Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Mrs. Raquel Carter is here. Not only was she a board member, she was a former chairman. We'd like to recognize her today. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington-Fayette County-Urban County Board of Adjustment and Staff, acknowledge the conclusion of Mrs. Raquel Carter's term of service to the Board of Adjustment, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mrs. Carter for her valuable service to the Board of Adjustment, having served on the Board from July 2017 to July 2025, as the chair from July 2022 to June 2025, whereas the Board of Adjustment members and staff feel that the service given by Mrs. Carter will be greatly missed. Now, therefore, be it resolved we, the members of the Board of Adjustment and the staff, express our deep gratitude to Mrs. Carter for her service to the Board and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County, and we, the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Board of Adjustment and Staff, to hereby wish Mrs. Carter much happiness and continued success and ask that she continue to give valuable guidance to the members of the Board, and be further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Carter and also spread upon the minute book of the body, dated Lexington, Kentucky, this 10th day of November 2025, and signed by all the Board members. Yeah, if we could have all the Board members come down and we'll take a photo with Mrs. Carter. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. If you're prepared today to speak on behalf of or in opposition to an application, would you please stand up, raise your right hand. You promise you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you. Thank you. Please be seated. We are going to do what we call sounding the agenda now, and this is a simple process of taking the applications that are going to be expedited quickly and considering them first, and the cases with opposition or disapproval later. You should have a handout in front of you that tells you a little bit about our process. It's pretty simple. We have a docket divided into two sections. On one side is the variances and the conditional use permits, and on the other side is the short-term rentals. What we do is we divide those into two different categories, the expedited and the heard. The criteria for the expedited docket is that if the staff has recommended approval and has no opposition, we hear those first, and those that have been recommended for disapproval or have opposition, we hear those second, and that works for both the variances and the conditional use permits and also the short-term rentals. This is how we expedite the meeting. Hopefully we're successful in that. So we're going to start and go through our cases one at a time. The first case is PLN VOA 25-116, Kelly Mathis is the applicant here. When I call your name for applicant, just stand up and raise your hand so I can see you. Thank you very much. And is there anyone here speaking in opposition? This one has been marked for approval. We'll put it down on the expedited docket as number one. So PLN VOA 25-116 will be number one on the expedited docket. Now we'll move to page two of our agenda. PLN VOA 25-121, Catherine Vass and Nicholas Andrew White, the applicants here. Thank you. Staff has recommended disapproval on this application, so it will go first on the HERD docket. It will be 25-121. Second item on page two of the agenda, PLN VOA 25-126, Kristen Weeks is the applicant here. Thank you. Is there any opposition to this application? This one has been recommended for disapproval, so it will go number two on the HERD docket, 25-126. The last item on page two of the agenda is PLN VOA 25-127, Lexington Home Ownership Commission, Inc. is the applicant present. Thank you. This has been recommended for approval. Is there any opposition to this? Yes, thank you, sir. This will go number three on the HERD docket, PLN VOA 25-127. Mr. Chair, I will be recusing from that case, and I've submitted my paperwork to the staff. Thank you. Moving to page three of the agenda, PLN VOA 25-30, Kane Manor LLC is the applicant here. Thank you. This has been recommended for disapproval of the variance and also for disapproval of the conditional use permit, So we're going to put this on the variance docket as number four, and it will be HERD. So PLN VOA 25-30. It's for a short-term rental? Should we put it on the first short-term rental item? No, this is a... I think it's a variance to permit a short-term rental within... Yes, that's correct. And I assume if we disapprove the variance, we won't need to take any action on the short-term rental. Okay, that's fair. The last item on page three of the agenda, PLN VOA 25-107, Theda Yee. And I've been told from the planning staff that they want to postpone this until February 2026. Is that correct? Excuse me, that is correct. And the February meeting is on February 9th of 2026. February 9th of 2026. Do we need to get a motion on that? Yes. Okay. PLN VOA 25-107, Theda Yee. Conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental. Single-family residential zone on property located at 2111 Stonewood Lane. Request postponement to February 2026. Could I have a motion, please? So moved for the February 9, 2026 date. Second. I have a motion and a second. Could we have a vote, please? Do you want to just do a voice vote? No. Second. Second. I guess due to technical difficulties, we'll take a voice vote. All in favor of the postponement motion, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Unanimous. Moving to page four on your agenda. PLN VOA 25-122, the Bright Spot LLC is the applicant in attendance. Thank you. This has been recommended for approval. I have a note here of one letter of opposition you may need to respond to. Is there anyone here in opposition to? We're on page four, number three. To that one also. We're on the Bright Spot LLC is the one we're talking about right now. Bright Spot LLC. Are you in opposition to this one? Okay, thank you. So this is Bright Spot LLC 25-122. Staff has recommended approval. No one here in opposition. So we're going to put that as number two on the expedited docket. 25-122. The last item on page four of the agenda, PLN VOA 25-123, the Down Syndrome Association of Central Kentucky. Thank you. Applicant's here. Staff has recommended approval of this. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? No. We'll put this number three on the expedited docket. PLN VOA 25-123. Moving to page five of the agenda, PLN VOA 25-124. And this is a short-term rental, so we'll be moving to the other side of the docket. James Holub here. Thank you. Staff has recommended disapproval of this application, but we will put it as number one on the HERD docket for short-term rental. 25-124. The last item on page five is PLN VOA 25-129, Silver Springs Farm Equine and Vineyard LLC. Applicant here. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval on this. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll put 25-129, number one on the expedited docket for short-term rentals. Looks like the end of our applications. The first application to be heard is 25-116, Kelly Mathis. This has been recommended for approval with no opposition. Would the applicant please step up to the microphone? Please state your name and address for the record, please. Kelly Mathis, 1004 Aurora Avenue. Is that better? Yes. Kelly Mathis, 1004 Aurora Avenue, Lexington, 40502. This has been recommended for approval. Have you read the conditions? Yes. And are you in agreement with those? Yes. Board members, any discussion, questions? Could I hear a motion, please? Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 25-116, Kelly Mathis' request for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for 3 feet to 1 foot 6 inches within a defined infill and redevelopment area in a mixed low-density residential zone on property located at 1004 Aurora Avenue, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the three conditions as listed. I have a motion. Mr. Clark, do I hear a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Could I please have a vote? So there's been a technical difficulty. We'll have to do all hand voting today so that the meeting hasn't started or did start and ended prematurely in the system. So if you'll raise your hand when you're ready to vote so that Patty can record everyone's vote. We might just have to hold a little bit longer than normal, though. Thank you. Thank you. All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed. Patty, did you get that? Unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Second item on our expedited docket is PLN VOA 25-122 Bright Spot LLC. Name and address for the. I'm Angie Madden, 733 Cromwell Way. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this based on two conditions. Are you aware of the conditions? Yes. And I agree. And you're in agreement of those? Yes. Any questions or comments? There are citizen comments. Sorry, am I on the bright spot one? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Have you seen these letters of opposition before? Is this your first time? No. Yes. If you want to take a minute to read those. Just to clarify, we do have two cases for the same address. I think the board is aware of that. One is for a school for academic instruction, and one is for a community center. So the two emails I handed out, one addresses both, and the other just addresses the Down Syndrome Association. So I've only given the applicant the one that addressed both cases since it mentions the bright spot. Okay. Would you like to respond to these comments? Absolutely. Yes. So our current plans, so this letter has two concerns. One is for destruction of existing wooded area and increased construction noise and disruption. We're not going to make any external changes to the property and just minimal things inside paint, cleaning carpets, and things like that. So there will be no additional destruction of trees or wooded areas or external construction noise or anything like that. For the long-term noise and traffic impact, we will be a micro school, so we will be very small, at maximum probably 40 students. And we will have staggered start and end times to assist with the traffic disruption, as well as staggered time for the children to be outdoors to help reduce noise and things like that. So we anticipate 10 to 15 children outside, maybe at a time. And there's a wooded buffer on both sides of the property and a very large wooded buffer, three acres on the backside of the property, that we hope will assist with keeping the noise levels and traffic down to a minimum. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Comments? Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of PLM BOA 25-122, the Bright Spot LLC's request for a conditional use permit to establish a school for academic instruction in both a planned neighborhood residential R3 and a medium-density residential R4 zone on property located at 2109 Cornerstone. Based upon the staff's report and the testimony given herein and subject to the conditions set forth therein. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. 7-0. 7-0. Our next case is PLM BOA 25-123, the Down Syndrome Association of Central Kentucky. Name and address, please, for the record. Tracy Brewer, 1040 Watermill Lane. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this application based on two conditions. Have you read the conditions? I'm sorry? Have you read the conditions? No, I'm just not seeing them. Oh, the conditions. Yes. Are you in approval with those? Yes. Thank you. Any questions? Any comments? Can I have a motion, please? Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of PLM BOA 25-123, the Down Syndrome Association of Central Kentucky's application for a conditional use permit to establish a community center in both the planned neighborhood residential R3 zone and a medium density R4 zone on property at 2109 Cornerstone. Based upon the staff's report, the testimony herein given and subject to the conditions therein. So moved. Second. Who got the second? Firstly. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. And I want to say this looks like it's going to be a great project, and I hope that the children are able to enjoy what you're going to build there. It's going to change a lot of lives. A lot of lives. That's great. Thank you. Our next application is PLM BOA 25-121, Catherine Vass and Nicholas Andrew White. This is recommended for disapproval, so staff will present first. Mr. Belcher, how's your voice doing? We'll see how it holds up. It's not going to win any radio awards today, though. All right. So this is a request for a variance to increase the maximum allowable height of an accessory structure from 16 feet 7 inches to 17 feet 7 inches in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 3402 Fleetwood Drive, Council District 5. You can see the subject property here highlighted in orange, and I'm also going to zoom in on it here, circling around it. It's here at the corner. So this is a street view of the property where the fence is now, and this view is where the garage is currently being constructed and what led to this variance request. You can see on the side plan here, so we have the house here, the existing residence, and then we have the garage being built over here to the side of the house. It's set back a few feet back from the actual front plane of the house with the driveway leading up to it. The applicants also provided quite a few elevations and renderings that I'll show. I'm sure if they get into their presentation, they may also mention these as well. So this is showing, the first image here is showing the current situation basically on the property, and then the next, the one below that is what they're requesting. So essentially they're requesting that the garage here on the right is going to end up being a foot taller than the house. And then here's just some different views that they provided. So the applicant has mentioned as part of their justification that why they believe they should be granted the variance is that from the road, because of the elevation, about the visual, sort of how you'll be able to see it from the road, whether it be noticeable, whether it's taller or not. And here's just another rendering that kind of shows the height. So they had initially started working on this and got permits and then realized that what they were building didn't really meet what they had planned because there were some differences in the grade and the way that things actually turned out to be the real conditions on site. So staff does mention, these are a couple of sections from the ordinance that I want to highlight. Article 15.6.A.4 states that the maximum height of accessory buildings shall be measured from the grade surrounding the structure to the apex of the gable and shall not exceed the elevation of the principal structure. And I bolded that for emphasis because that's part of staff's recommendation. And then also just a couple other things here mentioned that 15.6.C. states that accessory buildings and residential zones shall not exceed the lot coverage, which is the building footprint of buildings to which they are accessory. The total size of all buildings and accessory to dwelling units shall not exceed 50% of the total square footage of buildings to which they are accessory. And then in our definition section, an accessory structure is defined as a structure that is subordinate to the principal used for building on a lot and serving a purpose customarily incidental thereto. The ordinance further states that no accessory structure can be constructed on a lot before a principal structure. So I bring these up just to kind of build the idea that the ordinance has a clear indication that accessory structures are supposed to be subordinate to principal structures. And that includes height, size. So staff recommends disapproval for two reasons. First, 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. The applicant will still be able to build an attached accessory garage by altering the height or grade of the structure. And second, the granting of the variance would allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as there is a clear intent of the ordinance for accessory structures to be subordinate in size to principal structures. And that's it for staff. Any questions for me? What's the status? It looks like maybe the concrete slab had been poured or has any construction occurred at all? They had started construction. They had started construction. It was, to my understanding, it was during building inspections, inspection on site, that they realized this issue when they came out to inspect the progress that had gone on to that point. Okay. I'm a little confused. It says that the proposed garage is 17-7 and the principal structure is 18-7. I think they had some, when they initially did their plans, and I'll let the applicant clarify that, they had some different measurements based on what they thought the site was. And then once they actually got into it, they realized that they were measuring a little bit wrong on that. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Will the applicant please come forward? State your name and address for the record. My name is Andrew White. Address is 3402 Fleetwood Drive, Lexington, Kentucky, 40502. So, first of all, I want to thank the planning department for that presentation and helping me out to fill out all this paperwork. So just to clarify the request, I'm requesting a one-foot variance to the ordinance 15-6A-4. It states that the accessory building shall not exceed the elevation of the principal structure, so they're supposed to be even. So the reason I'm here is the plan that was shared with the city and the contractors, it shows an attempt of an accessory structure that is below the maximum allowable height, but the as-built condition of the concrete floor, it was plus one foot higher than the plan. So in the plan, it shows that the plan was to grade the land and the floor of the garage was supposed to be 1.38 feet below the grade of the primary structure, and the as-built condition of the floor after it was graded, they put rock down, they put concrete down, it was .38 feet below the grade. So this was actually found by the framing contractor when they came out to it. So they poured the concrete, we have all the concrete, the footings down, the concrete's poured, the framer came out there and they did measurements beforehand, and they called me at work and said that we can't build the, it was originally planned for 10-foot high walls on the interior. They had to go 9-foot so that they don't go above my house, and I gave them the okay to do that. But then I came home, and I had about a week and a half to think about it because we were waiting on the trusses to come. So I decided to analyze it. Me and my wife said we would still like to have the original function and design intent of the garage, so I analyzed it. I mean, our main concern was visually, we don't want something that looks taller than our house. So I did the drawings that the planning department showed. I analyzed it from different angles and put it in a 3-D program, and in our opinion, it doesn't look taller if you go from one foot taller. You can't tell. So that's kind of why I'm here. And just to clarify some of the justification, the as-built condition, it was a contractor error. It was not in the stakes of the homeowner. And we believe, our opinion is that it does not visually look taller. The perception of not being higher is due to the upward sloping lot, which places the primary structure above the street level, so you're looking up at it. So visually, we don't believe it looks taller if it was a foot above that elevation. And also, a plus-one-foot variance is not really out of the line with the average building height of many of our neighboring houses. About half of the neighboring houses within the notification vicinity are multi-story houses. And that's actually one of the handouts I brought, because I didn't put it in the justification statement. It was kind of an afterthought to visually show on the map how many houses are multi-story. So I was going to just hand this out. And so that's the justification. We just figured it was worth asking for all the money we're putting into it, and we plan on staying there for the rest of our lives, you know, grandkids and retirement. So try to get the original intent of the design. Okay. Oh, yeah, sorry. So the handout there is – I have a copy here. So the letters are just – behind the handout, I put pictures of each house just so you can visually see them. But it's just a vicinity map. I used the sample of those houses that I had to send the letters to about this variance. And it's just showing about half of them are multi-story houses. So we don't believe we're affecting the character of the neighborhood by having this structure. Even with the plus one-foot variance, which, again, we don't believe is visually taller, which we know is the main purpose of the ordinance. It's just to show that there are many structures taller than ours very close to our house. So I just wanted to visualize that and kind of set the situation of the neighborhood. It's hard to verbally just say that. And these are all Google images, by the way. Anyone have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Boggess? And the trusses are on-site and measured to be that this matches what you're asking for exactly for this? So the trusses are – they're not there on-site yet. The walls were built 9-foot tall instead of – in the design, it's supposed to be 10-foot tall. So we built them a foot lower. So we're not out of the ordinance or breaching the ordinance. If we were to put the trusses on today, it would be correct. We're asking to add one foot to the walls and keep the original intent of our design. That's our ask. We figure it's worth asking because of the time and money we're putting into it. But based on your modifications, the garage would still be a foot taller than the apex of the house. Is this correct? If we don't mess with the walls at all the way they are now, it's not. It will be within the ordinance. Currently, everything is – we stopped. The framer caught it. They measured and we didn't – I told them build it a foot lower to stay within the ordinance. And now I've had time to think about it because I was waiting for the trusses. So this is back at the beginning of October, so then I stopped the trusses. And I called the Department of Inspection, where we got the permit from, and asked about my idea. And they told me about the Board of Adjustment process. So that's how I got here. Any other questions? Any comments from staff? Mr. Clark, just to clarify, I misunderstood your question when you asked me the question about the 18 feet. You're seeing that in your staff report. That's an error. It is 16 feet. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you for keeping me honest there. Thank you. I thought I was going crazy here. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions or discussions? John, can I have a motion? It seems like a whole bunch of hoops to jump through for an extra foot. And I think we're stuck with trying to come up with a really solid reason for, I guess, the reasoning for wanting that extra feet. You haven't built it yet. That's what we're trying to, at least what I'm grappling with. That's fine. The intent and design of the structure is to be able to use it, of course, for garage cars. But then also, I'd like to, in the nearer term, put a wood shop in there. And then one day I'd like to be able to have a car lift in there so I could park two sports cars in there. And that one foot makes a really big difference on an interior space. And that's what it was designed for. On the exterior, you can't tell. But it's for the intent and usage. And for a wood shop, I mean, you get ten-foot-long boards, and to store them up against the wall, that wall's nine foot tall, you're going horizontal, and you're taking up the whole wall. It was designed a certain way. And we're trying to stick to the intent of the design, not walk out there every day and think, oh, it was supposed to be a foot taller for the rest of my life. I mean, we plan on staying there. That's our plan. Could you not change the slope of your roof? The slope of the roof matches the slope of the current house. It's a 5'12 pitch, so we don't. There's a couple things. One, we don't want to change that because it looks visually nice from the outside. And then two, I also do want not just the wall height, but the total height of the ceiling height also. I don't want it to be the intended design. I don't want to lose a foot up there either. What's the pleasure of the board? Do I have a motion? I do want to mention, if I just respectfully ask if you could take into consideration, I didn't know about this variance until after I turned this one in, but looking at the archives, there was one back in August that was very similar to mine that was disapproved by the staff, but it was extremely similar to mine, but it was approved when it was presented to the board. So if you could recall that and just consider that also. Are you willing to speak in opposition or in agreement? In support. Would you come up to the microphone, please? Please state your name and address for the record. I'm Sam Turco. We're direct neighbors of Andrew's. So our house is slightly lower grade than theirs, and we got the letter from the board asking for opposition or for support, and I'm here to support our neighbor. One foot is not going to make any difference. You'll never see that. If you can, you have better eyes than me. But the only thing we request is that because of the higher grade of the roof, that there's going to be a lot of water coming directly towards our house, and we request some kind of drain system to go directly to the street so it doesn't come into our house, because we spent, before Andrew moved there, we spent tens of thousands of dollars because the house was settling. When we bought the house, we didn't know that, and we had to have the house on that side of the house fixed. It costs a lot of money, and so we are very wary of water problems coming from the drainage from the garage. Other than that, we totally support your approval of Andrew's request. Any questions? Thank you for your commentary. I appreciate the information that you've given us, Mr. White, especially with all the homes that's located around here. My only thing is that all the homes that you have highlighted here, none of them are direct neighbors to you. And with that in mind, I think it kind of upholds the staff's judgment as far as the integrity of the neighborhood. With that in mind, I am going to uphold the staff's comments in a judgment for PLN BOA 25-00121, a request, a variance to increase the maximum allowable height of an accessory structure from 16 feet 7 inches to 17 feet 7 inches in a single-family residential zone on a property located at 3402 Fleetwood Drive. And I uphold the staff's recommendation of disapproval for the reasons stated. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a motion and a second. All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed? Thank you. Our next agenda item is PLN BOA 25-126, Kristen Weeks. Staff has recommended disapproval, so they will present. This is a request for a variance to reduce the required setback from the side lot line for a driveway from 2 feet to 6 inches in a mixed low-density residential R2 zone on property located at 1204 Slashes Road, Council District 5. You see the subject property here highlighted in orange. I'm also hovering around it. Here is Slashes Road. Here is the street view of the property. So the applicant currently has a shared parking agreement with this property to the left that runs up here on the left side of the house and goes back. There are two garages back here, and we'll get some more pictures of that in a second. The applicant's request today is going to be for a driveway that runs along this property line back here. You see it running past these bushes, and that's where the 2-foot to 6-inch variance is for this property line on this side. So here's the site plan that shows that. You can see the applicant would be proposing for this driveway to come all the way back around the property and wrap around to their existing garage, which they do plan to rebuild. They also mentioned that if they were granted this variance, they would remove the pavement over here from the shared access and no longer use that access to their garage because they'd be reorienting the garage. These are some pictures provided by the applicant. Just to give a little bit more context, again, here on the right, this is kind of the lane that the driveway would be following along the property line. On the left is just a picture basically that is wrapping around the house. The driveway would be coming back towards you if you're looking at this trampoline coming this way. And then on the right, this garage on the left in this picture is the neighboring property's garage. This is the applicant's current garage. And this is just another view showing the backyard. Staff recommends disapproval, 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. The property is similar in size, shape, and character to other properties in the vicinity. And second, that the applicant has not provided sufficient justification to determine the strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship or deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land. The property's existing driveway configuration provides opportunity for vehicles to maneuver, and the applicant can replace their existing garage without needing a new driveway or a variance. And that's all for staff's presentation. Do you have any questions for me at this time? Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Belcher. You're welcome. Will the applicant please come forward? So you can use this. This goes back. Okay. And this goes forward. I'll put you up at the front there. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Hi. Thank you for hearing my case. State your name, please. Kristen Weeks. Thank you. 1204 Slashes Road, Lexington, 40502. So my request is to build a driveway on this side of the house. Right now, if you can see that the current, it's basically a carport because it can't support a garage door. When I bought the property in January, I did have it looked at by a garage door installer who deemed that it would be able to house a garage door. And then subsequently, I had some pictures of the inside, but it's basically in very poor condition, and I've had several contractors come and tell me that it would not support the garage door. So that's the first problem. And then to build a proper-sized garage with a proper foundation, the current condition of it is basically like crumbling asphalt and dirt. The garage would have to come out to where you can see the proper garage on the left. So it would move out, I think, a foot or 18 inches, which would then make it harder, as it is currently. When I back out of the shared driveway, I come very close to the side of the house, and it's a difficult kind of maneuvering that I have to do every morning to get to work and school. So it's very tight, and so we started thinking about creative ways kind of around that. One would be to just put a proper garage and have it coming out where it needs to be kind of the right length, and it's drawn to scale in the drawings to maintain the 18 inches to the back property line. So it would have to come out further, making that maneuverability harder. So then we started thinking, well, if I use the other side. Sorry, this is showing you just kind of half of the angle that you have to come around, and the red brick is the side of the house. So on the other side, this is from the backyard looking out. It is tight. It's just a small lot. But on the adjacent property, it is a fourplex, and there's no driveway. It's a big yard, so the driveway would be adjacent to a yard, not another driveway or a house. It's space there, so I felt like I'm not kind of impinging on their property or their space. There's no kind of harm that could come from having a driveway there. And then, again, this is just showing kind of that it would be tight, but you have the dimensions. And then if we did do it this way, the orientation of the garage facing McDowell, I don't know if anyone has an issue with that, but I can kind of go into why we thought that we would do that. Any questions? Any comments? Just orientation-wise, your garage was the one on the right, correct? Yeah. Okay. The one where I had kind of some framing done to try to fix the problem of housing the garage door. Yeah. Just making sure. For some reason, I was getting crisscrossed on it. Is it an easement situation or just being nice, the garage on the other side? It's an easement. Okay. Okay. It looks like your current driveway, though, is wider than what would go around the house. So the one on the side yard, it would be 9 feet, which is narrower than this full amount. But when it comes around, he had it drawn so that there would be 15 feet in the case that I would need to back out and then come forward out of the driveway. Does that make sense? It just seems like it would be harder, even more difficult, to get out if you came all the way around the house. Yeah. And then we thought, too, about just having the garage be in that back right corner of the lot. But it would come out so far that it would be very close to the back of the house. And I'm trying to – this is a later thing, but I don't have a laundry room, and so I'm trying to put like a mudroom kind of off of the kitchen. And so there's just no room. So that's why we thought of having it in the same location, kind of using the wide space there but orienting it the other way. And honestly, I just don't want to park the car on the street. We've had thefts in the neighborhood of break-ins, and then it just – what I would like to be able to do is drive into the driveway and leave it and then use the garage for storing our bikes, storing our tools. My 10-year-old likes to work. We have a wood shop that's kind of just this screened-in porch to the side, so making a proper wood shop in there. So that's the idea of like having – if you have your own driveway, you can leave your car in your driveway and not necessarily park it in the garage. Sorry to – yeah. This might be a question for staff, but is there – I mean, let's just assume that this is okay. Is there a consideration of the quantity of impervious surface in the backyard? It seems like it's getting hefty back there. I didn't know if that was – if you prove one situation, if that creates another. So the ordinance only addresses the impervious surface in the front yard and not the rear. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Any further discussion? If not, I'll ask for a motion. Ms. Weeks, we all appreciate you coming here today and addressing this with staff and especially with the pictures and explanation of the driveway and what you're trying to get done. However, due to the complexity of having that second driveway and where it's fitting at, I'm going to have to uphold the staff's recommendation for disapproval. So for PLN-VLA-25-00126, request a variance to reduce the required setback from the side lot line for a driveway from 2 feet 6 inches in a mixed low-density residential zone on property located at 1204 Slash's Road. I'll uphold the staff's recommendation for disapproval with the following reasons. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed? Could I ask a question? You said due to the complexity of having two driveways? Yes, ma'am. So just having the second driveway and, as this young lady said, the front part of it, it seemed like it would be more narrow. And what you had discussed as far as having to turn around back there and the other issues with it being so congested back there, the destruction of the garage that you have existing and wanting to tear that down, it just seems like an awful lot to have done as far as putting that second driveway in. But that would be – it wouldn't be that there were two driveways. Hers would be hers and mine would be mine. And just a new driveway. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Patty, did you get that vote? Thank you. Moving on to our next application, PLN BOA 25-127, Lexington Home Ownership Commission, Inc. Staff has recommended approval. I think we have opposition to this. Could you step up, please? Lauren Nichols. I'm an attorney at Ditton's. On behalf of Lexington Home Ownership Commission, it is a subsidiary of the Housing Authority. We don't have many commercial tenants, but we are honored to lease this parcel to the Hawkins-Taylor Funeral Home, which is the oldest black-owned business here in Lexington. Mr. Taylor is present today as well, and I'm sure he'll be speaking in support of this. We accept all of staff's conditions, and we will welcome any questions that you guys would have. But generally, we are here for a landscape buffer variance in connection with the Planning Commission's project for a parking lot. The current design of that parking lot would go through Mr. Gardner's yard, or I guess driveway, and require access through his current driveway and parking lot. We are asking, generally as a larger project with the Planning Commission, to change that so that we are accessing it through Connelly Street. So we're here today specifically on the landscape buffer variance. And just to be clear, we only need the landscape buffer variance on one side of that, just on the side of the Dollar Store, not on Mr. Gardner's side. We would be keeping the same eight-foot buffer on Mr. Gardner's side. But frankly, again, we don't have enough space to get the cars in and turned around without the landscape buffer. Staff has recommended approval. Have you read the conditions? Yes, we accept them. You're in favor of those? Yes. Thank you. Opposition? Yes. If you would please just state your name and address. I'm pretty good. Testing. Yes. Good morning, Paul. Good afternoon. I'm sorry. Paul Gardner. I'm in opposition of this because... You can move that microphone a little closer to your mouth and we can hear you better. Oh, sure. Sure. I'm in opposition of this because of the increased traffic flow through the neighborhood, and my main concern was for the safety and welfare of the children that's in the neighborhood and also at the daycare that's adjacent to the proposed parking lot development plan. Also, we have generated a petition and concerns and safety issues. I don't know if they have reached the Board of Adjustments meeting to consider, but we are in opposition also because it's a congested area already with the parking of the residents in the Hawkins and Connolly Street area. It's such a small turnaround. If the Board has a Google view street map, you could greatly see how small the area is. And with the many cars that would be for the funeral possessions, for the visitations, for the when you first come to make arrangements, it would greatly overwhelm the small area, the small streets where they are proposing to have access through Connolly Alley. So I'm in opposition of it. Thank you for your comments. Any questions? Would you like to respond to his comments, please? We're just here on the limited variance on the landscape buffer, not on the overall project, which is pending currently before the Planning Commission. Frankly, we're somewhat between a rock and a hard place because this building and this business has zero parking, including street parking because the street on both sides is no parking. The design plan currently allows us to access through Mr. Gardner's entire parking lot, which he's objecting to in court. And so to try to avoid prolonged litigation with him, we thought this would be a creative solution that would help cut down on objections and concerns. So we're kind of in a rock and a hard place here because we would have no other way except either his parcel or through Connolly Street. And we think Connolly Street is the easier of the two options for everyone going forward. Any additional questions for the applicant? So this would put like a kind of, it would just go all the way through the parking lot. And isn't there like, isn't that a, because I went down there and looked at it, isn't that a shared lot kind of with the daycare next door? Yeah, I can put the, here's the current plan. Yeah. Yeah, that's the current development plan now. And it would be on the, how it's currently planned, it is a shared lot. When we gave notice that we were going to start constructing that, Mr. Gardner objected, and that is currently in litigation because he's trying to eliminate that access that's currently on the plan. To avoid having to go through litigation, and because we have Connolly, which it actually terminates already into that side. So this is already what is approved, what already is in the books. Do you want me to swap it to the current? Yeah, the proposed. Thank you. Instead, we would not be touching Mr. Gardner's parcel at all. We'd be leaving all existing fencing, and people would access their Connolly Street, which already exists, and it terminates already into our parking lot, or into the back rear of the property. So to avoid Mr. Gardner's concerns of accessing his lot, and concerns of interfering with the daycare's access to its parking lot, we're trying to just use Connolly Street. But otherwise, there is no parking for this commercially zoned business. So when there is actually a funeral in progress, does it block the entire Ray Street area? There is parking on Ray Street currently, unfortunately, yes. And Ray Street is technically a no parking. So right now, people's cars do get towed, even if they're grieving for a funeral. They are parking at the Family Dollar, the Dollar Tree next door, which is where this, that's the side that the variance would be on, is on the Dollar Store. We would leave the full parking buffer on Mr. Gardner's side. But they are utilizing parking on the adjacent buildings. Connolly is no parking as well, so we don't think it's going to impact Connolly at all. But we needed to have some dedicated parking spot for the hearse, for the grieving loved ones, and to give some dignity back to this business. So it's probably loads and unloads like the hearse would be on Ray Street, right? Right now, yes. Right now, the backyard is just grass in Connolly. You can't access it through Connolly. So if the daycare needed an emergency vehicle and there was a funeral going on, it would be very difficult to get in there? Currently? Yes. No. I don't believe so. No, I don't think that they... They're trying now to have to park on adjacent streets, kind of off of Ray Street, because that is no parking. When people do park on Ray Street, I think right now they're getting towed because it's a no parking area. So how much parking would be available if this plan was approved? There would be five dedicated spots on the back. All right. And Mr. Taylor can speak more about the actual business. I don't think that large funerals necessarily always take place here. I think it's more of a planning concept, more of an office space than the actual traditional funeral home. But Mr. Taylor could speak more eloquently about his actual business operations. I think in the actual design, tying in a commonly straight number of spaces, that's all before the planning commission. This is just the landscape buffer variance that's needed as part of that project. Any further questions? I do think that there's a lot of work to be done here. Any further questions? I do think that there are parking exceptions in our ordinances as a city. I just want to read it. The provision of any sections restricting the time during which parking is prohibited shall not apply to funeral cars parked in the vicinity of a church, chapel, or residence of a funeral while in progress. Yeah, and that has been utilized. Unfortunately, a fire hydrant was moved from Mr. Gardner's side to be more on the funeral home side. So in addition to that ordinance, the fire hydrant is now on our side of the shared lot. But I appreciate that. Thank you. With no questions, could I have a motion? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN BOA 25-127, Lexington Home Ownership Commission, Inc., requesting a variance to reduce the required landscape buffer for a parking lot from eight feet to zero feet within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a business zone on property located at 425 Race Street, based on the council's recommendation and the three conditions as listed. I second. I have a motion and a second. Before we vote, Mr. Gross has recused himself on this. So, all in favor, raise your hand. All opposed? Thank you. Appreciate it. Our next case is PLN BOA 25-30, Kane Manor, LLC. Staff has recommended disapproval of the variance and also of the conditional use permit. So Mr. Belcher will present first, and I guess the first thing we will consider is the variance request. Okay. This is an amended request for a variance to reduce the spacing requirements between short-term rentals from one mile, 5,280 feet to 5,068 feet, and a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in an agricultural AR zone on property located at 2593 Berea Road, Council District 12. You can see the subject property here highlighted in orange. I'm also going to highlight it as well with the clicker. Here's also a street view of the property. You can see they've got the house here where they would potentially be having short-term rental guest stay. The applicant has also provided a site plan. It's on your screen as well. The applicant notes that there is enough space for six vehicles, six-plus vehicles to park in this area, and the parking area is the, I want to call that a bluish-yellow kind of color through here, running back here behind the house. So, staff, this is the, you see this map fairly often with the non-ag zone short-term rentals. The only difference you're seeing here in the non-ag zone properties, you see a 600-foot and a 1,000-foot buffer. This, for the ag zone properties, is just a one-mile buffer around the property. You can see highlighted, it's, I'm using the mouse to point it out, but it's the red parcel here is the subject property, and then there are two properties over here. If you see the red houses, this is kind of a flag lot that runs back here. There are two properties that have short-term rentals that are ag zone currently that have short-term rentals already existing. So, again, go ahead. Are those two short-term rentals, is that a continuous property there? That's two separate properties. Yep. Yep. So, there are two. So, this here is kind of a table version of what I just explained, but basically that there is a short-term rental within the one-mile buffer, and there's actually two within the one-mile buffer. So, I wanted to point out a couple points of the ordinance for regulation. So, this section 313G4I through V, and it's some of the specific standards that talk about the ag zone short-term rentals, the AR, AV, and AEN zones. So, there's five notes here. One is about the health department and septic tanks and make sure you're providing for the capacity on the property. The second is that it will not have an adverse influence on uses occurring on the subject or adjoining or adjacent properties. The third is that there are adequate fire safety measures within the unit. The fourth is that there are adequate parking available on site and that there will be lighted entrances that are easily visible from the roadway. And the fifth is that no short-term rental shall be located within a mile of another short-term rental in an AR, AV, or AEN zone measured from the property boundary. And then this next section is 313L through N. So, we've had discussion in some of our other short-term rental cases about the relief provisions, like if it's on the buffer, and you can see those down there, 1 through 3 at the bottom of the screen. The ordinance does not lay out any relief provisions for the AG zone properties. And this ordinance says, you know, no short-term rental regulated as conditional use shall be within 600 feet of another short-term rental that has either received a conditional use permit from the board or is otherwise legal non-conforming use pursuant to section J above. except in the AR, AB, and AN zones which shall be further regulated pursuant to Section G4 above." And that was the section that I had read to you just a minute ago. So staff recommends disapproval of the variance because the applicant is requesting a variance here and a conditional use. Staff finds 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. The one-mile spacing requirement is consistent across all agriculturally zoned parcels. Second, the applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine the strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship or deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land. And third, approval of the requested variance would allow for an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The adopted ordinance established a one-mile spacing requirement in order to control the density of unhosted short-term rentals in the agricultural AR zone. Staff also recommends disapproval of the conditional use permit for the following reasons. First, the three factors listed in Article 313G of the Zoning Ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance and KRS 100.237. Second, no other short-term rentals have been cited in the vicinity as a nuisance and the applicant has no history of compliance issues. However, based on a review of the ArcGIS concentration mapping data, there are two agriculturally zoned short-term rental units operating within the required one-mile buffer area. So that's it for staff's presentation. If you have any questions for me. So the basic reason for the disapproval recommendation is Remember 5 and under 313G, is that the only reason for the disapproval? That is our reason for disapproval. So reason for disapproval of the conditional use or reason for disapproval of the variance? Well, basically the variance itself. So for the variance, we have a few different reasons. We believe that the ordinance does not put any relief provisions in and that there's a clear intent for the AR zoned properties to have the one-mile buffer and the other reasons that I mentioned here, that it will not deprive them of unnecessary hardship or deprive them of reasonable use of their land. For the conditional use, our reasoning is that the ordinance is clear that if there's a short-term rental within the buffer, that it should not be approved. So that's why we're recommending disapproval of the conditional use. And because of that, that's why they're seeking the variance to reduce that number from