# Board of Adjustment Meeting - October 13, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · October 13, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6589 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6589?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-10-13 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 15, 2026 - **Length**: 15,381 words - **Speakers**: Chair, Renee > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Division of Planning Planning Services Section Board of Adjustment convened on October 13, 2025, at 1:30 PM in Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Bob Sturdivant presiding. The board worked through 12 agenda items spanning a range of land use matters, including variance appeals and conditional use permits. Of the substantive cases heard, the majority were approved, while one case was postponed, one was tabled, and two conditional use permit applications — for Mint Pillow Property Management, LLC and Glenwood Retreat, LLC — were denied. Across the meeting, the board took 13 votes and heard 6 public comments. ## Attendance The following seven members were present at the October 13, 2025 Board meeting: - Bob Sturdivant - James Persley - Chad Walker - Ross Boggess - Linda Tucker - Harry Clark - Brandon Gross No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took the following actions at the October 13, 2025 meeting: - **April 2025 Meeting Minutes** – Motioned by Linda Tucker, seconded by James Persley. Passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 00:03:30] - **May 2025 Meeting Minutes** – Motioned by Linda Tucker, seconded by Chad Walker. Passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 00:04:36] - **PLN-BOA-25-00030 (Kane Manor LLC)** – Motioned by Chad Walker, seconded by Linda Tucker. Case was **postponed** by voice vote. [timestamp: 00:06:12] - **PLN-BOA-25-00100 (Stacy Chase – Variance)** – Motioned by Harry Clark, seconded by James Persley. **Approved** by voice vote, subject to five conditions including construction in accordance with submitted materials. [timestamp: 00:17:04] - **PLN-BOA-25-00111 (Upstart Development – Variance)** – Motioned by Chad Walker, seconded by Ross Boggess. **Approved** by voice vote, subject to two conditions including construction in accordance with submitted materials. [timestamp: 00:38:04] - **PLN-BOA-25-00107 (Thida Yi Yi – Short-Term Rental)** – Motioned by Brandon Gross, seconded by Harry Clark. Application **continued** by voice vote. [timestamp: 00:54:16] - **PLN-BOA-25-00110 (Brittany Everman – Short-Term Rental)** – Motioned by Harry Clark, seconded by James Persley. **Approved** by voice vote, subject to four conditions including an occupancy limit of ten individuals. [timestamp: 00:57:03] - **PLN-BOA-25-00112 (Janelle Blessing – Short-Term Rental)** – Motioned by Chad Walker, seconded by Ross Boggess. **Approved** by voice vote, subject to four conditions including an occupancy limit of eight individuals. [timestamp: 01:04:18] - **PLN-BOA-25-00113 (Pete Jackson House, LLC – Short-Term Rental)** – Motioned by Harry Clark, seconded by James Persley. **Approved** by voice vote, subject to four conditions including an occupancy limit of four individuals. [timestamp: 01:08:05] - **PLN-BOA-25-00106 (M3 Family Investment, LLC – Short-Term Rental)** – Motioned by Ross Boggess, seconded by Harry Clark. **Approved** by roll call vote, 4–3. Voting in favor: Bob Sturdivant, James Persley, Ross Boggess, and Brandon Gross. Voting against: Linda Tucker, Chad Walker, and Harry Clark. Subject to four conditions including an occupancy limit of eight individuals. [timestamp: 01:34:22] - **PLN-BOA-25-00108 (Mint Pillow Property Management, LLC – Short-Term Rental)** – Motioned by Linda Tucker, seconded by James Persley. Motion to **disapprove failed** by voice vote. [timestamp: 01:52:26] - **PLN-BOA-25-00109 (Glenwood Retreat, LLC – Short-Term Rental)** – Motioned by Harry Clark, seconded by Linda Tucker. Motion to **disapprove failed** by voice vote. [timestamp: 02:01:21] - **PLN-BOA-25-00115 (Flow State Properties – Short-Term Rental)** – Motioned by Brandon Gross, seconded by Chad Walker. **Approved** by voice vote, subject to four conditions including an occupancy limit of six individuals. [timestamp: 02:06:01] ## Public Comment Six residents addressed the Board during public comment, all speaking in opposition to short-term rental applications at two separate properties. **3996 Barnard Drive** Four speakers commented against the short-term rental application at 3996 Barnard Drive: - **Matt Chase** raised concerns about safety and neighborhood stability, citing increased traffic and the presence of transient visitors as primary issues. [timestamp: 1:11:24] - **Tom Lewis** emphasized the unique character of the neighborhood and noted that opposition from residents was overwhelming. [timestamp: 1:13:29] - **Clay Combs** echoed concerns about the tight-knit nature of the community and potential safety risks posed by transient visitors. [timestamp: 1:16:11] - **Amanda Tarver** focused on the condition of the property itself, noting maintenance issues and a lack of upkeep. [timestamp: 1:19:22] **808 Gunpowder Drive** Two speakers commented against the short-term rental application at 808 Gunpowder Drive: - **Tom Richards** raised concerns about privacy, property modifications, and the broader impact on the neighborhood. [timestamp: 1:48:44] - **Ron Griffin** noted that the neighborhood had made a decision to prohibit short-term rentals and spoke to the potential effect on the community's fabric. [timestamp: 1:49:44] Across both properties, recurring themes included neighborhood safety, the impact of transient visitors on established communities, and residents' desire to preserve the character of their neighborhoods. ## Contested Items Three short-term rental applications generated notable dispute at the October 13, 2025 Board meeting, with two resulting in disapproval and one passing despite community opposition. - **M3 Family Investment, LLC** — This short-term rental application drew significant opposition from community members, who raised concerns about safety and neighborhood stability. Despite this opposition, the Board approved the application. The record does not indicate whether conditions were attached to the approval. - **Mint Pillow Property Management, LLC** — The Board disapproved this short-term rental application based on a documented history of compliance issues with short-term rental regulations. The applicant's prior record with regulatory requirements was the central basis for the denial. - **Glenwood Retreat, LLC** — This application was also disapproved. The Board cited two distinct grounds for denial: compliance issues on the part of the applicant, and the presence of existing short-term rentals already operating within 600 feet of the proposed location. The proximity of other short-term rentals reflects a regulatory consideration aimed at limiting concentration of such uses within a given area. Taken together, the three applications illustrate the range of factors the Board weighs in short-term rental decisions, including operator compliance history, neighborhood proximity rules, and community input. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 03:30] The board considered the meeting minutes from April and May 2025. Bob Sturdivant was the key speaker on this item. The minutes were approved without noted objection. ## Postponement of Kane Manor LLC Case [timestamp: 06:12] The board took up the matter of case **PLN-BOA-25-00030**, concerning **Kane Manor LLC**. **Bob Sturdivant** addressed the board regarding this item, presenting the request to delay consideration of the case. Following the discussion, the board approved the postponement of the Kane Manor LLC case to the **November meeting**. ## Variance Appeal for Stacy Chase [timestamp: 17:04] The board took up agenda item **PLN-BOA-25-00100**, a variance appeal submitted by **Stacy Chase** requesting a reduction in side yard setbacks. **Harry Clark** was the key speaker on this item, presenting the variance request to the board for consideration and discussion. The board discussed the request and ultimately voted to **approve** the variance, allowing the reduction in side yard setbacks as sought by the applicant. *Note: Additional details regarding the specific dimensions of the requested setback reduction, any conditions attached to the approval, concerns raised during deliberation, and the vote count are not available in the provided record.* ## Variance Appeal for Upstart Development [timestamp: 38:04] The board took up agenda item **PLN-BOA-25-00111**, a variance appeal submitted by Upstart Development. **Chad Walker** was the key speaker during this portion of the meeting. The board discussed the variance request, and the item was ultimately **approved with conditions**. *Note: The available record for this agenda item is limited. Specific details regarding the nature of the variance, the conditions attached to the approval, any concerns raised during deliberation, and the full scope of the presentation are not reflected in the provided data. Readers seeking the complete discussion are encouraged to review the meeting video beginning at timestamp 38:04.* ## Conditional Use Permit for Thida Yi Yi [timestamp: 54:16] The Board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-25-00107, a conditional use permit application submitted by Thida Yi Yi for a short-term rental. Brandon Gross was the key speaker during this portion of the meeting. Following discussion, the Board decided to continue the hearing on this application to the next scheduled meeting rather than reaching a final decision at this session. The item was effectively tabled, with no final determination made on the conditional use permit at this time. Further details regarding the specific concerns raised, the nature of the presentation, or the reasons for continuing the hearing are not available in the provided record. Applicants and interested parties should monitor the agenda for the next Board meeting, at which this item is expected to be taken up again. ## Conditional Use Permit for Brittany Everman [timestamp: 57:03] The Board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-25-00110, a Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Brittany Everman for a short-term rental. Harry Clark was the key speaker during this agenda item. The Board discussed the application and ultimately voted to approve the Conditional Use Permit. No additional details regarding specific concerns raised, conditions attached to the approval, or the particulars of the property were included in the available record for this item. ## Conditional Use Permit for Janelle Blessing [timestamp: 1:04:18] The Board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-25-00112, a Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Janelle Blessing for a short-term rental. Chad Walker was the key speaker during this portion of the meeting. The Board discussed the application and ultimately approved the Conditional Use Permit, though the approval was granted with a lesser occupancy than what may have been originally requested or considered. No additional details regarding the specific occupancy limits, the property location, or the particular concerns that led to the reduced occupancy determination are available in the record. - **Applicant:** Janelle Blessing - **Application Type:** Short-term rental Conditional Use Permit - **Case Number:** PLN-BOA-25-00112 - **Outcome:** Approved with lesser occupancy - **Key Speaker:** Chad Walker ## Conditional Use Permit for Pete Jackson House, LLC [timestamp: 1:08:05] The Board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-25-00113, a conditional use permit application submitted by Pete Jackson House, LLC for a short-term rental. - **Key Speaker:** Harry Clark participated in the discussion of this item. - **Outcome:** The Board approved the conditional use permit application. *Note: Detailed information on the specific arguments presented, any concerns raised during deliberation, and the vote tally are not available in the source data for this item.* ## Conditional Use Permit for M3 Family Investment, LLC [timestamp: 1:34:22] The Board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-25-00106, a Conditional Use Permit application submitted by M3 Family Investment, LLC, pertaining to a short-term rental. - **Key speaker:** Ross Boggess participated in the discussion of this item. - **Community opposition:** The application faced opposition from the community, though the specific concerns raised by opponents are not detailed in the available record. - **Outcome:** Despite the community opposition, the Board approved the Conditional Use Permit for M3 Family Investment, LLC. *Note: Additional details regarding the specific arguments presented, the nature of the community concerns, and the Board's reasoning for approval are not available in the source materials for this item.