You But all you do is treat me bad Break my heart and leave me sad Tell me what did I do wrong to make you stay? Instead of breaking up Don't you stay, need ya, need ya Baby love, ooh, baby love Baby love, my baby love Why must we suffer in my love? All of my whole life through I never loved no one but you Why you do me like you do? I get this need Need to hold you once again, my love Feel your warm embrace, my love Don't throw our love away Please don't do me this way Not happy like I used to be Loneliness has got the best of me My love, my baby love I need ya, I need ya Why you do me like you do? After I've been too dear So deep in love with you Baby, baby, ooh Till it's hurting me, till it's hurting me Ooh, baby love Don't throw our love away Don't throw our love away Don't throw our love away Don't throw our love away Baby love, ooh, baby love Why must we suffer in my love? All of my whole life through I never loved no one but you Why you do me like you do? I get this need Some people wanna fill the world with a silly love song And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know Cause here I go again I love you I love you I love you I love you I love you guitar solo violin solo violin solo piano solo piano solo violin solo piano solo violin solo piano solo piano solo violin solo violin solo violin solo violin solo violin solo violin solo violin solo piano solo violin solo piano solo violin solo piano solo violin solo Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. We haven't seen so many friends in this room in a long time. Thank you all for coming and participating in your local government. I'd like to call this Lexington-Fayette County Board of Adjustment meeting for April 2026 to order. We gave about five minutes extra time because there were still people checking in outside in the lobby. So the time is 1.35 for the record. Everyone, please find a seat. If we don't have a seat, you have to be out in the hallway. That is the fire marshal's order, not mine. Please silence all your cell phones. If you need to take a call, please step out into the hallway. Speakers needed to sign in. If you haven't signed in, please do that now. I'd like to recognize our planning staff on your left. They do all the hard work for these meetings. Tracy Wade, Daniel Crum, Dalton Belcher, Raelle Browning, and Patricia Haley. Without them, these meetings would not happen. Our legal counsel is Brittany Smith. Our board members are, starting on my right, Chad Walker, Linda Tucker. I'm Bob Sturdivant. I'll be chairing your meeting today. On my left, Harry Clark, Ross Boggess, and Brandon Gross. I'd like to recognize any active or retired military that are in the room today. If that's you, please stand up. None here. You should have picked up an agenda out in the hallway. First item on the agenda will be the approval of the Board of Adjustment meeting minutes for August 2025 and September 2025. We'll take the August minutes first. Has all the board members had a chance to review those? Are there any questions? Could I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the Board of Adjustment meeting minutes from August 2025. Can I have a second? I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Please cast your vote. We're having technical issues. Thank you. That's been approved. Next item for approval is the September 2025 minutes. All the board members reviewed those minutes. Any further discussion? I'd like a motion, please. I have a motion. Need a second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you. We need to move an item from last page of your agenda. Under board items 4A, discussion of motion procedures. At this time, the staff of the law department would like to briefly discuss appropriate measures for motions of the BOA. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for moving this up. I'll be brief since we have a full agenda. I want to make the board aware we've had some legal issues arise with our motion procedure for these hearings. It's come in the context of another one of our boards and commissions, not the Board of Adjustment. I just want to make you all aware of it. I think especially when we have draft findings and conditions in front of you and so we're talking about them for maybe an hour, it's obvious when the person makes the motion in context that you're referring to the conditions that have been drafted in front of you. But when you make the motion, you need to make it clear that you are making the motion subject to those conditions. Either making a motion to conditionally approve something subject to the conditions based on the conditions. Some language needs to be in your motion to make it clear that your approval is incorporating those conditions. Because if you do not, then there is an argument that it's not a conditional approval. You all are actually really good about that. I just wanted you to be aware that that issue has come up with another one of our commissions so that you can just keep it on your radar. That's it. Any questions for Brittany on that? Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the swearing in of witnesses. If you plan to speak today in favor of or in opposition of an application, would you please stand up? Raise your right hand. You promised to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Thank you. Please be seated. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Bob, can we see if one of the staff could close the door? Because I'm having a hard time hearing. It's coming right down the side. Is there anyone here requesting a withdrawal or a postponement of their application? Okay. Thanks, Jim. Next item on the agenda is sounding the agenda. The reason we do this is to expedite the meeting. You should have picked up a paper outside that kind of gives you an informational discussion of how we do this. Like I said, the goal is to expedite our meeting. Our docket has two sections. Section A is the variances and the conditional use permits. Section B is the short-term rentals. Each section has two parts, the expedited portion and the heard portion. The criteria for the expedited portion is the planning staff has recommended approval and there's no opposition. These go quickly. The heard portion is planning recommends disapproval or there is opposition present. These regulations are consistent across both sides of our docket. So we're going to go over each one of these cases today, put them in the appropriate location on the docket. Our first case is PLN BOA 26-4, I-4 group. Is there a representative here today? Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this. Is there anyone here in opposition? Do I have a hand raised? Let me ask that again. Is there anyone in opposition to PLN BOA 26-4? It's number one on page one of our variances. Is there one? Anyone in opposition to that? I think she's checking in the hallway. Yeah, chair. She's checking in the hallway. Let's just give her a minute. No opposition. Thank you. So number one on the expedited docket, PLN BOA 26-4. Page one of the agenda, item number two at the bottom, PLN BOA 26-11. Brennan Mullins. Is Mr. Mullins here? Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this application. Is there anyone here in opposition to this variance? Hearing none, we will put that down. PLN BOA 26-11 is number one. We're double checking in the hall. No opposition. PLN BOA 26-11 will be number two on the expedited docket. Moving to page two of our agenda. Variance item number three, PLN BOA 26-12. Greg Brumagen. Is Mr. Brumagen here today? She's checking the hallway. I didn't see Mr. Brumagen out there, but no one said they were here in opposition. Chair. She didn't see Mr. Brumagen out there, but she did not hear anybody in opposition either. Okay. Should we put him on the docket? Yes, we can contact him. Okay. We'll put that down on the docket as number three, and we'll call and see if he's arrived. And that is PLN BOA 26-12. The last item on page two of the agenda, PLN BOA 26-13, 1711 Lakewood Lane, LLC. Is the applicant here? Staff has recommended approval of this. 1711 Lakewood, LLC. We got it. You're here? Thank you. Staff has recommended approval. Is there anyone here in opposition to this application? Okay. We'll put that one down as PLN BOA 26-13, number four on the expedited docket. Moving to page three, item five, PLN BOA 26-14, William Wood, The Drafting Board, Inc. Is the applicant here? William Wood? Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. Bob. On this one, given that the staff has recommended a reduced request, we may want to ask the applicant if he's agreeable to that. And if he is, then we can put him on the no objection docket expedited. But if he wants to be heard, then we'll put him on to the heard docket. Thank you. Mr. Wood. Yes. Please come forward to the microphone. Staff has recommended a lesser variance from eight feet to five feet. Yes, sir. And approval to reduce the width of the property perimeter from 15 feet to zero feet. Is that? Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. So if you're in agreement with that, we'll put you on the expedited docket. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So item number five on the expedited docket is PLN BOA 26-13. I'm sorry, Chair. Was anybody here in opposition to that application? I am not here in opposition. Thank you. So that will move to the heard docket. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's PLN BOA 26-14. And that is the first item on the variances conditional uses heard docket. I've been told people are still filtering in the building, so we're going to have to go through this painstakingly slow to make sure everybody gets represented. I think they're still checking people in. Okay. Can you call the next page? Okay. PLN BOA 26-17. It's at the top of page four. Hold the door properties LLC is the applicant here. We're just checking in. Staff has recommended approval on this. Is there anyone here in opposition? No opposition. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We will put PLN BOA 26-17 as item number five on the expedited docket. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on page four, item number seven. PLN BOA 26-19 Speedway LLC is the applicant here. John Woodall on behalf of Speedway, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this application. Is there anyone here in opposition? I may have to have someone out on Main Street. Any opposition? Yes. Okay. So PLN BOA 26-19 will be number two on the H.E.R.D. docket. Moving to page five. PLN BOA 26-20 Gibson Taylor Thompson. Applicant is here. Staff has recommended approval. Is there anyone here in opposition? Any opposition, Tracy? Mr. Taylor, you can wait a second. Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor, we're not ready for you yet. Just hold tight. No objection. Thank you. Thank you. Did you hear that, Bob? Yes. Okay. PLN BOA 26-20. Will be item number six on the H.E.R.D. docket. Still on page five. Under conditional uses, PLN BOA 26-6, behavioral health, real estate associates. Is the applicant here? Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Under conditional uses, behavioral health, real estate associates. Is the applicant here? I'm here. Sorry. Thank you. Staff recommends approval. I'm going to ask the obvious here. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We have had a request to move this to the end of the docket. Move it to the front and we'll leave. If you'd like to make a comment. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I've heard some objections to that, so I withdraw that request. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? This will be number three. PLN BOA 26-6. Number three on the H.E.R.D. docket. PLN BOA 26-8, faith point ministries, Inc. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Staff has recommended approval for this application. Is there anyone here in opposition? We don't need you just yet. Oh, okay. Sorry. We're just setting the docket. Thank you. Thank you. Tracy? Tracy Wade. Tracy. Tracy, any opposition to faith point ministries? No. Chair? I'm sorry. Are you going to do an abbreviated docket for that as well before the behavioral health? Are you? No. No, it will be after. Before, yes, it will be before behavioral health. Yes. It will be on the expedited docket. Behavioral health. Faith point ministries will be, let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six, number seven on the expedited docket. Faith point ministries will be, let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six, number seven on the expedited docket. And that will be 26-8. Page six, item three, PLN BOA 26-9, Lexington universal academy. Is there a representative here? Is that a yes? Yes. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this application. Is there anyone here in opposition? Chair? Chair? The staff's recommended approval of an alternate plan. So I think the applicant is going to want to present on their plan. Is that correct, Joe? Yes. This might need to be a heard one because the applicant disagrees with staff's recommendation. I would put this on the heard docket. Thank you. So it will be PLN BOA 26-9 will be item number four on the heard docket. Real quick, Mr. Chair, Bob, sir, the applicant, would you come forward on this case real quick and state your name for the record? My name is Joe Elder. Go to the podium, please. My name is Joe Elder for Thoroughbred Engineering representing Lexington universal academy. And just real quickly, since you want alternative and you want this to be heard? Yes, sir. Okay. Do you want to wait until maybe 7, 8 o'clock tonight or do you want to pass it until next month? Where did Daniel go? Where's Daniel? It doesn't matter to us. I wanted to ask you if you wanted to. Next month. Yeah, next month. Okay. So since there's no opposition and the applicant is agreeable, then I'll move that we postpone PLN BOA 26-9 Lexington universal academy's request at 4590 Nicholson road to our hearing in May, which will be on May 11th. And then maybe in the meantime, you and staff can maybe talk about the alternative plans and maybe you can get on board together with it next month. Perfect. So moved. I see a second. Do I have a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you, Mr. Gross. You're done. We'll see you next month. Thank you for your time. Yeah. Yeah. Probably I saved your client some money. So moving ahead to page 7, we're going to be moving to the other side of our docket to the short-term rentals. PLN BOA 26-16, Tanasha and Claudette Shigeti. Is the applicant here? We're checking the hallway. Is the applicant here? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Is there any opposition to this? Yes, there is. Right here. You have opposition? Okay. So PLN BOA 26-16. Bob. Sir. I'd give the applicant a similar opposition. Bob. Sir. I'd give the applicant a similar opportunity to postpone if they so choose. Will the applicants come forward? To the... And this may also give them opportunity if they have not to talk with the neighbors in opposition over the next 30 days? Yes. Yeah. If you come up to the podium. Yeah. I'd like to ask the applicant to state your name for the record. Good afternoon. We're going to give you all an opportunity to postpone until the May meeting because we have a large group here today. We may be here until late in the day. So we're just going to give you the opportunity if you would like to move this to the May meeting where we could expedite this in a judicious manner rather than being here all day. Okay. Is that something you'd be... That sounds good. Okay. All right. And could the people in opposition raise your hands? And if you want to talk with that gentleman on your way out, maybe you guys can discuss what the opposition is. And then next month maybe he won't be opposed. But if not, we'll have it heard next month. So with that being said, I will move for PLM BOA 26-16 to request for a CUP for an unhosted short-term rental at 3037 Polo Club Boulevard to be moved to our May 11th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you all for your understanding. Thank you. And like I said, if you and the gentleman want to chat in the hallway on the way out, maybe you guys can work something out over the next month. Thank you. Next case on page 7, number 5, PLM BOA 26-18, SCJL. It's either V or 5 LLC. Would you like to approach the podium, please? Afternoon. Michael Norris on behalf of SCJL 5. We would just like to give you the opportunity to postpone this until next month based on the... Bob, unless he's agreeable to the 6. Yeah, the 6 is fine. It was supposed to be 6 anyway. Then we could probably have this one on the expedited docket. There's no opposition. If there's no opposition, you may want to call to make sure. But there's none. We can do that. Next case on page 7, number 5, PLM BOA 26-18, SCJL 5. It's PLM BOA. 1590 Higby Mill Road. Thank you. Next case on page 7, number 5, PLM BOA 26-18, SCJL 5. Any opposition? We will put PLM BOA 26-18 on the expedited docket. That is all of our cases. We have our... Chair, just to confirm, because typically short-term rentals are heard after all of our other cases. Are you going to have this one before the... This is on the expedited docket with the rest of the expedited cases. It's not going to be... You're going to put it as part of the other group of expedited cases? I think that's a good idea. Bob is to have all the expedited cases heard one after another, and then we'll go in. Then that would be all the heard cases. Then we'll go into the heard cases. Yes. Okay. Just wanted to confirm. Just wanted to make sure. Yeah, that's a great idea. First case we'll call up is PLM BOA 26-4, the I-4 group. While they're coming up, do you want to give everybody about how long they have to speak, expected to quorum during the hearings? Yes. Well, we're going to have some different timing on the Duke Road project. We'll discuss that later. Traditionally, the individuals will have three minutes to speak in opposition or in support of. Hello. I'm Brock Roberts. I am with I-4 group. We're here on behalf of Metro Plus Credit Union to hear our variance for the sign that was set at that location. The sign, am I to go into details at first? So the sign was projected per your standards to be at ten feet away from the right-of-way. The sign was set, I believe, at three feet from the right-of-way. This is because of the landscape of the property. It falls into a recess at that ten-foot mark. So we are asking for a variance for that sign to be allowed closer to the right-of-way at the three-feet mark. Staff has recommended approval of this. Have you read the following conditions that they put on it? Yes. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. Is there any further discussion for the applicant? Hearing none, can I have a motion? Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 26-4 I-4 group request for a variance to reduce the required setback for a freestanding sign from ten feet to three feet in the university research campus zone on property located at 1565 Magrathiana Parkway based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions as listed. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you. You've been approved. Thank you. Thanks for coming down. Item number two on the expedited docket is PLNBOA 26-11. The applicant, please come forward. Good afternoon. State your name. Brendan Mullins. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this. Have you read the conditions? I have. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, I am. Any questions for the applicant? Hearing none, can I have a motion? Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 26-11, Brendan Mullins, request for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and to increase the maximum driveway width from ten feet to 20 feet within the plan neighborhood residential zone on property located at 644 Chestnut Street based on staff recommendations and subject to the two conditions. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. You're good. Thank you, sir. You've been approved. Thank you. The third item on the expedited dockets, PLNBOA 26-12, Greg Brummagen. Will the applicant please step forward? Good afternoon. State your name, please. Greg Brummagen. State your name, please. Staff has recommended approval of this. Have you read the three conditions? Yes, I have. And you're in agreement with those? I do have one clarification on the removal of the existing structure. Can they start the project and get approval for permit before that structure is removed? Staff? Staff has recommended approval of the existing structure. I have one clarification on the removal of the existing structure. Can they start the project and get approval for permits? Okay. Yeah. Which that's a condition as part of the approval. That was one of the conditions of the shed is removed. Yeah. Before. Yeah. I've started talking with building inspection. So an agreement follows. Yeah. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Chair. I'll move for approval. PLNBOA 26-12. I'm going to ask for an amendment to the proposed plan. To the request of the applicant. The application requires the variance to reduce the required side street side yard setback for accessory structures from 50 feet to 22 feet. Eight inches in an AR zone at 6970 grimes Mill Road. Based upon the staff's report and subject to the conditions there. Second. We have a motion and a second. Hearing none. Please cast your vote. Thank you. You've been approved. Thank you. Item number four on the expedited docket. P.L.N. B.O.A. 26 dash 13. 1711 Lakewood Lane LLC. The applicant please step forward. It's a motion. Second. Thank you. You have a motion. Second. All in favor. Say I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. . . . I. I. A. At 17. at 17. At 17. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Do we Aw whatsoever on any Mr. Chairman. Do we aw whatever on any Mr. Chairman. Do we have any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you. You have been approved. Thank you for your time. I would like to call on the applicant. Please step to the podium. Hello. Brandy smith with hold the door properties. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this application based on two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. Any questions for the applicant? I have a question. What type of fence are you building? It's basically like a slotted fence. I brought a picture in case you need it. I also submitted it to Dalton as well. It's kind of like a privacy slotted fence. Would you like to see the picture? Yeah. I was just curious since it's in the agriculture zone. Thank you. Dalton, can we put it on the overhead so we can all see it? Yeah. Yeah. Any further questions? 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. Any further questions? Are you Game of Thrones fans? Is that what this came from? Yes, sir. Okay. Just making sure. So what is your property being used for? It's a property. It's a property. It's a property. It's a property. It's a property. It's a property. It's a property. It's a property. It's a property. It's a property. It's a construction company. It's mostly we want to put the fence up so we can put material in there. There's no area behind the property. There was a variance for the building originally. There's nowhere back there to put a fence. We wanted to make sure it would fit very well in the office space. Is this a chain link with something running through it? It's slatted. It's almost like a privacy fence. There's some slots in it but it's not a full on chain link. It's a chain link. I had this conversation with the applicant. You're just storing building materials. There's not going to be trailers, trucks, cars, vehicles or anything like that? No. We put some bay doors on the front of the building so we can store materials. Thank you. Any further questions? Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBO 26-17, request for variance to increase the allowable height of the fence within the front yard from 4 feet to 6 feet in the corridor business B3 zone on the front yard. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you. You've been approved. Thank you for coming down. Next item on the expedited docket is PLNBO 26-20, Gibson Taylor Thompson. Please step up to the podium. Good afternoon. Darren Taylor. Staff has recommended approval of this application based on two conditions. Have you read those? I have. Are you in agreement? I am. Any questions for the applicant? Hearing none, could I have a motion? Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLNBO 26-20, Gibson Taylor Thompson's request. For a corner lot from 30 feet to 15 feet within the infill redevelopment area and an H1 overlay district and a planned neighborhood residential area. I move to approve this application based on staff's recommendations and subject to the two conditions. I would like to make a comment real quick. You have a couple of letters that have been sent in opposition letting you know. Mainly having to do with the set of requirements. Any other questions? Please cast your vote. Thank you. You've been approved. Thank you all very much. The last item on the expedited docket is a motion to approve the application for the expedited docket. For variances and conditional uses is PLN BOA 26-8. And then Bob will also have one on page 7. Number 5 on page 7. That's on the expedited docket also. Yes. The other expedited. Yes. So . . . . . . . . Thank you. Eight point ministries 26-8. That's the rep. Hi. Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Casey Mather. And you're in approval with those? Yes. Any questions for the applicant? In that case I will move for approval of PLM BOA 26-8 faith point ministries request for amendment to an existing conditional condition of approval in addition in an R1C zone at 549 parkside drive based upon the staff's recommendation of approval and subject to the conditions in the report. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. We're going to move over to our short-term rental section of the docket. We have one item there under expedited. PLM BOA 26-18. Is the applicant here? Thank you. How are you doing? Please state your name please. Michael Norris. Mr. Lawrence, staff has recommended that the number of people be reduced from eight to six. Are you okay with that? Yes, sir. Thank you. And you've read the three conditions? Yes, sir. And you're in agreement with those? Yes, sir. Four conditions. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval PLM BOA 26-18 SCJL DLLC request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental in a townhouse residential zone on property located at 1590 Higby Mill Road based on the recommendation of staff. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed on the staff's recommendation subject to the four conditions as listed. Second. I have a motion and a second. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed on the staff's recommendation subject to the four conditions as listed. Second. I have a motion and a second. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. Second. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. We're going to move into our conditional uses and variances herd docket which means there has been opposition. We have more discussion. Our first item is PLN BOA 26-14. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. Second. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. We're going to move into our conditional uses and variances herd docket which means there has been opposition. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. Second. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. We're going to move into our conditional uses and variances herd docket which means there has been opposition. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. We're going to move into our conditional uses and variances herd docket which means there has been opposition. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. We're going to move into our conditional uses and variances herd docket which means there has been opposition. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. We're going to move into our conditional uses and variances herd docket which means there has been opposition. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. We're going to move into our conditional uses and variances herd docket which means there has been opposition. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. We're going to move into our conditional uses and variances herd docket which means there has been opposition. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. We're going to move into our conditional uses and variances herd docket which means there has been opposition. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. I move that the number of people be reduced from eight to six as it is listed. I don't have authority to agree to this, but I've received some assurances today from the applicant that give me some comfort here. One is that the driveway to be constructed would no cars will be parked on that. And that the business will be conducted entirely inside the building. It will not be outside the building at any given time. But on the west side of the property that adjoins the credit unit's property, that's a slope. And as I understand it, the actual property line is about halfway up that slope. So one concern is that if it goes to zero and they can get that, that would be. But the rationale for leaving a four-foot of the buffer up against the property line is it should get the buffer down to the bottom of that hill away from it. Yes. And so that's the rationale. I unfortunately don't have authority to agree to this, but I do have the assurances that we've received about how the business would be conducted. Thank you. Thank you. Staff, what changes do we need to make? I think if you decide to go with this, just the variance that staff had recommended approval of would become approval of a lesser variance from 15 feet to four feet. So we might want to take a look at that and make a motion. But that would be the change. And then you could incorporate as part of your findings some of this discussion here. I'll take care of that. I don't think we necessarily need to amend our findings. We don't need to amend our findings other than what we to be a revised site plan. I'm not sure if that was discussed just now. Do we? Usually we have a revised site plan. So when you do the revised site plan to address the first approval for 8 to 5, you go ahead and make this other change from 15 to 4. So we just want to make sure both of those changes are on the amended site plan. Okay. Do you want me to make reference to that in the first condition? While he's doing that, any further questions? So Tracy and Brittany, would at the end of one, just putting in a comma as shown on an amended site plan to be submitted, would that suffice for you two? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So no more discussion, Mr. Chair. I can make a motion. I think that would be appropriate. So, Mr. Chair, I hereby move for PLM BOA 26-14, William Wood, the drafting board inks request for a variance to reduce the vehicular use area perimeter buffer and reduce the width of the required zone to zone screening within the infill and redevelopment area in the I-1 zone at 419 Chair Avenue with the staff's recommended approval of a lesser variance to reduce the required vehicle use area perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 5 feet along the northwestern property boundary and then modifying the staff's second recommendation to read approval to reduce the width of the required property perimeter zone screening from 15 feet to 4 feet as agreed today by the applicant along the southeastern property boundary based upon the staff's report and the testimony given to us today. And then it will be subject to the three conditions and I will revise condition one to read as follows. The site shall be developed in accordance with the submitted application materials and revised site plan as shown and submitted and to be submitted to staff. I second. Is staff in agreement with all that language? Yes. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you. You've been approved. Thank you. The next case on the H.E.R.D. docket is P.L.N. B.O.A. 26-19 Speedway LLC. Will the applicant please step to the podium. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We did have an objector who was interested in having this case filed. We can ask the objectors what their concerns are. How do you want to handle that? What would be the best expeditious decision on this? I think it would probably be best. Mr. Chair, John Wood on behalf of Speedway. I think it would probably be best to go out of order and hear the objectors first. I don't know what their concerns are. Maybe we hear from them and I can address it. That would be fine. Please state your name and address for the record, please. My objection is they are asking for a 41-feet entrance. I'm a neighbor. They affect me. That's the reason I come over here. Would you like to rebuttal? Could you clarify in what direction you are a neighbor and how you perceive that to impact your property? I'm next to the Speedway right inside. My address is 641 Red Mile Road. Sir, do you operate the current fuel store that's next door to Speedway? Yes, sir. Just to clarify for the commission, you are a neighbor. Yes, sir. I brought this development plan initially in February 2020. Back during COVID. We were still doing things by Zoom, frankly. It was a buy right application other than the development plan itself. We worked really hard because of the location of this site being a corridor into Lexington. One of the things that Commissioner Frank Penn, Commissioner Hedley, and Commissioner Pohl had problems with was this was initially an 8-bay, 16-dispenser design. They didn't like the concentration of that at this particular location, although there's really nothing about that in the subdivision regulations of the zoning ordinance. That was initially approved after the zoning ordinance was approved. That was initially approved after we made some modifications of the plan. What happened in the interim is that 7-Eleven Incorporated, 7-Eleven Stores Incorporated, purchased Speedway. Their protocols really didn't favor a density of fuel dispensers like that on a property this size. That made everybody happy, frankly. At that point, Tom Martin was still on your planning staff, was an engineer and had oversight over this particular plan. I let him know we wanted to change the plan to reduce the number of dispensers. That was obviously well-received and said, you know what we'll do is we'll just do a minor amendment at the end and take care of it that way. Well, the only thing that happened, dealing with these folks a lot, engineering doesn't miss very much, ever. Like the planning staff. But Tom retired. Once construction finally got started and then Ms. Wade was confirmed with our engineer, she spotted the discrepancy. That's why I'm back before you today. This is going to be a nice store. I understand why the objector probably isn't real excited about it being next to his existing store. But what we're doing in terms of this variance, it is an enhancement and an improvement in terms of walkability on the site, safety on the site, the ability to move trucks on the site. There's a lot of pedestrians in this area, especially since the homeless warming center opened. I suspect it will open again. Just one of the things that we did along the way was to improve this intersection, wider sidewalks, things in that nature that were consistent with the Versailles Road corridor plan. That's what you see here today. We tried to dot our I's and cross our T's and follow the ordinance to the letter here. This is a cleanup item that we had to do. At the end, we will submit a minor amendment so that at that point, the final development plan and what you see on site will all conform. That's why I'm here today. Any questions for the applicant? I don't have any questions. Just my concern only, you guys allowed to them is 41 feet. They heard my business. I have just only one business is there. There's a reason I'm concerned about it. They can transfer Versailles Road site, not for Red Mall site. That's my only concern is there, sir. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. We're, Mr. Chairman, prepared to accept the staff's recommendation and would accept the conditions as well. Any further discussion? Questions? May I have a motion? Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 26-19 Speedway LLC's request to increase the required maximum front yard setback from 20 feet to 41 feet in neighborhood business zone on property at 1318 Versailles Road based on staff recommendations and subject to the two conditions. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you all. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your comments and approval. Our next item on the agenda is PLNBOA 26-6 Behavioral Health Real Estate Associates. Before we get started, Chair Sertivit, there's quite a few people in the mezzanine who are interested in speaking today. We did get the television operational out there so they can now hear what's happening inside the council chambers, but just for clarification, I can ask people to come in and speak if they're interested in speaking or we can have them just start with people in here. I can go line people up if they already signed up in a certain order or just in terms of managing time. Let's take a five-minute recess before we start this. I don't know. I think you all need to realize that some of us may need to go to the restroom We're going to take a five-minute recess and we're going to decide how to do this in an orderly manner. So five-minute recess starts now. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . services, and I know you know there is a need for mental health services. We have now mental health professionals in our school system to deal with children early, which is critical. Under tab number four are a summary of some studies that we supplied to the neighborhood based on their requests that deal with safety. I understand from briefly reviewing Ms. Winter's report that I got right before the hearing started that they say they're disingenuous or misleading. This was done as a courtesy to them based on our appreciation and understanding that these facilities would not harm the people we intend to serve. Now you'll hear a lot about criminal history and studies that say approval of these facilities as a general rule will be dangerous to the public health and safety and welfare. You'll hear that. And you'll hear repeatedly that we're a drug abuse treatment facility. You'll hear that. Even though we're not. Even though we've carefully crafted revised conditions after listening to the objections of the neighbors. We're not doing that. So we have reached out and we've tried to do our best to assuage as many concerns as possible. But I can tell you that's difficult to do. I know it. The stigma is palpable. Under tab number nine you will see the prior history of approval for health care facilities, personal care home, tab number 10, hospice unit. Under tab number 11 are some photographs of the interior of the facility and the exterior of the facility. You can see it's very nicely constructed. It's hardly been used since it was built. This is going to be a high quality place for the people that need the services. Under tab number 12 is the definition of rehabilitation home. It does have a reference in there of course to drugs or alcohol abuse. People on probation or parole. Those are not the people that are going to be served in this facility. Now as I mentioned, there will be some co-occurring folks that have a secondary diagnosis possibly of substance abuse and other maladies. But the primary diagnosis by licensure requirements specifically, is mental health. Under tab number 14, I want to call your attention to this is a B3 zone. Even without a conditional use permit, we could have multi-family housing on the property, apartments, dormitories, boarding houses, lodging homes, assisted living facilities, hospitality houses for up to eight people, community residences, group residential projects, townhomes. It could be a whole lot more intense than what currently exists. Under tab number 14 is a quick appraisal letter from Chad Sirk. He did a review of the literature to see the extent to which mental health facilities had an adverse impact on property. Chad is here to respond to any questions you may have. He searched the country and looked at the highest end neighborhoods in the country with mental health facilities next to them. Multi-million dollar houses with no adverse impact to their property values. Under tab number 15, we did a traffic study, which I'm going to introduce. We didn't have to because we didn't meet the threshold to do a traffic study. I wanted to address the issue of what's the traffic comparison. You will see just on a highlighted page under tab 14 that we're right in line with these permitted uses that are on this page. These are uses permitted by right, not a conditional use. They could go in there today, no need for a traffic study. For several instances, we're actually lower in traffic. But again, in terms of the ordinance that governs traffic studies, we don't come anywhere close to meeting that. I just wanted to show the basic land use issues. The final page, never quoted scripture before, but I go to Calvary Baptist Church and we've been studying Matthew. In particular, it caught my attention, blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. In another provision in Matthew 25, 32 to 40, then the righteous will answer him, talking to Jesus, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you? Jesus answered, truly, I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. When I thought about that, I thought about our staff. I've been at odds with our staff on some cases, but I will tell you, I've been before this body since 1988, and there's one question that's not in dispute. They're here to advocate for the least of these, and they've done so today, recommending approval. I thank you for your attention. Any questions for Mr. Simpson? Yeah, I've got a question for him or his client, Bruce. It may be for your client. This is an operational question, which is why your client may be better able to answer it, but I'll start with you, Bruce. I realize the secondary issue in which somebody may have underlying trauma, which is why they have addiction issues, but does the person need to go to a program before they come to this facility so that that has at least had treatment? Because I know some facilities, they'll make you go to a 30-day program rehabilitation, and then you can then come in to treat your primary trauma issue. Is that how this process works? I'll let the experts respond to that. Yeah, that's the reason I was saying it's an operational question that your client may be able to answer for us. So I think yes to your answer. The answer is yes, they have to go somewhere else. This is a subacute facility, so this is not an acute facility. Bruce talked about the acute type of facilities in town. One is the Ridge and one is Eastern State. So where you need actual stabilization to a point where it's a full lockdown facility, potentially you're admitting yourself, but also involuntary admission. In that case, we would ask for stabilization. They would step down to a residential level of care. It's all based on level of care. So ours is a lower level. We will still have the medical components, the nursing components to actually treat the trauma. That's the clinical piece that we're really good about. That's the piece that we're passionate about. I think a lot of times what's lost is in those higher level acute facilities, it tends to be more medically managed, meaning pharmaceuticals used to stabilize a patient. We're using more of a clinical approach. We're using group therapy. We're using neurofeedback. We're using accelerated resolution therapy to treat the trauma because we believe that treating the underlying condition is how we get better, not by medicating it. That's what we do at Roaring Brook. It's why we are really good at what we do at Roaring Brook. We're a niche program. We're not for