but realizing and knowing that this church is a part of the community and we're here to serve the people in the church. What are some of the current ministry and outreach efforts or programs that the church is leading in this community or plans to lead? Again, we go back to the community, the community fair, providing resources. We have also been able to help the New Life Day Center, along with the district, providing items that they need over there. Our hope is to begin to have an outreach ministry where we're serving food to the community as well. And actually, we're already doing that. We want to make it where it's set in stone. But when people we have homeless that walk past our campuses, sit on our properties, and whenever we have things left over, we always make sure that we take care of those that are in need in the community. So let's bring it into the 205th anniversary and what that may look like, what it's going to look like on the day of the anniversary. Talk a little bit about that. Well, let's see. I believe that this church is going to be packed on that day. Actually, we're planning to have a prayer breakfast on that Saturday before, just, again, bringing the members together. There will be family members of the church members that will come back. We'll probably have a host of pastors from other churches that will come and help us to celebrate on that day. We are working on a souvenir booklet that will outline the history of the church from 1820 on up until now, listing pastors from then up until the present and the work that has been done. The history of the church as far as the Underground Railroad will be a part of that booklet. And then so we'll have that along with, again, a lot of food, a lot of fellowship and worship. And then lastly, let's talk about what does the future look like for St. Paul AME from faith leadership to community impact? The one thing that I always try to do when I'm pastoring churches, this is my third charge in 19 years, is to empower folks to be the leaders that God has called us to be and not just leaders, but disciples. And one of the. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The site plan has a scale, so you can use the scale on the site plan to determine the distance from the existing sidewalk to the proposed variance area. Did you say there was a consolidation plat done? Yes, sir, there was. Did you give that to staff? Yes, I did. Okay. Okay. Shouldn't that show the cross-section? It should. I have the packet that you have, so I don't have anything else that you've given to these two gentlemen over here, but a plat itself does not show a building, right? So now we have a fuller picture in addition to the platted information, but again, you don't have the plat with you to measure the... I don't have a paper copy with me. It was submitted online with the rest of my material. Question for the applicant. So staff recommends the approval of a lesser variance of five feet for the front yard setback. Are you totally not in agreement with that? Would you accept that? No, sir, I would not accept that because I don't believe it would be of practical use for us. Did you meet with staff or correspond with staff for the last 30 days? Yes, sir, I corresponded with the traffic engineering staff. It was directly after the meeting last month, and following that, I corresponded with both planning and traffic engineers over email, and they indicated to me that they were going to go with the design, if I can move forward in the PowerPoint here. In email, they indicated that they wanted to move forward with this design. They said that is the attachment that they wanted to go with. They did not show me this design. No, I'm talking about one of the traffic engineers, I believe his name was Steven. I guess my question is, is this design that traffic has put together, is that based on the assumption that there's only one foot between the property line and the sidewalk? I do know that traffic engineering said the one on the left was their initial first design, just whenever we sent this forward to them, asking about trying to make a lesser variance for a turnabout spot. I don't know what the assumption was between the sidewalk and... Yeah, so my initial assumption was that the distance between the sidewalk and the property line was about a foot or so. I didn't know the exact distance, so that was part of the issue. Like I said, if it is larger, that distance is five feet, four feet, whatever it is, I think the variance could be less, but I don't know that exact distance off the top of my head. I'm not sure. Like I said, the left one was my initial design. Steven, unfortunately, I think there was some confusion. I was on some vacation, so Steven may have handled some of this in the interim. The design on the right is what I sent to the planning staff and indicated to them that that was kind of something that I think would have been workable with that five foot setback. Does that answer your question? No. I guess part of the problem is we didn't see this on the right, and even now I can't even make out the dimensions on the screen exactly. Assuming it says existing sidewalk, what's the distance between the existing sidewalk and the property line, and then the distance between that and where you want the driveway? I guess I'm trying to figure out if you want six feet or is it ten feet? Because if it's six feet, then if the utility line is five, then he can move it closer to one. I guess I'm trying to figure out, there appears to be lots of miscommunications between the applicant and the engineers, and I just want to get to what do you guys want? I think exactly what you said there. Like you said, if the property line is five feet behind the sidewalk, then the variance could be one foot. But if the property line is one feet off the thing, then we'd like the five foot. We just want to get to six total. I think either way, what you're saying is correct. Does that clarify? I think so. Okay. I guess with that being said, the applicant is saying there's maybe five feet, and you guys based your assumption on there was only maybe one foot. Yes. Correct. I think we had some miscommunication on that distance there. So do you guys need evidence or something given to you, because all I have to do is get something that's all on the same page on what exactly. Because I think there's comfort. For something to be approved, we just want to make sure we're approving what needs to be approved. And so you need to look at the plat. You want to, you know, you guys circle around, and we'll call you back up in a little bit after you've looked at it. I mean, I just don't know. We've already continued it once. I don't mind continuing it again. But if it's as simple as reviewing the plat and the cross section and getting comfortable, is that something that we could do while we're here? I've got my laptop with me. Let me see if we, we'll step out in the hallway, and let me see if I can pull it up and if we can scale it and figure out if we can get a distance on that and come to an agreement before we end today. I mean, what do you think, staff? Is that comfortable with everybody? Comfortable to you guys? Okay. Mr. Chair, is that comfortable to you? I'm comfortable with that. Okay. All right. Yeah, let's do that. Then we can maybe get a resolution today. Okay. That sounds good.  So, do we need to say anything, or is it okay just for us to say we're going to bring this one back later in the meeting? I think it's fine. If you're going to just call it back a little bit later in the same meeting, I don't think you need to do anything right now. Okay. Thank you. So, I guess, if you guys just let us know when and if you're ready by waving, we'll call you up after the next case if the Chair wants at that point. As they're having their discussions, we'll move along. Number four on the H.E.R.D. docket for conditional uses and variance, PLN BOA 25-89, distinctive design remodeling. Staff recommends disapproval on this application. Staff would you like to present first, please? All right. Dalton Belcher on behalf of Planning Staff. So, the applicant is requesting a variance to increase the maximum allowable height of an accessory structure from 17 feet, 8 inches to 18 feet, 8 inches in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 2079 Rambler Road. You can see in orange here, the subject property highlighted. Here's a street view picture of the property that is not the current garage that's a previous one shown in the back here. Here's the applicant's site plan. There's not an issue with the setbacks, it is just an issue with the height. So the original approval that the applicant got was for a new garage that would be, here's the existing home, here's the new garage, and our ordinance requires that a principal structure be taller than the accessory structure. And at the time, based off this plan, that was the case. As the applicant was putting the garage up, the height on the existing home changed just a few inches there, got, I think, maybe just a more definitive, here's what the actual height is, but what was constructed ended up with the garage being taller than the existing home. Staff recommends disapproval for the following reasons. One, the applicant has not provided sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance or KRS 100-243. There do not appear to be special circumstances that are unique to the subject property that do not generally apply to land in the general vicinity or in the same zone that justify the need for the variance. The applicant would still be able to build an attached accessory garage to use for storage without the variance. And then the granting of this variance would allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as there is a clear intent of the ordinance for accessory structures to be subordinate in size to principal structures. And that is all I have for staff's presentation. If you have any questions for me. Is this structure already complete? Yes. I think the building inspection basically told them that they needed to either reduce the height or apply for a variance. And so they applied for a variance. I believe that was after they went out for inspection on the property or on the structure after it had been constructed or as it was being finalized. Any questions for staff? Thank you. Thank you. Please state your name for the record please. Yep. Brandy Smith with Distinctive Design Remodeling. Do I just go? Okay. So first of all, thank you all for putting together the presentation. I've been here many times to do variances. I've never done a height one before. This is my first time doing that. So basically when we submitted the plans, that is how it was intended to be built. That was the plan the entire time. It was generally an error. The trusses that were sent out for the roof should have been cut prior to being installed so that they would have been the correct height. Basically the framer didn't cut them. They put them up and it was not seen until it was inspection time. I brought along pictures because I did want to show you kind of how it got missed basically. Generally we agree as well that the garage shouldn't be taller than the residential structure. However, in this specific instance, the way that the lot is graded and you can kind of see it in that first picture with the previous garage and I've brought along pictures as well for each of you to show you what the current garage looks like now that it's been almost completed. It is not visually taller. I think that the way that the lot is graded, the backyard kind of slopes a little bit. So even though it is technically taller than the residential structure, visually it is not. If you're looking at the house dead on, and I can, do I pass these out to each individual person? I think there's some extras there. If you look at the pictures that I put in there, even if you're looking at the house straight on, the garage, you can't see the garage behind the house. I took multiple different angles. This was just on Friday when we took those pictures there. So you can kind of see that it doesn't visually look any taller than the home. It doesn't impact that at all, which I believe is the biggest reason for the height rule to begin with. So that's basically what happened. We're hoping to get the variance, obviously we don't want to have to re-roof the entire thing. It would be a very large project to do so. Obviously we do admit the error, there's no getting around that, but we would hope that we wouldn't have to re-roof the entire project, or possibly do even more than that depending on how the stresses were put on there. Questions? I also put some of the original plans in there too, just in case. Just give us a minute to review all of your information. Okay. Going back to your statement on the height of the garage versus the height of the house, was it always intended to be that dimension, or did that one foot extra... Yeah, so like I said, the trusses that were sent out from the vendor when we ordered them, they should have been cut prior to being installed, so they would have lessened that pitch a little bit. It wouldn't have been quite so tall. But the framer, when they put them up, they just didn't do it. They just put the trusses up as is, which made it taller. They should have cut them prior to the installment. Just the way that it's graded, our project manager didn't catch it because it doesn't appear taller. When he installed it, he was like, oh yeah, and he just kept moving on. Looking at the home, he was like, oh, it's not... He didn't think that it looked taller because it doesn't look taller due to that grade. This was a contractor error? Yes. The plans that we submitted to the city is the plans that were