* ## Conditional Use Permit for Mint Pillow Property Management, LLC [timestamp: 1:52:26] The Board took up agenda item PLN-BOA-25-00108, a conditional use permit application submitted by Mint Pillow Property Management, LLC for a short-term rental. Linda Tucker was the key speaker during this agenda item. The Board discussed the application and identified compliance issues that factored into its deliberations. Following the discussion, the Board **disapproved** the conditional use permit application. The denial was based on the compliance issues raised during the review of the short-term rental application. ## Conditional Use Permit for Glenwood Retreat, LLC **Agenda Item:** PLN-BOA-25-00109 | [timestamp: 2:01:21] The Board took up the conditional use permit application submitted by Glenwood Retreat, LLC for a short-term rental operation. Harry Clark was the key speaker during this agenda item. The Board's discussion centered on two primary compliance issues that prevented approval of the application: - **Existing rentals within proximity:** The application ran afoul of regulations concerning the concentration of short-term rentals, as existing rental properties were already operating within 600 feet of the proposed location. - **Compliance issues:** Additional compliance concerns were identified with the application that further precluded the Board from granting approval. Following the discussion, the Board **disapproved** the conditional use permit application for Glenwood Retreat, LLC. ## Conditional Use Permit for Flow State Properties [timestamp: 2:06:01] The board took up agenda item **PLN-BOA-25-00115**, a conditional use permit application submitted by **Flow State Properties** for a short-term rental. **Brandon Gross** was the key speaker on this item. The board discussed the application as presented before moving to a decision. - **Outcome:** The board **approved** the conditional use permit for Flow State Properties. *Note: Detailed information about the specific arguments made, concerns raised, or conditions attached to the approval was not available in the source materials for this item.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of April 2025 meeting minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of May 2025 meeting minutes - **PLN-BOA-25-00030** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Kane Manor LLC case - **PLN-BOA-25-00100** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance for Stacy Chase - **PLN-BOA-25-00111** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance for Upstart Development - **PLN-BOA-25-00107** — postponed (0-0): Continuance of Thida Yi Yi's short-term rental application - **PLN-BOA-25-00110** — passed (0-0): Approval of short-term rental for Brittany Everman - **PLN-BOA-25-00112** — passed (0-0): Approval of short-term rental for Janelle Blessing - **PLN-BOA-25-00113** — passed (0-0): Approval of short-term rental for Pete Jackson House, LLC - **PLN-BOA-25-00106** — passed (4-3): Approval of short-term rental for M3 Family Investment, LLC - **PLN-BOA-25-00108** — failed (0-0): Disapproval of short-term rental for Mint Pillow Property Management, LLC - **PLN-BOA-25-00109** — failed (0-0): Disapproval of short-term rental for Glenwood Retreat, LLC - **PLN-BOA-25-00115** — passed (0-0): Approval of short-term rental for Flow State Properties --- ## Full transcript We'll be back after 1 minute. 1.5 cups of flour. 1 teaspoon of salt. 1 teaspoon of black pepper. 1 teaspoon of paprika. 1 teaspoon of paprika. 1 teaspoon of paprika. 1 teaspoon of paprika. If this is your first time down here, I'd like to recognize our planning staff and our legal counsel. Against the wall there to my right and your left, we have our planning staff. We have Daniel Crum, Dalton Belcher, and Patty Haley. We have our legal counsel, Brittany Smith, our board members. On my right and your left, let me get this straight here, we have James Persley, Chad Walker, we have Ross, our newest member, Ross Boggess, Chad Walker, Linda Tucker, I'm Bob Sturdivant, I'll be running your meeting today. On my left, your right, Harry Clark, and Brandon Gross is our longest running member in his third term. Thank you, Brandon. Are there any active or retired military in our audience today? If there are, please stand up. Thank you for your service. Appreciate it. Applause All of you that intend to speak on behalf of or opposition to an application today need to be sworn in. Please stand up and raise your right hand. You promised to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Please be seated. Thank you. Moving to our agenda, we have a couple of approvals for minutes of our meetings to be done to be considered at this time for April 2025 and for May 2025. We need to approve those. First, we'll take April 2025 minutes of the meeting. Board members, have you reviewed those? I'll make a motion to approve the board meeting minutes from April 2025. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion by Linda Tucker, second by James Persley. Any discussion? May I have a vote, please? Thank you. That's been approved. Now we'll consider the May 2025 minutes. Has everyone reviewed those to their satisfaction? Any questions or discussion? Could I have a motion, please? I'll make a motion to approve the Board of Adjustment May 2025 meeting minutes. May I have a second? Second. We have a motion by Linda Tucker, second by Chad Walker. Any further discussion? May I have a vote, please? Thank you. Motion approved. I think we have a postponement. Mr. Belcher. So the Kane Manor case on your agenda, they've been postponed a couple times now. They're going to be adding a variance to their request, so they've got their materials in and they plan to be on the agenda next month. So if you all would just want to postpone, they're going to stay under the same case number, but I would say postpone to our next meeting in November, which is We're going to keep the same case number? Yes, it will be the same case number. And the November meeting is on November 10th. Thank you. Could I have a motion for postponement to the November meeting of the BOA for PLN BOA 25-30 Kane Manor LLC? Mr. Chair, I move to postpone PLN BOA 25-30 Kane Manor LLC to the November 10, 2025 meeting. Could I have a second, please? Second. We have a motion by Mr. Walker. Second by Ms. Tucker. Any further discussion on this item? Could we have a vote, please? Thank you. That has been approved. And now we are going to do what we call sounding the agenda. Hopefully this will expedite our meeting by taking the easy cases first and the harder ones later. You all should have a handout that's given out that kind of explains the process. What we do is we have a two-part agenda. The first part is the conditioning use permits and variances. And the second part is just for short-term rentals. So how we do the first part is we look at those and we say has it been approved for approval by the planning staff? Have they recommended that? And if it has no opposition, it goes on the expedited agenda. If it's been recommended for disapproval or it has opposition, then it goes on the heard agenda. The process is the same for the short-term rentals. If staff has recommended approval, it goes recommended approval and has no opposition. It goes on the expedited agenda. And if staff has recommended disapproval or it has opposition, then it goes on the agenda to be heard. So we are going to go through each one of our cases and put them in appropriate order on our agenda. First, we'll consider our variance appeals. PLN BOA 25-100 Stacey Chase is the applicant here. Yes. Do we have any opposition to this variance? No opposition? Mr. Chair. I'll be recusing from that one. This will go on the expedited docket for the conditional uses and variances. So the first one on that will be PLN BOA 25-100 Stacey Chase. Now we're on page 2 of the agenda. Item number 2, which is also a variance, PLN BOA 25-111 Upstart Development. Is the applicant here? Yes. This one is going to be heard because staff has recommended approval to reduce the side yard setback, but has recommended disapproval to reduce the required side street yard setback. So this one will go first on the heard docket for conditional uses and variances, which will be PLN BOA 25-111 Now we go to page 3 of your agenda. All these cases will be conditional uses and they will be short-term rentals. The first case is PLN BOA 25-106 M3 Family Investment LLC. Is the applicant here? Yes. Staff has recommended approval for this. Is there any opposition to this? Yes. So this will go will be number one on the STR applications heard docket, PLN BOA 25-106 Flipping over to page 4 PLN BOA 25-107 Thida Yee Yee Did I pronounce that right? Thida Yee Yee Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this application. Is there anyone here in opposition to that? No. This will go first on our STR expedited docket, PLN BOA 25-107 The bottom of page 4 next case is PLN BOA 25-108 Mint Pillow Property Management LLC Is the applicant here? Yes. Thank you. Staff has recommended disapproval of this application so it will go on the HERD docket. It will be number 2 on the STR HERD docket, PLN BOA 25-108 Flipping over to page 5 PLN BOA 25-109 Glenwood Retreat LLC. Is the applicant here? Yes. Staff has recommended disapproval of this application so it will go third on the STR HERD docket. Third will be PLN BOA 25-109 Next case is PLN BOA 25-110 Brittany Everman. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Staff recommends approval of this application. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this? No. PLN BOA 25-110 will be second on the STR Expedited docket. At the bottom of page 5, the next case is PLN BOA 25-112 Janelle Blessing. Is the applicant here? Yes. Thank you. Staff recommends approval of a lesser occupancy to 8 occupants. Is this acceptable to you? Yes. Is there anyone here in opposition to this case? No. We will put this third on the Expedited docket PLN BOA 25-112 Page 6. The next application is PLN BOA 25-113 Pete Jackson House LLC. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Staff has recommended approval for this. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? No. PLN BOA 25-113 will be the fourth item on the Expedited docket for STRs. And our last case is on page 7. PLN BOA 25-115 Flow State Properties. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Staff has recommended approval on this application. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? No. This item will be number 5 on the Expedited docket for STRs. Chair, there is somebody here in opposition. There is opposition? Yes. Thank you. Sorry I missed you. So this will be item number 4 on the HERD docket 25-115 Page 7. Our first application we will hear is PLN BOA 25-100 Stacey Chase. Good afternoon. I'm Stacey Chase. I'm representing 117 Vista. When we got the property it had substantial damage to it. So we've had three main goals in this house. And it's one to make it functional, livable for my family and do some updating that the house desperately needs. And then third one is just keep the neighborhood in mind and try to keep in character with the neighborhood. That's all I have. Are you familiar with the conditions that have been recommended by staff? Are you talking about the driveway being moved and you had a list of things. I did read over them. There's five conditions they recommended approval but with five conditions. Are you familiar with those conditions? I have looked at them. Do you agree with those? Yes. Any questions for the applicant? Any further discussion? Could I have a recommendation for approval? Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLN BOA 25-100. Stacey Chase's request for variance to reduce the required side yard from eight feet to two feet and number two to reduce the required side yard for a corner lot from 30 feet to one foot in a single family residential zone on property located at 117 Vista Street based on the staff's recommendation and the five conditions as listed. Thank you. Could I have a second? Second. I have a motion by Mr. Clark and a second by Mr. Pursley. Any further discussion before we vote? Could I have a vote, please? You've been approved. Thank you. The next case is PLN BOA 25 dash 111 upstart development. I think staff needs to speak on this one because we have an approval and a disapproval. Is that working? Can you hear me? Dalton Belcher on behalf of planning staff. There are two requests here. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from five feet to three feet and reduce the required side yard setback on a corner lot from five feet to four feet on property located at 536 West 5th Street. You can see here highlighted in orange. I'm going to highlight it even more here. This is the subject property. It's here on the corner of Smith and 5th Street, West 5th Street. This is a street view of the property currently unimproved. It just has a vacant lot at this point. The applicant's proposal here is a multifamily structure. They're having this side over here which is abutting another property. Staff does not have a concern with this setback. They're showing three feet here which is enough for fire safety and we're not concerned about going from five feet to three feet on this side. It's over here on the street side where they're reducing that from five feet to four feet where we have a little bit more of concern. Here is a rendering and a floor plan the applicant has provided of the structure. You can see they've got bedrooms and living rooms and a kitchen and bathroom and that's somewhat coming into play here so that's why I'm pointing that out. Staff does recommend approval of the required side yard setback from five feet to three feet noting that 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 subject property is within the defined infill and redevelopment area and the proposed structure features a side yard setback that is keeping with other structures in the immediate vicinity. Granting the variance will not result in a construction that is out of character with the general vicinity and the surrounding properties also have non-conforming side yard setbacks. The variance request does not attempt to circumvent the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has provided a corner lot for the variances as soon as it was determined they were needed prior to starting construction so that's on the side yard. Staff would recommend the following conditions that construction is in accordance with the submitted application materials and an updated site plan and I'll get to that in a second and that all necessary permits and or approvals shall be obtained from the divisions of building inspection prior to construction. So staff does recommend disapproval of the required side street side yard setback of a corner lot from five feet to four feet noting that 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 second that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine that the strict enforcement of the zoning enforcement ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship or deprive the applicant of reasonable use of their land and as I mentioned before a redesign of the floor plan which is why I showed it will allow the applicant to meet the requirements and achieve their desired objectives without needing a variance and third that the reduction in the side street side yard setback for a multi-story multi-family use would negatively impact the walkability of the area and is out of character with the existing setbacks for the majority of the development along this block of Smith Street. So any questions for me on staff's recommendation? Any questions for Mr. Belcher? It looks like on the drawing here that the distance isn't from 5 feet to 4 feet but it actually says 4 foot 6 inches right? So yes we typically just to give people a little bit of wiggle room we say instead of 4 feet 6 inches let's give you 4 feet that way in case if you were in there constructing it and you needed to move it a little bit closer you've got that extra 6 inches there to maybe have that wiggle room there so that's why we use 4 feet. If they read a tape measure like me that's probably a good idea but I didn't know what they're actually applying for is just the 6 inches. You are correct it's accurate and this is really just kind of we say 4 feet because that just gives you that safety in case when you get into construction you need a little bit more room. There's not going to be a fence or anything like that. This is just kind of comfort level of being the distance between the structure and the street versus like an actual fence on the line. To my knowledge there's not. The applicant can maybe clarify that but I'm not aware of a fence being proposed on the property line there or in that area. Correct me if I'm wrong but they could put a 4 foot fence along that sidewalk. That would be permissible. Yes. I'm trying to remember the section of the ordinance but yes. I think Chad they could install a fence if they chose to. I realize parking is kind of not on the table but it looks like they have a parking or driveway. Can you pull your mic down so we can hear you? I realize that parking is no longer a thing in Lexington so they have no parking or driveways. Not that we're seeing. None shown. Real quick going back to Mr. Walker's comment. We're talking about 6 inches? Yes. If you go against staff's recommendation you could move that number up to 4 foot 6 inches if you so choose. We gave them that extra space but what they're asking for is the 6 inches there. Anything else? Any other questions? State your name for the record please. My name is Jonathan Harding Dowell and I'm the owner of Upstart Development. I'm an architect recently turned developer so this is actually my first project before you all so I appreciate the time and I appreciate the collaboration and assistance of staff. They helped me quite a bit in preparing this. Nothing Dalton said is incorrect. The request was originally for 4 foot 6 when we did our back and forth about the application I did revise the site plan so I apologize if a stray 4 foot 6 dimension made it onto that site plan. I agree. I think the request stands at 4 feet specifically for both the construction tolerance that we've come to expect but also because as I've done more research and this comes after the application the necessary fire partitions between the units may increase some of my wall thicknesses and so having that extra bit of wiggle room could actually prove quite important to a viable floor plan. The other thing that I think didn't get mentioned is because we're upwards of 4 units or 4 units or more at least one of these units must be FHA compatible or compliant. That brings into question the floor plan and needing to provide wider clearances at kitchens and at bathrooms so while I'm not saying that the floor plan can't be tweaked here and there providing a compliant FHA unit is a really important component of this project and again having that space I find really necessary. Any other questions that you all might have about the application? Oh Ms. Tucker I did want to address your point about parking It is not part of the current site plan to provide off street parking for two reasons. One, most of the units or most of the buildings in this neighborhood do not provide off street parking and in my frequent visits through the neighborhood and in talking with neighbors most people park on the street and there's a relatively low rate of car ownership in this neighborhood as far as I can tell I don't have the data to back that up that's just for me walking the streets The other is if we're to provide four units there's not enough site area to provide a space for each unit so it just became a choice of do we try to eat up all of the green space left on the site with three parking spaces and leave someone out in the cold or do we just provide the additional vegetated area and park on the street Any other questions? Yeah would you be really specific about what difficulty you would face if we approved a four and a half foot instead of the four foot? If you provide the four and a half foot I'm fine. Okay. I don't want to know Any other questions? I appreciate your time Thank you Could I ask you one more question? Come back up Staffer recommended approval on the required side yard setback You're fine with that? Yes. Are you okay with the disapproval or does that No I would like to request approval of that second variance on the side yard setback So you'd like that to be approval instead of disapproval? Yes I would How does the board feel about that? I mean from my standpoint policy wise it seems to be that Lexington is wanting to provide more infill and this lot is really really close to it We're at the foot mark of being able to provide more units So me personally I wouldn't have any problem approving the five feet to four feet If you're over three inches and you come back and then we're all back in the same boat so I would be supportive of that. I would too. Understanding the FHA requirements too that those are persnickety and particularly the missing middle housing in urban infill areas Great. Especially for a corner. Mr. Walker did you say you would support the five feet to four feet? Yeah I would. It's what's already on the disapproval I think to the four and a half feet is what's on the plan But when we're down to six inches That's too close for fuel variance I think that the as it's written would be fine with me but if the board prefers to stay at that four and a half that's fine as well. I'd support the four I would as well Do you want to change that? Yeah I'm not sure If you can make a recommendation Do we need to take five minutes to amend this or can I just do it as an approved We'd have to come up with conditions We're going to take a five minute recess to change some language here Do you want to take a five minute recess? Do you want to take a five minute recess? Do you want to take a five minute recess? Do you want to take a five minute recess? Do you want to take a five minute recess? Do you want to take a five minute recess? Do you want to take a five minute recess? Take a five minute recess Take a five minute recess Take a five minute recess Take a five minute recess Take a five minute recess Take a five minute recess Take a five minute recess Take a five minute recess I'd like to call the Board of Adjustment back into session, please We're going to have a text change on PLA BOA 25-111 upstart development Based on a Disapproval to reduce the required side side yard street side yard setback from 5 feet to 4 feet And that's going to be read By Mr. Walker We'll take a stab at this so Mr. Chair, I recommend approval for PLM BOA 25-00111 upstart developments request To reduce the one reduced side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet and to reduce the side required side yard setback on a corner lot from 5 feet to 4 feet Within the infine infill redevelopment area medium-density residential zone on property located at 536 West 5th Street based on staff recommendations and subject to these new approvals, so Okay, so we'll do this on the first part staff recommends I will do approval of the request to reduce the required side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet and the side street Side yard setback of corner lot from 5 feet to 4 feet for the following reasons Granting the variance should not adversely affect the public health safety and welfare of the general vicinity nor cause a hazard or nuisance to the public subject property is within the designed or defined infill and redevelopment area and the proposed structure features a side yard setback is in Keeping with the other structures in the immediate vicinity The reduced side street side yard setback will not adversely affect the pedestrian experience because 4 feet will separate the structure from the sidewalk Granting the variance will not result in Construction that is out of character with the general vicinity the surrounding properties. I also have non-conforming setbacks I'll do this one. Okay And then the variance request does not attempt to circumnavigate the provisions of the zoning ordinance the applicant Applied for the various as soon as it was determined that they were needed prior to starting construction strip application of this zoning may limit the Applicants ability to provide Sufficient accessibility with the structure for the desired number of units Oh And also this is based on two conditions, it's already listed that the recommendation is approved subject to the following conditions number one construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and approved site plan and Number two all necessary permits and or approvals shall be obtained by the division