# Board of Adjustment Meeting - January 12, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · January 12, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6654 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6654?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-01-12 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 4, 2026 - **Length**: 11,785 words - **Speakers**: Chair, Whatever Problem Exists > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment Meeting was held on January 12, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, and was presided over by Bob Sturdivant. The board addressed a total of 3 agenda items during the session, consisting of variance or adjustment applications submitted by Barnett Bungalows LLC (PLN-BOA-25-00132), Jolly Properties 3501 Georgetown LLC (PLN-BOA-25-00133), and Sybil and Bruno Montero (PLN-BOA-25-00143). Over the course of the meeting, 3 votes were taken and 2 public comments were heard. Of the three cases considered, two — those brought by Barnett Bungalows LLC and Jolly Properties 3501 Georgetown LLC — were approved, while the application submitted by Sybil and Bruno Montero was denied. ## Attendance The following members were present at the Board meeting on January 12, 2026: - Bob Sturdivant - Branden Gross - Linda Tucker No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions Three items came before the Board for a vote at the January 12, 2026 meeting. - **PLN-BOA-25-00132** — Barnett Bungalows LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental **passed**. [timestamp: 54:04] Specific vote counts and individual member votes are not available in the record. Approval was granted subject to conditions, including: that the use be established in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan; that occupancy be limited to no more than 8 individuals; that all necessary permits and approvals — including a Business License, Special Fees License, and Zoning Compliance Permit — be obtained from the Divisions of Revenue and Planning prior to commencement; and that the conditional use permit become null and void upon change in ownership or if the applicant's short-term rental special fee license lapses or is revoked. - **PLN-BOA-25-00133** — Jolly Properties 3501 Georgetown LLC's request for a variance and conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental **passed**. [timestamp: 1:42:56] Specific vote counts and individual member votes are not available in the record. Approval was granted subject to conditions, including findings that the use would not adversely influence the subject property or surrounding neighborhood; that all necessary public services and facilities are available and adequate; that there is no record of a short-term rental compliance issue with this application; that no short-term rentals in the area have been cited as a nuisance; that the subject property is not located in a census tract identified as vulnerable to involuntary displacement; that septic facilities are sufficient for the proposed number of users; that the property has adequate parking; that the entrance and driveway are continuously lit; and that adequate fire safety measures are present. - **PLN-BOA-25-00143** — Sybil and Bruno Montero's request for a variance and conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental **failed**. [timestamp: 2:05:06] Specific vote counts and individual member votes are not available in the record. No conditions were recorded, as the request was not approved. ## Public Comment Two members of the public addressed the Board during the public comment period, both speaking in opposition to a short-term rental proposal. - **Eli Wallace** [timestamp: 39:36] spoke against the short-term rental, raising concerns about its adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. Wallace specifically cited issues related to safety and community investment as central to his opposition. - **Evelyn Wallace** [timestamp: 43:16] also opposed the short-term rental, emphasizing the discomfort caused by having strangers in the neighborhood and the broader impact such a rental arrangement could have on community safety. Both speakers shared concerns centered on neighborhood safety and the effects of short-term rental activity on the character and cohesion of their community. ## Appointments The Board took action on several leadership appointments during the January 12, 2026 meeting. The following individuals were reappointed to their respective roles: - **Bob Sturdivant** was reappointed as **Chair**. - **Branden Gross** was reappointed as **Vice Chair**. - **Linda Tucker** was reappointed as **Secretary**. All three appointments were reappointments, retaining the existing leadership structure of the Board in their current positions. ## Contested Items - **Variance and Conditional Use Permit for Sybil and Bruno Montero:** The board was divided over whether to approve a variance and conditional use permit requested by Sybil and Bruno Montero. The matter proved sufficiently controversial to split the board, resulting in a tie vote. Because the motion failed to secure a majority, the variance and conditional use permit was ultimately denied. ## PLN-BOA-25-00132: Barnett Bungalows LLC **Agenda Item III.C.1** [timestamp: 54:04] The Board considered a request by **Barnett Bungalows LLC** for a conditional use permit to operate an **un-hosted short-term rental** in a **Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone**. - The item was presented as an ordinance-type action requiring Board approval. - **Bob Sturdivant** was the key speaker associated with this agenda item. - The application, filed under case number **PLN-BOA-25-00132**, sought authorization for a short-term rental arrangement in which the property owner would not be present on-site during guest stays — the defining characteristic of an un-hosted rental. The Board reviewed the request and ultimately **approved** the conditional use permit. *Note: The available structured data does not include detailed information on specific arguments made, conditions attached to the approval, or any dissenting votes. Readers seeking the full record of discussion are encouraged to consult the meeting transcript or official minutes beginning at approximately the 54:04 mark of the meeting video.* ## PLN-BOA-25-00133: Jolly Properties 3501 Georgetown LLC [timestamp: 1:42:56] The Board considered agenda item III.C.2, a request submitted by Jolly Properties 3501 Georgetown LLC involving two related land use approvals: a variance to reduce the spacing requirements between short-term rentals, and a conditional use permit to operate an un-hosted short-term rental on a property located in an Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone. - **Key speaker:** Dalton Belcher presented the item to the Board. - The request combined a variance — seeking relief from the standard distance requirements that regulate how closely short-term rentals may be situated relative to one another — with a conditional use permit specific to un-hosted short-term rental operations, meaning the property owner would not be present on-site during guest stays. - The property is zoned Agricultural Rural (A-R), a designation that typically carries particular considerations for short-term rental compatibility and spacing. The Board ultimately **approved** the request. *Note: The available structured data does not include details on specific conditions of approval, public comments, or the nature of any debate among Board members. Readers seeking the full discussion are encouraged to consult the meeting video beginning at timestamp 1:42:56.* ## PLN-BOA-25-00143: Sybil and Bruno Montero [timestamp: 2:05:06] The Board took up agenda item III.C.4, a request submitted by Sybil and Bruno Montero involving two related land use applications in an Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone: - A **variance** to reduce the spacing requirements between short-term rentals - A **conditional use permit** for an un-hosted short-term rental Key speaker **Dalton Belcher** presented the item to the Board. The application sought relief from the standard spacing requirements that govern how closely short-term rental properties may be located to one another, alongside authorization to operate the property as an un-hosted short-term rental — meaning the property owner would not be present on-site during guest stays. The Board ultimately **denied** the request. No additional detail on the specific concerns raised or the vote breakdown is available from the provided record. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-25-00132** — passed (0-0): Barnett Bungalows LLC's request for a conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **PLN-BOA-25-00133** — passed (0-0): Jolly Properties 3501 Georgetown LLC's request for a variance and conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental - **PLN-BOA-25-00143** — failed (0-0): Sybil and Bruno Montero's request for a variance and conditional use permit for an un-hosted short-term rental --- ## Full transcript ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Any other questions? Thank you. I think we will... those to speak here in opposition... are next up. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Hi. My name is Eli Wallace. I live at 4253 Desdemona Way. You'll have three minutes for remarks. Okay. Thanks. This is my first time being here with you all. So I wasn't here last year, so I appreciate you all listening to my remarks. Not a problem. Thanks for being here. Absolutely. I live on Desdemona. It is a great place. It's a community, like my neighbor said. And it's a place where we invest in our neighbors. Our neighbors invest in us. We invest in our community. There's even a park down the street, like he mentioned, where there's an organization called Friends of Dogwood Park. And we'll have days where we'll all go down and work on the park together. So it's a place where we are raising our families together. I am opposed to the short-term rental and believe it brings adverse effects on the neighborhood for two main reasons. The first is that a short-term rental becomes a dead house on the street. And what I mean by that is that there's no hope of having any new neighbors who are invested in the neighborhood. The short-term rentals are only bringing transient people into the neighborhood who are there to take from the resources of the neighborhood, take from the investments of the other neighbors who are putting into it. And essentially what it becomes is the short-term rental commodifies those investments and becomes a monetary benefit to the person who owns it. The second reason is the constant rotation of unknown occupants. Most standard rental properties have background checks, like the yearly one that he mentioned. I have four daughters, and there are 17 children within the small radius of that house. And that's not even counting the ones that are further down the street and each way. I know my neighbors. I feel comfortable with my neighbors and my kids playing outside on the street, going for walks. And with a rotation of people who are not invested in the neighborhood, who are just there to kind of take from the resources, there will always be that unsurity of my kids being outside. Like, who's in that house right now? My wife goes for walks on the street. So I'm not normally a person to make restrictions on my neighbors. I'm buying them, build a shed, paint your house, have chickens. I don't like this. But for the sake of the integrity of the neighborhood and for the sake of the safety of the children, I ask that you please reject the proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions, comments? Appreciate it. Thank you. Is there a speaker in opposition? Please state your name and address for the record, please. My name is Evelyn Wallace. I live on 4253 Desdemona Way. Could you adjust your microphone a little bit, please, so we can hear you better? Do you want me to go ahead and start? You have three minutes for comments. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Evelyn Wallace, as I've said. I would like to first thank the board for letting me be here to speak against the proposed short-term rental. I've lived half my life on Desdemona Way, and I greatly cherish all of my friends and all of my neighbors who have poured into me and been so kind and let me play with all their kids. I'm greatly opposed to having a short-term rental on my street. I love taking walks and hanging out with my friends outside, and it would make me greatly uncomfortable to not know who was staying in the house, having stranger after stranger just be cycling through. Our neighborhood should be a safe place to call home, not a tourist attraction. For the sake of myself, my friends, my friends' parents, my three younger sisters, all of the other younger kids on our street, and our neighborhood, I will plead with the board. I plead with the board to reject the proposed short-term rental. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any questions, comments? Thank you. Could you please put that picture of the park, the eagle-eyed picture, for the neighborhood? Is that okay with you, if you don't mind? The aerial view of it? The aerial view. Please state your name and address for the record. Good afternoon. I reside on 4245 Desdemona Way. I've been here last year with the rest of neighbors who couldn't make it this year for some reasons. Unfortunately, I cannot see them. Last year when we came, I talked about a few things. Aside from the parking, the pictures shown on the screen does not reflect exactly the situation in our street. The committee are welcome to visit our street, to drive by. I recommended them last year, before giving any conditional approval to anybody, to drive through the street before giving that conditional approval. They will understand what we're talking about when we come to oppose anything. Our street is a very busy street. It's full of kids. When Mr. Wallace said that there are 17 kids, he's talking about six houses. My house, the houses on my side, and the three houses opposite to us. We did not count the rest of the street ahead and the back. Now, this is number one, for the safety of the kids. Number two, I'm a property manager and I work in real estate. I do manage rentals, long-term rentals, at least one year. By the way, my time is not running, so I'll keep talking. If you look to the—I'm sorry, what I did. If you look to the picture about the house, if you go all the way, you'll see the death court. If you cross the small bridge, you will see another neighborhood, which is also full of kids. And that park, if you go anytime, even in brutal cold, you will see mothers with younger kids playing there. I do have four kids. The youngest is five years old. I do have cameras. His siblings take care of him, aside from us. We keep our eyes, plus Evelyn and her siblings and all the neighbors. But when he runs, he runs. We all run after him. It's difficult to control the kids. They cross the street suddenly. He loves the park. He loves to go to the park. Sometimes we see the ring only. The ring bell goes off and we go out. Zaid, he's out. We run after him. Evelyn catches him in the middle of the way. Imagine if somebody renting there without knowing who is that person renting that place. We don't know who's coming. We don't know what background are they from. We don't know anything. In long-term rental, I run background check. I see everything about the tenant nationwide. However, in Airbnb, it's different. You don't know anything about the people. How many people? What are they? I mean, we're risking. We're putting all these kids at risk. And same reason I came last year, I'm coming today only. I'm not opposing just for the reason of opposing. I'm opposing because for the safety of the kids. Nothing has changed from last year to this year except the fact that the kids got older one year and I got older one year. That's it. Other than that, there are still kids. The street is full of kids. I still urge the committee to go to our street and see how busy it is in the afternoon with cars of the people living there. It's not adequate for extra cars in the street. But also how many kids are playing there. Last year, I took a screenshot from my driveway because it was still daytime. It was around 4 o'clock. I took a screenshot and I showed all the council members here. How many kids are playing on my driveway with my kids? There was around 22 kids. They were all on my driveway. I showed all the members. I mean, it's not only for my kids. It's for the sake of all street. Of course, aside from the other reasons mentioned by my neighbor who sent the e-mail who couldn't make it today. But he sent e-mail also about all other stuff. So, I oppose with full love to all my neighbors, with full respect to all my neighbors. I oppose this and please don't accept it. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your service. I appreciate you all. Thank you for your comments. Any questions? I have a question for the applicant. Are you planning to list on Airbnb or VRBO? Airbnb. Mr. Barnett, please step up to the podium so we can get you on the record. My question is if you're going to be listed on Airbnb or VRBO. Because Airbnb has the background checks that they do on all of the guests. So, from the point that you book, I don't know that they can cover anything between booking and stay. But they do run everything on a vendor registry and things like that. Just making sure that. Yes, correct. Yes, I actually already have my listing up on Airbnb. But it's set to only do rentals of 30 days or more. Obviously, because I don't have the permit at this point to do shorter term rentals. So, thank you. Any other questions, comments? I would like to make another statement if it's okay. Absolutely. So, one thing that was mentioned by one of my neighbors here is that they're concerned that there would be no investment in the neighborhood. I would beg to differ that because I've owned this property since, well, I have to go back and look here, like 2005. So, I've owned the house for like 20 years. I raised two of my own children there in that neighborhood. They were junior high school and high school age when we lived in that neighborhood. I walk my dog every day in that park and up and down, doze them on the way. So, this is my part-time home as well. So, I'm not too sure how you can consider that no investment. I actually, last year, spent most of the summer, probably two months, remodeling the house. New flooring, painting, new appliances, landscaping. The house looks much nicer now than it did. And I would go out on a limb and say that I maintain my house a lot better than some of my neighbors do. So, I am invested in the neighborhood. I like the neighborhood, which is why I want to keep the house and it's why I want to make it my summer home. Any other questions? This has been recommended for approval by staff. Mr. Barnett, have you read the conditions, the four conditions? Yes, sir, I have. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir, I am. Thank you. No further questions from board members? May I have a motion? A motion to approve PLN-BOA-2500132 Barnett Bungalow LLC's request of conditional use permits of an unhosted short-term rental in a single-family R1D zone located at 4236 Desmond Mona Way based off of the staff's recommendation for approval and the listed conditions. Second. We'll have a motion and a second. May I have your vote? Second. You've been approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next case on our STR per docket is PLN-BOA-25-133 Jolly Properties, 3501 Georgetown, LLC. This application has been recommended for disapproval of the variance and also disapproval of the conditional use permit. Would staff please present? I'm Dalton Belcher on behalf of the planning staff. There are two requests here. It's for Jolly Properties, 3501 Georgetown, LLC. The first request is to reduce the spacing requirements between short-term rentals from one mile, which is 5,280 feet, to 3,603 feet, and a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in an agricultural rural AR zone on property located at 3501 Georgetown Road. Council District 12. That orange is not easy to see. So it's kind of an interestingly shaped lot here. You can see I'm following along the property line here. It's an orange, but this is a very slender kind of looking lot here. And then that's just a little bit more zoomed-in version so you can see it a little better following along this line of the subject property. Here's a photo, a couple of photos of just the entrance to the property from Georgetown Road. You can see the driveway here leading back up onto the property as well. The applicant has presented this site plan showing the parking on the property as well as where the structure is. This is also, so the applicant provided this in pink or purple, if you want to say, down here at the bottom is the applicant's property. And then in yellow and blue here are two of the short-term rentals that are within the one-mile vicinity of the property. So this is our concentration map. The two red houses that you see on the screen are short-term rentals that have previously been approved and have license. The blue house off to the right is a recent approval that this board has given for a short-term rental in the ag zone. And the reason it's blue is because they have not yet got through the process of getting their license. So that's just why. So we look at it as if you've got a conditional use. So there are three for our concentration numbers. But just so you can understand the distinction there and why we're seeing two different colors. And then the red highlight there, the red rectangle or triangle, is the subject property. I also went ahead and measured this. So it's approximately 3,603 feet. We measure from property line to property line, from the closest short-term rental to this property. And that is going back to this map here. It is these two right here. So we're measuring from point to point. So in total, yes, there is one within the mile buffer. There are three within the mile buffer. Staff, these are the short-term rental ag STR regulations. I just wanted to call out the one on the bottom of the screen here that says, no short-term rental shall be located within a mile of another short-term rental in an AR, AB, or AN zone measured from the property boundary, which is what is at issue here. So staff recommends disapproval of the variance for the following reasons. First, 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 a variance to the spacing requirement. The one-mile spacing requirement is consistent across all agriculturally zoned parcels allowing for disbursement throughout the county. 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. The subject property could be utilized for other agricultural purposes or conditional uses within the zone that would not be impacted by the existing traffic, noise from Interstate 75, or Georgetown Road, or the spacing requirement. And finally, 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 or concentration of unhosted short-term rental units in the agricultural or rural AR zone. And then, because there are two requests here for the conditional use, staff also recommends disapproval. First, noting that the three factors listed in Article 3.13g of the Zoning Ordinance have been evaluated in addition to requirements for Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance and KRS 100.237. Second, no other SCRs 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 three agriculturally zoned short-term rental units operating within the required one-mile buffer area. And finally, the applicant states that there are access concerns on the property. If the property were to be used as a short-term rental, this would increase the number of drivers on the property and increase access issues as these drivers would not be familiar with the traffic issues as a long-term resident would be. This could increase traffic safety issues accessing the property and for drivers on Georgetown Road. That's it for staff's presentation. Do you have any questions for me at this time? What were the proposed ag uses that they said are viable there? I'm just trying to figure out with such a slender site. What are you asking, sorry? Point number B was about what ag uses could go there. Generally, it's an agricultural zone. I can go pull from the ordinance and get that list for you. I don't have those off the top of my head, but in general, agricultural is sort of like farming and uses like that. And then there are some residential, typically single-family residential that is also allowed in the ag zones. And I can go pull from the ordinance if you want a little bit more specific use list. I'm just trying to figure out the slender site. Would you go back over your comments about the Blue House and where they stand in terms of becoming a used facility? Yes, so for our purposes, we're looking at if this board, if it was either grandfathered in at a previous time or if we have approved it as a conditional use. This is, I believe actually maybe last month, you all approved the one or two months ago, the Blue House. So Ms. Tucker had noted at one point that we wanted to make sure that we had a way to catch those because it takes people a little bit of time to get through the process with revenue. So we didn't want the situation where we would not have it show up in our mapping. And then we would think that there wasn't one within a 600 foot, a mile, our different concentrations. So at this point, the one that is blue has gotten approval from this board for a conditional use, but have not got their license yet through revenue. And that's just, they're ongoing in that process. I don't have the specifics of that, no. I mean, for our purposes, we're counting that the same as what we would count for the Red Houses because the ordinance says conditional use. It doesn't say license. So we would count it the same here. The reason I ask, you know, we've talked about this before with I-75 in the middle of that property, in the middle of that zone. It seems like you could almost eliminate the Red Houses because of, I mean, I would not, I'm not speaking for the board, obviously. But if that blue house was not in process, then I would think that we could eliminate the Red Houses. But if it is in process, I think that explains your situation. Well, I'll note that from staff's perspective, we don't think that the ordinance provides any sort of relief or exception to this one mile buffer. Absolutely, I understand. And the board can, you know, handle the decision how they want to. Yeah, front door to front door, it's 1.08 miles. So because of the length of the property, it's edging into the no-go zone. Is that a question for me? No, that was more just trying to understand the blue house and the one mile zone. Any other questions for Mr. Belcher? Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. May I distribute some of these? Thank you. Let me keep one of them for myself. Please state your name for the record. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm Stephen Amato. I represent Jolly Properties, 3501 Georgetown, LLC, which is the owner of the historic property that's the subject of this afternoon's hearing. I appreciate your time in considering our presentation this afternoon. I'd like to point out that the applicant is represented here today by its owner, Barry Jolly, and his wife, Susan Jolly, who I think will have a few comments if you'll indulge them at the end of my presentation. In your folder marked as Exhibit A is a map reflecting the location of the property, as noted, wedged between Georgetown Road and I-75. And there's a larger version of that map that Steph presented just a minute ago in your package outlined in blue for ease of reference. We're asking for a conditional use permit to allow this applicant to continue to use the property as an unhosted short-term rental and to continue to the extent necessary a variance to reduce the spacing requirements from the other short-term rentals. As noted in the prior hearing, this applicant, they live in Alexandria, Kentucky. They've owned this property for four or five years. They will have a third-party responsible manager to make sure that the property is well-maintained and any requests or notices or needs of the tenants will be dealt with very quickly. As noted, this is a unique historic property that suffers from unique and worsening circumstances that are going to render it essentially impossible to use as a residence, let alone any reasonable agricultural operation. The property is located on the left side of Georgetown Road, going north, bordered on the east by Georgetown Road and on the west by I-75. Across Georgetown Road is a 216-acre tract owned by the University of Kentucky with no land-use restrictions whatsoever. It consists of this very oddly-shaped lot. It's currently approximately 5.68 acres destined to be reduced shortly. It has a lighted entrance from Georgetown Road and sufficient on-site parking for eight spaces. The property's signature improvement, if you'll look at Exhibit B in your package, is the residence known as the T.D. Basie House, which is a towered Italianate-style structure built in approximately 1870 by renowned architect John McMurdy. This property has been a feature of this community for many years. In fact, going back to 1963 when I-75 was first constructed, the community came together and helped move this structure approximately 100 feet to preserve its existence to accommodate the construction of the interstate. If you'll look at Exhibit C, the MLS listing, just to be clear, it has been known in all modern times as a bed-and-breakfast advertisement. At the time, Mr. Jolly and his company bought this property, indicated so as reflected in those materials, and there's some good pictures of that property. Mr. Jolly bought this property a number of years ago with the intent to continue its use as a short-term Airbnb, if you will. He's invested nearly $1.1 million in this property to conserve it and to improve it so that the historic structure can continue to be a part of our community for years to come. With respect to the request for the permit itself, we provided documentation in your package as Exhibit D that we've satisfied the septic system is in good working condition. There is no credible suggestion that approval of this conditional use permit would impact any neighbor, whether they're within or beyond a mile of this property. It's located on a five-acre lot. There are no residences across the street, and there are no noise or light concerns typically associated with short-term rentals. Whatever noise or light concerns there were or could have been are dwarfed by I-75, and the soon-to-be massively expanded Georgetown Road. Its nearest neighbor is the University of Kentucky. There's adequate safety protection within the home, fire, burglar alarms, et cetera. There will be a lighted entranceway. There was reference in the staff's report to access problems with the property, and if it's something that we said in our application that suggested that, it's a misunderstanding. If you're driving north out of Georgetown Road, there's a 1,400-foot separation between the closest driveway and the driveway to this property, and if you're driving south, there's a 500-foot separation between the driveways. And together with the lighted entranceway, there will be no confusion or inability to distinguish this property from the other properties. As mentioned, there's ample parking, enough to accommodate at least eight vehicles. Getting to what really I think is the heart of this thing, which is the distance requirement. While there arguably are other Airbnbs within a mile, there are equally arguably no short-term rentals within a mile. If you look at Exhibit E, two of our exhibits in our packet, you can see that if you measure the distance from Jolly's southern property line west to the Clark line, the nearest Clark line on the east, the distance is actually 166 feet more than a mile, which it is a property line-to-property line measurement, which is a very reasonable way to do it, arguably. Furthermore, if you look at the Jolly southern property line, which is marked as C on the exhibit, over to the west to Item D, which is the Clark's farthest property line, it's 869 feet more than a mile. So I would urge the Board to skip over the variance, measure reasonable property line-to-property line, and find that these properties are 166 feet more than a mile from each other. So turning just for the moment to the CUP, it should be granted there are no compliance issues with other short-term rentals in the area, as the staff noted, either with this applicant or any of the other applicants. There's no neighborhood, cluster development, or other residential uses that are going to be affected by the approval of this application. There is a rational way to measure the distances between the properties that is consistent with the ordinance, and there's no objection, as far as I'm aware, to this application. The University of Kentucky is not here, the Clark's aren't here, no one else is here. If you look at the staff's basis for recommending approval of the Barnett bungalows property that was just heard, you look at Section A, the staff recommended approval because the proposed use should not have an adverse influence on the subject property of the surrounding neighborhood. We clearly meet that test. The proposed use should not have an adverse impact on traffic in the vicinity, as there is adequate parking. No question we meet that. No short-term rentals in the area have been cited as a nuisance. Staff already has conceded that. D is the 1,000-foot issue. E, there is no record of short-term rental compliance with this applicant. That's met. And all necessary public services and facilities are available and adequate for the proposed use. The only issue is the 1,000 feet, and so we would urge that you approve the CUP based on the measurements set forth in Exhibit E, and no need for the variance. However, to the extent necessary, the Board should grant a distance variance, recognizing that the unique features of the relationship between the properties at issue, being primarily the intervening six-lane interstate, more than overcomes any ill effects of proximity. If you look back at Exhibit E and you measure from residence to residence, which, if you think about it, if noise and light are the issues, that's where it's going to come from, is from the residences themselves, maybe makes the most sense. Then the distance is 182 feet. It is a 3% deviation. That is a very defensible and reasonable deviation or variance for this organization to grant. The properties in between each other are highly inaccessible to each other. They're not within any single neighborhood. There's no impact on each other. The layout of our client's lot is unique and creates the circumstances which prohibit full use of the property as a residence and certainly not as any reasonable agricultural use. Again, the staff mentioned there weren't any special circumstances. Well, the special circumstances are