everybody. We don't try to be for everybody. We stick to what we're good at. Not everybody is appropriate for that level of care. It will be the same thing here. We're good at what we do because we're a niche. We're very focused on the people that are admitted into our program at the outpatient level of care. That will continue in eating disorder and in our mental health program. So people will not come in for detox and other type programs for this facility? Yeah, they will be stabilized. Then because we're treating the mental health component and that is the primary level of care, if they need detox, if they needed some type of substance use detox, then we would refer that out. We have that network already. We have a wonderful network of referral partners. Some are out of state. Some are here that we work with in state. So we have that ability. If it is a substance use case, we also have our outpatient facility where we can do that today. We also have a mental health component in our outpatient facility. I have a whole upstairs that I can use for eating disorder as well. That's the piece for us. What we do is we go into a community. We see what the gaps are. It's what we're doing. It's what we're doing in Joplin, Missouri. It's what we're doing in Fort Scott, Kansas. We're seeing what the needs are and we're diversifying our platform because, one, that helps us be financially sustainable and it helps us have the largest impact on the communities that have a need. Thank you. I've got a couple of operational questions as well, so I might as well stay up there. I would like to say specifically, Mr. Simpson, I appreciate your candor on speaking to such a matter as all of us ought to be human and appreciate you standing up here and telling what you told. That's not an easy thing. I hugely appreciate that even being brought forward today. So thanks. On the operational side, voluntary admission only, would someone admit themselves or would a family member? Yeah. Today, same thing at Roaring Brook today. You meet with the individual. You see whether they're willing to commit to the program. In our program, we're a high accountability program, so that requires a commitment from the individual that's seeking that treatment. A lot of that's done in the admission process. If they're not willing or able to commit to what we are going to ask of them, we're still there to do a warm handoff to the right level of care that they need to the right type of facility that they're willing to engage with. The reason I ask is then why, I guess, the need for the staff-coordinated departures, the controlled access points, the alarmed exits. It seems like once you get in, you can't get out. You can get out. You can request to leave. This is our commitment to the neighborhood because it's a concern of the neighborhood. I have a facility two miles down the road, two and a half, somewhere around that, on Alumni and Perimeter Drive. So our ability to do our discharges and our intakes at that facility is just lower traffic. It allows us to have scheduled admissions. If they need to discharge, we can take them to our facility at Perimeter Drive, work on whatever discharge plan we need, whether that's transportation from their family. If they don't want transportation from the family, we can work through those. I think that's pretty much it for now. Thank you. I had a couple of questions. I wanted to thank Bruce, too, for his honesty in dealing with this situation. How long do you anticipate that the average stay would be? It's hard to tell. If it were up to us, 45 to 60 days is really ideal. Unfortunately, in this field, it's not really determined by medical necessity. They say it is, but the insurance companies really dictate what we can and can't do. Private pay clients, I'd say 45 to 60 days. But it's also an individualized treatment model. So some people might need 30 days. Some people might need 45 days. It might take a little bit longer. So if somebody didn't want to spend the night there but wanted to come in and participate in the group sessions, you don't allow that? That's an outpatient level of care. So we have that available. We don't have the eating disorder platform here. But it is something that I'm working on with the state to try to define what that model looks like from an outpatient standpoint. And we'll be able to treat that in the outpatient facility. But you have to come. You're committed to being there 24 hours a day, access control facility. There is no defining your own treatment model. This is something you're going to come in. You're going to commit to the treatment and our team's recommendations. Thank you. Victor, let me follow up on that. This would be a good time to do that. In looking at Roaring Brook, the description says it's a Lexington addiction center and outpatient, as you described, relative to the path of sobriety. So how is that different than what this application would be? I think that would be a good point to clear up. Sure. Let me clear something up. Right now, what we are applying for is the residential component. I have an outpatient. So just making sure that that's clear. This is a residential 24-hour facility. Sir, when we say you have an outpatient, you're talking about your perimeter campus? Correct. It's a separate business. And that business has two different treatment paths. One is a substance use track. And you'll see a lot of really scary words on our website, the heroin, the this, the cocaine. I hate it, but that's really there so that people can find us. Nothing more than that. The mental health track is our TRP program, which is actually the same type of program that's being run out of the facility currently at Duke Road with the current operator. So we have that same type of program, which is a mental health primary program at Roaring Brook. And so this is different in that we are not – the TRP is for mental health only. The substance use is for substance use primary. This is going to be mental health primary and eating disorder. Define subacuity for me. I'd have to get the actual definition exactly out of the book, but it's basically that they're able to be in a community environment. Any other questions? I found my other thing. I couldn't read my own writing. Parking. It says there shall be no off-street parking. Is that meant to be no on-street parking from the facility? You got it flipped? Okay. Your attorney is saying yes. All right. Sorry. All right. Just making sure. So everybody – all your vehicles be contained on site. And that's where we discussed having the facility, the outpatient. We have additional offices. We can run our operations. That's currently our headquarters, so we'll continue to expand that. And if we need any administrative components can be managed at that facility. And I think it's also where else there's no patient parking. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Since this application was filed, I've walked the property in that area. Cochran, Providence, Duke, Romney. There's about 20 parking spaces in the back of your property. Is that correct? That's correct. I've seen a lot of buses. 24. I've seen a lot of buses back there. Does that have anything to do with your all's operation? It has nothing to do with us. It is the current owner and operator of the facility. So it has nothing to do with us. I know that there's been some confusion on us being the current operator. We are not. We have the facility under contract and going through this process, putting our best foot forward, being as transparent as we can with you all, inviting the neighbors to Roaring Brook to come see what we do, how we do it. Nobody's taken me up on that to actually come to our facility. It's not a scary facility. Again, I think what people would see is that it's their neighbors, it's the community that we treat there. I tried to visit the neighborhood in different time periods. In the morning, about 10 o'clock, it was pretty quiet. In the afternoon, when the school cut out, it was a fiasco. Also in the evening, it seemed to be relatively quiet. Parking is outrageous in that area, especially Providence and Cochran and that area Wood School is. I've seen people having a hard time getting out of their driveways. That for me is not an issue because I can just through scheduling, I can schedule our team to come in at lower traffic times. It's the same thing that we do currently with our outpatient facility where we have different groups that use the outside area at different times. That's the same way we'll manage this facility. We're not disruptive. We will make sure to not be disruptive to this community. I love Chevy Chase. I'm just going to say that. I love Chevy Chase. I would never do anything to hurt it. I understand that people are concerned. I have three little girls. I would never do anything to hurt the place that saved my life. Any other questions of the applicant? No? Thank you. We will entertain the opposition right now. Thank you. Before my time starts, can I pass out some materials to you or would you like to do it? I have a PowerPoint. Oh, sorry. I have another stack. Here. Thanks, sir. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Winters, you have the floor. Thank you. Chair and members of the board, my name is Jessica Winters and I'm here today on behalf of the Friends of Chevy Chase. We respectfully ask you to deny the application for a rehabilitation home at 319 Duke Road. I would ask that our position statement with exhibits, which has been circulated, be included in the administrative record. And I also have the two academic articles that were cited in the statement and a copy of our PowerPoint for the record. And finally, you've also been provided with our findings, our proposed findings in support of disapproval. Friends of Chevy Chase is a group of 20 neighbors who have associated for the purpose of procuring legal representation in connection with their opposition to this request of conditional use. They've actively worked over the past two weeks to inform neighbors and to facilitate discussion of the proposal. Friends of Chevy Chase has also circulated a petition, a copy of which is attached to our position statement. It's different than the petition that was referenced by the applicant earlier. More than 128 additional citizens have signed this petition in opposition. The petition signatories include other area residents and parents of school children attending Christ the King School, Morton Middle School, and Cassidy Elementary School. There are more than 1,700 children attending school in a few block radius of 319 Duke Road. In this case, the applicant bears the burden of proving that the proposed rehabilitation home use is authorized, that it will not adversely affect health, public safety, or welfare, that it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and that it is compatible with surrounding land uses. On this record, the burden has not been met. Quite simply, this location is inappropriate for a rehabilitation home. First, the site itself is wrong for this level of use. The property is zoned R3. The purpose of an R3 zone is to, quote, provide for medium density mixed residential development, including multifamily dwellings, group residential housing, compact housing types, attached and detached single family dwellings, and supporting uses. The proposed rehabilitation home does not provide a neighborhood supporting use. The subject property is also located in an ND1 overlay, which is important here. Chevy Chase is one of a small number of neighborhoods with an ND1 overlay, which is adopted specifically to preserve neighborhood character and prevent out of scale or incompatible infill. That overlay exists for exactly these kinds of situations, where a proposed use would disrupt the character, safety, and welfare of the longstanding residential patterns in the neighborhood. The property is surrounded on three sides by homes, residential uses, apartments, in the historic Chevy Chase neighborhood. This slide shows how closely the structures on the property at issue are situated with relation to the adjacent residences. As you can see on the photo on your left, the structure on the far left is the subject site. The subject to the right of that is an apartment building. And then the one on the left shows the structures on the right and the adjacent apartment building right next to it. So it's very closely related to residential uses. The property is also nearby to schools and daycare facilities. It's less than 500 feet from Christ the King School and Church and a short walk from Cassidy Elementary, Morton Middle School, and Acton Park. This is one of Lexington's most walkable family neighborhoods, where children move daily through the very streets surrounding this property. And the map on this slide shows the relation to neighborhood schools. So you can see the red mark there is Duke Road, and then directly across the street pretty much is Christ the King, and to the left we have Cassidy Elementary and Morton Middle. The ordinance makes the intent clear. A rehabilitation home in an R3 zone is permitted only as a conditional use and then only if located more than 500 feet from a residential use. The board may reduce the 500 feet spacing requirement if it can determine that a reduction will not have an adverse influence on existing or future development of the subject property or its surrounding neighborhood. Here the proposed use is literally touching residential property lines. The applicant is not asking for a reduction, it is asking you to eliminate the spacing requirement entirely. That is not what the ordinance contemplates, and it is not consistent with the protection of the surrounding neighborhood. There has been some backlash in the media recently regarding Chevy Chase Neighborhood's opposition to this project. Pundits insist that Chevy Chase residents are asking for special treatment, but that's simply not true. Instead neighbors are asking this board to follow the mandates of our zoning ordinance and make a decision on this case that is rational and not influenced by rhetoric related to mental health. Chevy Chase residents have invested significant sums in building a neighborhood community that is supportive and safe for their children. Inserting a rehabilitation home into this dynamic makes no sense from a practical standpoint and benefits only ZLD Partners, a real estate investment firm that now claims to have the subject property under contract. On that note, here I raise the fact that Acela lists the applicant in this matter as ZLD Partners. ZLD Partners, by its website's own description, is a company that specializes in purchasing properties and making swift and profitable turnarounds. ZLD guides operators, landlords, and investors through project planning, managing construction, and getting a facility open and running. It's a Tennessee company. In other words, ZLD is a company that will be here today, but gone tomorrow. In six months, ZLD will have made a quick profit, leaving the neighborhood with the burden of a facility that poses a safety threat to their children and provides absolutely no neighborhood-serving use. This is textbook predatory development. The definition of predatory development. It refers to economic development that primarily benefits economic and political elites by extracting wealth and resources from communities under the guise of progress. This type of development involves using rhetoric to enlist community support for projects, which instead of promoting genuine, inclusive, and equitable development, are simply a means to maximize profit at the expense of the community. This board is required to consider the context of the proposed use, the proximity to sensitive neighboring uses, and the concerns of residents who would be adversely and directly affected. Courts have repeatedly noted that adverse impact must be evaluated in light of the particular locality involved. This is a neighborhood where children walk to school, where neighbors gather daily in small parks, and property values reflect stable, long-term residential investment. Hundreds of neighbors, business owners, and parents have formally opposed this application, citing serious concerns about safety and disruption. The applicant has submitted no objective evidence showing that this use will not have an adverse effect on this neighborhood. Meanwhile, neighbors have submitted substantial evidence that will. Long-term data from similar facilities, research on property value impacts, and the operational realities of 24-hour treatment facilities, all contained in our position statement, which I will be touching on here. Kentucky law allows community concern to constitute substantial evidence where the risks are credible and tied to neighborhood conditions. Here they plainly are. The proposed use is far more intense than any prior use at the property. This is a definitional matter. The site currently holds a conditional use permit for a personal care facility, which provides care, quote, devoted primarily to the care of aged or enveloped persons. Notably, the zoning ordinance does not contain a residential use distant requirement for the personal care facility. By contrast, a rehabilitation home provides a supervised residence for persons recovering from the effects of drug or alcohol abuse, psychiatric disorders, or as a condition of their parole or probation. It is only allowable if located greater than 500 feet from residential uses. The staff report assumes that the rehabilitation home will be similar to the previously approved personal care facility, but that's just wrong. The personal care facility was never built out or operated. There has been no long-term use of this site since its construction. The current operators do not even hold the license required for the use that they're currently claiming, as I'll touch on in a few minutes. What the applicant now proposes is exponentially more intense. We're looking at a jump from 24 beds for the personal care facility to 60 beds, or 52 in the applicant's new materials, nearly triple the density the building was designed for. We're looking at round-the-clock staffing of roughly 18 to 20 employees per day. We're looking at continuous turnover from multiple daily staff shifts. A resident population defined in the zoning ordinance as individuals who are recovering from drug or alcohol abuse, psychiatric disorders, or living there as a condition of parole or probation. This is not remotely comparable to a quiet residential facility for older adults. And it is the largest bed count vis-a-vis lot size of any previously approved rehabilitation home in Lexington. Compare the 60 beds on 1.3 acres to Eastern State, which has 195 beds on 30 acres. And Charter Ridge, which has 110 beds on 10 acres. This is a significant intensification of use in the middle of a residential district. Kentucky law recognizes that when a proposed use is substantially more intense than prior or surrounding uses, that difference can in itself constitute adverse impact and grounds for denial. Rehabilitation homes do create documented adverse impacts on neighborhoods. The neighbors have provided evidence that similar facilities in Lexington, for instance, this one pictured here on the slide, Resurrection on Alexandria, experienced significant crime in their immediate vicinity. These are photos of the crime map, which shows incidents of crime at the Alexandria Road facility over the past year. Compare that with the image below, which shows incidents of crime in the vicinity of Duke Road over the last year. The data from other similar types of facilities in Lexington also show the same as this. Thefts, vandalism, burglaries, assaults, and other offenses at rates far exceeding what currently occurs in Chevy Chase in the Duke Road area. National and state statistics, which are cited in our position statement, further show the strong relationship between addiction and crime. Particularly property crime, the type most likely to affect neighborhood homes and vehicles. These concerns are not hypothetical. An academic research paper relating to this topic is cited in our position statement, and the link is provided there. I've included a copy in the administrative record. There's also evidence including peer-reviewed research cited and linked in our position statement that property values do decline near substance abuse treatment centers, sometimes by 8 to 17%, depending on the type of facility. And make note that even with the restrictions proposed by the applicant, substance abuse treatment will be occurring at this facility. Given the proximity to multiple schools and the presence of children walking daily along these routes, these impacts cannot be dismissed as speculative. Conditions are just not protective of the neighborhood, as much as we wish they were. The staff's report recommended condition that the facility be, quote, operated in accordance with the application materials, is simply unenforceable because it's unclear what constitutes the application materials. And changes in those materials have already occurred without transparency. If clear and specific conditions are not explicitly written into the permit, they have no legal meaning. This concern is not theoretical. The current operators are already violating the existing conditional use permit by operating an outpatient mental health facility at this site, which was approved only for a residential personal care facility. No enforcement action has been taken, although as this slide shows, a cease and desist letter has been sent. The cease and desist letter directed that the illegal use cease by March 24th. As of yesterday, the illegal use continues. The neighborhood has no reason to believe that conditions will be enforced going forward. In prior submissions to this board and meetings with neighbors, ZLD Partners has told us that a local company, Roaring Brook, will be the operator of the facility. And I'm glad to hear today that that's still the plan. However, in the last two letters submitted by the attorney for the applicant, there's no mention to Roaring Brook at all. It's unclear whether Roaring Brook will actually be operating the facility or whether it will be run by an out of