building inspection prior to construction Did you get all that you let me read it again? That all sounds good to me, okay Do I have a second I second No motion by mr. Walker a second by mr. Boggess Do we have any further discussion? Please have your vote You Lnbo a 25-1 1 1 has been approved. Thank you. Thank you all very much We are now going to move to our short-term rental docket and Mr. Belcher is going to give a short presentation on The current regulations for short-term rentals prior to our consideration of the applications All right So for everybody's peace of mind, I know y'all have seen this presentation For about two years now Chair has asked me to reduce it to focus mostly just on the concentration of the short-term rentals that are on the agenda today So it will be a little bit shorter than normal All right, so for the short-term rentals we have on the agenda today we have eight of them You can see on the chart here. We have the address the council district this whether there is a short-term rental within 600 foot buffer the number of short term rentals within the 1,000 foot buffer and then the number of residential dwellings in a thousand foot. So the The number within number of SCRs and the percentage Excuse me, and the number of residential dwellings leads us to the percentages you see there in column. I think six Two three four five six and then also we mentioned the census tract information and whether it is in one of the census Block groups. None of the ones on the agenda today are in the block groups most do not have a short term rental within 600 feet the two that do are 3112 Glenwood Drive and It has actually we noted that it has One but it has two and I'll show that on the presentation when we get into that a little bit later but they have one within 600 feet and then they have one and and so that percentage is a little bit higher than 0.46 within the thousand foot buffer and then for 131 North Broadway Park that one also has one within 600 feet and has ten within a thousand feet and the percentage is 1.8 so Just a refresher The ordinance generally says if there's one within 600 feet that it should be disapproved unless there is one of the relief provisions met and we'll get into those with some of these cases as we as we go on or That there cannot be more than 2% of the residential dwellings within a thousand feet that are Short term rentals and that is not an issue that we're coming up against here. It's just the 600 foot Buffer for the the ones on the agenda today So any any questions for me on these and we will get to some of them well, you know, we'll go through them in a little bit more and the applicants will be speaking as well, but Just at the at the outset Any questions Thank you. Thank you We're now moving into our STR Docket and we have four items on our expedited docket And that first item is PLN BOA 25-107 by de ye This has been recommended by staff for approval and it has no opposition with the applicant, please Step up to the podium Good Afternoon, my name is Samantha. He speaking on behalf of TDE. We are requesting a con Additional use of the permit for unhosting short-term rental for a single-family residence Properties located 2111 Stonewood Lane There will be three bath three bedrooms two and a half bathroom. The guest will accommodate is eight at a time To parking on a driveway and we'll be going through the Airbnb app for 30 days per month We do not have any other STR in Lexington and then the temporary use barrier will be put in the house and we have scheduled a noise activity during this day to cause the least disturbance Um, is there any question from you guys for me any questions staff has recommended approval Subject to four conditions that are listed. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes. I have a comment There's like there's a Online there's like between 45 and 50 people who have signed something saying they don't want this in your neighborhood Petition have you seen that I have not So, I don't think I guess none of them are here today But there's a whole lot of people on there that really don't want that. I just thought I would mention that. Yeah so, I don't know if you want to reach out to your neighbors or what you need to do with that, but Right, I'll let her know and then but in the meantime I believe that there hasn't been any complaints in our neighborhood about the short-terms hosting Well, we we just received a lot online so thank you Any other questions for the applicant got a question of clarification for you on your application that says Do you have a local emergency contact and your response is no, I will manage it through Airbnb app For emergencies in Lexington. It has to be you have to have somebody that will respond Locally to issues. Can you tell us who that might be? she will hire a host that managed through the app and will be in Lexington that will provide the cleaning service and If there's an emergency they could contact a host But I believe right now I don't believe she hired anyone yet And so the applicants address to is the same as the STR address is that correct I'm sorry, the applicants address on here. The contact person is the same as the STR address. Yes So, where will the contact person be? I'm not very sure about that Because like I said, she hasn't hired a host yet since we haven't got approved for the short terms Okay, so are they living there now or no she's currently not in the country that's why I'm representing her, okay That's a little concerning So You don't have anybody to manage it or anything right now and she's not in the country I guess that would be me Okay But besides like for now, it'll be me but until she comes back then it'll be her and the host Thank you, I I Had a question you had in your application a statement that you would install temporary noise noise barriers Yes, could you explain that? I didn't understand what you meant by that With our house, I've noticed that there hasn't been any like If we like to play a lot loud music in the house is normally not like loud enough for you to hear outside But I believe they'll use The I don't know what's called but it's like a noise barrier that you could put inside the room Just in case they do play loud music. It won't be heard through like outside the house and disturb the neighborhood Thank you any further questions Yeah, I've got no problem with I mean I'm genuinely supportive of this but it just seems like there's still some holes and Short-term rentals are one of the most heavily regulated if not the most heavily regulated Business and to not know who's gonna be your emergency contact is a big hole My preference would be to postpone this till next month so we can get some questions answered personally But you all tell me where you want to hit with it. I Was the pleasure of the board do you want to change this to is there the will of the board to change this to a disapproval? Our postpone See if it's okay So I think what we're that right now is that some of the board members are uncomfortable with some of the gaps in the details Our staff is pretty good at taking notes on what we are finding deficient And so I would not at this point support a disapproval I would not support a disapproval I would not support a And so I would not at this point support a disapproval But I would I would go along with the continuance until next month And that would allow you or the applicant to work with staff fill in some of the holes And then the hearing would then be heard next month And so you're not getting an approval today but you're also not being disapproved Work with staff come back next month and then the staff's already saying they're recommending approval I just think some of the board members are hesitating because some of the information may be lacking that they would like to hear So basically what you guys are asking for is to have a host being hired as an emergency And then just basically what we're used to for the noise barrier Is that what you guys are asking for? Yeah I think primarily you're supposed to have a contact a local contact So in case there are complaints filed someone knows how to get a hold of somebody And so I think that's one thing it sounds like Mr. Walker you were mentioning And then if we could get some more detail about what the noise barrier you're talking about I know some operators they don't have barriers per se But they have a way that if the volume goes to a certain level They actually get a trigger on their phone through an app Oh yeah And so there so I think it's just some of those those details Operational details is what it sounds like we're looking for Is there anything I missed that you guys were curious about? I'd like to suggest too in addition to that I think it's very important that you understand that staff is happy to work with you on this And they've heard all the comments and so if you could work with them to be sure some of this thing And I think it looks like to me that you really are the contact for this And so I think we need to make that clear as well So be sure to work with the staff and I think it'll come out fine Okay For the noise barrier we do have cameras that detect the noise if that makes you more comfortable It's already installed around the house too I forgot to mention that And then to make you guys more comfortable we do have a short-term rental house It's in Texas so if you guys feel more comfortable we are aware of how it runs Is there any further questions? You might want to reach out just maybe to the neighbors on either side or something too Since you have so many on this petition and kind of tell them what you're doing Okay Thank you Thank you Before a motion gets made I do want to just make sure so staff knows You're wanting more information on the sound barrier so they'll need to respond with that And then they'll need to have a definitive who is going to be the host emergency contact Is there anything else you want them to provide or are those the two things you need before next month? Understand I got yeah, it'd be great to Make sure I had the right stuff so we didn't end up in a similar situation That's not a requirement of short-term rental having a emergency contact definitely is and that's where I'm getting hung up If it's you it's you and then they hire a management company later on or something like that That's fine, but saying that it's gonna be Airbnb that doesn't work So you're close you're real close All right. Thank you I have a motion for a continuance Yes, I will move to continue PLM BOA 25-107 in regards to 2111 Stonewood Lane to continue our hearing until our next month Which will be set for November 10th at 1 30 p.m. So you'll come back to the same room and then provide us and the staff with that information. Okay, so moved. All right. Thank you Could I have a second, please? I'm a motion by mr. Gross and a second by mr. Clark to for continuance for this application Any other comments or discussion We have a vote, please Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you next month Our next case number two on the STR expedited docket is PLM BOA 25-110 Brittany Everman Staff has recommended approval for this Are you familiar with the recommendations For the conditions, there's four conditions I am yes, and you're Yes Is there any other comments you'd like to make? No, not at this time unless anyone else has questions This is just a point of order for staff, can we update that so we can see if there's any documents I Was sorry, what did you say? I couldn't hear you. We're still on 107. So you can't see the documents for 110 Sorry, she's working on it just one moment What was the Was the question Does anyone have any questions for the applicant staff has recommended approval Applicant is familiar with the four conditions stated and is agreeable to those Do we have any other mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? I'll make a motion to approval of PLM BOA 25 dash 1 1 0 Brittany Everman Request for a conditional use permit for unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 156 Greenwood Lane Based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions as listed I have a motion. Do I hear a second second? The motion by mr. Clark second by mr. Pursley any other discussion I Motion is passed. Thank you. Thank you Next item on the STR expedited docket is PLN BOA 25 dash 1 1 2 Janelle blessing You Staff has recommended a lesser occupancy rate of eight occupants You know state your name for the record, please Janelle blessing And are are you in agreement with that? Yes Staff has recommended approval subject to