three things at least. The shape of the lot, the six lanes of I-75 that are currently there, soon to be expanded, and Georgetown Road. If you need special circumstances, there they are. Let's talk a little bit about Georgetown Road. I don't have copies of this. Our client has been presented with plans that indicate that Georgetown Road, in the very near term, is going to be rerouted across the back portion of our client's property with two 40-foot tall buildings. We're going to lose the back two acres of this 5.8 acre. So is the designation in red, is that the new alignment? Yes, the red lanes are the new Georgetown Road. Thank you. As I indicated, the Department of Transportation has indicated that it is going to take the back portion of our client's property and construct two 40-foot tall bridges across its property and then across I-75 to rebuild Georgetown Road. The area shaded in black is what is the subject of the condemnation, which will be taken from our client, which will reduce this client's lot down to three-point-something acres. If the property's shape and configuration in location to the infrastructure around it wasn't bad enough, within a couple of years it's going to be devastating. The property will certainly not be able to be used as anything agricultural-wise, and no place anyone is going to want to live on a full-time basis. But it still has appeal as a short-term rental because it's out there in the ag zone. It's near the horse park. It's near other very important attractions in the community. In sum, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, we request that you grant the permit with or without the variance. I think it is easier and better and makes most sense to recognize the distances that we've set forth in Exhibit E and grant the permit without the variance. But if you need to grant the variance, I submit it's a 182-foot or 3% deviation. So with that, I would move introduction of our exhibits, plus this department transportation improvement map. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Mr. Jolly would like to say a couple words. Before that, are there any questions of me? Do you know when they're going to do the construction for the bridges? I believe they are in discussions now about the amount of, if any, compensation will be made. So it will be after that process is complete. My understanding is it is inevitable. And my estimate is within 24 months, I believe. I believe within 24 months. Thank you. Are the more in-town properties still the industrial outdoor storage and I feel like they were semis and all that? Is that the couple properties down towards to the south? Yeah. Are those still those commercial uses? Yes. To the best of my knowledge, yes, sir. Thank you. I'm Barry Jolly and this is my wife, Susan Jolly. We're from Alexandria, Kentucky. It takes us about an hour and ten minutes to get down to the house in Lexington. Susan and I are lifetime rehabbers. We've been married 47 years and we've flipped and renovated and worked on and owned over 150 homes. It's kind of a passion of ours. Many couples go to a movie and dinner for dates. We tear out drywall and install windows. It's just something we love to do. My wife has always had a dream of restoring a historic mansion. So back in 2022, I was looking and if you're going to look for an historic mansion, you think of Lexington. So I found this house on the Internet and it just seemed to be priced very reasonable for what it was. So Susan and I came down and looked at it. We loved the home, but it became quite apparent why it was priced so cheaply. I-75 is literally 90 feet from the back door and the noise level is quite incredible when you're standing outside. I've done short-term rentals since the year 2002. I'm very experienced at it. I own five right now. So I just thought that this would make an awesome VRBO with its location and just the beauty of the place. If you haven't looked at the pictures of the historic home, it's quite incredible. It's one of a kind. It's the only one of a kind in Kentucky right now. So we decided to take it on. We bought it in August of 2022 and we thought it would take us about a year to get it renovated. Unfortunately for us, we own two vacation homes in southwest Florida. That's when Hurricane Ian hit and did some just awful damage to our homes down there. So it kind of held us up. It took a little longer to do the restoration in Lexington because we didn't get back to it right away. But I feel like that was unfortunate because I had no way of knowing that there was any kind of restrictions. When I bought it in 2022, I don't know that there were. And I'm not sure what due diligence I would have done to be able to find that out. So I feel like if we hadn't had that hurricane, we'd have probably got the property done in 2023. And when I went to get the permit, I probably would have learned of that and maybe had an opportunity to grandfather that in. But unfortunately, that didn't happen and we just got it done about six months ago. And that's when I learned of the issue. So I would urge you to consider really what this historic home is. The way the highways are constricting it, and especially with this new bridge, quite honestly, I can't imagine anyone wanting to live there unless they've just got it at a bargain price. And then you've got to wonder if they're going to be able to keep the house up because it's a beautiful, beautiful home. We put $450,000 into it and it was already in pretty good shape on the inside. So it's just a beautiful home. And I would hate to see us lose that off the National Historic Register. You know, I did do, like I said, I did do a lot of investigating and things, and the house was advertised on the MLS as a bed and breakfast. The previous owner used it as a bed and breakfast. So it was kind of shocking to me when I learned that I couldn't do it. So I would just urge you to consider the points that Steve made and just take into consideration what we stand to lose in this historic home if this gets rejected. I appreciate considering it. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Jollard or Mr. Mato? Thank you. Jeff does want to clarify just a few things here. So I think it's Exhibit E that you all have been handed out that has measurements on it from, like, Point A to D and Point E. So A is not the edge of the property line as it sits currently. These measurements, I don't think you can really count these to be accurate because we're measuring from the property boundary, and that's cutting off a good portion of the property there. It extends much further up. So I know the applicant mentioned a couple things about not meeting the variance. I don't think there's really any way that you can say that they don't meet a variance in this case. And then the 1,000 feet it was brought up, that is not the requirement for the ag zone. That's outside of the ag zone. That's in the residential zones is where the 1,000 feet and the 600-foot buffer, it is a one-mile buffer within the ag zones. And so there is a variance that's going to be needed here. And then I think that's all I have for right now. I want to reiterate that the ordinance does not provide relief provisions. The ordinance treats ag zone short-term rentals a little bit differently than it does residential short-term rentals. And there are relief provisions called out for the residential zone ones. We've dealt with those before. That's not the case for the ag zone. So, you know, I just want that to be in mind. And I think just these measurements are, you know, we're playing in two years or however much time when this happens, we can't do that right now. We have to take the property as it is currently. And as it is currently, a variance would have to be required to meet that requirement of the one-mile buffer because it doesn't meet that currently. Clarification, Tracy? Yes, Chair Sherdivant. Our records don't show that the property has ever been issued a conditional use for a bed and breakfast at this location. So I don't know. You know, realtors can post things on the MLS that may not be fully accurate, but our records do not show that there was ever a bed and breakfast permitted at 3501 Georgetown Road. If it's under a different address. Certainly our client didn't. That was what we were told when we bought the property. So there's no grandfathering in or continuation of a bed and breakfast. Our records don't show that there was ever a bed and breakfast at that location. Mr. Jolly says the previous address was 3563. Don't know if that changes things. It could. It's about 3563. And I didn't mean to make reference to the 1,000-foot loose lift. But I do believe that if I understand that exhibit correctly as prepared by the engineers, the southern boundary of the Jolly property to the east boundary of the Clark property is