intended. That's the plans that we give them. That's the plans that everyone was given to do the project. Board questions? This question is for staff. We do have an ordinance, because I think we dealt with one of these a while back where the garage was taller than the house. We do have something that says that that can't happen, right? I appreciate your pictures and everything, but when I went by, I noticed it right away. Do we have an ordinance that... Give me one second and I'll pull the language for you. Just one second. Sorry. It states that accessory buildings and residential zones shall not exceed the lot coverage, which is the building footprint of the buildings to which they are accessory, nor shall the maximum height of accessory buildings and residential zones exceed the requirements of subsection A for this section. Basically, the total size of all buildings, accessory... Sorry. Yes. They shall not be taller than the principal structure. Sorry, a more direct reference, just so I've got it. 15.6A.4 says maximum height of accessory building shall be measured from the grade surrounding the structure to the apex of the gable and shall not exceed the elevation of the principal structure. In no case shall an accessory building exceed 20 feet in height measured amid gable. That's a more direct answer for you. So in the ordinance, there's no stipulation between height of the structure and height of the house versus the grade of the lot. It's not mentioned. Is that true? Maybe I'm not understanding the question. So you're saying... Let's say your house is 17 and your garage is 19, but your lot dropped off 2 feet. So they essentially, from ground level... The ordinance says measured from the grade surrounding the structure. So if it goes down, you're measuring from the grade of where the structure is. Thank you. Any questions? Well, I'm comfortable granting this. It's a foot. It sounds like it was human error. That was not the property owner's fault. And if you look at the house to the left, I can't tell what the height is, but it looks taller than this house because it's got that second half floor. And so... But point being is there's plenty of houses in this neighborhood that are taller than that 18 feet. And so I don't think it'd be out of place or dominate. And so I would be comfortable with approving if there are others that would also be comfortable with that. I would agree with that. Who all wants to change to the language for approval? I would be comfortable just given the characteristics of this neighborhood and the fact that there are single story and one and a half story and two story houses within the vicinity. I'd be comfortable that a one foot overage, given the mistake that occurred, I'd be comfortable with that approval. Do you want to work with... I think she's already working on it. Okay. Should we take a brief recess here while you work that out? Yeah. We'll take a 10 minute recess. Everybody take their seat, please. Okay. Thank you very much. So, Mr. Chair... Chad's not here. He's not here. Yeah. I spoke with planning staff and they said since the structure's already built, we don't need to find add conditions. So this would just be a finding and approval is the motion I'll be making. So, with that being said, I hereby move for approval of PLM BOA 2589, distinctive design remodelings request for a variance to increase the maximum level of height of an accessory structure from 17 feet 8 inches to 18 feet 8 inches in an R1C zone on property located at 2079 Rambler Road, based upon granting the variance should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the general vicinity, nor cause a hazard or nuisance to the public. The variance requests an extra foot of structural height, which is not out of line with the average building height of the neighboring houses. The lot also slopes in the rear, which contributes to the perceived building height being less than the principal structure. Number two, the variance request does not circumvent the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The testimony at the hearing shows the building was constructed above the maximum allowable height due to contractor error, not due to mistakes of the homeowner. The homeowner's plan showed an accessory building within the maximum allowable building height. So moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Do we have a second? We have a motion by Mr. Gross, second by Mr. Clark. Any further questions? It's time to vote. It's been approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, we would like to recall PLN BOA 25-80, Christina Howard, after consultation. Okay, so we've looked at the site plan again in the hall, the submitted documents and everything, and I'm fairly confident that the distance between the sidewalk and the property line is five and a half feet. So after discussing with the applicant, traffic engineering is comfortable with one foot, so that gives a total setback of six and a half feet from the sidewalk, one foot from the property line. So a lesser variance of one foot for the setback there. So the staff recommendation would read approval of lesser variance of one foot from the front yard setback. Yes, and I'll let the applicant affirm that he's comfortable with that. And I think we had a slight revision to the second condition as well, which I have. So if the applicant wants to just confirm you're comfortable with the one foot. I'd like to confirm that yes, we're comfortable with a lesser variance of one foot for the front yard setback. Thank you, sir. In that instance, Mr. Chair, I'll move, unless anyone has any questions. Any further questions? I'll move for an approval of PLN BOA 2580, Christina Howard's request for a variance to, so it looks like I'm just doing, am I also still doing the 24? Okay. A request to allow the size of the driveway from 24 feet to 40 feet and reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to one foot in a single family residential R1C zone on property at 2208 Harrisburg Road. Based upon the staff's report, the testimony we were given today, the fact that it will be a one foot request and subject to the two conditions, I will amend condition one to read as follows. Construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and revised site plan depicting the alternative drive and turnaround design as approved by traffic engineering and staff. So moved. Mr. Gross, that was for 30 feet, unless you want to approve for the full variance of 40 feet that the applicant requested. It should be a lesser variance of 30 feet. Mr. Gross said that he was going to do the variance with the 40 feet. Staff had recommended approval of a lesser variance of 30 feet. For the driveway width. Oh, the driveway width. Well, as the applicant talked about the driveway width being, oh, the 30 feet is where the turnabout section is? That's correct. That's correct. Did you guys talk about that by chance? Yes, we did. And we agreed that 30 feet for the width would be acceptable. Okay, thank you. In that case, I will revise my motion for the lesser variance of 30 feet for the driveway width. Very good. Thank you, staff, for catching that. Applicant, the engineers. So moved. Second. We have a motion by Mr. Gross, seconded by Mr. Clark. Any further questions or comments? Applicant has approved that. It's time to vote. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Glad we were able to accommodate. Yes, sir. Thank you. Our next case is PLN VOA 25-93, Randy and Stephanie Lambert. This has been recommended for disapproval. If you all will have a seat and staff will present first. Thank you. James Mills, Planning Staff. Today I want to present to you a request by Randy and Stephanie Lambert to reduce the required front yard setback from 40 feet to zero feet in a single family residential R1B zone on property located at 608 Autumn Lane. The sections of zoning ordinance that are applicable today are the driveway for residential, which means 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 8-6 states that the minimum front yard setback in the R1B zone is 40 feet. Taking a look at the view of the general vicinity of the subject property, you can see it right here in the center of your screen highlighted in blue. Located along Autumn Lane. We are just off of, I believe this is Turkey Foot Road, next to its intersection with Tate's Creek Road. Zooming on the aerial of the subject property, you can kind of see the house here, the parking area to the side of the principal structure, and the former driveway that used to exist on the property. Taking a look at the Google Street view of the subject property, you can kind of see where the driveway is over here. This is your principal structure in the center of your screen. This is the site when the applicant has provided. The applicant is showing a new driveway that kind of goes at an angle through kind of the front yard area of the principal structure here into the parking area, which is also proposed to be added to and expanded. The applicant's justification, they originally opined that the original driveway's distance from the right of way to the corner of the structure is approximately 71 feet. The applicant asserts that the proposed driveway distance from the right of way to the corner of the structure is 65 feet. They claim this demonstrates that the proposed driveway is in fact a short distance and reasonable from the residence of the roadway. They also add that four of the driveways in the area have circle driveways out of the 11 residences. Only one other residence has a driveway which enters the side of the residence, such as the applicant's. The zoning ordinance definition, however, is that it's a paved vehicular access extending on the shortest reasonable path through the front or side street side yard to the off street parking area, not to the structure. The original driveway distance from the right of way is 58 feet. The proposed driveway is 73 feet, so not meeting that shortest reasonable distance in staff's view. Kind of highlighting this here, you have the green where the applicant states this driveway is longer to the side of the structure while their proposed is shorter to the side of the principal structure. However, as stated before, the zoning ordinance doesn't take into consideration the structure itself but just the off street parking area. Additionally, in the general vicinity of the subject property, you see two, three circle driveways. This one does not front onto Autumn Lane but onto Turkey Foot Road. The rest are single driveways that go to an off street parking area or garage. Additionally, the applicant started work without permits. A complaint was started with the Division of Building Inspection for work being done at 608 Autumn Lane. A site inspection the next day, on June 10, 2025, determined that the complaint was valid with BI stopping the contractor from adding a circle driveway and making the owner apply for a paving permit. On June 18, it was determined that the first iteration of the paving site plan did not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance necessitating a variance. Since then, the applicant has worked on several different designs. First, it was a circle driveway. Then it came at an angle from across the lot, which still needed a variance to what you are seeing today. With that, staff is recommending disapproval. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7 of the zoning ordinance. There do not appear to be special circumstances that are unique to the subject property that do not generally apply to the lane in the general vicinity or in the same zone that justifies the need for the variance. The property is in similar size, shape, and character to other properties in the general vicinity. While some non-conforming circle driveways are present in the existing neighborhood, the neighborhood is largely characterized with standard driveways that do not feature paid front yard areas. Additionally, the applicant has not provided sufficient justification to determine that strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship or deprive the applicant of reasonable use of their land. The property's existing driveway, proposed expanded parking area, and original driveway configuration provided an opportunity for vehicles to turn around on the subject property. The property's original driveway met the zoning ordinance definition of the shortest reasonable path. Finally, the granting of the variance could allow for an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning ordinance as the applicant began construction without securing the proper paving permits and approvals. And with that, any questions? Any questions of staff? Thank you. Good afternoon, Scott Schutte on behalf of the applicants, Randy and Stephanie Lambert. If you can stay on theirs one second, I want to go back to the timeline real quick. When we talk about willful violations, which are basis to deny variance requests, the idea of willful is that you know that there's a requirement out there and you're willfully violating that. In this situation, we had a contractor that told us that there was no permits that were required and that we were good to go forward. Our applicant, looking out on the street, seeing four or five other circle driveways, thought, okay, well, this is allowed in the neighborhood, I'm allowed to put it in the driveway. Building inspection comes out and says, no, you need a paving permit. Work stops that day. No work has been done since that occurred. Since then, the applicant attempted to work with Mr. Barton at the Division of Building Inspection. He worked with the traffic engineers. Every time he submitted an application before submitting it, it would send it to Mr. Barton and traffic