the four conditions listed And are you? Yes, I agree, okay Do we do we have we had no opposition on this one So questions and comments from the board members Do we have any documents on this one? There are three letters of opposition and one letter of support Okay, because we still have one tenant if you will move it over to that case, thank you Also, we have two letters of referrals from neighbors shall we submit those to you Dalton? Yeah I also have a statement if I can read that Is it okay if she reads the statement her personal statement You know passing those around You While we're reading these does anyone have any questions or comments for the applicant Did you say you have a personal statement I do You Mr. Chair should we have her read her statement while we're passing along these items She hasn't she has a statement. She says she wanted to make that'd be I'd be fine. Okay. Thank you All right. Yes, if y'all can read and listen at the same time My name is Janelle blessing and I'm here today requesting approval for a Conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental at my home in 2008 Oh Leander Drive This home is incredibly meaningful to me My husband and I bought it with the dream of making it our forever home and raising a family here Last summer, he was killed in a bicycle accident when I was 34 weeks pregnant with our first child Since then I've been raising our daughter on my own My family lives out of state. So this home has been both my greatest challenge and my greatest comfort I'm requesting this permit for a few very important reasons Number one to help cover my mortgage as a solo parent living off survivor benefits Second to keep the home. My husband worked so hard to provide Number three to honor his memory by holding on to the place that represents our shared future Number four to allow me the flexibility to return and stay in the home whenever I choose Keeping his memory alive for my daughter and me. I Also want to emphasize that I have the full support of my neighbors to operate this Airbnb Many of them have already helped care for the property in my absence When my husband passed this community went above and beyond for me and my daughter We are a tight-knit group and I value their trust and encouragement. I Intend to operate this rental responsibly, especially since it's not a business, but my cherished home. I Will strictly follow the city's occupancy and safety requirements and will assure Will ensure guests have clear rules about parking quiet hours and respectful use of the property. I Truly believe this request strikes a balance It allows me to remain connected to my home and Community while also making sure the neighborhood is protected from negative impacts. I Respectfully ask for your approval so I can continue to preserve this home Honor my husband and provide stability for my daughter's future. Thank you for your time and consideration Thank you Has everyone reviewed the letters Any comments or questions for the applicant The applicant is in agreement with the approval of a lesser occupancy and in agreement with the Following conditions that are listed which are for Yes with no questions. Can I have a motion for approval? This Chair moved to approve PLM BOA 2 5 dash 1 1 2 Janelle blessings request for a conditional use permit for an unhoused Unhosted short-term rent on a single-family residential zone on property located at 2 0 0 8 Oleander Drive based on Staff recommendations including approval of a lesser variance of 8 occupants and subject to the 4 conditions May I have a second, please a Second I have a motion from Mr. Walker and a second by Mr. Boggess. Any questions? Any further discussion? Your application has been approved. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on our expedited docket for short-term rentals is PLNBOA 25-113, Pete Jackson House, LLC. Staff has recommended approval of this application subject to the four conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, I have. Are you? My name is Alexandria Durham and I will be managing this short-term rental for Miss Merritt Farrell. And she is out of the country currently, so I have a letter from her, if I can read that. I bought my home in 1994. I especially love this house and plan to keep it forever. I have put a tremendous amount of work and dollars into it. I can honestly say that most people agree that it's one of the more appealing and better maintained properties on North Broadway Park. This street, the community, and the Northside in general are important to me for its customs and unique way of living. I am actively engaged with friends on the street and am supportive of events and happenings in the area. One of the reasons for my Airbnb is such an arrangement makes it possible to keep the house and stay on the street, continue to be part of the neighborhood, plus allow out of town friends access when they are here for Keeneland and Fezzik Tickton sales and some exciting events around town. By blocking out dates as opposed to renting it full-time, I can have the best of both worlds. I travel a lot and I am in Kentucky about six months a year. I hate to leave it empty for long periods of time. Having a part-time Airbnb will keep it occupied and help towards expenses for maintaining the house in good condition. Guests will be monitored extensively as I am very protective of this house and considerate of my neighbor's peaceful enjoyment of their homes. This house sheltered me for 20 years and when retirement comes, it will again be my home. Mr. Chair, I think we ought to note that the other SDR in this 600-foot boundary is on the border and so it applies, relief number three applies to this. And so according to the ordinance, we can approve this without avoiding the ordinance. Any other questions or comments? Do we have a motion for approval? Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 25113, Pete Jackson House, LLC, request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone on property located at 131 North Broadway Park based on the status recommendation and the four conditions as listed. Thank you. I have a second. Second. A motion by Mr. Clark. Second by Mr. Berkley. Any other discussion? Add to vote, please. Thank you. Move approved. Thank you. Now we're moving into our SDR applications. On the H.E.R.D. docket, first application under consideration is 25-106. Now under consideration will be the H.E.R.D. docket for our SDR applications. First item to be heard is PLN BOA 25-106 M3 Family Investment, LLC. Staff has recommended approval. Hello. My name is Samia Raba. I am here to request approval for a conditional use permit to operate my parents' home as a short-term rental while they are not in residence. This home is located at 3996 Barnard Drive. My parents, who currently reside in Florida, purchased this property as a second home for their visits when they come to visit my family. When they are away, they have graciously entrusted me with the management and maintenance of the property, and I intend to rent it out as a short-term basis if approved. As a nurse and a mother of three toddlers, I want to ensure that to you all and my neighbors that I am fully committed to maintaining the highest standards of safety, cleanliness, and quietude. I am dedicated to ensuring that the rental process is respectful to the neighborhood, and I will be proactive in communicating with the neighbors and addressing any concerns or feedback that may arise. My goal is to ensure that this short-term rental will not cause any disruption or inconvenience to the community. Thank you very much for considering my request, and if you have any questions. Any questions or comments for the applicant? Thank you. Those to speak in opposition, please come up one at a time. You'll have three minutes. Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Matt Chase. Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Matt Chase, and I live on Bernard Drive, just a few houses down from the property in question, 3996 Bernard. I'm a homeowner, and I am in Brighton Woods neighborhood. And I'm one to represent the 100 plus signatures presented before you opposing the application for this conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental at 3996 Bernard. I will provide three key points of opposition. First, it's the location, the safety with context. 3996 Bernard sits at the end of an extended cul-de-sac. The portion of the street serves as a regular gathering area for children walking and biking, as well as active adult exercising. As a father of three kids ages 14 and under, it is paramount that we ensure the safety of the neighborhood for our children. Increased short-term traffic and unfamiliar drivers entering and exiting our no outlet neighborhood heightens the risk for child and pedestrian safety. Second, I'm going to talk about neighborhood stability. Short-term rentals do not contribute to long-term neighborhood stability. They reduce the number of invested, permanent residents, replacing them with a cycle of transient visitors. Homes are for the living, not for the listing. 3996 Bernard is owned by a Florida-based LLC, which has already a history of non-compliance at this property. It operated from the fall of 2024 to 2025 without a permit. The applicant reportedly claimed they didn't know a permit was required. But that explanation does not align with the fact that M3 is a professional business entity with ample resources to understand local laws. Operating first and asking permission later demonstrates a lack of respect for Lexington's zoning process and for the integrity of this board's authority. This raises a legitimate concern that the owners will operate without the best interest of Brighton Woods in mind. So in closing, I respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment deny the conditional use permit for 3996 Bernard to operate as a short-term rental. Your neighbors are not the ones who check out tomorrow. Thank you. Next speaker. If there are several, you all can line up behind this. The speaker in. Please. Take your name for the record, please. Good afternoon. My name is Tom Lewis. I'm a 30 year plus resident of Brightwoods. And I do want to reiterate the nature of the neighborhood. It's very unique. We have approximately 120 houses in the neighborhood. One method of ingress and egress into the neighborhood. And it has been a very attractive place for families. Everybody bought into the neighborhood based on the fact that it was single family residences. Not that you're buying into a motel in your neighborhood. And you do have over 100 signatures on a petition in front of you. And I am very familiar with practically each and every one of those. Because my wife and I are the ones that went around the neighborhood talking to neighbors. And we didn't start off trying to bad mouth this proposal. But all we did was started asking, are you familiar with it? And what are your feelings about it? And everyone that we talked to, granted there were a few neighbors who were not home. But we did this over a couple of shots at going around to the houses. Out of all of the neighbors that were home that we spoke to, which was the vast majority of the neighborhood, only one household indicated approval of this proposal. There were four households that said they really didn't care much one way or the other. And everybody else was explicitly against this proposal. Also, just to reiterate what the first speaker said, I've got the ad here where the residence was rented. There's a comment from October 2024 of a lady that stayed at the residence before getting approval. There was another one on April 25th, I'm sorry, April 2025 of an individual that stayed at the residence prior to approval. And I noticed that on the disapproval under BOA 25-00108, the Mint Pillow Property Management, disapproval was recommended based on a documented history of compliance issues. We have the ultimate in non-compliance with the ordinance. And for that reason, I believe that this should be disapproved. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, my name's Clay Combs. I live on Bernard Drive. I am definitely opposed to this. And I really just wanted to make a couple of comments. I don't wanna go over the same things they said. It is a very unique neighborhood, the one way in, one way out. If you look at it on a map, you can understand it is nestled in a certain way that it is unique in Lexington, there's not multiple ways in and out. Very tight-knit neighborhood, and I think you have over half the neighborhood. We have 194 homes in the area. We would get over 100 signatures. That's just the people on the petition. Everybody in the neighborhood, I can tell you, is vehemently against this. They're not okay with it. I worked for the city for 27 years. I was a police officer here in town. I know the city well. I've lived here for 55 years, dating myself. I remember when this neighborhood was nothing but a field. I remember when we didn't have a man of war. 20 years on the street, my last six years of investigation, handling probably 1,000 cases a month. I'm very familiar with the city. I'm very familiar with how crime works. I'm very familiar with what drives crime. And I can tell you, we can sit here and lie to ourselves and say there's not an impact, there is an impact. And I think the impact's stronger when you get into some of these smaller neighborhoods like this. Everybody's really tight. Halloween trick or treat time is crazy in our neighborhood because it's all kids. It's really a very kid friendly, one of those neighborhoods that you come and you're like, this is kind of unique, this is kind of different in Lexington, and it attracts a lot of people. They come there like, I want to live in that neighborhood because of that reason. I guess my biggest thing would be, we can go around in circles about people are against it, people are for it. But the will of the people in the neighborhood, you have a pretty easy to narrow down how many people you have. You have a very small number of houses. I think it said 194, if I'm not mistaken. The will of that neighborhood is overwhelmingly against it. And the person, I would rather look at the will of the people in that neighborhood than to go to an LLC, the owner of an LLC that's looking at it as a business venture. That's great, they have a business venture, but this neighborhood is going to be impacted. They're the ones that have a true stake, and I think they're the ones that, I looked at this, when I looked at this thing, it said approval recommended by the board. I just hope that those aren't foregone conclusions, because I really feel like, I was encouraged when she mentioned that there was something online, some people that were against one of those previously that we came up here. I just hope that you take that into consideration, because I can tell you, the whole neighborhood would probably be here if they just didn't have to work and had to be somewhere. Everybody's trying to be a bad guy, it's just, it's our neighborhood, and it's pretty strong feelings there. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other speakers in opposition? Would the applicant like to come back up for rebuttal? Are you speaking in opposition? Yes. Please state your name, please. My name is Amanda Tarver. I was listening to her talk and she said that they would make sure that the property would be maintained. I live right across the street from the property. What I've noticed was that it is not being maintained. The grass has been high. They come over maybe once a month or so. There was a storm to where a limb fell into the street. There was nobody there to pick it up. One of my neighbors had to go over and pick it up. The trash was left out. Whoever left, it just left. Another neighbor had to come over and pick it up. So I doubt that it will be maintained. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Any other speakers in opposition to this application? If not, would the applicant like to speak in rebuttal? So two things I'd like to address that I completely understand your guys' concerns. One, with the house being maintained. My parents purchased this house about four years ago and the conditions of this home were borderline condemnable. I don't know how they raised kids in this house. We completely renovated this home and it is actually very desirable now. And if you see the inside of the home, you can see the work that we have put into it. So I actually take pride in that because I was part of the process of getting it renovated. As for the outside maintenance, for a while I did struggle with finding a company to consistently maintain the yard, as I am a mother of three toddlers, so it's hard for me to do it myself. I am in open communications with the next door neighbors, and they actually take my trash in and out on an agreeance when it's needed, which is very infrequent because my parents, like I mentioned, live in Florida, so they are not here that often. And as for my house being listed on Airbnb, yes, I do. I understand that it was listed, and I actually was unfamiliar with the laws. The LLC is under my dad, so I am hosting this on behalf of myself. And as soon as I was made aware of the laws in Kentucky, I immediately contacted who sent that letter and stopped the listing, took it off of Airbnb, and started to work through this process. I also want to state that while it was illegally rented, I will say, I never had any complaints from any neighbors, nobody even knew that anybody was in there because I maintained it so well. And I do have cameras on the outside of the home to monitor, and I've always notified the neighbors next door, because I know they are a family with children, to let them know, hey, I have people coming this weekend. And I have been asked by them to use the home themselves. So I understand everyone's concerns, and I'm aware of everyone's comments on Facebook, and I have repeatedly opened communication with them, and I have never received a message from anyone. I have personally reached out to some of the people with complaints, but nobody in the neighborhood has messaged me directly to address any concerns. So, I'll leave that at that, but thank you all for your time. So, for your contact person, they don't have a name, but they don't have an address or a phone number or anything? That's myself, and I live in Lexington, the emergency contact. Okay, does our board have that? They should, yes. Okay, because it's not listed on the conditional use application. Is it? It's not on the affidavit that I had to have signed? Not the one that we have. Okay, well, I am that point of contact, and I do live in Lexington, just a couple neighborhoods over. Okay, and I'm struggling with this for three things. Number one, because of the maintenance, and then the safety with the kids, and the fact that we do have over 100 signatures on a document. Yes, and I'm aware, I would sign the same thing if I knew somebody was doing it in my neighborhood. Of course, there's always concerns with that with children. However, a lot of these individuals' kids, when my parents are in town, and my kids are over, their kids are over playing in the yard as well. That's interesting that you wouldn't want it next door to you, but it's okay for them. No, I'm saying I understand concerns. I have one on my street as well. Like I said, I'm a couple neighborhoods over, so I understand the concern. I'm a mother, of course it's concerning. However, I'm opening communication with people, and I'm allowing them to contact me if there is an issue. I'm a very open and honest person, and I will take any concerns and address them as needed. Thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? Any comments? No, I'll make a comment. I would like to make sure, just for the record, that there's been some things brought up about compliance, and it says in our packet that there aren't compliance issues, just knock that out before I head on. Yeah, I can address that. Okay, thanks. So when we check for compliance, we reach out to the Division of Revenue, because they do a lot of the enforcement on this. And I think the applicant mentioned it kind of indirectly. When Revenue, as they were using their software to track, found that it was being operated, they sent a notice of violation, and at which point the applicant removed the listing and no longer made it bookable. So we don't generally consider that to be a compliance issue, because they had a notice of violation and removed the listing, or made it non-bookable. So that's why you have that in your staff report. Okay, thanks. And I know Mr. Clark has done an excellent job of explaining this over the years. This doesn't mean that we like every applicant, that we approve, or it's based on very strict criteria that the council has given us. And unfortunately, for you guys, there's nothing saying that if 25, or 50, or 1,000 people sign a petition saying you just don't want it, that you cannot allow it. That's just not the case. It has to be things on this list, or something that we can interpret as being on this list. So from my standpoint, we've been given direct specific directions on how to proceed with this, and that's just not one of them. I understand that it causes issues, and there might be a lot of other things that we don't know the impact for years from now. But unfortunately, just because the neighborhood comes out and says we don't like it, at least the guidelines that I'm looking at doesn't accommodate for that. And for that, I'm sorry. But we didn't make those rules either, as Mr. Clark has brought up many, many years now. We're bound to approve or disapprove based on the parameters given to us. And at least in that regard, I would be bound to support this. Since my name has been used, since my name has been used, I will make a few comments. If I went in my neighborhood, and I went around to everybody in my neighborhood, said do you want an SDR in your neighborhood, is it okay? 95% would say no. I understand that. I'd say no too probably. But in this particular case, there's not a single SDR within 100 feet. And not a single one in 600 feet. And those are the two barriers that the council has approved and said, if there's one single SDR within 600 feet, we can disapprove it. Without any question. And within 1,000 feet, there has to be over 2% of the population, so to speak. And we can disapprove it. But there's 0%, 0 and 0, so no question about it. I totally understand, totally understand your concerns. And I think it's very normal, we hear this all the time. And it was only a few months ago that the council changed it to limit the number of SDRs within a particular area. So we're better off now than we used to be. I will say that, thank goodness. Because to have one SDR in that whole district is a lot better than it used to be. Because I've seen areas like yours that'll have 15, 20 SDRs within that area. But fortunately, you don't have that. And so in a sense, even though you're unhappy about this particular application, you're better off than a lot who have been here and talked to us about this. So I just wanted to make that clear, and so I'm not sure what the board will do. But that's one of the things that we're concerned with. Thank you. Would you like to step up for a quick comment? Could you just clarify the violation, how that wasn't a violation? Could you just clarify that? Because I know you explained it, but did she not get any compliance? Because we were told you had to get compliance, what does that have to do with compliance? Mr. Belcher? That's a violation, it seems like it was. So the way we've looked at the compliance record, it was a notice of violation. Generally, the Division of Revenue sends out two notices of violation before they move to citations. At which point, when somebody's had a citation, and you'll see this later on our agenda, typically staff has recommended that as a history of compliance issues once you get a citation. This, from our understanding, was given one notice and then stopped booking it, which technically puts them into compliance. They can't book it until they get approval after that, but that's the distinction there. They got their first notice, and then they made the listing no longer bookable. Whereas, typically for staff, if you get a notice of violation, a second notice of violation, and then a citation, that's when we would generally say that it's a compliance issue. Thank you. Does that answer your question? I'm just telling you, he confirmed that there was a violation, but I'm not sure she had any compliance, but there was a violation, it seems to me like, I mean, if you go to a traffic school or a traffic gate, we've still got traffic gates, same thing. Well- If we got any compliance, we're going to take it over and investigate it and do something about that. I'm not being marginal at all, I'm just making an observation. Well, we have to follow procedures, and he explained what we've done in the past and what is the procedure. That's their call. Any other comments or questions? I don't feel like I can support this just because of the safety concerns and because this Bernard Drive is just like a