one mile to a smaller distance to then essentially cut that buffer down to not have the short-term rentals within the vicinity. Could you go back to the map where it shows the other one? Is it all the way across the interstate? Yes, it is. Yes, so very different areas. I cannot recall, have we had a request for a variance related to non-agricultural short-term rentals yet? Because I know we've got the 600 and the 1,000 with the percentages. You're saying for non-ag zone? I don't believe we have because most people try to just use the relief provisions. So no, we have not, to my knowledge. And then my recollection was these provisions went through the Rural Land Management. They recommended provisions, and then it went to the Planning Commission, and then it went to Council. I'm trying to recall the process for these, because I know that the Rural Interest wanted a different standard and process than the Urban Service Boundary Interior, and so I just can't recall the process. The Urban County Council asked the Rural Land Management Board to study this and offer potential regulations that would be for the agricultural areas. They initiated the text amendment, the Council did, and sent it to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission, well, let me back up a second. When the Council initiated it, they added, they distinguished between hosted and unhosted and allow the unhosted to have, be on properties up to 10 acres. Anyway, this isn't hosted, so it's not really relevant. But they also set the spacing at 500 feet for at least one of those things. When it went to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission changed it to one mile for all of the agricultural short-term rentals to be consistent with the bed and breakfast regulations because they are similar uses in terms of like a transient stay in the agricultural area. And that went back to the Council for final action, and it was maintained with the one mile distance. Yeah, that's helpful. And they decided not to provide any relief like we have within the properties within the Urban Service Boundary area? Correct. Any other questions for Mr. Belcher? The two properties that are within that zone already, are they, I missed this, are they agricultural as well, or are they? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So this, the map you're seeing here is only showing agriculturally zoned short-term rentals. That's for the ag zone. We only measure based off other ag zone property, other ag zone short-term rentals. Gotcha. So like that cluster there, if it's residential, then it drops down to 500 feet, is that right? I can't remember. If you're, well it depends on what your zone, so like yeah, for example, if that was a residential zone property, then we get to the 1,000 feet and the 1,600 feet, none within 600 feet and 2% within 1,000. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Has the staff been able to consider the fact that the interstate runs through those two properties, between those two properties? Seems like to me we're talking, and I understand how the staff has to look at it, absolutely, but seems like to me we're talking about two different cities here basically, with the interstate in the middle, and I know that both of those areas fairly well, and they're so distant in terms of use and culture, it just looks like to me that we perhaps need to think about that in terms of our ability to make a decision about this application. Have you made any thoughts about that in your discussion? We considered it when we reviewed the case, but we think there's a pretty clear indication that if there's a short-term rental within a mile that's ag zone, the ordinance does not provide for a relief to that, so we did not find that as a reason to recommend approval necessarily. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. The applicant, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Wes Harned. I'm with Rhodes Community Steward Maines, and I have the privilege of representing the applicant in these kind of sister applications. Mr. Belcher, you hand these out. One for the record, and then I'll take one. I've got a handout, which is really a printout of my PowerPoint presentation, and then I've submitted some proposed findings of fact for the board's consideration. As I heard the board, or Mr. Chairman, as I heard you read through the docket, I didn't really stand up. I thought I didn't want to speak out of order. It's kind of six and a half dozen other variance lists and conditional use permit docket. I'm going to explain why I don't think it's crystal clear that there's not relief provisions under section 3-13, and I'm going to explain that to the board in a minute. It seems like we're assuming that to be the case, and I think we're assuming that because that's staff's interpretation, but when we get to that point, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to start there because we're not conceding that we need a variance. In fact, this was applied for as a conditional use permit originally, and when staff came back and said, by the way, until the staff report came out, we were only told one was within the buffer, and of course, as you may understand, public really doesn't have access to that database. We received feedback from the staff on what they considered to be the radius, but anyway, until we saw the staff report, we were told there was one short-term, one ag zone, short-term realm in the buffer area. Now we're told two, but nevertheless, I'm going to explain to you why we're not conceding there's not relief provisions under section 3-13, but in any event, Mr. Gross, I'm explaining, you brought that up on the relief provisions for ag land or not ag land. I'm going to get to that. Mr. Clark, I'm going to have some slides that talk directly to what you're pointing out, which is the disparity between these two areas that just so happen to be within the same mile buffer as the staff has marked out, and in fact, I think what the board will see when we get to special circumstances that warrant a variance if we have to get there, if there's any case, this is it, and so that's what I'd submit to you on the front end, and I'll circle back on the back end. First of all, though, I want to describe the applicant's vision, their plan out. You saw a picture of the property, it's just shy of two acres. They want to operate an unhosted short-term rental at that address, at 2593 Berea Road. Right now, they rent month to month, but the thought and the plan has always been short-term rental, and they're three-quarters of a mile from the Kentucky Horse Park. Their aim is to attract horse park visitors and other equine clientele, limit the use to eight guests at one time. They have plenty of off-site parking, up to six vehicles, and perhaps more. Mr. Gil Dunn is here with me as well, and I'm going to let him speak a little bit at the end because it's his project, it's his property. He owns Cane Manor LLC, and so I'm going to let him very briefly describe more of this to you. He's a local owner-operator. They restrict parties and events, they prohibit those. They have quiet hours from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. They impose a minimum stay of three nights. It's not a one-night only rental, or you can't get it for one night. They restrict it because they want those weekend guests to the horse park and other equine-related events in town, and that's their aim. As Mr. Belcher showed you before, and this is in the staff's report, this is the radius, or the one-mile buffer as they've marked it out. Again, as you can see, the next closest STR is on the very perimeter of this buffer. Mr. Clark, as you pointed out, we've got ... I hope my circles or my identifiers are easily seen. I've done a blue circle around I-75. That's the first thing that I think sets this apart from what you typically see in an application that references these provisions of Section 3-13. That's the very first characteristic of the land here that makes this a very, very unique situation. The next one is circled in green here on this slide, are a number of B-3 commercial uses along Georgetown Road. Just to set the stage on those, I made some slides that show you what those are. First off, at 4020 Georgetown Road, it's Red State Barbecue and the Sunset Motel. Red State's a building that's 1,794 square feet. Sunset Motel is 6,500 square feet, both commercial buildings, commercial uses, zoned B-3 in between these two properties. Without going back, we're on the other side of I-75 at this point. The next one I'd highlight is 4050 Georgetown Road. This is a sports recreational complex, zoned B-3 as well, 11,696 square feet. This is in between the properties we're discussing here. 4130 Georgetown Road, that's Maple Grove Mobile Home Park, it's zoned B-3. There's 90 mobile home sites at that location. In between these two uses, 4132 Georgetown Road, that looks like three or four apartments as best I can tell. There's three structures according to PVA's website, and they total 3,442 total square feet. Next to that is 4134 Georgetown Road, that's also zoned B-3. It's an auto repair shop at 6,665 square feet. With the stage set in that way, because I think that helps frame our discussion on both of the points that I'll be talking about now, is the interpretation of zoning ordinance. I wanted to start because there's certain guideposts that in the realm of zoning and zoning law, we always have to go by. One of them is that zoning regulations are a derogation, what's called a derogation of the common law. They augment property rights, and so the law tells us we have to strictly construe those zoning regulations in favor of the property owner. That's case law. That's pretty long standing law in Kentucky. The same authority tells us any restrictions contained in the zoning resolution or zoning ordinance may not be extended to include limitations that aren't clearly prescribed. That's kind of an offshoot of the first one, and therefore any ambiguity in a zoning ordinance should be strictly construed in favor of the property owner. We need to be clearly told what the restriction is, and if there's any ambiguity or uncertainty, those are to be construed in favor of the property owner. I set those out in their own slide because they jump off into then the interpretation issue under 313. This is Mr. Belchert introduced is section 3-13, subsection G, subpart 4, and I-V. He went through those, and I think to Mr. Clark's question, where we are is subpart little V, 5. It's the one mile buffer for ag properties. I read the staff reports to say a variance is inappropriate here because of that, and therefore because of that, there's no special circumstances because of their interpretation of it. They really, at bottom, cite the same thing for the conditional use permit. That's their reasoning really for both. I wanted to start there because, again, as Mr. Belchert talks about, we have a reference back at some point. I'm going to skip ahead, though, to the relief provision. It says relief from sections L and M. We're talking about L now. M talks about, M specifically mentions residential zones. Relief from sections L and M may be obtained from the Board of Adjustment on a case-by-case basis if the proposal would not contribute to an over-concentration of unhosted short-term rentals in the immediate area and or adversely affect the housing stock in the immediate area. I haven't heard anything that those ... We'll talk about the over-concentration. I think you can see from the map, there's not an over-concentration in the immediate area. It doesn't talk about the buffer area. There's no over-concentration in the immediate area. Certainly, there's not a short-term rental in any ag zone that is in the buffer area east of I-75. I think we meet both of those. In approving the relief, the Board must find the request appropriate for at least one of the following reasons. We hit two of the three. Before I move off this slide, I want to point out, what you won't see in here is an express exception for AR or ag land. It doesn't exist in this section. It doesn't say, this section shall not apply to ag zone properties. It doesn't say that. Now, I'd like to go to ... Before I go there, these are the two of the three that we hit. In fact, I've gone back and watched a video a time or two on non-ag residential zone properties. I saw the presentation of when we were explaining the buffer areas. I saw this in the staff report. My mind went to ... I think Mr. Crum presented an example of what would be appropriate for relief. It was almost identical to this. It was, you've got an interstate or a major arterial separating the two, and he's put both of them on the same picture, and it's on the very edge of the buffer. This