more than a mile. Any further questions? Any further clarification from staff needed? I'd like to motion for a quick recess to draft findings with Brittany. So are you wanting to approve this? Okay. Yeah. So like Dalton said, I think that this does not make provisions, particularly in the rural zone. So I would tend to disapprove, go along with staff and disapprove this application. I don't know how the rest of the board feels. Yeah. So just before you go over there, and I understand, you know, it's a historical home. You know, I've heard of different things coming at different times, and sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, particularly with traffic. Yeah, the oblong shape of it is it serves as a disadvantage to the property owners pretty much useless space that is that point where Georgetown Road and I-75 converge, which is the part that then disqualifies it because of that Berea Road property from last month. And so... Yeah, when I went out and looked at it, it is kind of different. Yeah, and my rule of thumb has always been one to two acres of pasture land per horse, and I don't know how they can pull that unless it's a mini pony. So that's where I kind of understand that the ag zone is there, but it's not enough for anything of a commodity of scale or that. And then you also have all of the, if the traffic is the issue. But they're wanting a rental. And I think that's just a great use if the National Register is to preserve and share the historic nature. It's a pretty shareable short-term rental. Well, you called it. It's a strange setup, and that's probably saying pretty lightly. I remember when Hamburg first came about, that was their big argument, was they can no longer operate a horse farm because it's split by I-75. Well, this was split by I-75 and bordered by Georgetown Road. The best thing for you all to do is turn it into a car lot. I mean, it's nonstop. To me, this checks all the boxes. It is ag. If you take the survey, which is an actual honest-to-goodness survey, and you average it, your distances are still above a mile. It's not usable as ag land anymore. That's quite obvious. I mean, there's no way anybody's going to farm it, and you're all's efforts for historic preservation should be applauded because it's an absolutely beautiful property. And I'm glad that you did keep it instead of turning it into a car lot like I recommended earlier. Don't do that. But there's no opposition. There's nobody showing up in opposition. It's just not feasible to farm it as ag. And I think there is a close enough distance that you can say, well, it's right on that buffer. Once you're bisecting by I-75, in my opinion, all bets go off. It's like if you had Bluegrass Airport flying right through the middle of it, you know what I mean? What are we really hurting? I think the intent of ag is still there. You're not building any extra houses. You can still utilize it as green space, and it does contribute to tourism. It's not going to detract from affordable housing. This ain't affordable housing. So in that regard, I'd be in favor as well. So do we have support for changing it to approval? Before we make Brittany write a bunch of stuff, anybody else, you guys got a way in there? Or is this one you want to kind of see where she writes it first? Any thoughts? Motion for recess? We'll take a five-minute recess. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. We're ready. Let's call the meeting back into order. Thank you. I'd like to motion with respect to PLN BOA 25-133, Jolly Properties, 3501 Georgetown, LLC, request for variance to reduce the spacing between short-term rentals in the AR zone from one mile to 3,603 feet. A move for approval based off of the following findings. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity, or adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or cause a hazard or nuisance to the public because the short-term rental will cater to participants in equine activities, which is in harmony with the surrounding land uses. The odd shape of the property also indicates that it's unlikely to be used for agriculture uses, and the short-term rental is separated from other short-term rentals located within one mile radius by I-75, located just 90 feet away from the residence, and multiple commercial uses surrounding the interstate. Number two, the variance will not allow unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance because the property is an oblong-shaped remnant lot with the residence located many feet from the northernmost tip of the parcel. The driveway of the residence is actually located at least a mile from the near short-term rental, so an average of a mile still separates the property from the near short-term rentals. Additionally... We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. I have a second by Mr. Walker. Any comments or questions before we vote? Please cast your vote. Your application has been approved. We need one more. Do I? We need a conditional use permit. Oh, the conditional use. That's correct. With respect to PLN-DOA 25-113, Jolly Properties, at 3501 Georgetown LLC's request for the conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental in an AR zone, I move for approval based off of the following findings. The proposed use should not have an adverse influence on the subject property or the surrounding neighborhood as the structure is large enough to accommodate the proposed number of users and is located a sufficient distance from adjoining properties and the front of the property is screened by existing landscape. Number two, all necessary public services and facilities are available and adequate for the proposed use. Three, there is no record of a short-term rental compliance issue with this application. Four, no short-term rentals in the area have been cited as a nuisance. Five, the subject property is not located in the census tract that's been identified as a vulnerable or a vulnerable to involuntary displacement based off of socioeconomic demographics. Six, the septic facilities serving the use are sufficient to accommodate the proposed number of users, eight users. And seven, the property has adequate parking spaces. Three, to accommodate the proposed number of users, eight. Number eight, the entrance of the property and driveway is continuously lit, leading to and near the unit. Nine, there are adequate fire safety measures present in the unit and the unit is located approximately 2,700 feet from an existing fire hydrant. This recommendation is subject to the following conditions. One, the short-term rental use shall be established in accordance with the submitted application and materials and site plan. Two, occupancy of the short-term rental shall be limited to no more than eight individuals. Three, provisions in handling the sewage shall at all times comply with the requirements of the Fay County Health Department documentation verifying septic system and adequacy for the existing residence. And short-term rental shall be provided to the Division of Planning and Building Inspection. Four, the entrance of the property shall be lighted and easily visible from the roadway. Five, all necessary permits and or approvals shall be obtained from the Division of Revenue and Planning prior to the commencement of use, including a building license, special fees license, and zoning compliance permit. Six, finally, the conditional use permit shall be null and void upon change of ownership or if the application's short-term rental special license laps or is revoked. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Before I second, I'm assuming you're good with the conditions, sir? Yes, the conditions are acceptable. Thank you. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please have a vote. Now you've been approved. Thank you all. Our last case today is PLN-BOA 25-143, Sybil and Bruno-Montero for a short-term rental. Staff has recommended disapproval of the variance and also disapproval of the conditional use permit. Alton, would you please present first? So the request is two requests. First, a variance to reduce the spacing requirements between short-term rentals from one mile, which is 5,280 feet to 450 feet, and a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in an agricultural-rural AR zone on property located at 3512 Rosalie Road, Council District 12. You can see the subject properties listed here. 3512 Rosalie Road, Council District 12. You can see the subject property here highlighted in orange. I'm going to also zoom in on it. Here is the subject property. Here is a street view of the property from Rosalie. And another one showing the driveway going back on the property. Here is the applicant's site plan, where they indicate that they will have parking on the property. As well, they're showing four parking spaces provided. And then here is the concentration of short-term rentals within a mile. If you see the red highlighted property here, that is the subject property. The two red houses here are the short-term rentals that are within the vicinity. The one that I'm hovering with the mouse right now is the one that's 450 feet away. And this shows the measurements a little bit more. So the yellow line is the closer one, which is 450 feet from the light blue, which is the subject property. And then about 779, 780 feet to another short-term rental also in the area there. So there is short-term rentals within the one-mile buffer. There are two. And then I'll highlight again that no short-term rental shall be located within a mile of another short-term rental in an AR, AP, or AN zone measured from the property boundary. That's pulling from our zoning ordinance. So staff recommends disapproval of the variance for the following reasons. First, 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 a variance. The one-mile spacing requirement is consistent across all agriculturally zoned parcels. Second, the applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine that 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 dwelling can be rented in 30-day increments without a conditional use permit, which will allow the property to be occupied consistent with the applicant and their neighbor's wishes. And then finally, approval of the requested variance will 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 rental units in the agricultural-rural AR zone. The requested variance is a significant reduction in the established spacing requirement since there is another STR only 450 feet away from the subject property. And then for the conditional use request, staff also recommends disapproval. First, noting that the three factors in Article 313G of the zoning ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of Article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100.237. And second, that while no other short-term rental has been cited in the vicinity as a nuisance and the applicant has no history of compliance issues, based on a review of the ArcGIS concentration mapping data, there are two existing agriculturally zoned short-term rental units operating within the required one-mile buffer area. And that is it for staff's presentation. If you have any questions for me? Questions or comments? Mr. Belcher? Thank you, sir. My applicant, please come forward. Hello, my name is Sybil Montero. This is my husband, Bruno. We are going to be moving out of the country for only two years for my husband's work. We have lived in our home for the past 15 years and we are 100% not going to sell our home. And we have five children, three of whom are remaining in the States because they are going to college here. Two of our kids will be going with us. One of the things I want to say is one of the homes that is highlighted as being an existing short-term rental sold, I believe, in September of 2025, if it's the one on Jeanne Cate Lane. And that is no longer a, that's a single family residence at this point. So that, if it's the property I'm thinking of, it takes that one out. Also, I wanted to say that our property, our home is situated at the back end of our property. And the short-term rental that is existing is on the front end of the property. So it is true that the property line from back to back is closer. But if you actually go from door to door, it is much farther than 400 feet. I was interested to see that because there isn't a home within 400 feet of our home, but property to line, property line, I suppose that is accurate. We don't foresee any adverse impact at all on our neighborhood. No adverse impact on traffic or no nuisance in the area. All safety requirements have been met. And we feel like our property is very unique to Keeneland and to the airport. Two sides of our property are lined by Keeneland's property. And so we often have people calling asking if they can stay at our house pretty much during every Keeneland meet. And all we are wanting to do is rent during the month of April and October because our three children who are college age will be coming off into our house. We are not looking to make this a long-term, short-term rental. We are just looking to see how could we still utilize our property while we are not there. And the reason we don't want to do a 30-day rental is because our children will be coming home, I would say, at least one weekend or so a month. So 30 days is not really going to work for that. It absolutely fits with the equine activities in the area. Like I said, it is unique to Keeneland. It is unique to the airport. And, yeah, we are looking to use our property well for the very short time that we are away. One more quick comment. As my wife said, our house backs up to Keeneland. We are close enough also to some of the stalls that are back there. So there is a lot of activity. There are people there. Like we said, we don't wish to sell our home. My wife is going to be home for the summer. So when the kids come home, they can have somewhere to land. We don't want our house to stay vacant because there is a lot of activity back in that side. And if somebody knows, hey, that house is open, I think it would be a bad situation. So, again, we are asking for a 90-day-a-year situation. And we do have a property manager who is here with us today who will be our emergency contact. He lives very close to us. He is going to be maintaining our property. He would be caring for the property and would be the contact person should any need arise. And lastly, I'll say we are good friends with the vast majority of our neighbors. It's a very small street, and we know each other, and our neighbors are fully on board with us doing this. We've spoken to them, and they're for this happening if you will approve that. Any questions, comments? I was just looking at the aerial view here. Is there a single residence plan, or do you have multiple houses? No, it's a single residence, but there are two barns and a shed. So those other buildings you see are two barns and an equipment shed. And the house, so if you see our property line, that is kind of like an L-shape, and there's a property within that that completes the rectangle. That is my mother's house, and she absolutely would like this to be an Airbnb. And we kind of take care of that entire 13 acres. So we see that entire rectangle as one property, but one is my mom's and one is ours. Any other questions, comments? Chad, you look puzzled. Another question? I always look like I'm confused. I don't do that now. Yes, and like with the prior case you guys saw, there was extenuating circumstances that we could cite, and I'm absolutely in favor of this. However, I'm trying to find a way that you guys can still do this for extenuating circumstances, and I'm not seeing any. It only makes sense that, once again, it backs up to Keeneland, and that's all about tourism. It doesn't take anything out of the affordable housing market, et cetera. But would this not, I guess, with your mother? Yes, she lives in the home in front of us. Would that not follow since it's two separate parcels under like a farmstay? Would it have to be on the same parcel to do that? So farmstay is a type of bed and breakfast, so I don't want to go down that road, because they're not asking for a bed and breakfast. They're asking for the short terminal. Hosted versus unhosted is, I think, what you're trying to get at. Yeah, yeah, either or. Unhosted means there's not someone there while you're renting it out. Hosted, someone has to be on the property, even adjacency. Okay, even if it's next door. Yeah, yeah, I got you. Okay. So a question I could ask with that then is, we have about 2,000 square foot basement that we are not including in the Airbnb property. But if we had someone living there during the months of April and October, I'm sorry, yes, April and October when we're renting our home, would that make a difference? That would be a question for Tracy. She's going to kick me in the knees if I answer this one, because I'm already in trouble from the prior one. So, yeah, no, answer that. So in the ag zones, they're both conditional uses. In our urban zones, if you're hosted, it's not a conditional use. We don't see those. We only see unhosted. That's right, that's right. In our agricultural zones, both hosted and unhosted are both conditional uses. There's just a limit on how big the property can be. Okay. We looked at unhosted being on smaller lots, less than 10 acres. I got you. Those nonconforming. But the distances would still apply at the one mile. That's right, the one mile distance. And this one is. For you guys at least, the distance is so short. So much. I'm on your side. I'm trying to figure out how to get, but you're so