circular thing, and it does have a cul-de-sac, and because of all the kids that play in that area. So, I'm basing mine mainly on the safety concerns of it. Thank you. Any other further comments, discussion? Please step up to the podium and make it very brief, please. I think we need to also note that our neighborhood is within about two miles of I-75, and there's a lot of articles on the internet, anybody that cares to look at them, that Airbnbs bring in crime to a neighborhood. I've got loads of things right here that I can give you to cite. And there's one right here in Lexington that occurred that the Herald Leader wrote an article on where youthful people were shot at an Airbnb. If we are in close proximity to I-75, and there are people renting this house that have ill intent, it makes a quick getaway. And why would we want to bring crime into our neighborhoods? Why would you want to bring crime into our neighborhoods, and put our police officers chasing someone that has done something illegal? I think there's a lot to be considered here, and our proximity to I-75 is one of those. Ma'am, can you give us your name and address for the record? My name is Donna Lewis, I live at 3948 Bernard Drive, have lived there since 2007. Thank you. Any other discussion? Chair, I move to approve PLN BOA 25106 M3 Family Investments, LLC. For a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single zone at the property of 3996 Bernard Drive, based off of the staff's recommendations for approval. I have a motion to approve, do I have a second? Second. Second, Mr. Clark. Excuse me, I need to recite the conditions. You could just incorporate those, I didn't hear that in your motion. I'd like to amend the motion to approve the staff recommendations for approval based off of the following conditions. Do I need to? You don't need to read them. By the four conditions. Thank you. Mr. Boggess made a motion. Mr. Clark in second. Any further discussion? Motion passed on a four to three vote. The next item on our short-term rental applications herd docket. PLN BOA 25-108 Mint Pillow Management, Property Management, LLC. This application has received a staff recommendation of disapproval, so they will present first. All right. Hear me, is this working? Okay. Dalton Belcher on behalf of planning staff. So the applicant is requesting additionally, a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 808 Gunpowder Drive, Council District 6. You can see on the screen here, highlighted in orange, is the subject property. Here's a street view of the property as well. And then here's a site plan. The applicant notes that there is a two-car garage and a six-foot wooden fence around the property. So this short-term rental does not have any within 600 feet, and the percentage within a 1,000 foot buffer is below 2%. And here's that information again. There is one within the 1,000 foot buffer, but that only results in a 0.65% concentration within 1,000 feet. Staff's recommendation of disapproval is based on the compliance record here. So the Division of Revenue has noted that both Glenwood Retreat LLC and Mint Pillow Property Management LLC are single member LLCs owned by the same individual, Lisa Hasseter. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. Hasseter also has another short-term rental request on the agenda at 3112 Glenwood Drive, which will be heard later on this agenda. They also operate another short-term rental in Lexington at 464 North Martin Luther King Boulevard, which at the time of drafting staff reports was not currently licensed and had been issued citations by the Division of Revenue due to their lack of licensure. The Division of Revenue has an outstanding citation for 464 North Martin Luther King Boulevard and one for 3112 Glenwood Drive for operating without a license. So these got past notice of violations and had actual citations sent out by the Division of Revenue. They sent a second citation for 3112 Glenwood Drive once they were made aware by planning and staff of the application as the applicant had not paid their previous citation at that time. And as of September 19th, 2025, which is when we were drafting staff reports, the applicant was still listing 464 North Martin Luther King Boulevard on the VRBO platform and listing 3112 Glenwood Drive on the Airbnb platform. And then also just as a note, this is not necessarily a compliance issue, but the Division of Building Inspection noted that the applicant had not closed out permits on an active remodel and addition permit without any structural inspection at this property. So because the applicant is a single member LLC by the same individual, we're looking at their compliance issue across all the different LLCs they're operating. We don't want somebody to be able to basically say, I'm using ABC LLC and don't pay my citations. I'm going to create DEF LLC and then kind of get around that. So because it is the same individual, we're looking at the compliance issue there. The staff's recommendation is disapproval, and we know that three factors listed in Article 313G of the zoning ordinance have been evaluated. In addition to the requirements of Article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100.237. Second, the applicant has a documented history of compliance issues with the short-term rental regulations, including citations at other locations. The applicant has willfully violated the rules and regulations set forth in the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13, Article 5, and its subsections. This documented history of non-compliance provides strong evidence that the operation of another short-term rental could cause an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood by creating a nuisance. And that is what I have for staff's presentation. You have any questions for me? Any questions for Mr. Belcher? Thanks, sir. Will the applicant please come to the podium? Please state your name for the record. Hello, my name is Lisa Hostetter. I'm the owner of the property of 808 Gunpowder. Is that the, sorry, are we, yeah, 808 Gunpowder Drive. And we are applying for a conditional use permit to be a short-term rental. And yes, we do have a history of non-compliance and it was a lot of misunderstanding. We do have multiple short-term rentals that we operate and there was some confusion about some grandfathering rules and then also there are multiple platforms, too, and when we took it off one platform, it didn't come off of VRBO, the other platform. My son works with me, he lives in Denver, I live here in Lexington, but he moved to Denver not too long ago, so he manages a lot of the computers for us. We have since taken care of the penalties and taken care of making sure that we understand the rules now and getting everything back in compliance and then applying for a real short-term rental. License and understanding that there's not a grandfathering clause there. We've been operating these rentals since, in Lexington, I think since 2022. And there's been some rules changes since. Any questions? Comments from the discussion? We've been kind of hot on this today, so I'll ask you the same question you've got down, that there won't be any on-site staff. A local contact will be available 24-7. Who would that be? That's me. I live here in Lexington. I'm the emergency contact. Staff said that you still were renting on short-term platforms as late as September 19th. Have you still got it listed? No. None of them? No. Okay. All right. Thanks. Any other questions for the applicant? Any further discussion? Can I have a motion? Chair, I think you had public comment. I think there were some people for public comment. I just want to make sure if there's anybody here to speak. Very good. I also had a question. So I went by there like, I don't know, probably in the last five days, and there were Indiana plates in the driveway. So is that like a rental or is that you all? No, I'm from Indiana. Okay. But I'm living at 808 Gunpowder. You're what? I live in that home now. Okay. So will you be going back to Indiana or? No. Okay. You'll be living there? Not too necessarily long-term. I go back to visit. Thank you. Opposition? Speakers, please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Yes. My name is Tom Richards, and my wife and I reside at 2732 Red Leaf Drive, which shares a common property with this 808 Gunpowder. We've lived in this neighborhood 21 years. I have been on the board of directors over the past 10 years. We strongly oppose the COP application as an unhosted short-term rental. Our reasons are that our neighborhood has small lots, most around one-third of an acre, and while the site plan submitted by the applicant shows a large backyard area, that is not accurate as the property exists today. The property owner has made extensive, unapproved changes to the property that have negatively impacted our right to privacy and the undisturbed use and enjoyment of our property. They expanded a two-story deck across the back of their house that now allows people to look into the back of our covered patio area. This is the one that they have not had the building permit closed out on structurally. When I saw it going up, I actually mentioned to the owner that, did she have a permit? Because I know what it is, what needs to be done to affix that deck to the house. It wasn't done correctly. It's probably why they haven't closed it out. They've added an additional outdoor seating area up against the property line in violation of setbacks. They installed extensive hardscape over 70% of the backyard, and that expanded the recreational area. It causes runoff onto our property from there because the water goes right through the hardscape and comes down. Lastly, they installed a wood-burning fire pit with chairs around it, five feet from the property line. So that is a hazard as well. We're really concerned these extensive recreational improvements in the backyard are going to lead to serious problems with the transient rental property. It violates our rights. It violates the rights of our neighbors to the quiet enjoyment of our property. Approving the CUP is also going to have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood due to overcrowding, parking on Gunpowder Drive, and a decrease in property values. Lastly, I'm going to point out one item I understand with respect to what you can and cannot use in interpretation. I'm going to direct you to Section 1.0, Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. We had our documents amended by over half of the neighborhood to expressively prohibit short-term rentals because of the problems we had with one down on Red Leaf Drive. On your interpretation, what the ordinance says is that it is not intended by this zoning ordinance to repeal, abrogate, annul, or in any way impair or interfere with any existing provisions of law, ordinance, or resolution, or with any rules, regulations, or permits previously adopted or issued, or which shall be adopted or issued pursuant to law related to the use of buildings or premises, or with any private restrictions placed upon property by covenant, deed, or recorded plan. Could you wrap up your comments please? Pardon? Could you wrap up quickly? I will. Okay. So while you do not have the power to enforce deed restrictions, you are required, according to your own interpretation, to include them. We had over 50% of the neighborhood approve a restriction of short-term rentals. That's filed, it's on record, and it's obviously far stronger than a petition of the neighborhood. So I'm here as a board member as well to represent the over 50% of the neighborhood that has clearly already stated they do not want short-term rentals in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. State your name and address for the record please sir. Ron Griffin, 809 Little Silver Court. Could you lower the microphone a little bit so you can speak? Ron Griffin, 809 Little Silver Court. Thank you. I come today as a 20-year resident of this Shetland subdivision with an investment with my home and my wife and family. We've lived there. We have an HOA that we support, used to be a member of that. We voted over 50% not to allow short-term rentals in our neighborhood. It's a closed-in neighborhood, one way in and one way out, with children. Unfortunately, many of the neighbors are still working. They could not be here. I'm retired. With that being said, I did not envision having short-term rentals. They do not become a fabric of the neighborhood. They don't have any allegiance to the neighborhood. We have a lot of young children that play in the street. What I've seen with one or two short-term rentals that are there, they park where they want to park. They come and go where they want to go. They don't blend in as neighbors at all. I did not make an investment 20 years ago in my property to share with someone who is come and go as they please every couple of weeks. I would hope this body would listen to the neighbors. Over 50% do not want this. It's sad that we have to come down to this hearing when we have a HOA that says this is how we want our neighborhood to look, how we voted to live. It's been very peaceful. People have been very happy. Great neighbors. All ethnicities within the neighborhood. Age range. Airbnb does not fit what I signed up for. Nothing gets against that. But our particular neighborhood with a little over 100 and some homes, it's not designed for that. And to get up on a given morning every other month seeing a different car, different person next door, don't even bother to speak, you don't even get to know them. That really changes the whole fabric and the feel of where you live. You don't even feel safe when people just come in, get out, move, get in the car, go, whatever they're doing, and then they're gone. The next month you've got somebody else doing the same thing. I have no problem with long-term. I've got a long-term rental person right next to me, been one of the best neighbors I've had because he's there for the long haul. And he blends in. He helps out. Short-term, there's no obligation, there's no incentive to be a part in the fabric of the neighborhood. Please listen to the people who live there and do what we would like you to do based on what we want. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any additional speakers in opposition of this application? Any further discussion from the board? Could I have a motion for disapproval, please? Would the applicant like to make a rebuttal? No? Could I have a motion for disapproval, please? I'll make the motion for PLN-BOA-25-000-108, Menpillow Property Management, LLC, request a conditional use permit for an unhoisted short-term rental in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on the property located at 808 Gunpowder Drive. I make a motion for disapproval based on the staff's recommendation. Could I have a second? Second. Is that from James? Second. I have a motion from Mrs. Tucker and a second from Mr. Persily. Any further discussion? Could I have a vote, please? Application has been disapproved. Our next item on the short-term rental application's HERD docket is BOA-25-109, Glenwood Retreat, LLC. This application has also been recommended by staff for disapproval. Mr. Belcher, would you like to comment? So this is a conditional use permit request for an unhoisted short-term rental at 3112 Glenwood Drive, Council District 6, single-family residential R1D zone. Highlighted in orange here is the subject property on the screen. See it here? There you go. Here is a street view of the property as well. The applicant is again showing a two-car garage and a wooden fence around the property. So staff is recommending disapproval. This time there's a second part of this. So as you can see on the screen, there is a, up here where my mouse is hovering, there is a short-term rental within the 600-foot buffer. And then also there is another short-term rental down here at, on, it's not showing up on the map. It's this property right here that I'm hovering on. It was approved in March at the BOA. They have not gone, got their license with revenues. That's why it's not showing up as a little greenhouse on the map. But it has been approved by this board. So that's two within 600 feet. I know we said one initially, but that is two within 600 feet. I will note that I spoke with the revenue staff, and the one that is not showing up on the map, they are currently pursuing enforcement and citations on them because they did not get a license. But any motion you make, we would ask that you include, because we reference this as part of our disapproval. If you were to go with disapproval, if there's one within 600 feet, and that's incorrect, there is two that have been approved for conditional uses within 600 feet. But going back, this is a similar reasoning because it's the same applicant, or not the same applicant, but the same person behind both LLCs. So because, and this property is the one, 312 Glenwood Drive, that had been given the citation for operating without a license. And I got a second citation as well, as long as the issues with the 464 North Martin Luther King Boulevard that we discussed. And not having a license and getting a citation from revenue. And then continuing to list on VRBO and Airbnb. And then not closing out the permits, building inspection on the 808 gunpowder, just as another note. So staff's recommendation is that the three factors listed in Article 3, 13G of the zoning ordinance have been evaluated, in addition to the requirements of the Article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100.237. Second, that there is one existing short-term rental within 600 feet of the subject property. And this is now two, based off what I just mentioned a few minutes ago. And then third, that the applicant has a documented history of compliance issues with the short-term rental regulations, including citations. The applicant has willfully violated the rules and regulations set forth in the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13, Article 5, and its subsections. This documented history of noncompliance provides strong evidence that the continued operation of the short-term rental would cause an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood by creating a nuisance. So any questions for me? It's a similar type analysis to the last case, but there's also two within 600 feet. They've been approved by this board, or grandfathered in. Any questions for Mr. Belcher? Comments? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Applicant, please come forward. State your name and address for the record again, please. My name is Lisa Hostetter. I'm the owner of 3112 Glenwood Drive. I live in Lexington, Kentucky, at 808 Gunpowder Drive. And we're applying for a short-term, a conditional use short-term rental license for Glenwood Drive. That property we've been operating as a short-term rental since 2022 until recently when we stopped once we understood the rules. And we were initially confused about grandfathering, and now we're going through the appropriate process to try to get a short-term rental license. Since operating this particular property as a short-term rental for the last three years or so, there's been no issues or complaints. And I do know the neighbors in that neighborhood. I lived in that house short-term for a while, but I'm not aware of neighbors in that area being concerned about short-term rentals. Questions for the applicant? Comments? So I noticed that it's in Louisville is the address. I'm sorry, what was that question? The address for the application is in Louisville, Kentucky? I think that's a business office address. Okay. We have other rental properties, and so that's kind of the business office where we try and manage everything. Okay. But you live here? I live here. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Comments? Staff has recommended disapproval. May I have a motion for disapproval? Sure. I just want to ask if there's any public comment before you go to see if there's any public comment before. I asked for comments. Is there any opposition? Just wanted to make sure. Yes. Comments? Discussion? Staff has recommended disapproval on this application. Can I have a motion? Mr. Chair, I recommend disapproval of PLN BOA 25109, Glenwood Retreat LLC, request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential zone, a property located at 3112 Glendale Drive, based on the staff's recommendation for disapproval. And can I just note changing the recommendation to reference two existing short-term rentals instead of just one? Yes. Yes, that's correct. I have a motion from Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion from Mr. Clark, a second from Ms. Tucker. Any other comments? I'll make a quick comment just because I don't think you deserve a little bit more explanation because it is denial. And I think that one is because there's only one in a buffer area and one is because there's two in a buffer area. I'll vote against this just because of the compliance issues, and I'm sorry for that. But we fundamentally, just as I gave my speech before, you know, if we're going to be hard-nosed on one side of the fence, we've got to be hard-nosed on the other. And the way the city's laid it out is very, very particular about the people who actually get the STR licenses. And the noncompliance, I think, is a big red flag for at least me. I can't speak for the rest of the board. But I think you at least deserve an explanation of why we're going down that path without a whole lot of talking. No, I understand. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. May I have a vote, please? Thank you. Motion for disapproval has passed. Your application was disapproved. Our last item on the STR HERT agenda is 25-115, Flow State Properties. Staff has recommended approval for this. Is the applicant? Please step up. The podium, please. It looks like to me the lady who's opposing this is on. You might just ask after he finishes. Okay. My name is Taylor Wood. I heard your comment. Yeah, she spoke to me in that first five-minute break. She's a neighbor across the street. And she said that she was here in opposition because she was concerned about parking. She didn't want somebody parking in her yard. And I explained to her that behind our home we have an electric swing gate and we have MAMPL. We can park four or five cars back there, no problem. So I told that to her. And then she said that she didn't have any other concerns and then left. Did you state your name for the record? Yeah. Did I miss that? Taylor Wood. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval on this. And is there anyone here in opposition? Just put out for the record that there's no opposition to this application. Staff has recommended approval subject to the four conditions. Have you read those four conditions? Yes, I have. And you're in agreement with those? Yes. Questions from the board? So you live in Elizabethtown? Yeah, we're originally from Elizabethtown. And then we bought a home here, renovated it, and decided to move here with our family. And then the reason for the permit request is I just got some good work opportunities there. So I want to be able to work and take the family with me. And when we're not here, rent it and then be able to come back and utilize the schools and just Lexington in general. OK, so you'll be able to run up here and maintain it and manage it? Yes. OK, thank you. So you're not using the property management firm? You're going to do it yourself? Yes, myself. OK. Questions? Board members, questions? Any comments? Applicant has stated that he is in agreement with the four conditions. May I have a motion for approval? Yeah. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLM-BOA-25-115, Flow State Properties Request for Conditional Use Permit for an Unhosted Short-Term Rental in a Single-Family Residential Zone or Property at 1717 Liberty Road, based upon the staff report, the comments given here today, and subject to the four conditions set forth in the report. Thank you. Thank you. May I have a second? Second. We have a motion by Mr. Gross, second by Mr. Walker. Any other questions or discussion before we vote? May I have a vote, please? Motion is approved. Thank you. Have a good afternoon. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Does staff have any items for discussion? Further discussion? Can I make a comment? Can I make a comment on the 3112 Glenwood Drive? I missed it. I just wanted to note for everybody, I live next door, and they were renting it out all weekend. She said they didn't rent it out. Which case was that? 3112 Glenwood Drive. I live next door. My name is Jerry Williams. And when I left for work this morning, there was a vehicle in the driveway that they had rented. There was rental people there all weekend. They came in on Friday. It was disapproved today. Yes, I understand. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Nothing from staff? Any board members have any items for discussion? No board members' items for discussion? The next meeting date will be November 10, 2025 at 1.30. This meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.