engineering. Everybody would say, that's fine, that looks approvable. We'd go through the process, we'd get the staff review, it would be denied. When I was first contacted, I looked at the ordinance trying to figure out what variance do we need. The first response we get is from Ms. Wade that says, look at the definition. So we go look at the definition that says the reasonable shortest path. In that, it is not just simply the shortest path. It is the shortest reasonable path. And so I said, okay, are we appealing your determination of that or do we need a variance? Staff determined that we need a variance. I'm of the belief that we don't need a variance. Your ordinance permits driveways in the front yard under section 16. We'd meet all of the dimensional requirements. The only requirement we don't meet is staff's interpretation of the reasonable shortest path. So that's kind of how we got here today. If we can go to our presentation quickly. So the original iteration of this project, yes, there was the idea of a circle driveway. Once that was dug into and we realized the regulations and I was contacted, we immediately told the applicant, just stop considering that. We're not going to get a circle driveway here. Let's see about relocating it to a better location on the property. So if you look at the definition of the driveway, if you look at the definition of the driveway, it's the shortest reasonable path through the front yard or side yard to the parking area. And so when you look at section 16, it talks about no spaces in the front yard. That is a parking space, not a driveway. Section 16 also expressly permits the driveways and pathways in the front yard if they meet the definitional requirements and dimensional requirements. We meet all of the dimensional requirements. We don't align with staff's interpretation of shortest reasonable path. So when I think of a variance, we're varying a dimensional requirement or a setback, something along those lines. We don't need a variance for any dimensional setback or any width requirement. What we need is an appeal or a variance of staff's determination that our proposed design is not the shortest reasonable path. And this is iterated in the staff report where it talks about the design of the driveway does not meet the zoning ordinance requirement that the driveway be the shortest reasonable path. And so that's what we're here about today. It's the shortest reasonable path. We're not here today about circle driveways. We're not here about adding more concrete to a piece of property than is necessary. This is a photograph of 2002 when this residence was originally built. That is a circle driveway. Every other property on Autumn Lane, every single property, enters through the front yard and directly into the residence, meaning when you pull into every other property's driveway, you get to see the residence that you're pulling into. This is today, 2025. Again, everybody else's driveways are the same. This house was rebuilt in 2008. The applicants had nothing to do about the design or the redesign of that property. It was purchased after being built. If you see here, now the driveway goes away from the residence. If you pull into this driveway, at no point in time will you be able to see the front of this residence, and at no point in time will you be able to be confirmed that that's 608 Autumn Lane until you get up there and walk to the front door. In addition, in changing our location, if you'll see here, it's a little difficult with the trees, but that is a driveway for the property directly across. These two driveways empty directly into each other. Mr. and Mrs. Lambert have young children that are now starting to drive. At this point, they would like to remove that conflict point and hopefully avoid any type of accidents. When you also look at this property, right in this area is a mailbox and a fire hydrant. Our estimates are about 15,000 to move those. So we think that the true shortest path, the absolute shortest path would be directly through that fire hydrant. So in our opinion, it's reasonable that you could either go to the left or the right of that. Our client, being the owner of the property, would like to go to the other side of the fire hydrant. This is the proposal as we have submitted today. You'll see it's 24 at the entrance to the parking, 24 at the street, 22, same as this area here, same width, same everything, meets all the dimensional requirements of the ordinance, except goes on the other side of the mailbox and fire hydrant versus this side of it. It's probably the same decision that the original builder did when they built this house in 2008. They probably sat down and made a determination, do we want to just run it to the left or run it to the right? They made that decision. My client would like to make the other decision. And so what we have done and what we put in our justification letter is the discussion about the distance. And so what we took was the distance from that corner to the center of both of the proposed, or the existing and the proposed driveway, 65 for 71. If you want to run it from the middle, we don't think staff's numbers that they submitted earlier are accurate if you run it from the middle of the parking pad. But again, we're talking about a difference based on our calculations of about six feet. Is that what we're really here to do about driveways, is to tell people that a six-foot difference in directional of your driveway is unreasonable? And so that's kind of where we're at today. We think what we're proposing is reasonable. We understand that staff is opposed to the circle driveways. We're not proposing a circle driveway. That is exactly what we're proposing and what we're preparing to build. So with that, we'd ask for staff's determination that what we've shown is not the shortest reasonable path actually is and that this variance can be approved. So it looks like you're going to take up part of the existing driveway? The existing driveway except for this little section right here, like where it's already in the drive lane for the proposed driveway, that will stay. Everything down will get refilled with grass and sod. Yeah, that's right. Okay, I was trying to read that from here. Refill with topsoil and sod. Thank you. So what about Article 1-11, the fact that this doesn't satisfy that in the fact that you have a driveway in the front of the house? Section 16 directly says, if you go back, Section 16-5A says, for single family detached dwelling units, no space, which means a parking space, shall be located within the required front yard or side street yard. If you continue reading 16-5A-3, it says, paving within a required front yard or side street yard shall be limited to walkways and residential driveways. All right, let me ask you this. It's my impression that the original driveway has been removed completely and re-sodded. Is that correct? I don't know that it's been re-sodded yet. No, I think it's still gravel because we're in flux right now. But it's grass. It will be put to grass at the new proposal. It's grass now, is it not? No, I think it's gravel right now. The original driveway? Yeah. I just saw it yesterday. It may have a little topsoil in it, right? Okay. There's grass on it. I have a picture. I'm pretty sure of that. And then the proposed driveway has already been cut, has it not, and gravel put on it? Right. So if we don't put gravel on it, then we get worried about runoff and stuff like that going down the road. I understand. But what I'm saying, it's already been cut. I believe the entire circle was cut. No, this was exactly what was on the design. Yeah, and so when we originally moved to cut it with the contractor and originally proposed it, that was a proposed circle driveway. I don't believe the circle driveway is completely cut yet. So it's work site. Excuse me, this is not the circle driveway. This is the driveway on the design that we're going to approve. That's not been cut yet? That's not been cut yet, no. Where is the gravel then in the front? What do you mean where is the gravel? The gravel is in the front yard in areas where dirt has been displaced. There was about three, if you look in the staff report, there was three or four different iterations of this plan trying to cost save at that point because we get told the original design is no. So we work with staff and engineering and building inspection trying to find a happy medium. And so during that process, we stopped construction. So no construction has occurred since that June 10th date when building inspection was out there. So when the construction stopped, what was there? What was left? What was left where? Well, when they finished, what was there? What did they do to finish? Where did they stop? If I understand where you're at, what condition was it in when it was stopped? Yeah. There was rock placed there. That's right. There was rock gravel placed in the cut areas. Okay. In the design that we're trying to approve? The design that we're trying to approve is not cut yet. One more question. Why is it necessary for people to see the front of the house before they pull into the driveway? I'm not quite understanding that. One good example would be say you have children and they have friends coming over. If I have a young child that doesn't necessarily know the neighborhood or hasn't been there before, they may not take the time to drive up to this circle, do a U around the circle, look back at the house, and get the identification of it. What we don't want to have happen is them come up here and go into somebody else's driveway. And again, I don't know that it's a – are we really at a point where we're telling people that – a good example, if this was a brand new build, I don't think there would be any issue approving the proposed driveway as is. But because there's already one located, then it becomes an issue of changing it. But if it was a new build, I think this would be entirely approvable without issue. Thank you. Any other questions? I have one. Could you put your diagram up here of where you measured your distances? I guess my question is, was the planning staff measuring to the same point in the house? No. On the house? No. Staff measured – which may be appropriate. Staff measured from directly in the middle of the parkway, which is right on the purple line, which is probably – which is what the ordinance calls for. The direct, shortest, reasonable path from the parking area. And so our position is, with that reasonable term in there, it's not simply we're looking at the numbers and saying, shortest one, here we go. We've got to look at it reasonably and say, all right, look, these people want to make reasonable use of their property. They like this design better than the one that's theirs. They've presented reasonable explanations for why they think this actually cures some of the conflict points on Autumn Lane and provides them what they would like to see at their residence. Without creating a circle drive or adding copious amounts of pavement, which we know staff and the commission prefers to avoid. Questions or comments? This is for staff. So condition one, it talks about that the property is similar size and shape and character, though the properties, while some non-conforming circular driveways are present, the neighborhood is largely characterized with standard driveways and do not feature paved front yard areas. Would this change that since it's not a circular driveway? And one other point, just to address that directly. I was asking staff. That's fine. If I could have a chance to just respond. You don't really have a lot of driveways in this area that do the same maneuvers that this driveway is asking for, so it probably would change the character of the area. But, again. Thank you. And if I could just address that point. If you look at the residence. Oh, sorry. So the residence is not directly. So where this driveway goes to empty out is almost a straight line right down to Autumn Lane. This house is oriented towards the cul-de-sac. And it's granted it's the lot layout and the way the front yard lays out, but it is directed more towards the cul-de-sac as opposed to directly down to Autumn Lane. So we think that's a little bit different than every other house that's located on Autumn Lane. Mr. Gross, do you have a question? I do. I appreciate your presentation, Scott. But my concern is trying to find what your – where do we end? How do we make this a rule that's not open every single time? I realize it says reasonable. But what if you wanted to move your driveway ten more feet closer in front of the house? I think I would be more comfortable if your – well, give me a second. If your driveway was completely in the side yard versus creeping in front of the front yard, I think that is a rule that I could get behind saying, okay, yeah, you've got some flexibility. You're not moving your yard into the front. It's all going to be located in the side yard. Is that something you guys looked at? I know you'd have to narrow your width down at the front edge to make that happen. But I'm just trying to come up with a rule that your neighbor is not going to come in and say, okay, now I want something in the front yard. And by reasonable, we think eight feet longer than the shortest distance is now reasonable. And at what point do we get in a situation that we're continuously not replicating a request over and over again? So two questions. Number one is can you move your entire driveway into the front yard? Not front yard, the side yard. And then two, what would you come up with a rule to give us some parameters for the next application so we don't have driveways in the front yards? If I could start in reverse order there. I think my thoughts about