tight. So would it make a difference if the Jeannie Kate home, I'm not quite sure if that's the third. I was not able to locate the third Airbnb, or the second existing, sorry. Would it make a difference if that Airbnb was sold to a family and it is no longer being used as Airbnb or Bread and Breakfast? I don't know. I think it's still within that range of the first one, isn't it? Yeah, so the Jeannie Kate one is not the one that's within 450 feet. It's the one that's about 700, 800 feet. I believe it's 36, 38. Rosalie Road is the one that's within 450 feet. I will note that could mean that they're no longer operating as a short-term rental. As of our most recent data from revenue with their license, it is still showing up as being active. Now, that could be losing that status, but we don't have that updated from revenue currently. It is still currently showing the license that the previous owner had. And even though there's no provision for relief, if, you know, Miles is 5,280 feet, if you're 5,279, then maybe we can ponder some other things that might be your 500 feet. Well, we're 500 feet from, so our home is in the back of our property, and every other home on our street is in the front of the property. So that just is kind of tricky to me because it's like there's no one ever back there, if that makes sense. And also, these Airbnbs operate as a business, and our home operates as a home that we're temporarily trying to put this – we're saying we're blocking it for this time. And we're not going to change anything. We're not going to – I absolutely understand, and I, of all people, can empathize. But unless you guys see any other spots, this is one of those that it doesn't make a lot of sense. I think that the proximity to Keeneland, and because it is a massive industrial use, even though it is agriculture, you've got – I mean, looking on the map, you've got nothing but, you know, barns and horses and activity going on. That, unfortunately, is the rule. Unless somebody else wants to weigh in. I know I've hogged the mic on this one. Well, I have a question for staff. So the 8th Pole Airbnb – or the 8th Pole Bed and Breakfast is right across the street. Is that the house marker that's showing up that they just happen to be using? I don't think that property was listed on the map that he showed. Okay. I believe the properties – there used to be an Airbnb on Jeanne Cate, but now there's a family with eight kids that are living there. So I'm, like, positive that's not being used for an Airbnb. And then there is the one – I don't know the house number, but farther down. Yeah, I see where that sold on 92225 on Jeanne Cate. So these are the two that have short-term rental licenses currently, right? That haven't expired or haven't – they haven't notified revenue that they don't want to operate one, or they might, you know, come to you and ask to transfer the permit. It doesn't include bed and breakfast or any other conditional use. It's only looking at short-term rentals. What does transfer the permit mean? Could they transfer the permit to us? No, no, that property owner would have to come and ask the board to approve a conditional use there for them. Okay. And part of their evidence could be, well, we were grandfathered in before, so. Oh, okay, okay. But, again, that's – Okay. Any other questions, comments for the applicant? Hearing none, can I have a motion, please? Just to clear it up to just – I mean, Ross brought up the eighth pole in. That being in proximity would also preclude the possibility of a farmstay, because that's another bed and breakfast, right? Yes, a farmstay is another type of bed and breakfast. Okay. Yes. So you can't do that either. I'm trying. I really am. So if someone stays there, that still doesn't count. That's what you're saying, right? I just am trying to make sure I understand. Right. Yeah, so normally, like in every other – I have an agricultural zone property as well, and I know the hoops you have to jump through. If it was any other residential zone, in any other spot in Lexington, they have one set of rules, and then there's a whole different set of rules for ag. So having said that, yeah, you've got to jump through some other hoops. You've got to figure out how it's going, but every other zone is exactly that. Like if it is a hosted short-term rental, it goes by, yeah, you're going to be there, and they just let you do it. That's not the case for agricultural. They still make you go through this process. Okay, okay. So call your council member a lot. Still waiting for a motion. I guess I'll make the motion. For PLM BOA 25143, Sybil and Bruno Montero, request a variance to reduce the spacing requirements between short-term rentals from one mile to 450 square feet. To 450 feet and a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental on the agrural zone for the property located at 3512 Rosalie Road. So I guess we'll do the variance first. The staff recommends disapproval of the variance for the following reasons listed there, and I will agree with staff on that. Second. Did I hear a second? Second. Personally second. Was this motion for the variance only? I have a motion and a second and a vote. So it's a tied vote, but ultimately the effect is you don't get the variance. So you can still proceed to vote on the conditional use permit. We need a motion for the conditional use permit. Yes, what I'm saying is that it's a tied vote. So normally if you were, for example, moving to approve it and it was a tied vote, they still wouldn't get the variance. But if you're going to disapprove the conditional use permit, it doesn't really matter because you're not giving them the variance anyway. Does that make sense? So you just need to take up the conditional use permit separately by motion. This motion will be for the conditional use permit. Could I have a motion, please? In regards to PLM BOA 25-00143, Civil and Bruno Montero requests a variance to reduce the spacing requirements for short-term rentals for 1 mile to 450 feet and a conditional use permit for the unhosted short-term rental in the agricultural AR zone for property located at 35112 Rosalie Road. And this is for the conditional use permit. We're going to uphold staff's disapproval for the conditional use permit for the following reasons as they stated. We have a motion. Could I have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Please cast your vote. So, same as before, it's a tie vote, but the result of the tie vote is you don't have approval for a conditional use permit. And just for clarification, they have to wait how long before you can reapply? Because it's a tie vote, they have to wait. Because it's a tie vote, technically they could reapply next month. The only reason I'm asking, we don't have a full board. Normally it would be, yeah, normally it would be like if you were disapproved because a majority voted to disapprove it, it would be a year. But when there's a tie vote, you can apply next month. So I guess the light at the end of the tunnel, if you want to consider that, is we do have a board member that's not here today. If you want to roll the dice and come back next month, or in the meantime, get with an attorney, maybe do some more digging, whatever it happens to be. But that's up to you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. That concludes our applications for the day. So we are down to page four. Item four, which is our board items. Unless any board members have any items, I guess we could move along to our election of officers for calendar year 2026. For calendar year 2026. If Bob is willing to take it, I would like to nominate Bob for the chair. I'm willing to take it over. Any other nominations? Second. We have a motion. Nominations cease. Take it to a vote. If you want to vote on each one, I guess that's up to you. Yeah, you can just go ahead and vote on chair, and then take each office as it goes. If you would like to, that's up to you. Or you could take them all together, unless you have multiple. Yeah, so. Yeah, unless anybody else wants to change spots, I nominate continuing the roster as it is, with Mr. Schertman as chair, Brandon Gross as vice, and Linda is still secretary. Is that what you said? Unless you would like it. Huh? Don't you want to be secretary? No, I don't want to be secretary. You need to take that to a vote. I can barely keep my whole life together. Yes, you need to vote on. Okay. I need a motion to keep the officers as is. I have a motion. Yes, I'm sorry. So moved. Motion by Mr. Walker, second. I'll second. Could I have a vote, please? Motion passes. Are there any staff items to be brought up at this time? No. Everybody's met our new staff member. Welcome aboard. Our next meeting date will be February the 9th at 1.30 p.m. Hearing no further business, meeting adjourned. Gross is bringing snacks.