do is dance, dance ♪ ♪ And keep the bars from selling ♪ ♪ All the weapons they could scrounge ♪ ♪ And all she wants to do is dance ♪ ♪ Well, the debt don't keep the boys ♪ ♪ From making a buck or two ♪ ♪ And all she wants to do is dance, dance ♪ ♪ And stills can sell the army ♪ ♪ All the jerseys they can do ♪ ♪ And all she wants to do is ♪ ♪ All she wants to do is dance ♪ ♪ And no romance ♪ ♪ All she wants to do is dance ♪ ♪♪