is almost a textbook version of a relief situation under subsection N. Over here on the right-hand side, I set forth the two of the three situations in which subsection N says relief is appropriate. That's where there's significant environmental feature, minor arterial, or higher classification road that separates the proposed short-term rental from other unhosted short-term rentals within the buffer area. As Mr. Clark pointed out, I-75 is one of the largest, if not the largest, interstate in our commonwealth. It separates these two. N-3, an unhosted short-term rental within the buffer area, is located on the perimeter of the buffer area with part of the property being located outside the buffer area. We have that here as well. Now we get to subsection L. This is really, I think, where the status interpretation hinges, which is the very last clause of subsection L. Don't be confused. These are copy-and-paste subsection L, but I did it for a reason. I want to walk you through it. The top portion is how it reads in the ordinance. I did this in terms of a statutory interpretation. In my mind, this is the easiest to comprehend. The second one says if you took out the except, just for purposes of discussion, if you took out the except, subsection L sets out a buffer or proximity limitation for every property at all zones. Subsection L, in our view, is the buffer or proximity limit provision of section 3-13. If you took out that last clause, except A, R, A, B, and A, N zones, the 600-foot buffer would apply to every zone, but the drafters added the last clause so that we have to refer back up to G-4 to see what the buffer is in the ag zone. It is. That language, I would submit to you, isn't meant to exclude those from the ambit of subsection L. It's not meant to exclude them from the relief provision. It's meant to simply express that there's a different buffer for ag zones than there is for non-ag zones or residential zones. The point being, even if you lay L next to N, there's no express provision that says ag zones can't have relief under the same relief provision of subsection N with which we clearly, I think, comply or meet, but don't exclude ag zones. That's the only reason, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to start there because I think it's at best ambiguous. I think it's gray. It's a gray area, but I think the law says when there's a gray area and there's no express exclusion or provision that would eliminate that relief for the property owner, it's got to be on the table. I wanted to start there because we're not putting up the white flag on the relief, and that's not why we filed the variance request. We did that belt and suspender, so to speak, so that if the board viewed it a different way, we could also move on and discuss the variance, which is what I'll do at this point. The variance application is if the board viewed it in the terms of the staff's presentation, we are requesting a variance from the one-mile buffer or 5,280-feet buffer area down to 5,068 feet. Now, Mr. Belcher didn't mention what the variance amount is. It's 212 feet, and I understand 212 feet in some contexts is a lot. Here it's a 4% reduction of the buffer area, and so I wanted to make sure we keep that in view because it's a very minor variance, and then I think, as variances often have to be, it's a case-by-case basis, and we have to take it in context of the application. As you all know, the standard for granting a variance is set forth in KRS 100-243. I've highlighted it here. It will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity, will not cause a hazard or nuisance to the public, and will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning regulation. For the first two of the four, I don't think the staff argues or takes the position that the proposed short-term rental would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, and I don't see any suggestion that the proposed short-term rental would cause a hazard or a nuisance to the public, but I'm going to step forward and tell you, in our estimation or at least we've submitted, wouldn't. In fact, the proposed STR would promote the public health, safety, and welfare by, one, promoting equine activities of the horse park, which are largely outdoor activities, and it would provide secure lodging for individuals participating in those activities. But within a close proximity of the horse park, which will reduce traffic, it will reduce the commute time and the people on interstate and other roadways trying to get in and out of downtown for that purpose. As I've already explained, Kane Manor, the applicant, will implement certain measures to ensure that their short-term rental won't be a hazard or a public nuisance. Again, I'll limit eight guests per stay, plenty of parking, they've got a local owner-operator, no parties or events are prohibited, they have strict quiet hours, and they put a minimum of three-night stay on it so there's not day-after-day turnover. I think in the report, the staff, well, I would submit to you that the proposed short-term rental will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity. The staff makes a statement that there would be an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood or area. They don't articulate what that is, but as we have seen already, the character is ag land. This property is two acres. It's intended for folks engaging in equine activities to have a place to stay when they're not on grounds at the horse park or involved in some other equine activity. It is very much in harmony with the character of the general vicinity. It's the only AR-zoned short-term rental in the Buffy area east of I-75, as I said. Skipping down a bullet point, to bring back into view what separates this property from the next closest short-term rental, if we consider the general vicinity to be the entire one-mile buffer area, then it includes I-75 and multiple B-3 uses and commercial structures. I went through them before. Red Stair BBQ, Motel, Mobile Home Park, Auto Body Shop, Mobile Home Park. I submit to you this proposed STR will maintain and promote the essential character of the general vicinity if we include the one-mile buffer area. I think we meet that prerequisite for a variance. Then we get to, there's mention of this in the staff report, we submit that this application, this request to variance will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning regulation. By definition, a variance is a circumvention of the zoning regulation. By its nature, it's what it is. ARS 100-243 says it's an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. We would submit no. It is a 4% reduction of the one-mile buffer area, as we said, 212 feet off of 5,280 foot. I won't go back through it, but you know what lies between this one and the next closest STR. It will not, as the map and the staff report shows, it will not result in an overabundance of short-term rentals in the AR zone, and certainly not within the immediate area. It won't impair the integrity or character of the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, again, we think it will maintain and promote it. Under these circumstances, we submit it's not an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance to grant this variance. Things that the board should and I know will consider is, are there special circumstances? I'd submit to you there are. Like I said at the very beginning, if there were any case where there are special circumstances, and I think the staff report says to you, you can consider a variance, but we don't think it's appropriate under these circumstances. I'd tell you there can be, in my estimation, I'm not sure you could think up a scenario in which there would be more special circumstances than the one in front of you. It's not going to be repeated. It's not going to be susceptible to repetition. There's not going to be another, if this one's approved, it's another mile buffer established, and so you're not going to have, at least in this area of Fayette County, you're not going to have the interstate dissecting the buffer area. It's a unique circumstance. I think it would be an unreasonable deprivation of the applicant's use of their land, unnecessary hardship to the applicant, especially considering, and this is what the sub-bullet points are, especially considering that there's ambiguity. It's vague as to the relief available for ag properties. I'm going to show you another map in just a minute, but this is a unique situation. I submit to you there's relief available under Section 3-13, subsection N, and so in light of all the circumstances, it would be an unnecessary hardship to the applicant. It would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of its land if the variance is denied, and the circumstances are not the result of actions of the applicant taken subsequent to the adoption of the zoning regulation from which relief is sought. I finished with this map, this variation on the buffer area. The black star that I put here on this map would be, by all appearances, appropriate for an STR, and in fact, if there were an STR at the black star, the lot away from it, this STR under the ordinance, I think, would be approved or recommended or, I guess, subject to some other issue with the application, but based on the objection or the recommendation of this approval here, this would be okay. You take two turns, you go down the street less than a mile, and you're at another STR. Here, in order to leave our property and go to the next closest STR, you've got to cross a major interstate, and you've got to go up and you've got to be on the other side of all the B3 commercial uses we talked about. For those reasons, I would submit that, number one, there is relief available under subsection N of section 3-13 of the zoning ordinance. With that relief granted, I would request that the application for conditional use permit be approved. If the board determines that relief isn't available, I would still submit to you that a variance is very much appropriate in this circumstance for the reasons I've discussed, and with that variance to the one-mile buffer, we'd request that you approve the conditional use permit for this subject property. I'm going to let Mr. Gildun very briefly describe his operation out there, and then we'll be available for questions if you have them. Thank you, Wes. My name is Gildun, and I do own the property at 2593 Brewery Road. I bought the property 25-plus years ago, raised two kids out there, enjoyed the rural landscape. When our kids got into school age, we moved into town to be closer to schools, but it was always my intent to have a short-term rental out there. Back in 2010, my wife and I did have a short-term rental for when the World Equestrian Games came to Lexington. We did run that for a couple of years, and it was a really enjoyable experience. What I'm asking today is that you let me share my house, my little two acres of land, with families who come to the Kentucky Horse Park for equine events. Families with kids, dogs, horses, people that come here riding events for trophies and ribbons and things like that. I know that those people will be our visitors and our guests at Cane Manor. We talked a little bit about the distance. A mile is from here to Kroger on Euclid Avenue, 200 feet would be from here to the Kentucky Theater. That's the difference that we're talking about, it's a very minor difference. I will be the owner-operator, I'll be cutting the grass with my cleaning helper, we'll be changing the linens, I'll be there to take care of any little problems that there are. I'll be a hands-on owner-operator, and I will make you proud that we have this short-term rental and invite visitors and give those people who come to the Kentucky Horse Park a memorable, enjoyable Kentucky experience. I ask for your help and permission to run our Cane Manor for our visitors, and I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have. The only thing I'll add is I did mention on the back of your packet is proposed findings of fact. I didn't want that to get lost in the shuffle, for your consideration. Any questions for the applicant? Any comments? Staff, is there any comments you'd like to make? I just want to reiterate, in the schedule of zones, which is each AgZone residential zone where it lists out the setbacks and the variances for each specific zone, there is another reference to the one-mile buffer for AgZone short-term rentals when it's listed in the list of conditional uses there. If the staff disagrees with the interpretation that the ordinance is providing any relief provisions for AgZone properties, I know they've said if you don't consider the language that says except in the AgZones, then you might consider