the idea of the definition and how we look at these driveways is that's the point of the Board of Adjustments is that's what you all are tasked with doing is looking at these and looking at circumstances like the driveways that empty out into each other, like the mailbox and the fire hydrant, and saying, okay, this is a little bit. That's not going to occur on every property. Those circumstances aren't going to be there. So I don't think that there's a direct number that you should be looking at or a direct distance requirement or a difference that says, okay, now that we're more than ten feet apart from each other as to the original verse proposed, then we can't approve it. I think that becomes too regimented. I think the reasonableness is fine to look at it that way, but I think within reason. I mean, if people come in with an explanation and explain why it makes sense to them and it makes sense visually, then I think it should be approvable at that point. Otherwise, I think you should have some design aspect of your own residence and your own lot and how you want it done. I understand that there are parameters that we all must play within, and I think that this meets the intent of the zoning ordinance and especially Section 16 of the zoning ordinance, that the intent expressly states that the intent is not to restrict people from having driveways where they want them. The intent of Section 16 is to provide necessary driveways and parking areas for the occupants. And so it's occupant-based and it's employee-based and it's user-based. And so that's where I have a difficulty with the idea of us really harping on this idea. I understand the circle driveways. That is a different ballgame. But when you're looking at kind of a linear straight-line driveway, granted there's a curvature in it around the fire hydrant, I think we're cutting hairs at that point. But as for the side yard question, are you referring to bringing it all the way back this way? No. You've got a purple dash line. You've got a purple dash line. There we go. That's where you're showing how it lines up. But if you go down to the house, you're maybe one foot in the front yard versus being completely in the side yard. And so that's where I get into an issue because then the ordinance says, well, you expressly can do that. It says you expressly can do pathways and driveways within your front yard. And so then that brings us back around to the reasonable shortest path interpretation. And so just to solidify on that, so moving it further back this way, that's where we implicate the $15,000 to move the fire hydrant. Any further questions? Staff would like to rebuttal. Staff has a rebuttal. Staff has a rebuttal. The applicant's argument that you can't see the address from the property unless you go around the circle. The mailbox says 608 Autumn Lane. If you're past the driveway a little bit on a local road, you can reverse back and pull in. There's not traffic concerns on Autumn Lane. Additionally, the shortest reasonable path. Can you go back to the PowerPoint, please? Thank you. I should have specified. Additionally, the zoning ordinance states 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. When we did the math and measured this out, from this old, where the previous driveway was, to the off-street parking area was 58 feet. From where this starts to the off-street parking area was 73 feet. Whenever it comes to a reasonable shortest path, what we kind of look at is, is there some sort of environmental features like this fire hydrant or mailbox that would prevent you from putting a driveway there? However, there's nothing that prevents them from putting a driveway back in its original location. There's no environmental feature or something that prohibits this from being reconstructed. I'm not arguing with the measurements at this point, but I guess my thought is that truly the shortest reasonable path, I believe, is directly to the fire hydrant. It would be straight out there. That is the shortest reasonable path. At that point, it's a judgment call. Is your reasonableness or the way you would like your driveway to the left or the right of that? The original developer decided that it was to the left. The current property owner believes that it's more reasonable to be to the right so that when you're entering the property, you see the house. You're not just pulling into the backside. Again, to me, that's a judgment call that the board is entrusted with to decide what's reasonable and what's unreasonable. I don't think that what we have shown is even the slightest bit unreasonable. Were you finished with your rebuttal, Mr. Mills? Would you let staff complete their comments, please? Yes. Were you finished with your rebuttal, Mr. Mills? I wasn't fully. I wasn't fully. Additionally, as we have stated, whether it's the contractor or property owner, the work was started before receiving the proper permits. This was done without receiving the proper permits and approvals from building inspection, traffic engineering, and planning. I'm finished with my rebuttal. Any questions for staff? Thank you. Like you said on one of the prior applications, that was for a contractor error. It happens all the time. It's something you don't want to come in here and try and explain. It's a terrible position to be in, but it happens. You trust people that you're paying to make the right judgment calls and to follow the proper procedures. The only advice I would say is if you're going to do a driveway, get a local contractor, not somebody from outside the county, even if they're registered to do work here. There's nuances to our ordinance with that. We'd ask for approval of our application and disapproval of staff's recommendation of disapproval. Thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? There was someone that had signed in to speak. Mr. Zoeller, is he still here? Okay. I just wanted to check. I think he was here in support for the contractor. So when someone signs in, they have an option to select support or opposition, and this person indicated civic opinion, so I'm not sure what that really means. I was just hoping to invite him up to the microphone today to speak. Any further discussion? This is a tough one. I think I would be generally supportive of this just because there is a level of freedom with owning your property, and shortest reasonable path. They're not taking a soiree around the entire block. It's just a preference of, like you said, it's right side or left side. I own a little farm, and sometimes I alter my path because I want to drive by the creek. This ends up being an approach to the place that you've worked hard for that you kind of want to see. And I get there's all other reasons not to do it and things like that, but it just seems to be within range of an excusability, just like the case we had prior where I'm not looking for a percentage necessarily from you saying, okay, it's a 10% limit or 15% limit outside of the variance. It's just we're supposed to be the soft end of the ordinance saying, you know, it's still going to look good. It's not circumventing anything. It's reasonable. You're not adding another 80 feet. So, generally speaking, I would be supportive of allowing this. Thanks. Mr. Walker, I agree with you. The ordinance doesn't say the shortest path. It does say the shortest reasonable path. I think that gives us some discretion to look at the totality and figure out whether or not we think it's a reasonable location. And so I would be supportive of a motion if you had a motion to approve and there was not motions to deny. Any other comments? Would you all like to change the language in that? Well, I guess, Mr. Walker, are you going to make a motion to approve? Because if so, we'll need a recess for you to get findings and conclusions. That's where I'd like to head if you guys are kind of generally – I hate to put Brittany to the task of doing this if everybody's not somewhat heading that way. So, yeah, if you'll give us five minutes. Mr. Chair, before we recess, just a reminder, I've got to leave here sometime soon. Lafayette High School's freshman orientation starts at 5, and so I may have time for one more case, but I will be leaving shortly. Thank you. Thank you. Let's take a five-minute recess to change the language in this application. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll call the meeting back to order, please. Do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, I'd like to move to approve with regard to PLMBOA 25-93, Randy and Stephanie Lambert's request for a variance to the front yard setback from 40 to 0 feet based on the following findings of fact. Move to approve based on the following facts. Oh, and move to approve based on the following facts. I should have kept the approve part in there. Number one, granting the variance should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the general vicinity nor cause a hazard or nuisance to the public. All properties along the cul-de-sac adjacent to Autumn Lane have driveways through the front yard that allow a direct path to the front door. This variance would help align the driveway to the front door in keeping with that pattern of the neighborhood. And number two, the variance request does not circumvent the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The requested site plan still allows a pathway of a reasonable distance. Testimony also shows that the site plan had to avoid relocation of a fire hydrant, which requires extra paving to curve around the hydrant toward the front door. This approval is conditioned upon the following. Number one, construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials in the site plan. And number two, all necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to paving. So moved. Thank you. A motion to approve by Mr. Walker. Do I have a second? Second. Second. We have a second from Mr. Gross. Any further discussion? Let's move to a vote. We have an approval. Thank you all very much. I'll volunteer my time if we ever decide to rewrite that ordinance section. Our next case on the H.E.R.D. docket is PLN VOA 25-94, Gibson Taylor Thompson. This has been recommended by the staff for disapproval. Will the staff please present. James Mills, Planning Staff, today I'm going to present to you a request by Gibson Taylor Thompson for variances to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 14 feet and reduce the required side yard setback from 8 feet to 1 foot 6 inches in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 234 Blendover Road. Some warning sections that are relevant to this case is that the minimum front yard setback in the R1C zone is 30 feet and the minimum side yard setback is 8 feet. Taking a look at the general vicinity in the center of your screen here you have 234 Blendover Road near the intersection of Blendover Road and Valley Road. Taking a look at the Google Street View of the subject property you can see the principal structure in the center of your screen here and then over here on the other side you have the current garage and driveway that exists on the subject property. Taking a look at the aerial view of the subject property you can kind of see where it's located at this corner of this intersection and the site plan shows what they are proposing to do which is to add, to turn this area over here where the garage is currently into living space and add a new garage on which requires a 14, to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 14 feet and reduce that side yard setback to 1 foot 6 inches. Taking a look at the general vicinity of the subject property this is a rare case where every property in the area has a 30 yard setback, front yard setback and the vast majority do not have a setback less than 3 feet in the side yard. In the general vicinity throughout the entirety of this area you have corner lots that have that 30 feet setback along Blendover but also along Valley Road. I was hard pressed to find one without that 30 foot front yard setback and additionally everything has at least 3 feet. Most properties have the 8 foot but if they have one side yard that's 8 the other one might be 3 however everything in this area has that 30 foot front yard setback. Because of that staff is recommending disapproval for the following reasons, the applicant has not provided sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance or KRS-100. There do not appear to be special circumstances that are unique to the subject property that do not generally apply to the land in the general vicinity or in the same zone that justify the need for the variances. Similar lots in the general vicinity have a minimum of 30 feet from their front yards with corner lots that have constricted rear yards such as this one. Going back to this view you have several corner lot properties that have that constricted rear yard that still have that 30 foot front yard. Graining the front yard variance would alter the essential character of the general vicinity. None of the surrounding properties have setbacks similar to the requested variances. Graining the side yard variance could adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare due to fire access concerns. And with that, any questions? I was having a hard time following the site plan. How many square feet are they proposing to add? Is it the 304 number addition first floor footprint or is it that plus the garage? It's that plus the garage. So we're looking at 700, almost 800 feet. It's almost 800 feet. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure I was right. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? I have one question. You stated fire access concerns. Do you mean as far as? The three foot setback is kind of uniform in the ordinance because of fire access concerns. They need at least three feet to take care of fires on the subject property. If you recall, we discussed this at the one at the golf course? That's correct. Andover Village Place, I think, is where they couldn't access the rear yard because of the deck being on the property line and not having the three foot for safety. Thank you. Will the applicant please come forward? Please state your name for the record, please. My name is Barron Gibson and let's see, we've got a presentation, just a few slides to show in addition to what staff has shown. Let's see if we can get that pulled up. Okay, perfect. I'm here representing the homeowners at 234 Glendover. They're also here to speak on behalf of their project as well. And we're speaking regarding our request for the front yard and side yard setback variances to allow for this, in our opinion, modest integrated garage addition. The property sits on an irregular corner lot at Glendover and Valley with a converging front and side yard lot lines creating two effective front yard setbacks for our side street side yard. This unique geometry significantly reduces the buildable area, especially in the rear yard and limits any feasible location for an attached garage without a variance. The existing home is in modest scale and in about 13,1350 square feet with the attached garage that is functionally unusable for modern vehicles today. Our proposal is to convert the current garage into much needed living space, including the new bedroom suite and construct a new garage positioned to allow safe vehicle access and circulation throughout the house. So I'll show you. This is our proposal. As you can see in the previous site plan, there is very limited backyard space. There's very limited side yard space. This being a very unique corner lot, that 30-foot setback renders this the only viable place to add on at all to this house. And so with 1,350 square feet and a garage that's effectively unusable, the only way to get a garage that is adequate for any vehicle is to make it happen in this space. Our design goals have been clear from the start. We want to keep the garage low and discreet, maintaining the low roof line that is consistent with the mid-century character of the existing home. We want to match roof pitches, although we're not looking at elevations today. We're looking at plans, but that is our intent architecturally, so that the addition blends seamlessly with the existing architecture. We'd like to create a functional solution that addresses the family's needs without overwhelming the streetscape. So this is the existing floor plan of the house. You can see it was built in the 50s and really hasn't been renovated or touched until today. The garage is still the same size, and it doesn't work for a modern vehicle. In our opinion, the variance is justified due to several key points. Unique lot constraints, the combination of two front setbacks and a shallow rear yard, and the home's existing footprint is not a condition faced by most properties in the vicinity. Without relief, the homeowners cannot reasonably expand their home to meet basic family needs while also providing safe, functional vehicle storage. It has minimal impact on neighborhood character. We have one neighbor that's here to speak in support of this motion. The proposed garage is designed to align visually with the home's architecture and keep a low profile and avoid dominating the corner. It will not create a wall along the street, and landscaping can further soften its presence. There's no adverse safety impact. The garage will be built to meet all fire safety codes. If we were to provide an accessory structure, accessory structures can be built within 18 inches of the property line. We would typically have to fire rate that wall with 5-8 type X drywall for the sheathing per building code. The only thing that separates this from being a detached garage accessory structure is this infilled corner, which continues this rectilinear form of this mid-century home. Our proposal to increase this home's functionality and be able to allow it to be something that is conducive for future use is to add on to it the way that we've shown. We respectfully ask that the Board approve this variance so that this family can remain in their home and improve its functionality and preserve its architectural integrity for years to come. Any questions? You must have done a good job. There's no questions. Thank you. Thank you. Please state your name for the record, please. Lindsey Poore. And I'm William Poore. Good afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity to speak with you all today. We wanted to speak today in tandem with our architects about our proposed build. My husband and I have owned the home since 2009. We hope that we never have to leave the home, in fact. One thing that we did want to include in our points that we mentioned today is that we are of the belief that a precedent does exist in this case directly across the street from us. Our neighbor was granted a couple of variances, and I have those in my possession with me today. He was given a front yard setback. It was reduced from 30 feet to 7 feet 8 inches for an in-ground pool, and he was also granted a variance for a 6-foot privacy fence in his front yard. And, again, he is directly across the street from our lot, located at 223 Glendover Road. And then just to sort of build upon what Barron already shared with you, the current size restrictions of 1350 square feet, in looking at our lot and the layout and the position of our home on the lot, there really is no additional place for us to go to accommodate additional family members one day. And certainly if the proposal had ever included building up, I think personally that that would be far more detrimental to the character of our neighborhood in the immediate vicinity. That's beautifully said. Jeff, if you want to come up, he could speak to the character of the neighborhood better than about anybody else. He's been there for, I think, 25 years. Twenty-nine. Twenty-nine years. Thanks, Jeff. Thank you all. My name is Jeff Wiseman. We're at 223 Glendover Road. I've been there, I think, 29 years. Don't hold me to that. It could be 34. It could be 24. We were granted the pool across the street. We have a similar lot that's triangular and really couldn't do it anywhere else. And our other option was to move, and we didn't want to do that. These folks have been there quite some time, and thankfully the board allowed us to do that. But I would certainly urge you to grant them this as well, because number one, like Lindsay said, which I didn't know she was going to talk about that, but I don't want anybody going up over there, because these are all mid-century homes that were built in the 50s, and this is not offensive at all to anybody. And, you know, I think that at some point this needs to be, you all need to listen to the neighborhood and listen to what we want. And I'm completely fine with this. I think all the neighbors are. There's nobody here objecting it. So, you know, I just, there's no way for the, I'd rather, I want them to stay as long as I'm alive. They're quite a bit younger than me, and, you know, I'd much prefer that than having this turn into student housing or something like that. You know, give them a chance to raise a family there in a nice neighborhood rather than going out to Hamburg or whatever. And I see no problem with this at all. Any questions? Thank you, sir, for your comments. Thank you all. Staff have any additional comments? Would you like to speak? We had several people raise their hand that they wanted to speak. Would you like to speak? Yes. Please step up. State your name for the record, please. Hi, my name is Andy Meade, and I live at 121 Edgemoor Drive. That's about a block from the subject property. You will have three minutes. Okay, yes. I am president of the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association, which includes a portion of Glendover Road under consideration here. And I speak for the board in opposing this variance. We had initial reservations about this change, and they were strengthened especially about the side yard reduction. They were strengthened when we read the staff recommendation for denial. Like the staff, we're concerned that the change could adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare due to lack of fire access. And we, too, believe that reducing the front yard setback would alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it's really a beautiful street, and we would hate to see this change. I'm concerned a little bit. I really can't tell, but that's a really tricky intersection there. And anything that would stick out there and keep people from seeing what's around the corner, there's lots of screeching tires there. Anyway, the staff points out that similarly situated properties are doing without this. I mean, they're doing just fine with the existing rules. So I want to thank you for your time and ask you to vote no. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Can I have a rebuttal, please? I supported his variance. Andy and I have known each other a long time. Our kids were in scouts together, and I was a scout leader. So we're friendly neighbors. But also, I mean, I think that the safety issue is not an issue. First of all, it's within the fire coordinates, and there's no issue with blocking the view. I can guarantee you that. We do have an issue with speeding on the street with everybody going to Central Baptist, but this has nothing to do with that, certainly. And, again, I just want to make sure you understand that we definitely support this. Thank you. Staff comments? A couple. The front yard variance that was granted at that property was for a pool, not the principal structure being expanded upon. Additionally, the other variance that was granted at the property was for a height increase to the fence to make that pool less of an impact on the visual landscape of that area. That's about it. Applicant, a short rebuttal? Just in closing, I mean, this is without granting a variance, there's no way to add on to this house to increase its usability. So ultimately, a variance would have to be granted at some point to be able to increase the footprint or square footage of this house, which is modest in scale. I think there's a way to do that. We've done our best at attempting to do this and maintain the character that will ultimately be translated to the architectural design. In terms of fire rating, I equate this to no different than the safety aspects that you would have with an accessory structure that sits 18 inches from the property line, which is effectively what we've added. It's a unique shape, but the garage, which would be size no different than any other accessory structure that we could possibly add to any other site, is still modest in scale, two-car garage. So this is, in our opinion, the only way to add on to this building without going vertical and then changing the character of the neighborhood and the house. Staff just wants to clarify one thing. I know you'd said that there would have to be a variance for an addition that might be correct going this way, but there is room in the backyard for, I mean, there's 30-ish feet back there in the back of the yard, and it's, I think, a 10-foot required setback for the rear yard. So it may not be a garage, but there is, I just want to make a point of clarification, there is room for an addition to the rear of the structure. Sure, and I think our point is to try to accommodate covered parking as well, because the existing garage is not sized, will not fit a modern vehicle. So if you're going to, in our opinion, the most efficient way to do that is to capture the existing garage space as usable space and then add a new garage. If we simply do an addition on the back, we have the issue of a garage that's still useless, other than storage space attached to the house. The garage could be expanded upon up to that 30-foot built line as well. So that's another option as well. Sure. If I could chime in, I think the staff's also quite concerned about this assertion that 18 inches is acceptable for a principal structure. It's very different from an accessory structure. There are fire code requirements for that that have to be met, and, of course, if a variance is granted, you would have to meet that. I don't want the board or your firm or the neighbors to think that 18 inches is acceptable in terms of a fire code requirement, because it just simply isn't. Even if you can fire rate the building right there, a firefighter cannot get through 18 inches with their equipment on their backs. So if there is a need to get into the backyard and you happen to have a fence there, that prevents that from happening. I don't want anyone to think that anyone thinks 18 inches is acceptable in terms of fire service and protection for structures. Sure. I hear that. We design a lot of accessory structures that are within 18 inches, right at 18 inches on the property line, all the time. The only thing that separates that from this is that connection space in the middle. I had a question, too. I went by there, but I can't remember. When you kind of whip around the house, there's no stop sign right there either, is there, that kind of goes around that turn? There is a stop sign. That's what I thought. So it just goes and there's not a stop sign. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other discussion? Thank you. Do I have a motion? I spent some time there yesterday just looking at the house and looking at the diagram. Before I got there, I thought, well, this is probably not acceptable. I would certainly take the staff's recommendation. But when I got there, I realized when I looked at it, the angle of the driveway, the positioning of the house on this particular lot, I thought, well, you know, I don't see anything else they could do. So I would probably be in favor of this, but only if there's some sentiment among the board that we could move in that direction. I think I normally would be, too, but this three-foot has got me a little concerned. You know what I mean? It gets into a little bit of a safety, and I think the staff, willingly or not, has kind of thrown you a bone within which you could work. Yeah, looking at it, the garage doors are back farther than everybody else. You've got room there that you could make some sort of reasonable accommodation. But me personally, I think you still are going to have to address that. If you continue out the current footprint, it just narrows and narrows closer to the property line, and that does get into a bit of a safety issue that I think me personally, I would be pretty concerned with. I would support the denial. I don't think 18 inches is going to work for me in this application. With that being said, any other comments? I will say this. That was not opening up to the public. If I could just say about the fire rating issue to the side. If that's the main hang-up, I could speak to that briefly. No? Okay. With that being said, I'm going to support the staff and recommend a disapproval of PLNB. With that being said, I'm going to support the staff and recommend a disapproval of PLNBOA 2594, Gibson-Taylor-Thompson's request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 14 feet and reduce the required side yard setback from 8 feet to 1 foot 6 inches in an R1C zone at property located at 234 Glendover Road based upon the staff's reports. The testimony given today so moved. We have a motion from Mr. Gross. Do we hear a second? Second. We have a second from Mr. Persily. Any other discussion? Let's put it to a vote. And real quick, this does not mean your project is dead. It's just dead in this form. You just have to go back and do some tweaking, but we have pretty consistently not permitted 18-inch areas for buildings. It's just a safety issue. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to take off. Thank you. Good job today. Thank you. It's freshman orientation. No, no, no. I hope Margo doesn't lose orientation. Yeah, orientation. So I'll see you guys next month. Careful. Our next case on the conditional uses and variances herd docket is our last case in that category, BLM 25-95. Gibson-Taylor-Thompson. You got my hopes up when you said last case. This is a request by Gibson-Taylor-Thompson for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 5 feet 6 inches to 2 feet within a neighborhood design character overlay in D1 zone in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 340 Hart Road. There are several sections of the ordinance relevant to our request today. Article 8-7 states the minimum side yard in the R1C zone is 8 feet. Article 15-2B-6 states where the side wall of the building is not parallel with the side lot line or is broken or otherwise irregular, the average width of the side yard shall not be less than the otherwise required least width. At no point shall the side yard be narrower than one-half the otherwise required side yard, nor shall it be narrower than 3 feet in any case. Additionally, 15-2B-7 states on any lot in a residential zone where the principal structure does not meet the minimum required side yard for that zone, if the side yard is legally nonconforming, additions to the principal structure may be made which have the same side yard as the original structure. In no case shall the addition be closer than 3 feet to the adjoining property lines. And 15-5C states, in this case, not to go through the whole list, but fireplaces, for example, may not extend more than 24 inches into any required side yard. Chimneys may extend up to 24 inches into any required side yard provided they are at least 3 feet from all lot lines. Here's an aerial view of the subject property located along Hart Road. Here's our street view of the subject property. And here's our site plan, the structure. This definitely needs to be compressed down, looking at it from this angle, but essentially it is an irregular lot line that starts at 10 feet and goes all the way down to, before their addition, 4 feet, the required being 8 feet in this zone. After that, it moves into 2 feet at its narrowest right here with the proposed porch and a fireplace. Can you enlarge that site plan? I can't enlarge that right now. However, I can show you what this looks like from renderings. I knew that the site plan was going to be an issue, so they had some renderings that they gave us. Looking here, you can see where that porch addition is to the rear of the structure and how it continues in a straight line back with the fireplace located right here, located in the side yard. Going back, because it continues past that 4 feet, past the least required width, it necessitates that variance. But additionally, because there is a fireplace chimney in this side yard, it also necessitates that variance as well, down to that 2 feet. With that, staff is recommending disapproval. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance or KRS 100. They do not appear to be special circumstances that are unique to the subject property that do not generally apply to the land in the general vicinity or in the same zone that justify the need for variances. Other properties in the vicinity are similar in size, shape, and pattern of development. The applicant has determined that strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship or deprive the applicant of reasonable use of their land. The padding and chimney could be built with a slight redesign and configuration that is further from the adjoining property line and still meet the needs of the property owner and meet the zoning ordinance and not necessitate a variance. In addition, greening the variance could negatively affect the public health, safety, and welfare as the setback requirements for chimneys are for fire protection purposes. We did reach out to the applicant through this process and tell them if you slightly move it over and slightly redesign it, you would meet the zoning ordinance and wouldn't have to get this variance. But they wanted to go forward with this request. Any questions? The major element in contention is the fireplace, is that correct? That is one. Additionally, with the patio going up to two feet, that would still necessitate the variance. If they move the patio in slightly and keep it at that four feet, that wouldn't meet the variance. If that chimney was moved over and didn't get closer than the required three feet, then that would not meet the variance either. Their variances are based on this particular design. A slight rework could mean they don't need variances at all. Any questions for staff? Thank you. State your name for the record again. Baron Gibson. I'll start by saying that in some ways from the last case, we're designing around a difficult site. As architects and designers looking at this, we're trying to find ways to do things nicely but also accommodate for our clients' needs. This is certainly one of those cases where what we're proposing is modest in scale. The finished square footage that we're actually proposing to add is 300 square feet. That is just enough to make this house conducive. The house is a 1930s house that hasn't been renovated. For this young family, it's going to be important to have some additional square footage to make this work. I want to address the staff's comments as well. First, I'll start with the site again. You can see that the site is very constrictive as you get to the rear, which makes adding on to the back very difficult. You'll see that this little bump here, that's a one-story bump. Our addition, as I'll show you, comes out over that bump and uses that existing footprint to capture the second floor. Our second floor on the addition comes out over where this concrete patio is. I'll skip ahead. For some reason, that's not showing properly. You can see part of the image. I apologize, it's cut off. This is the existing one-story bump. This is our addition coming out over that space. Our addition is open on the first floor. The constrictive site comes down at a corner and it gets to two feet at about this corner. At this point, which is further back, it's about four feet where the house is. We would be open to talk about the chimney if that were the linchpin for this project. I think my client would certainly be open to moving the chimney even to the rear if that kept this project intact. When we emailed the staff, and I'll just show you the plan. Our footprint is effectively the same, minus this mudroom that we've added on and this covered patio. If I go to the second floor, this is where we're adding square footage to the building. This is, in total, including the mudroom, about 300 square feet. Then this patio projects outward to give a decent covered outdoor living space. What staff proposed to us was to incise this addition. If we were to incise this addition, one, it would architecturally, in my opinion, affect the second floor. Ultimately, we have to move this wall now inward. Now the whole balance of this facade is thrown off. It's going to be harder to make that look symmetrical and attractive on the house. Also, that cuts into the 300 square feet that we desperately need to make this second floor work. Simply moving this in three feet is not going to work with our plan. I think that we definitely would be open to moving the chimney and maybe even modifying our outdoor living space if we needed to pull that in. This addition here is essential to making this house more usable. At the end of the day, there are much more drastically larger additions in this neighborhood that envelop and come over top. We're trying to be sympathetic to the architecture of the existing house. At the end of the day, we're only adding 300 square feet. Any distance you go back on this house is going to start to encroach on your eight foot setback. The existing house already sits at five foot four from the property line, so it's within the eight foot side yard setback. I know that we can average, but the only way to average the side yard is to move this in as staff proposed. Our client doesn't want to do that because that kills the square footage that we need. Any questions? Thank you. Any staff comments? No. I will entertain a motion. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I recommend disapproval of PLN BOA 25-95 Gibson-Taylor-Thompson request for a variance to reduce the required side yard from five feet, six inches to two feet within the neighborhood design character overlay zone in a single family residential zone on a property located at 340 Hart Road based on the staff's recommendation and the, well, there are no conditions. I have a motion from Mr. Clark. Do I hear a second? Second. I have a second from Mr. Persily for disapproval. Let's take it to a vote. Looks like disapproval. Thank you. Now we're moving into the STR portion of our docket. First, we'll consider the expedited BOA 25-73. Is the applicant here? Yes. Step up and state your name, please. This has been recommended by staff for approval. Is there any to speak in opposition to this? Yes. Sure. I'm Sayed Sagayem. I'm the owner of 3853 Plantation Drive. This house was used for my younger brother. He graduated from UK. He got a job in Florida, so he just moved out, and now the house is empty. As an investment, I'm planning to try to do it as a short-term rental. That's the main reason. Instead of the house being just empty, sitting there, I think it's a good idea and a good opportunity for me to use it as a short-term rental now. Any questions for the applicant? I wanted to point out that we have three letters that were submitted in opposition. One had to do with some dogs that were at the STR. That was Laura Dale. We had another from Jessica Hundley in opposition, and another one from Michelle Sexton. So we have three letters of opposition. Just to clarify, Chair, the letter about the concern with the dogs was at a different property, but it had opposition to this property as well, but the dogs were at a different short-term rental, which does not currently have a license, and we'll be letting revenue know about that. So it wasn't this specific property where the dog fight issue, whatever that was, came up. Thank you for pointing that out. So this isn't your current residence? This isn't where you live? No. Okay, because it's listed, you got it listed as your residence, so I was just— It's unhosted, right? Excuse me? Yeah, it's unhosted. Okay. So you live in Lexington? No, right now. Okay. So who would take care of the property? My older brother. Okay, and he lives— He just lives a block there. They live in Clemens Drive. Okay. Yeah, just five minutes of drive from that place. Okay, and you don't live in—do you live in Kentucky? No, not as of now. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Daniel Savanto, 3861 Gladman Way in Plantation. Been there 40 years. My opposition is, number one, it's an older neighborhood. It's going on 50 years in that neighborhood. It is ripe for short-term rentals. The short-term rentals have been made available, hosted. I have one next to me. It has not been a problem, but I know that as soon as this is passed, then they will go for non-hosted. The neighborhood should be with neighbors and not become commercial. I don't necessarily want to live next to a motel, which is basically the unhosted rentals would be. The house that is the short-term now does have a hosted, not the owners, but somebody who is there that we can at least communicate with. We have some type of an association. If we go to a non-hosted, I can tell you it's going to be rampant because of the location and the affordability of those homes. So we're going to end up with I don't know how many we currently have. I know we have at least two. The dog issue, my backyard neighbor walking her dog past a rental home, and that dog was killed because three dogs came running out the front door when somebody opened it, and the dog died under one year old. So that's my opposition to it. It's not so much that he personally can't rent his out on an unhosted basis, but if you open that door, it's going to be all over the place. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any questions for the applicant? One thing for the applicant. Staff comment? Yeah, I just want to. Would you be applying under an LLC or would this be under your name? It's going to be under the LLC. Under the LLC. Okay. We need to know what that LLC is because that needs to match up. If they were to make an approval recommendation, we need to have that name as the applicant. So can you tell us what that LLC would be? Yeah, it's D-I-F-C-S-P. Okay, pause for a minute. Who is the actual record owner of the property? I'm the owner of the property. Okay, so if he's the record owner, then that's who the license will be in the name of, not the LLC. But he wants to transfer it to an LLC. You want to transfer it? Well, that's okay. I already registered an LLC, so I do have everything. Okay. So who is listed as the owner has to be the same person as who you're applying for. So if you're going to transfer the property into an LLC, that's who we would have. The LLC is going to become the person or the entity that owns the property, right, legal? Yeah, if that's who actually owns the property, then that's who the special fee license will be issued to and, therefore, who the conditional use permit needs to be issued to. But you're saying that transfer hasn't happened yet. Yeah, the LLC is going to be under my name. Okay, that's not, okay. You may be a member of the LLC, but if the LLC owns it, then the LLC would be who we would issue the conditional use permit to. But you're saying that you are still record owner, correct? Right, exactly. Okay. Well, then it needs to be issued to the record owner. So if you transfer ownership to an LLC after the conditional use permit is issued to you, then normally it would be void upon transfer. So in that case, I'm just going to keep it under my name. Do I have to? Will the LLC be under a single owner or sole proprietor? A single owner, yeah. I have the information here. If the LLC is a single owner or a sole proprietor, that will be under his social security number. Right. So it will still be able to get a license. Okay. The LLC essentially becomes the DBA of his name. Okay. So what is the LLC that you're going to be? Has it already been formed? Yes. Okay. And what is the name of the LLC? What did you say? What is the name of the LLC? You can see it right here. Oh, okay. Okay. Can you just fill that out? Sorry. Oh, okay. Yeah. Can we take the speaker out? Yeah, we're going to take the speaker out. Yes. Okay. Does this resolve the ownership issue? Yes. Any questions of the applicant? I have a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLMBOA 25-73, Syed Sakhanian. Is that close? Okay. Yes. I should have listened to Bob when he said it first. Request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 3853 Plantation Drive, based on the staff recommendations and subject to the four conditions. You just want this for six people, correct? Definitely, right? The max six people, right? I have a motion to approve from Mr. Walker. Do I have your second? Second. Second from Mr. Clark. Any further discussion? Let's vote. And approve. Thank you. Who didn't vote? Chad didn't vote. Thank you. Motion passed. Yeah, thank you. Next item on the agenda is BOA 25-86. Lot Development, LLC. There's an applicant here. Staff has recommended approval on this. Is there anyone to speak in opposition? No. Are you familiar with the conditions? Yes, I am. And you approve of those? Yes. We accept those. Any comments you'd like to make before we? No, I just thank everyone for their approval. Any questions from the Board? Can I have a motion, please? Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLN BOA 26-86, Lot Development, LLC, request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the defined infill and redevelopment area in the single-family residential zone on property located at 225 Floral Park, based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Could I have a second? Second. Second, Mr. Persily. Motion from Mr. Clark. Any further discussion? Do we vote, please? Mr. Chair, I'm voting yes. I'm confused on my staff, so. Thank you. We have approval. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Good afternoon. Last item on our agenda, BOA 25-82, House and Home, LLC, Annie Williams. Staff has recommended this approval. Staff present, please. Yep. So, just as a note, the applicant had somebody here in support and they were not able to stay, so what's being passed around right now is a handwritten letter of support from their neighbor who was here and was not able to stay. Thank you. Excuse me. So, this is a request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential R1C zone on a property located at 605 Lane Allen Road. You can see the subject property highlighted in light blue here, and I'm circling it with the zoom-in tool. Here is a street view of the property. This is the applicant's site plan. They are showing pretty much what we're usually looking for with a site plan. So, I'm going to bring up the relief provisions here because that's going to come into play. The relief provisions state that, so basically, broad strokes, if there's a short-term rental within 600 feet or more than 2% within 1,000 feet, you can look at the relief provisions and see if those would be met to maybe rule out one of those or cut that number down. Those relief provisions, one of those is that the property is adjacent to a non-residential zone that allows short-term rentals as a principal or accessory use. Second is that there's 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, an unhosted short-term rental within the buffer area is located on the perimeter of the buffer area with part of the property being located outside of the buffer area. In this case, staff does not find that any of those relief provisions have been met. There are two short-term rentals within the 600-foot buffer, so this red line shows the 600-foot buffer. The red rectangle here is the subject property. There's a greenhouse icon right here showing one of the properties, and then up here is showing another one. Staff did not find that any of the relief provisions had been met. So, as noted, there are three short-term rentals within 1,000 feet, which results in a 1.38% concentration. That's not so much the issue here, it's the two within the 600 feet that's causing the recommendation of disapproval. Staff also wants to note that after your staff reports were sent out, that we were made aware by the Division of Revenue on August 4th, that they have tracked five documented short-term rental stays within July of 2025 and eight stays in June of 2025. Without BOA approval or previously being approved without having a license from the Division of Revenue, all short-term rental stays are prohibited. So, while normally that would be essentially the willful violation of the ordinance finding, and that's not in your staff report, because we found out after we had already sent out the staff reports. So, staff does recommend disapproval for the following reasons. First, that three factors in Article 313G of the zoning ordinance have been evaluated, in addition to the requirements of Article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100.237. Second, that no other STRs have been cited in the vicinity as a nuisance and the applicant has no history of compliance issues. However, and this was written beforehand, so that has changed since we've been notified of the undocumented stays, but based on our review of the ArcGIS concentration mapping data, there are two short-term rental units operating within the required 600 foot buffer area. And third, that the applicant does not meet any of the relief provisions set forth in Article 313N of the zoning ordinance. Any questions for staff? Any questions for staff? Just one question. Just to be clear, so, from the last report, you guys have proof of there are obviously two in the area, but there's many more that you are at fault. No, to be clear, so we know there's two short-term rentals in the area, and that's causing reason for disapproval. The undocumented stays are that this specific short-term rental had documented stays within the last two months. So that's why I would, if I was making this disapproval recommendation, I would say that we probably need to modify B, because B currently says there's no history of compliance issues. However, we do have from revenue an email saying that there have been, and that was the number of documented stays I mentioned over the last two months. So continuing to operate when you know you don't have a valid license, I think would be an issue with compliance there. Thank you for the clarification. No problem. Any additional questions? Thank you. Will the applicant please step up? State your name for the record. I'm Annie Williams. Thank you for letting me talk today. I just want to start, I guess, by saying that that is the first that I'd ever heard of. I called down to the Division of Planning and asked them, because I knew that I was no longer technically licensed or whatever, and they said that I did not have to cancel existing reservations. So I think, to me, the main issue here is that I have been in Airbnb for 10 years. I feel like I was one of the original. And so for eight of those years, I never had to do anything. I didn't have to apply. I didn't have to, you know, I just operated. So the majority of the time I was just operating. Then I was grandfathered in. Then last year was the first year that I had to apply or do anything, which I did. And I got, and I was licensed, like, on May 16th of 2024. Now I realize it was a huge misunderstanding, but I thought that it was a year that I had, that was good for a year. So then in May of this year, I call, I mean, I got online to, like, the first of May to reapply or renew my license, and I saw that I was, you know, I got a kickback. Like, you don't have a license. And so I called the Division of Revenue, and she said, she was like, yes, you're past the deadline. She was like, but this is actually really weird because you're not on my list of delinquent properties. So, and in her words, she said, I think you've fallen through the cracks. If I were you, I would try and reapply for a renewal instead of a new application or new license and see if it goes through. So obviously I'm here today. It didn't go through. But back to what I was saying earlier, I have been, like, freely letting the existing reservations, I mean, you can check now, it's not listed, but somebody at the office, and I haven't even had time to check in an email to see if there was a confirmation email of that, but they said to me, like, no, you don't, if there's existing reservations, you don't have to cancel existing reservations. I mean, some of these people could have been booked for a year, you know. But again, I think that the point really here is that I'm asking, most people coming here today wanting you to make a change from what is existing, I'm asking just to allow me to keep it the same. You know, like, I realize it was a huge mistake. Obviously, I will never, ever, ever let it happen again. But we have been operating to date. I think I had somebody stay, you mentioned June and July, but I know I've had a couple August stays, so I guess they just stayed. I just didn't see those. But we have, the three of us, the three properties have been operating simultaneously, even though I was there for like eight years before they were them or something, without incident, without any opposition. The person here today with me who had to leave because she's a teacher and had an open house, she is my immediate next-door neighbor. And so I feel like if anybody was to have a problem with the short-term rental, it would be her. And also, the fact that I've been there for ten years, I feel like I've kind of proven myself. Like, I know people are worried about unhosted short-term rentals, but I'm very active. I even spoke to someone the other day who said, well, I see you around here all the time, I thought you lived here. I was like, no, I'm always over here. I'm not an investor, it's my only property. And, I don't know. I have lots more information. If you want to say something, I don't know. You have questions? I'm just asking for permission to keep it the same. It's a two-bedroom, one-bathroom house, which I'm strict about. I don't allow parties. I don't allow large groups. There's no tailgates. There's never been a single complaint in ten years. It'll be ten years in October. In the two bedrooms, there's one bed in each bedroom. There's no pull-out sofas. There's no air mattresses. There's no bunk beds. I feel like a lot of Airbnbs are trying to maximize that. Out of the neighborhood, as this process began, I started going back through my reservations to see, and I counted six neighbors in the Piccadome Neighborhood Association area who have actually rented it out for their personal use. One of my neighbors always jokes around that it's a neighborhood clubhouse, because I feel like it's the opposite of taking away from the neighborhood. You really enhance the neighborhood. It's almost like an amenity. So my next-door neighbor who was here with me, they redid their backyard fence in May of this year, and she and her husband rent it out so often for friends and family, they actually installed a gate, with my permission, in between our two houses in the backyard, because they use my backyard so frequently. I know people are scared of short-term rentals, but in my experience with the one that I have, I'm able to be a lot more attentive to it. Even if it remained a rental, but it was a long-term rental, I couldn't just randomly go over there and plant flowers or make sure the lawn is nice. But I feel like because it does stay pretty booked, that there's an incentive for me to always keep the curb appeal great, to always keep it look tidy, to always make it nice. I know one of the five people that wrote letters for me, Cindy, who lives across the street, she's lived there since 2004, and she said that when I first came, she hadn't heard what an Airbnb was, and she was worried about it, but then she's been encouraging other people, before the law started, she was like, I want more Airbnbs, because she's like, we can walk around the neighborhood and point out who the long-term renters are, because they don't care. But I don't know. It's already existing. I just don't want anything to change. And I have proof of my thing, I have proof of this, that shows that it was on May 16th that I got, that the license was, and I just thought it was good for a year. I don't know. The closest Airbnb, I know the 600-foot thing that came into effect in December, is 550 feet away, so it's very close. I mean, it's not very close. And also, it is an arterial road, so to me, there's a big difference in two houses within a 600-foot area that are in a cul-de-sac, and two houses that are around the bend from each other on an arterial road. It's a busy street, and we're on the perimeter of the neighborhood. Any questions for the applicant? I'll say I'm very sympathetic to what you're going through. It's awful. I think Mr. Clark has spoken to this much better than I possibly could. The unfortunate part is, though, is that the city allowed for a certain time period where you could get in as a basically grandfathered in. That time has passed. And although you've got all the documentation in the world, it's harsh, and we have to stick to the zoning. And there's nothing here that says, we look at it as, you're brand new. You're coming in brand new. And it's unfortunate, because it sounds like a nice place, and sounds like you're very attentive to it. However, in the strict confines of the zoning, it's unfortunately not allowed. I have something else to say to that, then. Sure. Please. I actually have really looked into this because I had a problem when I originally saw... Okay, so one thing that I feel like is kind of up for debate is that whether or not the road that I'm on is an arterial road. And this is actually taken from a map that I have inside the house that just helps to kind of reiterate this. I don't know if... Are you able to show that? Is someone able to... I feel like... I was born and raised in Lexington, and, you know, born at Central Baptist Hospital. I'm an actual Lexingtonian. I would have never considered or thought of Lane Allen as a main arterial road, such as, like, Nicholasville Road or the Earthbrook Road. But I got a kick out of this map that I found. It's a big map. It shows all the horse farms in Lexington. But, look, there's only, like, 10 roads, 15 roads listed in all of Lexington, and Lane Allen just happens to be one of them. It also has its own zip code. So, like, every... If you go down Lane Allen, all of the houses on the south side of Lane Allen are 40503, and then the street immediately behind Lane Allen on the north side is 40503. It maintains a 40504 status because I think it is just an arterial road. But... And someone mentioned it earlier, too. I feel like the purpose for the short-term rental regulations, which I am honestly in support of, is that they're supposed to be advocating for the wants of the neighborhood, you know? And I feel like my neighborhood clearly supports it. But one of the problems that I had in trying to piece apart and figure out if I could... if one of those relief provisions would apply is that, here's what I wrote, geospacing software creates buffer areas in order to analyze the proximity of a target to another. However, in this case, the buffer zone was created without recognizing that two completely different neighborhoods were being lumped into one area. Without making adjustments to account for each specific neighborhood, then this buffer area does not accurately represent reality. That being said, the buffer area map that was created for me should have been revised to include only everything on the north side of Lane Allen, which would mean that my property is located on the perimeter of the zone and, therefore, relief provision number three can be applied to my situation. So what I'm trying to communicate is on the buffer zone that was created digitally and, I mean, we probably all agree that sometimes humans need to be involved in like a digital program. They had it to just like this kind of arbitrary radius and Lane Allen just happens to be going through the middle of it. When in reality, and I have this to represent that, Lane Allen is like the dividing line between two very specific neighborhoods. So everything on this side of Lane Allen is the Piccadome Neighborhood Association and then on this side of Lane Allen one street is the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Association and then it goes to like Deer Park or something. But it's just like, it's not a neighborhood with Lane Allen going through the middle and then if that is the case, then Lane Allen or then my property is absolutely on the perimeter and then from, hold on, let me find this other thing I can show you, but from that, then I do think it absolutely supports relief provision number three. And I understand, I'm just one voice, the rest of the board may feel differently. If it was a, if the criteria was a nice person that has a nice house and it's on a main street, then obviously you'd get a license. We got no problem with that. And I have kicked and screamed myself and tried to find loopholes and things like that and honestly in this one I just don't see it at all. It's just based on certain criteria that I'm not finding any way to get around it. Now again, I'm just one voice, but I hate it for you. I hate that it was existing. I think this would be an absolute wonderful conversation with your council person, but as far as me sitting on this board, I unfortunately have no place that I can go to law and say this is the reason that you should be approved. I wish there was, but you're just one vote. I'm sorry? You're just one vote. That's right, that's right. Also, wait, so you said that and I wanted to say in response to that about the belief provision. I don't know, I lost my train of thought. But basically I do think here, I'll show you this. This, well it's marked, the numbers are marked. I just think that there has to be, common sense has to come into play at some point. And if the geospatial software isn't able to think like a human or make adaptations to account for the reality of the situation, that no, this isn't a cut-through street in the middle of a neighborhood. This is a dividing line on the perimeter of two separate neighborhoods. So much so that, so anyways, when you do that, and I think I didn't print off the right thing, but in the Picket Home Neighborhood Association map that I have access to, but I don't have a print-off of, it does cut through. I mean, technically it says the line has to, it has to be on the perimeter with any part outside of the perimeter and that does, that does, that does happen. Any additional questions for the applicant? But I just think that like, if the overwhelming feelings in the neighborhood, like, I really believe that they sincerely want this house to be able to remain a short-term rental. So I would hate to, I don't know. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anything additional? Could I have a motion? Before we move on, I just want to clarify for the record that Lane Allen is not an arterial road. We use the classifications established by the state and by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which deals with all of our transportation funding, and it just isn't, but not classified as an arterial. Clay's Mill is, as well as Harrisburg Road in this vicinity. It may be a busy street, but it is just, it is not an arterial roadway. And our measurements don't account for neighborhood boundaries because those are self-imposed by the neighborhood and can be changed by the neighborhood. They're not an established line, and so some neighborhoods are 2,000 houses and some are 15. There's no real, you know, standard size for a neighborhood, which is why the council imposed a specific distance that is measured the same, you know, in your neighborhood or in a neighborhood across town. So that's, I just wanted to clarify for the record that, you know, that's incorrect information that you provided. Well, I mean, I didn't know if there was officially titled arterial or not arterial, and I don't know if that's only for major arterial, if minor arterial is also. But, I mean, based on that. Well, I think that a minor arterial, what you're saying here is it's not actually separating the other two properties from your, like, one of these is on the same side of the road as your property, and both of them would actually be on the same side. So it's not like on the other side of Lane Allen Road these are on the same side of Lane Allen as your property. It's called a busy road. There you go. But also, well, the reason I brought up the arterial is because to me and the guidelines in the City of Lexington are what they are recognizing as the neighborhood parameters, and this is on the perimeter with the perimeter of the neighborhood cutting through in the property. I also want to say, too, that, and I've been sitting here for so long I feel like I'm a little brain dead, hopefully you all aren't, but I do believe that granting me this conditional use permit is something that the legislation is highly specific and not one that you would have to face in the future. I don't think this would ever come up again. Most of my neighbors came up to me, or not most, I had a handful of people when the sign went in the yard and they got the letter, they were like, what do you mean? What are you doing? Why are you having to do this? And so, I don't know, in a lot of language it says that it can be determined on a case-by-case basis. I just feel that this is a highly specific, very unusual case that no one's even going to realize was voted on. I'm just going to, I would just like to be able to continue operations as we have been. The other Airbnbs are actually in support of it, and I don't know if this matters either. Again, the one house is 550 feet away, the crow flies, but if you are talking actual footage, like walking footage, I think both of them are beyond 600 feet away. Well, I know one of them is, and I think the other one is maybe just beyond it. I think we're ready to close our discussion out. Any additional questions? Comments? Thank you. Thank you for your time and your comments. Appreciate it. I will make a motion, but first I want to say if we were in competition, if we were in competition with somebody else who has an SDR, you'd probably win. Your presentation was excellent, and what people have said about your particular situation is excellent. You ought to be proud. The problem is, you're starting from scratch, just like anybody who's never had an SDR before. In a sense, it's exactly what the staff has said, and they've reported that to us, and we have to go by that, as my colleague has said. I'm going to make the motion that I hate to make. Before you make that, you said bad words. I knew in June when all of this went down, and speaking with them when I was stepping envelopes in the thing, I knew going into it, they were like, we're probably going to have to, so just know that going into it. I said, why would I even go through with the hearing or appealing any of this if it's a done deal? They said, even though we have to make our recommendations based on what this law says, they have the ability to override it. They have the authority to override it, as has happened today. There have been two cases I think today that they had officially, for legal reasons, disapproved or recommended disapproval, and they could do that on a case-by-case basis. You're right. Sometimes I agree. Sometimes I don't agree. Sometimes I agree with the staff. Sometimes I don't agree with the staff. But in this case, I think we're compelled to stay with the law. I hate it. I mean, I really do. But I'm going to make the motion still. If the rest of the Board disagrees with me, then that's perfectly fine. But I'm going to recommend a second home LSE request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 605 Lane Allen Road, based on the staff's recommendation in our discussion here today. We have a motion from Mr. Clark for disapproval. Do I hear a second? Second. A second from Mr. Persily. Let's take it to a vote. Application has been disapproved. Thank you for coming down. Sorry. Any other board items for discussion tonight? I hope not. Tracey, any staff items? Our next meeting date will be at 1.30 on September the 8th for our September meeting. If there's no further business, call this meeting adjourned. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your first of many board members. Thank you, sir.