that, but the language is there. It references the 600-foot buffer, not the one-mile buffer, which I think is another point that it is not referencing the AgZone short-term rentals, because that one-mile buffer is consistent where the AgZones are mentioned, and then it says except. The sections that we showed, 1-5 with the Roman numerals, I-V, are what apply for AgZone short-term rentals, and that's mentioning a mile, and it does not have relief provisions built in there. So I just wanted to reemphasize that. Thank you. Thank you. There's one more speaker. Would you like to speak on behalf or in opposition? Support. Yes, please step up to the microphone. State your name and address, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Pleasure to be before you today. I'm Steve Kaye. I live at 250 Campsie Place, and the reason that I'm before you is that Gil is a friend and colleague who, when he started thinking about this whole process, asked me if I would share some of my understanding of how some of these processes work, given my service on the Planning Commission and on the Urban County Council. So I've been kind of with Mr. Dunn throughout this process, but the first thing that I did is I'm not an attorney, but I have looked at regulations, and my real question was, does this board have the authority and the ability to grant a variance to the one-mile stipulation? And so I called Mr. Belcher, and I believe it's fair to say Mr. Belcher thought that you did have this ability and that he checked with law and that they said, yes, you do have this ability. So I'm not going to make a legal case, but I think it's important for you to understand that there is no provision in the regulations that would prohibit you from granting a variance to the one-mile stipulation. Mr. Vice Mayor, real quickly, first, appreciate you being here and your service through all those years. I just want to make sure I heard that correctly, that the position of the planning staff is this board does have the authority to grant a variance on this issue. So, yes, because all of the other urban short-term rentals have those, first of all, different spacing requirements and a different concentration number, and that section of the ordinance was created when those zones, when we added our short-term rental regulations. So they were meant to apply to the urban residential zones in terms of spacing requirements. When we added the agricultural zones, there was no intent to have any of those relief provisions also apply to the ag zones, which is why Section L says except for these agricultural zones, at which case these standards apply. And, again, as Mr. Belcher said, it's repeated in Article 8. You have to be separated one mile. It's like a minimum threshold for the use. Therefore, since there's no relief provisions established, variance is really the only option. So, yes, the board can consider, which we're doing today, and could approve a variance to that distance since there are no other relief provisions established. We established the relief provisions for the urban zones. For the ag zones, your only option for relief is a variance. And then that's evaluated under different criteria, right? Not the three standards in the ordinance for the urban zones. So I think, you know, Mr. Harnett also mentioned something about promoting agriculture and all these other things. Those aren't really the standards we're evaluating for variances. So I just want to throw that in there. Okay. I'm glad to hear that. Because I was in agreement with the vice mayor on his comments, and so I wanted to make sure the staff was also that we do have that power to grant this variance. Okay. Perfect. Please proceed. Yeah. That's a very good point. Thank you. So I just want to add a couple of additional comments. In terms of the process, I don't want to use the usual cliche about how legislation is kind of like creating sausages, and you don't want to really watch it too closely because it's messy. This provision went back and forth between the council, planning commission, the rural land management board, and there were many, many notions about what this minimum provision ought to be. And I believe it's fair to say, I didn't bring the record with me, that some folks thought you ought to have the same provisions that were in the urban area. Some people thought a half mile would be good. It was, in fact, at one time, I believe, in the progress of it, that stipulation was for half a mile. At the very end of the process, the recommendation from the rural land management board was to make the distance similar to the bed and breakfast. And then it was approved in that form. So I guess what I'm saying is the notion of how much distance you need in order to prevent an intensity of use had a lot of different ideas. And the attorney heard from Mr. Dunn. When I look at the situation that you have to consider, a 200-foot variance on a mile is a very small amount. And the conditions that might mitigate against that is if you could say, by a driving mile, you might have another Airbnb. But that's not how this works. That mile variance, that mile distance, is as the crow flies. To get from any one of those Airbnbs on the other end, you'd have to drive about a mile and a half. There's no way to do it, and there's no easy way to do it. So in summary, I believe that this is an opportunity for this board to exercise the flexibility that you have and to grant this variance. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Kaye. Any further questions from the board? You know, you knew I was going to weigh in, so, yeah. I couldn't be in more agreement with you guys. I'm glad this case has come before us. Any type of zoning, you have to apply it fair across the board. Agricultural SDRs is the one zone that's a mile, the one zone that it has to be hosted. It's a mess out there. Like with my house, I live in agricultural. There's several homes that are still on ag property that's quarter-acre lots that's within that mile buffer, so none of them would be able to apply if I had a short-term rental. It just doesn't seem to be fair, and this 4% is a minimal distance, especially, like you said, it's bisected by the interstate. So I would be in support of this, absolutely. I'd like to add to that. I can listen to everything you've made as far as legal stances, and I can see the excellent presentation. But I can also ignore all of that to make a decision about this particular case. I will say that the staff has done exactly what they are supposed to do. They've made exactly the right decision as far as their job is. On the other hand, I think I would be supportive of an exception here because I think it deserves an exception. Regardless of all the legal talk that I've heard, well done, sir. And regardless of what the staff has said, very correctly, I think this is the case where we need to make an exception. I think it's very clear. Most of you know that when we talk about SDRs, I'm a stickler. I believe in one mile. I believe in 600 feet, and I believe in a 2% concentration in the other terms in the city, not AR. But in this particular case, I think we need to make an exception. So that's my opinion. If I could, real quick. Dalton, on the distancing of the 568 feet, is that structure to structure or parcel to parcel? It's parcel to parcel. Okay. Do we know if the two structures are within a mile of one another? I wasn't able to look on the materials where the address was or where the structures were. I just wasn't sure. We don't have the specific measurement to know if they are within a mile of one another because it's from the property boundaries, so we looked at that. Is the property boundaries also in the ag? Is that how it works for ag specifically? Okay. Thank you. You answered my question. Well, with all that being said, I was hoping to find a way to distinguish this case I prefer not to have people seeking relief from the one mile on a regular basis. But I would support this given that it is realistically on the periphery of that one mile. And I could see where we could come up with findings that would be limited in nature. So it would not necessarily cause everyone to rush in here asking for one mile. Would you like to get that language? Yeah, I think we should probably take a recess. I'm going to agree with staff on this, though. The one mile spacing requirement is consistent across all agricultural zone parcels, and there do not appear to be any special circumstances that are unique to the subject property. And that's my opinion on that. Okay. Well, I think James or Chad, would you support a motion of approval? All right. In that case, Mr. Chair, I think it would be prudent to take a recess to let some findings, in fact, get worked out. Yes. Thank you. Let's take a five-minute recess, please. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.  Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity or adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or cause hazard or nuisance to the public. Because the short-term rental will be the only AR-zoned STR in the buffer area east of I-75. It will cater to participants of the equine activities, which is in harmony with the surrounding land uses, much more so than multiple B-3 commercial uses, separate uses that separate the property from next to the closest short-term rental in the buffer zone. Kane Manor's request variance would not allow unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance for the following reasons. The request variance would result in only 4% reduction of the buffer area or 212 feet of the 5,280 feet buffer. The proposed property is separated from the next closest short-term rental within the buffer area by the interstate I-75 and multiple B-3 commercial uses. And the next closest short-term rental is on the edge of the buffer area. Do we have a motion for approval? I have a second. One second. Do we need conditions? Okay, perfect. In that instance, I will second this. We'll have a motion and a second. Any further discussion before we vote? All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Wait, we have a second. Now we have to vote on the conditional use. We need to vote on both. Okay. Chair, in respect to PLN-BOA-2530, Kane Manor, in respect to the conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental in an AR zone, I move to approval based on the following findings. The proposed use should not have an adverse influence on the subject property or the surrounding neighborhoods as the structure is large enough to accommodate the proposed number of users and is 176 feet from an adjoining property. On the front of the property is screened by existing landscaping. All necessary public services and facilities are available and adequate for the proposed use. There is no record of short-term rental compliance issues by the applicant. No short-term rentals are in the area or have been cited as a nuisance. The subject property is not located in a census tract that has been identified as vulnerable or involuntary displacement based off of socioeconomic demographics. Septic facilities serving the use are sufficient to accommodate the proposed number of users. The property has adequate parking spaces of six to accommodate the proposed number of eight users. The entrance to the property and driveway are continuously lit and there are motion sensor lights leading to and near the unit. There are adequate fire safety measures present in the unit and the unit is located approximately 1,000 feet from a fire hydrant. This recommendation of approval is made on subject to the following conditions. Occupancy of the short-term rental use shall be established in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. Occupancy of the short-term rental shall be limited to no more than eight individuals. Provisions for handling sewage shall at all times comply with the requirements of Fay County Health Department's application verifying the septic system's adequacy for the existing single family residence and the short-term rental shall be provided to the Division of Planning and Building Inspection. The entrance of the property shall be lighted and easily visible from the roadway and all necessary permits and approval shall be obtained from the Division of Revenue and Planning prior to the commencement of the use, including a business license, special fees license, and zoning compliance permit. The conditional use permit shall be null and void upon change of ownership if the applicant's short-term rental special fee license is regulated by the Division of Revenue and Section 13 of the Code of Ordinances lapses or is revoked. I'll second that and before we vote we may want to have the applicant state on the record that they're in agreement with the conditions. Yes. The applicant has heard the conditions. You can agree on his behalf. Thank you. The applicant understands the proposed conditions for the approval of conditional use permit and are in agreement. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second for approval of conditional use permit. Applicant has approved the conditions. Any further discussion? All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed? Motion approved. Thank you all. Our next item on the agenda is STR expedited docket PLN BOA 25-129, Silver Springs Farm Equine and Vineyard, LLC. Please state your name. Leslie Nichols-Carter, 32. Staff has recommended approval of this application. Have you read the conditions? Yes, sir, I have. And are you in agreement with those? Yeah, I do have a couple questions. Just understanding the entrance to the property shall be lighted and easily visible from the roadway. Based on the plan, what exactly? Can you clarify that? I mean, what's required for the entrance to the property shall be lighted and easily visible from the roadway. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The entrance, so where they enter, there's got to be lighting there so it can be clearly seen. If somebody was driving up, they'd be able to see, here's where I'm going, like a clearly marked entrance. Okay. With lighting that kind of highlights that. Okay. So we do have lights on the stone entrance on the top. Is that not sufficient? That sounds sufficient. It's just a requirement in the ordinance that it be lit because in the agricultural zone, a lot of times the streetlights are spaced out much further. Right. Okay. So we do have those. And then as far as number three, documentation verifying the septic system adequacy, is the documentation that I submitted, was that? Yeah, so when we had drafted the staff report, we still hadn't had your revision where you had them address the next part. So that's why the condition was listed like that. Okay. So that's okay? It should be, yeah. Okay. Because, I mean, I've got a copy of it if you need it or what have you. I can pass it to the board. That way they see it. Okay. Okay. Did staff answer all your questions on your conditions? Yes, sir. Yes. So you're in agreement with all the conditions? Yes. It looks like all five things have been met, if you all. Yes. Board, have any questions for the applicant? Any further discussion? Could I have a motion, please? Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLN-BOA-25-129, Silver Springs Farm, Equine and Vineyard LLC, request for a conditional use permit for a hosted short-term rental in an agricultural zone on property located at 3710 Leastown Road, based on the staff's recommendation and the six conditions as listed. I have a motion. Could I have a second? Second. Mr. Purser seconds. Any further discussion? I'm a little bit slow, but I just got the equine. That's pretty good. Thank you. That was my idea. I thought there was a misjudgment. Thank you. All in favor of this motion and second, raise your hand. All opposed? Thank you. You're approved. Thank you. And thank you all very much. Thank you. Our last application, 25-124, James Holub, conditional use permit for unhosted short-term rental. Staff has recommended disapproval, so they will present first. All right. Let's see if the voice will hold on for one more. All right. So this is a conditional use permit for unhosted short-term rental in a single-family residential R1E zone on property located at 472 McConnell Straits, Council District 2. You can see the subject property here highlighted in orange. I'm also hovering around it with the mouse right now. Here's a street view of the property. Here's the site plan provided by the applicant. The applicant notes on the site plan that they will be providing two parking spaces in the garage and two parking spaces in the driveway. You can see the garage here at the front and in the driveway here off of McConnell Straits. So there are no short-term rentals within 600 feet nor any within the 1,000-foot buffer. And there are 484 parcels within 1,000 feet. Staff's reason for disapproval is based off the applicant's compliance record. Staff notes that the Division of Revenue has noted the applicant has multiple citations for this property. Two notices of violation were sent out, first on November 7, 2024, and second on March 7, 2025, for operating without a license. And then two citations subsequently were issued on May 16, 2025 and September 16, 2025. The applicant did not pay the first citation and has appealed the second citation. The Division of Revenue has noted that as of October 14, 2025, the applicant was still actively listing the short-term rental as well. And then the Division of Building Inspection has also noted that they have received a complaint about this property and the applicant currently has 26 civil penalties issued against the property. And then the owner reached out to Building Inspection and was told that the listing needed to either be removed or moved to a 30-day rental period. And again, as of October 14, it was still listed for a minimum three-night stay. So staff recommends disapproval, noting that the three factors listed in Article 313G of the Zoning Ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance and KRS 100.237. Second, the applicant has a documented history of compliance issues with the short-term rental regulations, including two citations from the Division of Revenue and 26 civil penalties issued by the Division of Building Inspection. 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 this short-term rental will cause an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood by creating a nuisance. And that is it for staff's presentation. If you have any questions for me. Just a quick question. Are the civil penalties from the Division of Building Inspection related to the penalties from the Division of Revenue? Or are they separate as far as the violations? They're related. I mean, the Division of Building Inspection is not here right now. I think they had to leave, but they were related. When we get cases, we send the applicant and the address to the Division of Building Inspection, Code Enforcement, Revenue, and ask them if there are any compliance issues. And this was in response to that. They said there was the 26 civil penalties. Thank you. I think James was getting that. These are not like for not mowing the grass and other things. Right. The building inspection is issuing a violation saying you're in violation of the zoning ordinance because that use has not been permitted at that location as a conditional use. And then the Division of Revenue is looking at the code of ordinances, and they're saying you're operating without a license. So they're slightly different, but they both relate to the short-term rental. Thank you, Mr. Belcher. Thank you. Mr. Holub. Good afternoon, and thank you guys for hearing me. Willful disobedience, I don't know if that's the right way to say this. When I originally was researching purchasing a home and settled on this, I had done a cursory examination of are there rules or laws for the STRs. And at that point in late 2022, my understanding that there was not. So I bought a house, I started an STR, and I just kind of went on my way. This has been in operation for two and a half years at this point, some 30 months. And did I hear you say that there is a complaint of some sort? Or no? My understanding is that there hasn't been any. We're talking about the nuisance part here. Like perhaps my nuisance is to the city for not having my ducks in a row. But in two and a half years, I don't believe there have been any problems with the actual operation of this STR, to my knowledge, as far as that goes. So, you know, I was getting sent. I talked to a fellow, Josh Emerson, earlier this year. Once I started getting notices on my door, my housekeeper told me that I was getting notices on my door. And I had gotten in touch with Josh Emerson and tried to get an understanding of what exactly I was not doing properly. My understanding was, look, you can't have anybody under 30 days at this point. You don't have to cancel anybody that is already booked. And I was doing that. Maybe there's one thing that was brought to my attention that it still says on there. Maybe I haven't checked that box or moved that slider on Airbnb to say that I'm accepting anything over 30 days or under 30 days. But I do have stuff in here saying that people are trying to book my property for under 30 days. I'm saying, sorry, you can't do that at this point until I'm sorted out with you guys. Maybe not doing it properly, but willfully disobeying has not been my intention once I understood that I was not in compliance with what's going on. I think some of the citations are one that I don't have the permits, which I'm trying to get now. And then just the rest of it is having run an Airbnb since before, really. These regulations have come to order. That's all I got. If you guys have some questions, I have some stuff here. If you guys are interested in looking at the things that I've been turning down or who stays. This is similar to the Cane Run people. This is meant to be an STR for equestrians mostly working at the horse park, having a hard time finding lodging when you have multiple kids and you have pets. That makes it hard to find a hotel in town that will allow all those things or have to get multiple hotel rooms. This has been a good option for the last two and a half years for people like that. As far as a nuisance in the neighborhood, these are professional people coming in and just treating this like a second home. I think the biggest problem we have here is me getting my ducks in a row. Any questions for the applicant? Is the property still listed? Is it still on Airbnb? It is on Airbnb, yes. I haven't been accepting anything less than 30 days. I have some evidence of that in here. Like I said, it was brought to my attention that it should specifically be listed on the website. It has to be over 30 days. That is something I have not done. It's just my ignorance of the situation more than a willful disobedience. Any other questions? Any further discussion? With that being said, could I have a motion, please? I'll make a motion for PLM BOA 25124, James Hobe, requests a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental, a single-family residential R1E zone on the property located at 472 McConnell's Trace, and agree with the staff's recommended disapproval for the factors listed. I have a motion. Can I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed? Thank you. All right. So just to be clear, that's the end? I just have to take this off Airbnb, and that's my only – I don't have any recourse? Could you repeat that? I didn't understand what he said. I just want to understand that I don't – I have to take this down as an STR, this property, and I don't have any recourse at this point? I guess what's the appeal process for civil court, if you want to go that direction? But, yeah, it's – from what I understood in the paperwork, it hasn't been a licensed STR ever, and you were given several notices to not lease it as a short-term rental, and you continued, and it's still on today. So, yeah, I'd say get it down as quick as possible so they don't amass more penalties. Okay. I'm sorry. All right. Okay, before we adjourn, we have one board item that needs attention. You all should have a draft copy of your 2026 meeting and filing schedule. Have you all reviewed that? I have, and if there's no objection, I'll move for approval, unless anyone wants to discuss. Motion to approve. Have a second? I'll second. All in favor, say aye. Thank you. It's unanimous. Any board members have any business to bring up before the board before we adjourn? Thank you all for being here today. Meeting adjourned. Our next meeting date will be December 8, 2025. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Marcia. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know what it is. Something's wrong with our eyes. We're seeing things in a different way. God knows it ain't his. It sure ain't no surprise. We're living on the edge. Living on the edge. Living on the edge. Living on the edge. There's something wrong with the world today. The light bulb's getting dim. It's meltdown in the sky. But you can't judge a wise man by the color of his skin. Mr. you're a better man than I. Living on the edge. Living on the edge. Living on the edge. Living on the edge. Living on the edge. Tell me what you think about your situation. Complication, aggravation is getting to you. Yeah! Cheeky little touches and the sky is falling. Even if it wasn't, would you still come crawling back again? I bet you would, my friend. Again and again and again and again and again. Yeah!