state company with no vested interest in the protection of the neighborhood. The nature of Roaring Brook's operations has also been misrepresented, although somewhat clarified today. According to Roaring Brook's website, the company specializes in addiction treatment. The website for Roaring Brook demonstrates that its rehabilitation services are focused on outpatient treatment of addiction, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, alcohol, prescription drugs, opioids, and benzos. None of the programs listed on the Roaring Brook website reference residential living. None of the programs reference treatment of eating disorders. It is obvious that the people who own Roaring Brook are passionate about what they do, and we applaud their mission. However, zoning decisions must be context sensitive and in accordance with the zoning ordinance. The applicant did and has offered numerous verbal and written promises to the neighborhood. Conditions about who will be admitted, how the property will be secured, the number of residents, staffing ratios, fencing, visitation rules, and more. The safety and operational plans that the applicant circulated to the neighborhood are attached to our position statement. However, many of these promises are different than the written conditions now put forth by the applicant. We had a neighborhood meeting on March 24th at which the applicant made numerous representations to the neighborhood about how the facility would be operated. And said that they would be willing to submit written conditions along those same lines. We didn't get anything in writing for about a week. I followed up with a letter to Mr. Simpson and then I guess about a week ago we got the 33 conditions that are submitted to you today. And while we do appreciate those, and while they do limit the type of activities that will be conducted at the site, enforcement is the main concern here, also there are things that are different. For instance, the applicant previously promised that the permit would be specifically tied and limited to Roaring Brook, and would be null and void if Roaring Brook ceases business operations at the facility. The applicant's recently submitted materials make no reference to Roaring Brook, and the applicant doesn't offer to tie the conditional use to the applicant, which we have seen in other Board of Adjustment applications. Notably, the conditional use will run with the land and will not be tied to the current applicant unless specifically stated in the conditions voted upon by this board. The applicant previously promised that there would be no substance use disorder or drug treatment at the facility. The applicant now states it will not admit any patients whose primary diagnosis is substance abuse disorder or addiction. This will not preclude substance abuse treatment at the facility or prevent admission of patients who have been diagnosed with a secondary substance abuse disorder. It should be noted that this condition will be impossible to monitor due to HIPAA confidentiality. What is being proposed is a hospital-type facility for serious mental illness with potential secondary drug abuse disorder diagnoses. The applicant previously promised that interior and exterior areas would be subject to 24-hour video surveillance and that video would be recorded and stored for 30 days. The applicant's proposed condition on this point does not provide for retention of security footage or for security cameras in all outdoor spaces. The applicant previously promised that the facility will operate only as a licensed behavioral health services organization in compliance with Kentucky law and will maintain this and only this licensure at all times. The applicant now states that it will not hold a drug or alcohol rehabilitation license. This is not the same as the prior promise made to the neighborhood. The applicant previously promised the facility will only operate as a sub-acute step-down facility. They've made that promise again today, but it's not specifically included as a proposed condition. The applicant previously promised there would be a 24-7 RN presence on the site. And the applicant did not include this as a listed proposed condition. The applicant previously promised that chain link fencing would enclose the parking area. The applicant does not include this as a listed condition. Perhaps most notably, there's no provision for on-site security anywhere to be found in the applicant's materials. It should furthermore be noted that while the applicant has proposed a list of 33 conditions to which it will agree, the conditions are largely not meaningful zoning protections because they depend on clinical judgments and internal operations that the neighborhood and board can't really monitor. Many are also written in vague terms, such as approximately or where feasible or whenever possible. The extensive list of conditions furthermore begs the question. If this many conditions are necessary to ameliorate the negative impact of a rehabilitation home on the neighborhood, then doesn't this demonstrate that the proposed conditional use is not appropriate for this location? We ask you to deny the use. The requested use is not unmet and has not been justified in this location. Lexington already has at least 47 mental health and drug and alcohol treatment facilities. The listing of facilities and a map of their locations throughout Lexington is attached to our position statement and reflected here. The applicant has offered no evidence of unmet need, no waiting list data, and no occupancy data for the existing facilities. Without a demonstrated community need, particularly given the adverse impact, the conditional use is simply not justified. Furthermore, the application is procedurally defective. Again, the application was filed and publicly noticed under the name Behavioral Health Real Estate Associates, LLC. Without public explanation or an amended application in the record, the applicant name was later changed to ZLD Partners. No revised notice was issued to property owners or the public. I would note that Behavioral Health Real Estate Associates LLC only became registered in Kentucky on March 17th. It is a Delaware entity. It applied for this conditional use permit on January 28th. Under Kentucky law, accurate notice identifying the true applicant is mandatory. When the applicant changes, updated notice is required. Failure to do so is a jurisdictional defect. The board cannot approve a conditional use permit when the entity applying is not the entity who was noticed. This alone is grounds for denial, or at a minimum, renders any approval potentially voidable. The article cited by the applicant do not qualify as substantial evidence in support of the requested conditional use. Mr. Simpson submitted a letter to the board on April 11th, I believe, that contained citation to eight separate academic articles, which he claimed provided, quote unquote, substantial evidence in support of a finding of no adverse impact relative to the board's consideration of this application. Our position statement distinguishes those articles and discusses the fact that they have no bearing on what is actually being considered by the board today. For instance, the desert article on local access to mental health care and crime. The applicant asserts that this article supports a conclusion that residential mental health treatment facilities reduce crime in communities. This is misleading. The article actually looks at the impact of non-intensive or light touch mental health care. That is, office-based care providers, such as psychiatrists and psychologists, who deliver care in private practice. It does not in any way analyze residential mental health facilities. Likewise, the Jacobs Community article, Behavioral Health Services Use in Criminal Recidivism, has been cited in support for a conclusion that mental health treatment reduces the likelihood of recidivism. This characterization is misleading. In fact, an important caveat of the study states as follows, and I'm quoting. The relationship between use of health facilities and criminal recidivism differed among diagnostic groups. Use of such facilities was associated with reduced recidivism among people with mental disorders, but not among those with any substance use disorder or co-occurring disorders. The Fur Holden article, setting out a comparative analysis of crime around publicly funded drug treatment centers, was cited in support of a conclusion that publicly funded drug treatment centers do not increase crime in neighborhoods. That is not the finding presented in the article. In fact, the article compares crime rates in the vicinity of drug treatment facilities to crime rates in the vicinity of corner markets and liquor stores. The study specifically concludes, and I'm quoting, namely there was a high likelihood of violence occurring closer to each venue. And violence decreased as you moved away from the venue. This indicates that in general, crime was happening at a greater rate proximal to each of the venues. That is, proximal to drug treatment facilities, liquor stores, and corner markets. The Bondurant article on substance abuse treatment centers and local crime is cited for the proposition that the proposed rehabilitation home will not adversely impact the neighborhood, because access to treatment facilities as a general proposition reduces overall crime statistics within a community. This is the conclusion of the researchers, but this board is reminded that the question presented here is not whether an additional rehabilitation home will adversely impact the broader community. But rather, what the impact of this proposed rehabilitation home will be on these neighboring property owners. As the researchers of that article specifically state, quote, an important limitation of our research design is that it identifies effects of having an additional facility in the county, which could mask effects for areas in a county that are nearer versus farther from the facility. The Albogen article discussing the intricate link between violence and mental disorder actually supports the neighbors and their objection to the proposed use, because the article concludes that, quote, the incidence of violence was higher for people with severe mental illness. And significantly so for those with co-occurring substance abuse or dependence. Several of the articles cited by the applicant don't relate in any way to the impact of mental health treatment on neighborhoods, as set out in greater detail in our position statement. In sum, the reason these articles do not support the applicant's position boils down to a macro versus micro analysis. The articles support a macro view that mental health facilities are good for communities. We don't dispute this, but that's not the board's inquiry today. The board's inquiry today is a micro analysis. How will the requested use affect this neighborhood? Is it more intense than prior uses? Is this a proper use for this location? We submit that it is not. We've submitted proposed findings. We request that the Board of Adjustment deny the requested conditional use in PLN-BOA-2606 for the following reasons. Number one, 319 Duke Road is directly adjacent to residential uses on three sides. The zoning ordinance does not support the complete elimination of the residential use distance requirement. Citation zoning ordinance article 812D. Number two, that approval of a rehabilitation home for the property at 319 Duke Road would have an adverse influence on existing or future development of the subject property or its surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons. A, the requested use is significantly more intense than uses previously approved for 319 Duke Road. B, the requested use would materially interfere with regular activities occurring in the vicinity of the subject property. And C, proposed conditions are not sufficiently protective of the subject property or its surrounding neighborhood. Number three, the applicant has not met its burden of proving that the requested conditional use will not have an adverse influence on existing or future development of the subject property or its surrounding neighborhood. And number four, the application and notice are procedurally deficient due to an undisclosed change in the identity of the applicant. This proposal fails at every stage of the legal analysis. It is the wrong use at the wrong location. It is exponentially more intense than any historical or permitted use at the site. It will adversely affect the health, safety, welfare, and the essential character of the Chevy Chase neighborhood. Proposed conditions are not reliable or enforceable. The community's concerns are substantial, credible, and supported by evidence, and the application is procedurally defective. For all of these reasons, we respectfully ask the board to deny the conditional use permit. Thank you for your time and careful consideration. I have 17 minutes. I've been requested by Nathan Billings to see if I could cede my time to him. I think we're not going to share time. I guess my question is, does any of the board members? Any of the board members have any questions for the applicant? I do. For the opposition? Yeah, for Ms. Winters. I want to focus on your finding of fact number one related to article 812D. I didn't see these in advance. This is very quickly looking at this, but it may be legal to tell me. I read that section a little bit differently than Ms. Winters. The way I read it is, you can have a rehabilitation home within 500 feet of another rehabilitation home, but not any use in R3. And I wanted you to elaborate. Well, I have a copy of the ordinance. Oh, I read the ordinance. And I just wanted to see if. The way we read it is that it should not be within 500 feet of any residential use. But it says from any use permitted under this section, which would be section 8 related to assisting. That's how I read it. So I wanted to see if you all agree with me. The staff reads it as well. Since it's in a residential zone, it would really be impossible for there to ever be any of those conditional uses listed in section 8, because it is a residential zone. So your argument is really counter to the establishment of that use. That's our position on the legal reading of it. Okay, well, look at it again during the break. I've differed with legal before this board before. I'm not with legal, I'm with the division of planning. That's okay. What was shown on the screen was not accurate. Yeah, what you displayed on the screen wasn't directly from the ordinance. What Dalton's presentation included the exact language. If you could look at that during the break, and then tell me if you agree or not. Sure. I just read it differently. And then someone else has a question, then I'll come back. Ms. Witters, let me ask you, relative to finding number two, if you could, the three points that you make here, please tell me how the requested use is significantly more intense than previously used. How in specific is it? That would be interesting. Sure, okay. Well, we'll just start with the personal care facility that's been approved and currently holds a conditional use permit for the property. The personal care facility has not ever been in operation. And in fact, I think our ordinance says that if you're granted a conditional use and you don't use it within a year, it's automatically null and void. So that would technically mean that the current conditional use for personal care facility should be void. But they're not using it as a personal care facility. They're using it as an outpatient mental health facility. And there's been complaints about that made to the division of building inspection, who then went and investigated it and determined that they were in fact operating illegally. And so that personal care facility was approved for 24 beds. We are now looking at a request for approval for 52 beds. That's twice as intense, just by the numbers. This facility was constructed with 24 rooms. They're proposing a double occupancy. They're proposing 24 hour staff with multiple shifts per day. None of that's been occurring at this facility since it was constructed. But excuse me, the intensity is how it relates to the neighborhood, not internally in the building itself. And I think that's what you're talking about, how it impacts the neighborhood in terms of intensity. So how does this impact the neighborhood, I guess, is my question. Externally to the neighborhood, again, I referenced the change in shifts, the 24 hour staff on site, multiple employees. I think they said 20 employees per shift coming and going from the site. Potentially buses, busing patients in and out, that sort of thing that impacts the neighborhood. Nothing said about busing. I'm sorry about that. Where did that come in? Well, if they're doing intake and release at an off-site facility, they have to have some way to get the patients there. But it's a personal thing, is it not? Well, I don't know. Either way, you're looking at patients coming and going from the facility on a regular basis, either on their own with family members or in a bus. Even though they have to get prior approval to walk about the neighborhood or to go about with walking down the street or walking to the store, they are not kept to the facility. They will be allowed to be on the neighborhood streets. And we're not saying that that shouldn't be the case in connection with this type of facility. We're saying that that shouldn't be the case in this neighborhood so close to schools and daycares. And where children are walking to and from on a daily basis. So we're asking for a context-based decision by the board instead of just a decision based on a hypothetical. Okay, you mentioned crime as a factor, and I can certainly understand that. What I can't quite figure out is how is crime intensified in this area because of this facility? We just simply looked at the numbers. So we have the addresses of other similar types of treatment facilities in Lexington. And there's a publicly available crime map that you can go to. You type in the address, and it will show you the number and types of crimes that have occurred in that vicinity, and you can put the parameters. So I just put in the last year, let's see what type of crime occurred in these neighborhoods where the other facilities are located. And it was exponentially more around those locations than this current site currently experiences. Now, I can't sit here and tell you that that's because of the location of that center at that place. However, that's the numbers, and that's what it shows. And so that's the data that's available for our community. I did include an academic journal article that talked about increased crime rates associated with these types of facilities. Related to elopement, related to who knows if somebody has a mental health crisis and they leave in the middle of the night, even if it's not authorized, what impact could that person have on the neighborhood? That's what the academic journal that I cited you to discusses, and it has some statistics in there. And we can circulate that if you want. I'm going to follow up on Mr. Clark's comment. Did you do that analysis related to their existing facility on perimeter? Or just randomly picked Alexandria Drive? I did a few different facilities, and that was the one that I included. Okay. Any additional questions? Thank you. Thank you. Pertaining to your request for the rest of your time to go to Mr. Billings, are you representing anyone except yourself, Mr. Billings? I'm going to object to Mr. Billings. He's told me from day one he represented himself, and now he wants to do an end run and get more time. I can't change his position. He never said he'd represent anybody other than himself. I object. He can have three minutes just like everybody else. I agree. I agree with that. Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. My name is Nathan Billings with Billings Law Firm. And if I could speak for myself instead of Mr. Simpson speaking for me, I represent myself in this case as an attorney and land use attorney in Lexington. Ms. Winters was given 45 minutes and had, as I counted, 22 additional minutes that she asked to yield, and the chair has declined that request. Yes, we're not going to share minutes. And I believe there may be other people here today who I've spoken to who would like to yield their time as well. And Mr. Simpson has objected. I understand that the chair is proactively saying they cannot yield their time. And I respect the chair's decision. I would just note for the record then that time has been eliminated from the opposition. And we want that noted for the record of this. But I certainly respect the chair's decision on this, although I disagree with it legally. Thank you. And I'll speak during the public comment then. Well, if you recall when I was talking about the 45 minutes that was given to both attorneys, I said that was the maximum. And if you finish before then, then that time will not be allotted to anyone else. That time will be, your time will be over. The restrictions I put on that was if you were presenting new material and were not redundant with anything, you could have the full 45 minutes. But, you know, specifically you can come in under that. There's no penalty for going under, but there's, you know, 45 minutes was going to be the maximum. So we are going to go back with no time sharing, and each individual will have three minutes. It says in our bylaws, article six, section I, at any public hearing and appeal before the board, an interested, affected person may appear and enter his appearance, shall be given an opportunity to be heard for a reasonable length of time. And that has been set today for three minutes for individuals. So that's what we'll go with, and that's for the record. Mr. Chair, before we go into, I'm not sure if you're going to allow each applicant's counsel to talk again before we start public comment, but if you would indulge me with a recess before we start public comment for five minutes, I would appreciate it. We will do that. Five minute recess. I'm going to call this meeting back into session. Everyone please find a seat. I've been notified from the fire marshal that if there is no place to sit, if you're standing up, you have to be in the hallway. Please comply with this. That means you all in the back standing, you have to be out in the hallway if you don't have a seat. The door is going to be closed. We're now going to hear comments from citizens that are opposed to this application. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak that wants to speak. When you approach the podium, please give your name and address. Individuals will have three minutes to speak, so be concise and we'd like to not be too repetitive. If someone has said something the same that you're going to say, just make a brief comment and that way we'll get out of here by 10 o'clock. I think it's important everyone has their say, so if you would line up four or five behind the podium if you want to speak and just step up and we're going to call people in from the hallway when the speakers are done from the room. So we'll be here until everyone has their say. Speakers please step forward. Name and address and you've got three minutes. I would also like to mention to our friends here that it's primarily decorum that's nothing official about it, but we have asked that you not respond to speakers' points whether it's good or bad. Just maintain that decorum if you would please. You have the floor. My name is Elena Cottrell. My address is 705 Clavis Court and rather than just speaking openly, I'm going to read the letter that I submitted to the board. I am vehemently opposed to the approval of the application for conditional use permits submitted by Behavioral Health Real Estate Associates LLC for the purposes of Roaringbrook Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility at 319 Duke Road. I have been a registered nurse for 13 years. In my career, I've had the opportunity to work in various patient settings, including working with patients who suffer from chronic pain and have concurrent behavioral issues, coping difficulties, and a history of substance abuse. In addition to clinical experience, I've witnessed first-degree relatives and close friends struggle with mental health and substance abuse issues. I have first-hand knowledge of the importance of access to mental health resources. I am also a parent of two children that attend Christ the King School, mere yards from the proposed location of the rehabilitation facility, as well as a friend to many parents who have children that attend Cassidy Elementary School and Morton Middle School, which are also immediately adjacent to the proposed site. As proposed, I am opposed to this facility operating at this specific location based on information provided by the applicant. Despite holding open houses at the proposed site and a community forum, I feel that there is a major lack of transparency with the applicant's intention for this facility. Those representing Roaringbrook have verbally implied different uses for this facility, ranging from inpatient eating disorder clinic to self-admittance, drug and mental health rehabilitation. The applicants have also used qualifying terms and vague language surrounding the terms of conditional use. The verbiage used by Roaringbrook Recovery's representation does not align with the language outlined in the Board of Adjustment's Staff Case Reporting Zoning Ordinance, which states residents for persons recovering from the effects of drug or alcohol abuses, psychiatric disorders, or as a condition of their parole or probation. I feel that the ambiguity of their language and arguments is concerning and leaves opportunity for this facility to be used for purposes that stray from the stated intended use. While access to mental health resources is imperative, I do not feel that this specific location in a residential area in such proximity to multiple schools is appropriate for an inpatient mental health and rehabilitation facility as proposed. I strongly feel that the addition of a facility of this nature will adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood and would be best suited in a commercial, non-residential area. There is certainly a place for the services that are offered by Roaringbrook Recovery, but that place is not 319 Duke Road. Additionally, oh just kidding, I'm out of time. Thank you so much. Thank you for your comments. Please dispense with the clapping, we all understand what they're saying. Now it's my turn. I don't get any clapping. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Sure, thanks for having us. My name is Sean Milburn. I'm a double board certified anesthesiologist and pain management doctor in Leisington here. I live at 2113 Hunterswood Lane here in Leisington. So when I heard about this initially, I had a lot of questions as well, like a lot of people have talked about. The first thing when I read the description from the website that was presented in the proposal was the bed number. And so it's important to clarify, we've done a lot of interchanging of terms here. We've said outpatient psychiatric treatment at their perimeter drive location and the other ones. To be clear, with all of you that are not medical, I'm a physician here, I'll tell you all about this, inpatient is the equivalent of a hospital. We are talking about a hospital for people with mental illness located at this space. This is not a counseling location, this is being billed as inpatient, sub-acute stay. So I went to a fundraiser about three weeks ago for St. Joe Berea, okay, it was a critical access hospital, federal funding, all the things. Do you know how many beds are at St. Joe Berea Hospital, a critical access federal hospital? 25. This is 52 we're talking about in this center of a residential area. Number two, I was very moved by the stories as well, thank you for sharing them. I think it's very, very important to treat mental illness and I think it's important to have it involved in the community and have people have buy-in. If we in this room can agree though, the terms that we were just talking about that were so unfortunate were that one of the owner's sons had suicidal ideation, there was nowhere for him to go in town. The use of this has just been described as being sub-acute, not for acute mental health crises. He would have been not eligible to go there by the definition of what they're asking for. We don't treat acute admissions. So that doesn't resolve any of those issues at all that we talked about, he wouldn't be eligible. Moreover, as a parent at Christ the King as well, I do not think the right space for people with acute mental crises, crisis is the term we have to keep thinking about here, belong within a stone's throw of children. This is a tinderbox of massive problems that can happen. I'm a doctor, we all know the oath, first do no harm. I think we should all operate the same way in here. This is a tinderbox of things that could happen that would be bad. It's not our job to say, you know, it might or it might not. If there's a chance of something awful happening, God forbid, with an inpatient hospital of mental health patients within less than 500 feet of a school, is that really a reason to grant an exception for a rule you all have already made? This exists, it is not allowed to be here without an exception. To me, the onus isn't on us, it's already been made. That's all I have to say, thank you. Thank you sir, appreciate your comments. My name is Shawna Elko, I live at 2116 Broadhead Place in Lexington. On September 16th, 2014, I lost my beautiful baby brother Mark to suicide. Five short years later, February 2nd, 2019, my beloved Uncle Bobby also took his own life. My family and I have suffered the worst grief one can possibly experience. Their deaths have left a hole in my heart that will never heal. I tell you this so you know, I personally am very aware of the tragic consequences of mental illness and addiction. Addiction and mental illness are real, and people struggling with that deserve help, dignity, and access to treatment. Rehabilitation facilities play an important role in that effort. However, the question before us is not whether the rehabilitation services should exist, but where they should exist. And placing such a facility directly next to a school raises serious concerns that we cannot afford to overlook. First and foremost, schools are meant to be safe, stable environments where children can learn, grow, and feel protected. We trust that we send our children there, and that will be done. Let me be clear, this is not about stigma, it is about appropriate placement. Rehabilitation facilities should be located in areas where they best serve the clients and minimize unintended consequences for others, especially children. The owners of this property have used guilt and shame against the opposition to justify this location. They never have given clear answers as to who will actually be housed here. Many people with drug addictions have criminal convictions for other offenses. There are many suitable locations within our community where these services would thrive, without placing them in direct conflict with a school. There is no benefit, none, to the school in the neighborhood. The neighborhood itself, the potential for negative impact on all those who live, learn, and work and worship in that neighborhood is far more detrimental than putting that facility there. I urge you to deny this application. As city officials, it is incumbent upon you to provide, first and foremost, a safe and secure environment for our children and our citizens. And I ask you to search your hearts and ask if you would want your children and your grandchildren to be that close to a facility like that when they go to school and come out in their playground to play. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. My name is Marissa Bray. I live at 4866 Windhurst Road. I am a mother of five children, four of whom currently attend Christ the King School, while the youngest here is set to attend in the fall. We are also parishioners of the cathedral. I have unfortunately, as you just heard from my mother, lost two of my uncle's beautiful humans and my mother's best friends to suicide, and am therefore deeply sensitive to those who struggle with mental health issues. My faith and my experiences have taught me that extremism, whether it be rooted in fear or in guilt, as seems to be the case with some of the dialogue regarding 319 Duke Road, will never lead to truth. The truth is this. The applicant has left too many important questions regarding the proposed use of this property unanswered or unclear. We have been told the clientele of this facility will be unthreatening friends and neighbors, those struggling with eating disorders or underlying depression. We have conversely also been told that the proposed residence would be under near constant surveillance and would not be allowed to leave the facilities. We have been told that the clientele will not be convicted criminals or violent individuals. And yet, in their supplemental April 9th letter, the applicant boasts evidence regarding the unlikelihood people in treatment will re-offend or engage in harmful behavior as support for their proposal. We have been told that the clientele will not struggle with primary substance abuse. So when questioned at the March 24th neighborhood meeting about how diagnoses between primary or secondary substance abuse are established, the applicant was unable to provide a direct or clear answer. Questions remain, who will reside at 319 Duke Road? If the people set to reside there are so safe, why are security measures even necessary, let alone to the proposed degree? Does the proposed usage open up the door to allow for convicted offenders or those with primary drug or alcohol abuse issues to reside there in the future, even if that isn't the plan in the now? Are we, those who live, worship, learn, and play in Chevy Chase, expected to trust and depend upon the private, subjective, clinical judgments of someone employed by this business to prioritize the safety of our children over profit? Again, questions remain, and these are questions that I think you, as board members, should not stand to be left unanswered or unclear when the consequences will evolve next door to a children's playground. Therefore, I beseech you, do not approve this permit. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Hello, my name is Leah Bachmeier-Killey. I'm an attorney here in town, although my focus is on federal employment law. I live at- Your address, please. Sorry? Your- Yes, it's 1000 Trevi Point. My elderly mother, Bonnie Bachmeier, and my elderly uncle, Roy Bachmeier, own the neighbor, 331 Duke Road, which is a five-plex apartment. My husband and I help them manage it in their older age. I have three points to make. One, as neighbors, we feel a bit blindsided. We were there at the time that the approval for an old folks home was approved, and we supported that. Our 24-bed neighbors spending the twilight years of their life seemed like great neighbors. This is a completely different use. It feels different, and our tenants have told us it feels different, and they are not happy about it. While this applicant makes promises that this will be folks with eating disorders and secondary substance abuse disorders, as noted by Ms. Winters and others, there's just no way to check up on this on a day-to-day basis. They've already changed the number of beds several times. And realistically, it costs nothing for them to offer these words, but it will cost a lot to the neighbors to try to police this and get Lexington to police this as well if they fall outside of their promises. Second, we want long-term neighbors. This is a neighborhood, at least with the elderly home, there was opportunity to have folks as neighbors. Here we've heard testimony from the applicant that these people will come and go with 30 and 45 days. Those are not neighbors, that's a revolving door of people. That's not what we want in our neighborhood. Lastly, whether it's moral or not, the simple fact is our tenants have told us they do not want to live next to this facility. Our tenants and most tenants on Duke Road are on a year-to-year lease or a month-to-month basis. They will have the opportunity to stop their lease and move elsewhere. And if that happens en masse, the neighborhood feel will change as new applicants move in. There's nothing to prevent that. And I think that will be a disservice to the longer term tenants who perhaps own their homes in other neighborhoods like on Providence Road. But Duke Road is primarily apartments. We lease out to five people. Right now we have very long term tenants and we'd like to keep it that way. Ultimately, people do come to Duke Road to live in Chevy Chase neighborhood. Our five plex apartment is small and to be honest, it is outdated, but people come to live in the neighborhood. We do not have a pool, we don't have gym facilities. But we get really good tenants because they want to live in this neighborhood, which is so welcoming and walkable. They have told us that they're not happy with this, so I want to relay their concerns and our concerns as a very small business owner. This five plex was owned by my family since its inception in the 50s. As I said, it's family owned and run. We would ask you to consider the actual residence over a for-profit business that it's unclear how it's operated. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay, can you hear me? Yes. Great, all right, my name is Elizabeth Maggio, I live at 1242 Lakewood Drive. I've been there for over 33 years. My kids are grown now, but they went to school at Christ the King. I cannot imagine what some of these parents are going through because of this. So I just want to ask you, do you all represent the people of the community or do you represent special interest? That's an important question. And when an unfortunate event happens because a mental health patient has a psychotic episode, a drug addicted patient relapses and leaves recovery, where do they go? Part of the problem is their inability to make rational decisions. I am a nurse, I have worked with addiction, I have worked with mental health, I have worked with homeless people. And I can tell you right now, the common denominator here is relapse and they also, they're sick. They have a disease that needs to be treated, but not when you've got three schools and two churches and a huge community. So you've got these people here and you've got about 400 or 500 people outside who are part of the community, who really are passionate about this, that is the wrong thing to do. So I guess when there's an unfortunate event, and there will be. I have worked with people from Roaring Brook and I know what can happen. So when there is, who is responsible? Is it going to be either Roaring Brook or these people? Is it going to be the patient? Doubtful, they don't make good decisions. Or is it going to be the Board of Adjustment, because you've made this decision for us. And I just want to know, do we get to come back then and have a chat with you all when something bad happens in our community? So I ask you to please deny this and respect all of us that are here and do not want this to happen in the community. We're all for recovery, we're just not in this location. Thank you. Thank you. Leanne McLaughlin, 413 Culpepper Road. I'm a resident of the Chevy Chase neighborhood and I've lived in Lexington for over 32 years. And I'm a retired Fayette County Public Schools educator of over 28 years. I want to start by being very clear about something. No one is questioning the value of behavioral health treatment. Treatment saves lives. Helps families. And as a retired educator, I dealt with the lack of available resources for children and families for over 28 years. Access and treatment can significantly impact individuals. But supporting treatment does not mean we have to automatically agree with every proposed location. It's possible and reasonable to support treatment and still ask hard questions about where facilities are placed, how they're managed, and how neighborhoods are affected, especially when those questions haven't been fully answered. Most of the research being cited in favor of this facility focus on people who successfully engage in treatment and stay in it. That's important, but it's not the full picture. Outpatient and residential programs serve many people at many different stages, including intake, crisis, relapse, and discharge. Those periods matter when we're talking about neighborhood impact. In a host of peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals, researchers find over and over that treatment can increase an individual's success and reduce the chance of relapsing. That's a positive outcome, but it doesn't assume that harmful behavior disappears entirely. And these studies rarely look at what neighborhoods experience during the intake, relapse, or when people drop out of treatment. Researchers note that outcomes vary widely and depend on the population and how a program is implemented. Additionally, the critical follow-up care and support systems that are needed aren't automatically in place everywhere and they cannot be assumed. We often hear that treatment facilities don't increase neighborhood crime. The research most often looks at addiction treatment centers that are already in high crime areas. That's a specific urban context, but it doesn't tell us what happens when a facility is placed in a low crime neighborhood that's family-oriented and or near schools when multiple treatment services are clustered together. Urban planning research has raised these questions for years, but they are rarely addressed in the behavioral health studies. A Stanford research study cited how fragile outcomes become when systems are overstretched or under-resourced, putting a facility into a neighborhood without proven capacity for crisis response, housing coordination, and long-term follow-up care creates exactly the instability the research warns against. Expansion without infrastructure doesn't prevent risk, it shifts onto communities. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Cassidy Rosenthal. My address is 1091 Indian Mound Road. I'm also an attorney in Lexington. Granted, zoning and health care are not my specialties. But I would say I've spent a lot of time looking at the regulations and the requirements in the last couple of weeks since this has come to light. And I'm quite frankly confused. I don't know what licensure they're going to apply for with the state that they're saying they're going to get and how that's distinguishable from a rehabilitation facility. Which is clear, there are very strict terms for that, in that type of facility and what's required by the state. I can't find, and I wish they would point me to, what exactly they're seeking licensure for from the state. That is not in any of their materials. They didn't mention it today. I've been looking on the website, and I can't figure it out. And I've actually asked some of my health care attorneys to look for it, and they can't point me to what exactly this would be either. So that, I think, is in and of itself enough to cause a little pause here. We need clarification. Before anything can be granted, there has to be clarification on that issue. To that point, if you look at the regulations that are required for a rehabilitation clinic, there are very specific things, like you've got to have good access to ambulances, for example. As you mentioned, that is a real concern on this road. I can't get my car from one end of Duke Road to the other. It's very difficult. I walk to the post office to drop my things off because people park on both sides of that road. It's almost a single lane road almost every time. So when you're talking about adding additional infill here with staff, but also need for a quick medical attention. It's a real concern for this facility in this location. Let's not even mention the fact that we've got a massive grocery store that's also going to be coming in here, and the traffic situation is going to be even worse. So that ship has sailed, that is coming, but it makes putting 52 beds here with all of this staff an issue. I'd also like to focus on the fact of 52 beds, that's been mentioned, but what does beds mean? This is not a sort of facility that has to get licensure for beds, is my understanding. So that's a question. So I think the bigger question is really patience, how many patients do we have? Now, one quick other thing, because I'm running out of time, the zoning code. Brandon, I agree with you on the issue that you brought up on the zoning code, sorry, Jessica. However, I do think you all can look at the zoning code and find reason for pause for granting this. And that is in two spots, in ER1, it says you can have these facilities, but they need to be near a collector or arterial road, which this is not. Also, if you look at the public, the P1 zone, it says it can't be within 500 feet of residential area. But there are two places in the zone that already show that that is a very important consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name's Ryan Howler, 1509 Richmond Road. I'm a parent of two children at Christ the King. I'm also committing the cardinal sin of any real estate developer coming and opposing another developer's project. But my children's safety trumps all of that. Most importantly though, I think I'm probably the only one in the room today that has a parent that has children in the neighborhood. I'm a real estate developer, and I have owned, developed, and operated behavioral health clinics across the United States. Currently do as well. And because of that, I can speak to the logic as much as more as the experiences space as the counterparty has brought today. I'd like to walk through the 33 conditions as an operator. I've walked through them. I'd like to tell you that there's probably only four of them that this board can enforce. And that's based upon my own experience as an operator and developer in this space and owner in this space. Let me start with what the board can actually enforce. Privacy fencing, alarm exit doors, camera coverage in common areas, parking restrictions. That is roughly four conditions of the 33 that they will have structural teeth whatsoever from a local zoning enforcement. Everything else on that list either requires self-reporting by the operator, oversight by the commonwealth. The board is so subjectively defined that no inspector could ever cite a violation. Let's take condition three, voluntary admission. That sounds reassuring, but who verifies it? The operator does. There is no mechanism in this permit for this board or this staff to audit a single admission record. Take condition six, no primary substance use disorder admission. Notice the word primary. That is doing a great deal of work in that sentence. A patient whose primary diagnosis is depression, but who also has a substance use history does not violate that condition. In practice, that distinction erodes over time under census pressure. I've watched it happen in my own facilities. The clinical team does not wake up one morning and decide to break the rules. The rules simply get interpreted more flexibly, one admission at a time. Take condition ten, appropriate level of care only. I want to ask this board a simple question. Who defines appropriate? The operator does. That condition is not a safeguard. It's not a restatement of the operator's own discretion dressed up to look like a commitment. Take condition nine, joint commission certification. They do not have it yet, and the United States sentence, if you Google this, is currently under United States hotbed right now at the Senate. They're even talking about potentially repealing joint commission. So I'd erase that right off the list. Take conditions 15 and 16, no independent resident departure and staff control transportation. I'll be honest with you about these conditions of need and practice. They're standard operating procedures in facilities like this. They're also not fail safe by any measures. Patients leave against medical advice. Elopements occur with regularity and behavioral health settings. Take condition 30, school traffic sensitivity. The exact language is when feasible. I want to make sure that the board heard that, when feasible. I have much more to say on this, but I want to honor the board's time. Thank you for hearing me out. Thank you, sir. My name is Steven Graham, and I live at 1225 Providence Lane. You can adjust that microphone as appropriate. Is that better? Yes, sir. 1225 Providence Lane. I've lived on Duke Road, so I've lived within sight of the proposed facility for 20 plus years. It's not the right location based upon what's already there and the schools that are there and what's happening in the area. We're going to get a lot more traffic when Publix comes in, so it's going to be a tremendously busy area with a lot of people walking around the entire area. What these guys want to do is very commendable, and nobody in this room would argue that we need these kind of facilities. That's not the question, and don't get sucked in by sob stories that, oh, this happened and this happened. Yes, those things happened. They've happened to my family. I know exactly what they're talking about. It's tragic and it's terrible, and we need these facilities, but we need them in the proper kind of locations. That's the key thing, and that's what you guys need to stay focused on. What could happen if we have a facility like this in our area? You don't have to look any further than what happened just less than a year ago with the Rob Reiner family. A mental disorder with some drug abuse kind of thing, somebody that they thought would be all right outside of a facility. Been in and out of those kind of facilities. Look what happened there. Would we want that to happen in our neighborhood if something like that got out of hand? And it can easily happen. Last thing I'll say, here's my picture of my neighborhood. Several years ago, I looked out my window, and the police department was going down the street on their horses in the middle of Chevy Chase. And behind those three horses, I think, were probably a dozen kids running along on their bicycles. Just, it was just a Norman Rockwell kind of moment, really was. And that's Chevy Chase, and that's what we're trying to protect and preserve in our area. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Anne Graham. I live at the same address, 1225 Providence Lane. He stole my opening statement. Rob Reiner's son, Nick, was 32 years old and had been under treatment for schizophrenia in the years leading up to the December 25th stabbing death of his parents. He was also addicted to heroin and cocaine. Providence Duke and Romney Roads all serve as main corridors for hundreds of children on their way to the three schools in the immediate vicinity, as well as Acton Park activities. Even though the Reiners could afford the best mental health treatment available, it did not stop their son from killing. Access to guns. A mentally ill person in Kentucky has a right to a gun. Simply having diagnosis and or voluntarily seeking treatment, as at 319 Duke Road, doesn't automatically disqualify a person from a concealed carrying firearm. House Bill 312 recently passed the Kentucky legislature and allows minors 18 to 20 year olds to carry firearms. For a list of the conditions that this rehab facility treats, I won't repeat what Jessica said, but you know the different drugs and also they treat schizophrenia. And anxiety treatment, depression, bipolar disorder, and PSTD. The staff to patient ratio, Victor Rivera, CEO, has repeatedly said the patients in this facility cannot be kept against their will. Since caretakers are limited, this means patients will be able to access the neighborhood without a guarantee that enough staff will be available to supervise. With such easy access to guns, this makes our neighborhood particularly vulnerable. Victor Rivera of Roaring Brook and his partner, Behavioral Health Real Estate, ZLD, headquarters in San Diego, California, have continued to misinform us, making it difficult to understand what this conditional use permit really means. I'm about out of time, but I'm going to finish with my closing statement, which is that this facility, there was a nursing home there, the YWCA's Arnett Pritchard Place, a successful assisted living home, which the developer tore down to build a larger Duke Road facility. COVID hit, so it's never had a chance to become the assisted living facility that it could be. Comprehensive study of the needs for these facilities in our community. So construction is driven by thoughtful decisions and not by developers. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Good evening. My name's Christian Poland. I'm at 1004 Turkey Foot Road. I think most of my sentiments of emotion have been captured, so I'll take a different approach this evening. This morning, I spent some time reviewing the documents submitted on behalf of this conditional use permit request. One document stuck out to me, I'd like to draw the board's attention to it. For your reference, it's titled Duke Road Applicant April 9th Supplemental. The body of this supplemental memorandum attempts to summarize peer reviewed research and clinical safety standards as a means of dismissing community concerns and attempting to portray that the data conclusively determines that communities are not negatively impacted by the presence of facilities. Such as the one being debated here this evening. It goes on to provide ten studies with an analysis of each. I am a licensed pharmacist and a board certified pharmacotherapy specialist, so I have extensive training in analyzing peer reviewed literature. And so I looked at the evidence that they cited. I did not find it compelling and I certainly did not find it to be conclusive or even entirely relevant at all. First, much of the research cited is based on large scale regional data that analyze trends across entire cities or populations. They do not evaluate what happens when a facility is introduced into a dense residential neighborhood, like Chevy Chase. Broad trends simply do not capture the localized impact that this type of facility may have. Second, there are clear issues with how the research is being used. Some studies suggest that access to treatment can reduce crime over time, but those findings are long term and regional. They do not address short term disruptions, site specific challenges, or the reality that treatment engagement is often inconsistent. Third, the evidence presented omits practical real world impacts that communities frequently experience. Across the country, neighborhoods near certain treatment facilities have reported increases in loitering, trespassing, and public disturbances. Along with added strain on local law enforcement and emergency services. These are not abstract concerns, they are the kinds of day to day issues that directly affect residents of our neighborhood. And finally, there's a significant gap in what has not been provided by this data. There is no meaningful site specific analysis. No detailed look at traffic safety, emergency response capacity, or how this facility would integrate into the neighborhood. Instead, we are being asked to rely on generalized studies that do not answer the most important question of what will happen in my neighborhood specifically. My challenge to the board this afternoon is to not be persuaded by lengthy reports that contain troves of academic jargon. In an attempt to justify the agenda of entities that have no ties to the communities they're attempting to impact. This is a decision that requires local understanding and careful placement, no broad assumptions. I respectfully ask that you deny this conditional use permit. Thank you for your comments, and good timing. Good afternoon. I'm Joe Hallock, I live at 315 Garden Road, just two streets over from Duke Road. I've been there for 43 years. And we bought into this area because we liked the magic that Romney Road provided with the stores that were there. And they were all very comfortable and friendly. And this has always been a residential neighborhood. You know, it makes me beg to ask the question, how would you feel about having a facility that poses some risk? We don't know what kind of risk exactly. But how would you feel having that put in your neighborhood? Or maybe a train station, or possibly a runway in an airport? Does that make you feel like you're still living in a good residential area? This is the kind of thing that concerns us. We don't want this kind of facility there. Even the VA hospital is outside of New Circle Road. And there are plenty of other locations that this place can be set up. We're not saying that we don't need it. We're just saying we don't want it in a primary residential area. And that's my point. Thank you for your time. Thank you. My name is Amanda Buchanan. I live at 532 Culpepper Road. And I have a ten year old daughter who attends Cassidy and will attend Morton soon. I am an associate professor at the University of Kentucky, board certified in urology and pediatric urology, the chief of pediatric urology at the new Golisano Children's Hospital. And I'm the vice chair of clinical research in our department. I strongly support access to mental health treatment. However, today I want to address three concerns that I have. Number one, the lack of demonstrated community safety, inconsistencies in the application, and ongoing institutional creep at this site. First, the applicant supporting evidence is advocacy disguised as research and does not meaningfully address neighborhood safety. Of the ten articles submitted, which I read every single one, only three evaluate broader geographic impacts. Importantly, these are at county levels and not community or neighborhood levels. All are nearly a decade old. And they focus on large urban areas like Bogota, Columbia, Chicago, San Francisco, and Baltimore. Areas with significantly higher rates of violent crime. That is not Chevy Chase, which has virtually no violent crime. In addition, these studies focus on settings such as substance use clinics, liquor and convenience store densities, and outpatient mental health clinics. None of which reflect the private inpatient facility that is being proposed here. So the data simply cannot be applied to our community. Second, the application has been very inconsistent. The proposed bed count has ranged from 48 to 60, and staffing models have varied significantly. These are not minor discrepancies. They directly affect traffic, parking, and intensity of use. But more importantly, the proposed safeguards rely heavily on voluntary compliance. If there are inconsistencies at the application stage, it raises real concerns about how operations will be managed over time. Particularly without clear enforcement mechanisms. Finally, this proposal must be viewed in the broader context of the property's history. Prior approvals show a pattern of incremental expansion in both capacity and intensity. While each step may seem small in isolation, the cumulative effect is the transformation of a residential property into a large 24-7 healthcare institution. This is exactly the type of change that zoning principles are designed to prevent. The board should evaluate not just this application, but the trajectory that it does represent. In summary, the applicant has not provided relevant or appropriately scaled evidence of community safety. Their inconsistencies have undermined our trust completely, and this proposal continues a pattern of institutional creep. I respectfully ask that you consider these factors and reject the application. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. My name is Allison Crift. I live at 1304 Sweet Bay Drive. I'm here as a parent to former students at Cassidy and Morton, and as well now at Christ the King. I just wanted to speak on behalf of all the people out in the hallway that had to leave to take care of their children. At one point, we counted over 100 people that we knew as neighbors and friends and classmates, parents, whatnot, in opposition of this. They had to leave because baseball at Acton Park, after school programs, playgrounds, all the things were happening. And they had to leave, and I got to stay because my son walked home from school today. So I don't know if he would have been able to do that because he also left his phone at home today. So there was no way to track him and get a hold of him. There are concerns, and if this comes in, that is something that may not be able to happen, and that may not be able to remain the community that it is. And that is all I have to say, but there are over 100 people out there in opposition, and I know you all got like 600 or something letters. And I just, please say no. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Hi, my name is Megan Thompson, and I live at 352 Lincoln Avenue, and I am the mother of a child at Christ the King School. I'm not going to repeat what everybody else has said, we all feel the same way. All I'm going to insist is that you remember, as the board, you are here to serve this community. And based on the number of people who are here, this community does not want this. It is your job to represent us. We are your constituents. That is your purpose, and we have spoken. Thank you. Thank you. If we have a response like that one more time, I'm going to clear this out of here. Okay? That's the last warning. It's inappropriate behavior at a public meeting. My name is Roy Kockmeyer, 2036 Fontaine Road. I'm the elderly uncle of an earlier speaker. As Leah pointed out, I am the co-owner, along with my sister-in-law, of the property adjacent to this place at 331 Duke Road. Once I heard about this, I went to the ultimate source of knowledge, Google, and typed in an approximation of what this facility was going to be, and said, what's it going to do to my property value? Google said, it'll lower your property value by 8 to 12%. I suspect it's not just my property value, but the whole neighborhood. And I certainly encourage you all to get it back to a 24-bed retirement home. So I can go there sometime. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Michael McLaughlin, 406 Queensway Drive in Lexington. Lexington's strength is in its neighborhoods. Lexington works best when we listen and support what neighbors say matters most to them, so that we can protect the characters of our neighborhoods. And that's what the decision that you have in front of you today is all about, the character of our neighborhoods. I stand with the residents whose neighborhood is impacted with this request and voicing my opposition to the proposal. I'm an ardent supporter of those seeking rehabilitation and recovery, and I truly have them in my heart to find the help that they need. Lexington's need for treatment is real, but it can't come at the expense of our residential neighborhoods. Facilities of this scale belong where there's buffering and infrastructure not embedded in our neighborhoods. The proposal shows a need to have a real discussion here at City Hall for all neighborhoods, not just Chevy Chase, but all neighborhoods, about allowing these type of transient, not by right uses in our residential zones, and why they are not exclusively in our P, B, and I zones. There are serious concerns about the building being fit for purpose, the location being fit for purpose, ongoing violations of the current property's conditional use permit. Without having had the protection that enforcement should provide the neighbors, what guarantees do the neighbors have that a new permit will adequately be enforced to protect them? Your decision tonight matters to the neighbors. I ask you to support what the neighbors say they want for where they live. Thank you for your time, and I urge the board to deny this application. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Good evening. My name is Anne Tramantine Brueggemann, and I am the very proud principal at Christ the King School. Could you state your address, please? Yes, 3266 Pepper Hill Road. Thank you. I have grown up two blocks from this location. I went to Christ the King School. My parents still live at Woodlake Way. I've been the principal at Christ the King for five years. But what I really want to talk to you all about is my school, and what weighs on my heart every day. I have 68 staff members that could not be here today because they are at work running the school. I have 538 students who show up every day who are two-year-olds to eighth graders. I have 333 families that entrust me with the safety of their students and their kids, that they will get to pick them up at 315 every day when the school day is over. I don't have to explain to you all what school principals go through, but I wish that you could take a week in my shoes. The first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning is, can I keep 538 kids safe? And this isn't far-fetched. We have watching us what's happening across our country, and I'll be very honest, it's not drug addicts, and it's not people addicted to alcohol that are causing unsafe places for our students to be. All of these incidents that have happened, and that have now come into Catholic schools at a mass earlier this school year, are people who are dealing with mental health crises, and I am certain that we need more places. But to have that within 300 feet of where I have a school, where students are outside at recess every day, it's wildly dangerous. And I'm not worried about all 52 people at this facility, I'm worried about the one who has a bad day. The one that leaves even though the doors are locked. They're going to leave, you're not going to have a 100% success rate at any facility. They're going to leave. I lose sleep at night on the safety of my students. I don't really care about their grades, or what they learn, or all of that stuff. That doesn't bother me, but it's the safety of those kids. And no one can prove to me that this is not adding a safety issue for the schools in the area. Please, I hope that you all will use common sense in this decision. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, just a second, I have a number of exhibits to introduce into the record of this. And a couple of them I'll start over with Mr. Walker to pass around if you'd like to review them during my three minutes. So just give me one second to get them all introduced into the record. First, there's a copy of a PowerPoint presentation. If I could bring it up to you. Actually, I've got two of them so you can review it. One of them I have tabbed with potentially more relevant pages than others, but that way you can sort of pass them on around as we're talking. Second, we have the full submission of all of the applicant's documents. Not all of them have been added in a CELA. They've submitted documents to the public meetings and fact sheets that are not in a CELA. And to make sure that everything in their application materials is in the public record, we're going to submit all of them as part of the file. Next is, this is the history of land use applications for this property, 319 Duke Road, that exist in a CELA from 2013 to the present. Including numerous applications that you heard talked about earlier today, and they're also referenced in the PowerPoint. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, Mr. Billing's time hasn't started, he's been about 30, 40 seconds into his presentation. I would kindly respect for a modicum of professionalism, Mr. Chairman, that because of your ruling, 18 minutes was taken away from the opposition. And all I'm trying to do is to introduce the evidence into the record so that if an appeal is necessary in this case, the record is properly preserved. I'm sure that's not a procedural problem, is that, Mr. Simpson? My objection is you got three minutes and you tried to get 18 without representing a client. Now you're trying to shoot for anymore time. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to engage him directly, Mr. Chairman. I'm going as quickly as I can to introduce these. Mr. Gentleman, the understanding was, and I'm repeating this for the second time, that 45 minutes was a maximum, and if you finished before then, you gave that time up. Okay, that is for the record. Now, when you start speaking, you got three minutes. I understand, sir. This is a copy of all of the emails, both in opposition and in favor that I received from LFUCG for open records request through Friday evening. Plus a handful that I received over the weekend with additional people emailing to staff and copying me on it, as well as all of the emails that are in favor of the project for the record. Don't strain yourself. Next, Mr. Chairman, is a chart that is referenced in the PowerPoint of all of the residential facilities in Lexington that do OEDE treatment, or behavioral mental health, as well as hospitals and the corresponding maps mapped out about where they're located in Lexington. Mr. Chairman, this is a binder, since 1982, of all of the available records for rehabilitation homes that have had an application in the city of Lexington since the current zoning ordinance was adopted, whether the application was granted, denied, or withdrawn. You'll find there's only nine R3s in that binder. Next, I have copies of the statute, Paris 100-237, regarding conditional use permits. Article 7 of the zoning ordinance regarding the Board of Adjustment, and a copy of the bylaws of the Board of Adjustment. I have a series of Kentucky administrative regulations regarding the licensing of residential medical care facilities, none of which the applicant has cited to what they're actually going to license for. We have the article, Not in My Backyard, the Effect of Substance Abuse Treatment Centers on Property Values, that I believe Ms. Winters may have cited it to her in her letter, but I don't think she actually introduced a copy in the article. And finally, well not actually, almost finally, here's a copy of the open records request sent to the Office of Inspector General for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services on the current owner of the property to figure out if they ever actually had applied for the license. That they just now have. And finally, I have a copy of my op-ed that I wrote to the Herald-Leader in response to other articles that they had published. All right. Mr. Chairman, wait a second, let me, can you start my time? Can you start my time? You can start your time now. Three minutes starts now. I'll just wait for the, there we go. Mr. Chairman and lady and gentleman of the Board of Adjustment, again, my name is Nathan Billings. I'm an attorney here in Lexington with Billings Law Firm. I don't live in Chevy Chase. I live at 664 Teakwood Drive in Shadeland East, which is about a mile from the property. I was originally approached about this case back in February and was asked by some owners to represent them in opposing this project. And I passed for a couple reasons. One is I had a lot of work. Two is I had a conflict for the date it was to be heard in March. And so I referred that group to Ms. Winters, who's done an excellent job today. A couple of days later, I shared that with my wife later that night or the next day. A couple days later, my wife called me and she said, remember that case you had? I said, yeah. She goes, did you know that, I'm not going to say his name publicly, but one of your best friends' mother-in-law lives across the street. And I said, actually, I did know that and I'd forgotten about it. And she said, she's really concerned. I think you need to look at this a bit more before you just reject dealing with it. So I did. So in 26 years of law practice, I've never spent this much time, which now is over 60 hours, on a pro bono land use matter for something that I believe must be denied. This case is not about personal stories. It's not about anecdotes. It's not about personal experiences. I would dare say that almost everybody in this building today, much less in Lexington, has somehow been affected by a mental health episode by a friend, a family member, or a colleague. The reality is that's the world we live in. But that's not the discussion this case really involves. This case is a land use case. It's not a case about whether mental health exists or we need facilities. The applicant, not everybody else here, not the 260 people who came into this building today, 260, Mr. Chairman, the line went around the block and started to go up the bridge. They didn't get in the building until 2.20. It took security 50 minutes past the hearing date, past the hearing time, to let people in the building. People started arriving at 12.45. That's about an hour past what normally it takes. This case is about land use, and you've heard today from doctors, nurses, developers, researchers, and principals, and attorneys about why the applicant has not been able to answer a lot of questions, and why this case, if approved, will negatively impact the neighborhood. The question is really simple. Are you going to believe the people with evidence who spoke today, or the attorney and the applicant, none of whom have any medical experience? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Billings, for your comments. Mr. Chair, just really quickly, for the record, since I was specifically brought up, we didn't review the documentation that's been passed over here, and I didn't send it down to the board, because that'd be quicker for all of us to read War and Peace, so it's on the other end down here for the prospective review. Thank you. My name is Michelle Lubert. I have a Nashville address. I'm here on behalf of the applicant as general counsel for the applicant. And it appears today that much of the opposition is based on what we will not be doing. We will not be accepting any patients with a primary diagnosis of substance use disorder. And we will not be accepting any court referred cases. We're super proud of the team we've put together for this facility, and of our partnership with Roaring Brook, who has an overwhelmingly positive reputation in the community. To address neighborhood concerns and- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have to object. This is the applicant speaking. They've been given 45 minutes, and now they're getting more time. This is for the opposition. Well, this is for the public. This is for support, public support. This is for the public, and she's the applicant, Mr. Chairman. This is the general counsel for the applicant. The applicant is represented. The applicant's representation was given 45 minutes. That has been used completely. And now we're on to community comments. These are community comments. Correct, and so I'm here to present a community comment. Until we're done. This is for community comments, and when they're done, you will have a chance to have a rebuttal. Okay. Okay. That's perfectly fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Community comments aren't completed yet. Next for those in opposition. Yes, I am not in opposition. I am here in support. Okay. My name is Erin Scussel. I live at 1151 Turkey Foot Road, and I'm here in support of the conditional use permit application for 319 Duke Road. I support this permit because I believe access to quality mental health care is a net positive for our community and not harmful to our safety. I want to be clear that I am not here on behalf of the applicants. I'm here as a resident of Lexington because my support for this permit is personal. I was around the age of 14 when I began struggling with mental health issues. When my situation reached a dangerous point, I was admitted to an acute care psychiatric hospital where I was treated as an inmate was assigned to a room with cinder block walls. I was there for a few weeks while they got me settled on medications and determined I was no longer a harm to myself. I was discharged and sent back home where my mental health, upon leaving the hospital, was no better. And sometimes I look back on that experience and wonder if it was made even worse. If a facility like this existed near me then, I may have been discharged to there, where I would have had access to continued quality care. I spent the next two decades in and out of therapy, often on medications, and experienced a series of traumatic events. Despite my struggles, I earned my bachelor's and master's in education, was teaching high school and middle school language arts and reading. And in 2014, after I got divorced, lost my job within a span of a few months, I returned to my old harmful habits. For about two years, even though I was getting up and going to work every day, teaching and coaching, the internal dialogue and self-destructive tendencies were worsened. In March of 2016, I hit a bottom, the details for which I will spare. And I just remember waking up on the floor and thinking I couldn't go on like this. So I googled something around the terms of inpatient mental health facility near me, and a residential treatment center popped up less than two miles away. It was larger than the facility that's being proposed today. They have separate adult and adolescent programs, and housing is spread across three campuses around the North Druid Hills neighborhood in Atlanta. I voluntarily admitted myself, and on my intake after an assessment, I was diagnosed with CPTSD as a primary disorder and substance abuse as secondary. I spent a few months in treatment, and I owe my life to them. It was a combination of the quality care, the location near my home, and the residential setting that was not confined by cold, cinder block hospital walls that contributed to my success in their program. Today, I am ten years emotionally stable and sober. I've earned my PhD, and I am an assistant professor and published researcher. I want every person who has also struggled with harmful internal dialogue to experience the success, happiness, and freedom that I do today. This new facility would bring a much needed resource to our community, and the fact that there is already a building primed and ready for these services, I couldn't think of a more perfect scenario. As an educator of undergraduate students, I'm well aware of the extreme need for this level of care for our young adults right here in Lexington. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Hello, my name is Kian Johnson. I live at 3828 Mary Dewey, and I'm speaking in support as somebody that this project could save. This is a picture of me about a year before I was diagnosed with an eating disorder. When I was diagnosed at 12 years old, I went from a high achieving student in the gifted and talented program to someone struggling to survive. I went from the classroom to a dietician's office and weekly blood draws to make sure I wasn't in immediate danger of passing. I needed a higher level of care and support than what was available. At the time, there was nothing. I'm 26 years old now, and I still suffer from an eating disorder, and there is still nothing. When I heard there could finally be a residential program opening in Lexington, Kentucky's first and only, I felt so much hope. In 2020, when I was 20 years old, I was given the opportunity to go to a residential program in another state, West Palm Beach, Florida, and it was in a residential area as well. While I was there, I actually got better. I started to recover and see the light at the end of the tunnel for the first time in years. When I returned home to Lexington, the lack of resources here combined with the fact that I was still early in my first real attempt at recovery led to a relapse. I truly believe that if there was a program in my community, my recovery would have a much better chance to stick. Since my relapse after returning home, I've been in a constant battle, trying my best to recover on my own, but relapsing over and over, each time terrified that it could be my last. I've been told multiple times that it's a miracle that I'm still alive at this point. I believe God has given me so much grace, but without the option to seek in-depth professional care, I may one day die from this disorder. Saying yes to this permit will provide access to the treatment that can save my life and the lives of so many other people who just want to find healing. I pray that God would open your hearts to fill a gap in healthcare that has been missing in our community for so long. 9% of Americans will experience an eating disorder in their life. Every 52 minutes, someone dies as a result of one. I want so badly to live. I'm just a human being who's suffering, and I need a helping hand. Please help me to get my life back. Please say yes. Thank you. Thank you. I don't want to follow that. So good afternoon. My name is Hackey Cantor. I live at 1229 Providence Lane. And I've lived and worked within three blocks of Duke Road and Chevy Chase for over 30 years. I also do work for Roaring Brook Recovery, which puts me in a unique position to understand both the concerns of this neighborhood and the needs of those seeking mental health support. While I do not consider myself an expert in either the mental health field or in Chevy Chase for that matter, I do think it gives me a very unique perspective. I understand and love the concerns of all my neighbors, but I also understand the realities of people seeking mental health support. Change can be difficult, especially in a close-knit neighborhood. Some have described this as the wrong place, wrong time, wrong location. And I respectfully understand those concerns, but I personally strongly disagree. When is there a better time to help people struggling with mental health? Every day, people are suffering from PTSD, anxiety, depression, eating disorders. These challenges affect families right here in our community. Currently, there are limited resources in this immediate area for quality mental residential health care. Mental health care, sorry, and true healing. This is not theoretical. These limited resources are the way it is today. People have asked why Chevy Chase, why in that neighborhood? I would propose why not Chevy Chase? This neighborhood has a long history of compassion, thoughtfulness, helping neighbors. It has an incredibly strong sense of community. This is a unique opportunity to continue breaking stigma, normalize seeking mental health support, and support the overall well-being of all of our people. I would argue that Chevy Chase can support and enhance this opportunity. And can also lead Lexington in breaking the stigma surrounding mental health. There have been many what if scenarios. And I cannot answer or have an answer to any or all of these possible scenarios. But I would also like to ask, what happens if this facility doesn't occur? If it does not, people will continue to suffer daily. Families will continue searching for guidance with the limited resources that will be available to them. Individuals will struggle to find appropriate care. Last but not least, I'd like to say that Roaring Brook, in my experience there, that facility has really become more than just a drug, substance abuse facility. place, it's been a community resource. Every day working there, I receive calls regularly from individuals and families and community members seeking guidance, asking for help, asking what to do. We often help navigate the proper level of care, provide advice and direction, and refer people elsewhere when appropriate. In fact, we refer as many people out as we admit, but the goal is getting the people the right help. This is an opportunity for Chevy Chase to lead Lexington in breaking the stigma, and I respectfully encourage thoughtful approval of this project. Thank you. My name is Ana Diaz, and my address is 668 Gravis Court. There's been so much said here today, and it's been difficult to listen because there's so much self-interest, and I guess that's the human condition. We want what we want. But we're here because there are laws, there's zoning guidances, and the board has already approved this, and they did this not because they decided, oh, we're going to approve it and we're not going to pay any attention to what our job is, which is to look at what has already been written. We know what the laws are. We know what the guidances are, and that's how the board made their decision. But it's a difficult thing for the people in the neighborhood because they don't want this in their neighborhood. But there's so much that's been said here that's clouded by emotion, by innuendos, by what-ifs, but again, it has already been approved, and it was approved because it meets the criteria. It's needed, and there's no reason it shouldn't be there. I have personal experience, and I have time, but first I wanted to state that we can all have all the emotion we want, but we're here because we're going to follow the zoning guidance that have been in place and that you all know what they are and have already ruled on. My son was treated at Roaring Brook three years ago. If he had not found that place, he probably would not be alive today. So I'm not talking about that because of substance abuse, I'm talking about because of Roaring Brook. Roaring Brook is involved in this project, and they're involved in this project. You could be all about it, they are, they're not, but evidently they are. And they are an organization, a business, mental health facility, substance abuse facility, whatever they are, they have an outstanding reputation, and that is what they're bringing to this particular project. They save lives, they do things that are needed, that are needed in this community, in Lexington, and therefore it should be approved. Thank you. Hi, I'm Sarah Pope. You can raise the microphone up. I live at 1713 Huntsman Court. I am a grateful recovering alcoholic, and I can stand here and say that today because of Roaring Brook and the family that I have gained from going there. I realize this isn't a substance abuse facility, but I know that I can vouch for the care, the level of care that they give. The unparalleled therapy that I received there has helped me through the abusive relationships I've been in, the trauma that I dealt with, with having an alcoholic mother, and I can honestly call them family, you know, Allison, Matt, Carl, Hilary, everybody. It's beyond what you can imagine, and I'm not a dangerous person. I was living in my own personal hell, and they saved me from that. It might not be what the immediate surrounding community wants, but it's what the Lexington as a whole needs, and I hope you've realized that. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Good afternoon. My name is Kelly Gunning. I live at 776 Muddy Creek Road. I'm the advocacy director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Lexington. I've been here many times before for many reasons. I will tell you that we have been the lead advocate on replacing Eastern State Hospital, on creating a mental health court in Fayette County, and a juvenile mental health court in Fayette County. We've started the first peer-operated programs in the state of Kentucky, and we've also started assisted outpatient treatment for people with severe and chronic mental illness in the courts, which is called Tim's Law. Those are just a few of the things we've done over the past 25 years. I want to say today that you've been given an impossible mandate. They've asked you either or. The answer could be and, but, both. Because this can be a win-win if people will allow it. I will say this has been the finest example of nimbyism that I've been, I guess, a witness to in my 25 years. It is the best example of not in my backyard that I've ever seen. I would say they're asking you to mandate safety. Well, we've got police departments and state troopers and emergency responders that can't guarantee our safety. They can be trained, and they can be well-outfitted, and they can be there to meet everything that comes their way, but they can't prevent it from happening. So I will say to you that, you know, they're saying, well, what about the churches in the area and the schools in the area? Most child abuse occurs from people in those settings many times that we trust with our children, a coach, a teacher. Those are the people that are hurting our children, too. I won't even get started about the Catholic Church and the amount of pedophilia in there. I don't care if you don't like it. It's true. It's true. Look it up. Kick me out. Yeah, there was another angry crowd in Nazareth several hundred centuries ago where they said the same thing. I appreciate that you don't kick me out, and I'm sorry that they don't look into their own personal histories of abuse before they start accusing people that they don't even know of doing atrocious things. None of that is proven on the part of these people that may come to these facilities, but I guarantee you, you can look up the examples that I just gave you. They're in our newspaper every day. Even the Catholic Church has been ... Good night, suppliers. Next. Good afternoon. My name is Ann Baxter, and I live on Andover Drive several blocks away from Duke Road. But I've listened to everyone here, and I'll have to say that I'm one of the people that are opposing this proposal. But my question is, I've been listening, and I've never heard, I've never seen anything. What kind of protection are the children and the neighbors going to get from within this facility? Are there going to be metal detectors? I go through metal detectors when I'm in an airport. Are they going to have metal detectors going in and out? How are visitors going to be controlled going in and out of the facility? Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Leone. 3591 Niagara Drive is my address here in Lexington. I know some of you from my time here in Lexington as a developer, and also in my capacity with Wells and Wells Construction as a project manager. I have been, I share an office space with Roaring Brook in their current location, and I have been in that space for six years since Roaring Brook started. In that time, Victor Rivera, the CEO and his colleagues, have become very good friends of mine, and I can vouch for them as people of integrity who show up every single day to help human beings in their darkest hour. I will say that I think it was made clear here that this does fit within the city ordinance for this use in this space. I think it would be redundant to argue that point again. So I just want to speak to my experience sharing office space and sharing being a tenant in the same space that they currently operate. There's never been one incident that's made me or anyone that I know feel unsafe, contrary to what the opposition online smear campaign would lead people to believe. There's never been any dangerous drug paraphernalia found in or around the establishment. Any opposing statements are rooted in fear and not in fact. Also it's my understanding that this new facility, which I think they made clear here today, will primarily serve people struggling with mental health and eating disorders. The group opposing doesn't want this in their backyard until it's their son, their daughter, their brother, their sister, their mother, their father, or their loved one. And I know from personal experience that in those darkest hours and those moments of desperation that everyone wishes there were more people willing to help and less people judging. But I can promise that even in that dark hour, regardless of the results of this conditional use permit, people of Roaring Brook will be there to help because that's what they do. I ask that you please approve this permit. Thank you. Good evening. My name's Carl Quick. I'm at 1750 Yorktown Road here in Lexington and I am an employee at Roaring Brook Recovery. And you know, a lot of things have been said today, but one of the things that really hasn't been discussed, what we are and what we stand for, and the word was actually just mentioned, it's integrity. Being able to work at this facility for the last four and a half years has made me a better person. It has shown me the best ways to be an ethical provider because I had never been in this field before. I didn't have a career and they made that a possibility. I just graduated college. I'm pursuing a master's now in social work so that I can continue. And then when I heard about this facility opening up for eating disorders, which I suffer from myself, I was all about it and how can I help? And I want to continue to support and help. But Roaring Brook displays honesty, it displays integrity, it displays transparency. And those are the types of things that I look for when I'm surrounding myself with those types of people. We work with different types of boards like the AODE, the BHSO, state, federal regulations, CARF, the MCOs, all of those. We have to be working with them and make sure we stay above board and do those things. And we do it all the time. And there was an opportunity to learn for my own sake was the AODE came in and I asked Victor, I was like, are you nervous about this? He's like, no, I want people to come in and hold us accountable. That's another word, accountability. And if you all approve this, you all get to hold us accountable too. We want that. We want all the accountability in the world. That's what recovery is. So please, just allow us to help more of Lexington. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Hillary Nolan. I'm a board certified psychiatric nurse practitioner. I'm the current nurse practitioner at Roaring Brook Recovery. A huge part of- What's your address? 305 Rosemont Garden, which also brings me to another point that my children will be going to Morton Middle School as well. I trust this facility. I trust that my children will be safe. I have no qualms with sending my children to a school in this area. I have also, my background in psychiatry also includes on top of Roaring Brook, I've also done emergency room consults for psych, as well as working at Eastern State. I know the different levels of care, on all levels. I do my best to assess, to place people where they need to be. My job is to keep the community and the people that I am serving safe. And that is what I will continue to do and what I want to do for the rest of my life. I love working in mental health. I love helping people discover how they can continue to grow and be better and to help them in their worst moments. I am not trying to put people at risk. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Daniel Fulton, and I live at 1720 Abington Hill, Lexington, Kentucky. It's not in my backyard. In fact, I live maybe ten miles away from the school that my daughter goes to. What I'd like to address tonight quickly is risk, risk on two levels. One, risk that somebody like me ends up in the facility that's being proposed. I've diagnosed major depressive and intermittent explosive disorder. I've spent more than a year of my life institutionalized when I was much younger, both in hospitals and in jails. I've been suicidal, I've been homicidal, I've beaten people to a pulp. I created risk. I created risk. All it takes from this facility, as our great principal said, is one person with my mindset walking out and going 300 yards to the north. 300 feet to the north, forget 300 yards. The other risk I'd like to mention is something that I deal with on a daily basis. I've turned my life around. Former high school dropout, also graduated from Oxford. I am a corporate finance advisor, and I think about risk all the time on behalf of the clients and the companies that I get to work with. This business model, what's being presented today, and make no mistake, it is a business model. This is a real estate deal that you guys are being asked to rubber stamp approval on. One thing goes wrong with the business model, is this board going to be there to hold them to account? 33 different guarantees that they're putting out there. One thing goes wrong, this facility is right back where it was, or it starts accepting different kinds of patients and things like that. So I speak out tonight in opposition to this, because I've been in the shoes before. In fact, I grew up with one of the young women that spoke on behalf of the facility. She can attest to that. Speak in opposition, because it introduces too much risk, both in the neighborhood and with the business model. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Hi, my name's Krista Haddad, I live at 1127 Richmond Road. I have lived in Chevy Chase for over 25 years. I am speaking on behalf of my support. I have an MBA, specialized in healthcare management. I've worked in the healthcare field 25 years in Kentucky and across the United States of America. A large part of mine has been in the psychiatric field. I want to speak on behalf of the character of the person running this. There are a lot of people who do healthcare wrong. There are so many that are doing it wrong in the behavioral field, in the mental health field. I have witnessed this leader lead in such a profound way. I asked him to be my mentor over a year ago when I started up my own home care business, where I take care of elderly veterans. I have a second chance program. I hire ladies and gentlemen that are in recovery as a second chance as caregivers, have a very wonderful business. Two of my employees are Roaring Brook graduates, and they are the best employees I have ever worked with. They're honest, they're integrity, and it all comes from the leadership. I mean, that's what I just want to leave here and say, these things can be done right or they can be done wrong. And I know when I was getting my own personal service agency license for the state of Kentucky, one of the first things Victor did was say, let's pull up the KRS laws. We're doing things by the book, and he immediately earned my respect. I mean, it's just, he does do things by the book. He does the right thing, his heart is in the right place, and there's a lot of people out here not trying to do that. And I just want to support this, he has good judgment. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Matt Otto. I live at 761 Dawson Springs Way. I'm here in support of you guys approving this. I work at Roaring Brook, on my shirt. I'm the program coordinator at Roaring Brook, and I want to talk to you a little bit about why I work there. So I've had substance use disorder, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. I've gone through treatment for all those things. I've been in recovery for 14 years now. Part of going through all those treatment centers and doing all those different things was learning that some treatment centers do things the right way, and some places don't. And so as part of what I get to give back for everything that was freely given to me, I get to go do treatment the right way. Part of doing it the right way is identifying a need. Earlier today, somebody mentioned that there's a lot of other mental health facilities in Lexington already. There is nothing in the entire state of Kentucky that is like what we're proposing to do. There is not residential mental health care. There is hospitalized, institutionalized residential care, but not residential, home-like care for people to get the help that they need. Part of what Roaring Brook is and what we've done so far is bring an element of professionalism and care to our people that does not exist and did not exist in Lexington. That's why we built Roaring Brook. Every single person who was trying to go to treatment from this area was getting sent to Nashville, was getting sent all over the state. I got sent when I was young. First place I went was Minnesota. Second place I went was Texas. Third place I went was Washington State. I got shipped all over the place. I was a high school kid needing treatment, coming right out of high school, just graduated. Had to go across the entire country just to find a place to get better. That's not true anymore. And we want to take that same thing that we did with substance use treatment, and we want to apply that to mental health treatment because we can, because we have the ability to, because we have the knowledge, because we have the team. So I support this project always will, and I hope that you guys do too. Thank you. Good evening, my name is Chad Sirk. I live at 508 Fieldcrest Court, Richmond, Kentucky. We'll get to that in just a moment. I was the person that was acknowledged as an exhibit earlier. I'm a licensed commercial real estate appraiser. I have been for 32 years. Also, I'm a graduate of the University of Kentucky. I have two- Chairman, I object again. This is a witness to be presented during the applicant's case in chief. He's their expert witness. He needed to testify in the 45 minutes. That's not what I'm going to talk about. Thank you. He's the expert for the applicant. He should have testified during the 45 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He's testifying as a lay witness in this instance, Mr. Chairman. He is a- you're in support of the project? I am. Correct? Correct. You can have the rest of your three minutes. Thank you. Anyway, like I was saying- hold on. Like I was saying- like I was saying- I'm going to make one more objection, just for the record, not in any disrespect to the chair, but he is not a Lexington resident. So, again, he would not qualify as a public commenter since he doesn't live here. Well, that's not true. Well, that's what I was going to ask you. Excuse me, I live in Richmond, Kentucky because my wife works for the counseling and mental health department at Eastern Kentucky University, but I'm a University of Kentucky graduate. And I did live at 1274 Scoville Road, which is in Chevy Chase. My oldest child is a graduate of Morton Middle School, and in fact, my wife's father was the principal of Morton Middle School for 20 years, Jack Lyons. Now, I can sit here and opine about real estate value and how there is no diminution in such, based on mental health facilities that are in the immediate vicinity of those, because I did that study. I did these types of studies at the University of Cincinnati in the School for Real Estate, their graduate program, and also at the University of Louisville in their graduate program. I am former adjunct faculty at the University of Kentucky, where Dr. Brett Ambrose and I studied these ad nauseum. What I can tell you is I've been a very successful real estate appraiser, developer, and broker. But more importantly, in the context of this argument, I'm a former patient of Roaring Brook. Roaring Brook saved my life. I'm the beneficiary of carefully calculated, meticulous people whose sole purpose is mental health. I'm here talking for you today because I'm considered an expert in my field. And I continue to be so because of Roaring Brook. I hope you vote yes. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I'm nervous. I'm going to have to read. My name is Mary Henson. Thank you for listening. I live at 562 Stratford Drive. I'm going to read this because I'm so nervous. You can lower the microphone a little bit. Okay. I work at Roaring Brook. I am also someone in long term recovery, 38 years. And I understand both the clinical side of treatment and the human side of healing. I want to begin by clarifying an important point. We've already said this. This facility is not designed to house active drug use or function as a detox or substance abuse center. It is primary focus is on mental health treatment. Conditions such as depression, anxiety, and eating disorders. These are medical and psychological conditions that require structured professional care in a safe and supportive environment. The individuals who will be served here are private pay or insured clients, meaning they are voluntarily seeking help and are engaged in their treatment. This is not a walk-in or crisis center. It is structured, clinically supervised program with accountability rules and professional oversight at all times. I understand that some neighbors may feel concerned or uncertain. That's natural when something new is proposed. But I want to gently challenge the idea that this facility will bring danger or instability into the community. In reality, facilities like this tend to be quiet, well managed, and focused on healing, not disruption. There is a significant and growing need for mental health services in our community. Many individuals are struggling silently with anxiety or depression and eating disorders, just like me. I'm 70 years old and my parents, who are a US government employee and a housewife, had only the option to send me to Eastern State, which was on 4th Street at the time, and they wouldn't do that. They didn't want to send me there, and there wasn't any other place. So there are many more like me that often do not have access to the level of care they need. This facility is designed to help meet that need in a responsible and professional way. The people who come into treatment are often parents, professionals, students, people who are trying to get better and return to their lives healthier and stronger, many of your neighbors. This facility is about healing, structure, and accountability. It is about helping people become better neighbors, not creating problems for a neighborhood. As someone who has been given a second chance through recovery and now works to help others do the same, I can say with confidence, facilities like this don't harm communities, they strengthen them. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for your comments. Hi, my name is Alicia Kazee, and I live at 1620 Richmond Road. And I'm really nervous, I don't do a lot of public speaking, but I felt this was really important for me to be here today. I grew up at 1178 Ennie Mound Road, which is less than a block away from this facility. And when I had an opportunity to buy a home in Lexington, I chose to live in this area. No one is saying that the work these companies are doing is not necessary and important. No one is saying that people who oppose this facility aren't saying that there isn't a great need for these things to be done. I just worry that is this the appropriate place for a facility like this? Is the size of this building appropriate for 52 beds? Also, enforcement, is what this facility is currently being used for what it was zoned to do? And is there a way for them to enforce it? Also, if this company, which we've heard wonderful things about, if they no longer are in charge of this facility anymore, does any other company get to do this? There were so hundreds of people outside. I stayed outside for most of this meeting that came here to oppose this and couldn't speak, didn't have time, had to go get children and stuff. I just would urge you all to really review if this is the perfect place for this. Because I just can't believe that this would be the only place that Roaring Brook or ZLD could put a place like this. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Name and address, please. My name is Frazier Judstone. I live at 505 Hart Road. I'm here to oppose the application. You can adjust that microphone higher if it's more comfortable. My proposition is I've listened to hours of this, actually weeks of this. And the reason I oppose it is for all the reasons that have been logically and clearly laid out by Ms. Winters, Mr. Billings, and many, many of the people you serve. Their arguments are logically laid out, clearly laid out. On the other hand, while the applicant has made a lot of arguments, I find that most of their arguments are based on emotion. And then the other thing that's worrisome about their arguments is I find them inconsistent and a bit ambiguous. And I really feel like there needs to be a consistent argument. The facts need to stay the same, and I'm not seeing that from the applicant at this time. So I would urge you to pump the brakes on approval of this facility until everyone understands exactly how this is going to work, how those conditions are going to be monitored and enforced. I'm not seeing that. I have not heard that in the hours of speaking that I've heard today. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Anyone else that wants to speak in opposition or support of this application? Chair. Chair. Can I make a point just very quickly about something that was said? Our bylaws do not have a restriction that you have to be within the state. They just say any interested or affected person. So there's not a requirement that you're in the state of Kentucky or that you're a resident of the state of Kentucky to be able to make a comment. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. We have another speaker? Oh, no. Okay. I'm going to give the applicant. I apologize. Are you another speaker? Yes, sir. In support or in? In support. You have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Keith. I do not live in Lexington. But I am an employee of recovery. Did you give your name and address? I'm sorry. 703 west main street in Richmond. I am an employee. But I am also speaking on behalf of somebody who suffers from PTSD who lost his partner on 9-11. And lost friends that day that did not have the opportunity to go to a place like this because it wasn't available. Regardless of where it is, to be in a residential area is actually beneficial for people like myself and people that are suffering from the same things. As well as eating disorders. If I'm in a place where it is a more industrial type of area, I'm going to feel like a caged animal. If I'm in a place where I get to observe, get outside, sit in the backyard, see the sun, do some exercise, whatever that is that helps us to make it through. That's the place that people who suffer or people like me who suffer from it need. We don't need the industrial area. Is it a great area for us? It's a perfect area. Because I am not the only person in here that knows that there are people in the Chevy chase area that suffer from mental health disorders. As well as drug and alcohol abuse. I approve. I would love for this to be approved. So that people like me who is a retired firefighter, paramedic have a place to go to heal. Thank you. Thank you. Now we've heard from both sides and we've heard from the opposition. Mr. Simpson, I'm going to give you ten minutes for a rebuttal. Can we take a recess for a second? One speaker or two speakers, ten minutes is it? You've heard the opposition. If you want to make any clarifications. I do, Mr. Chair. Yes. Mr. Billings mentioned that we can't leave. Are you timing him? Ten minutes? Okay. Testifying. I need recess. Yeah, well. Can I motion for a recess please? What did you say? Recess. The board has asked for a five minute recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Recess. Now we'll have a five minute recess. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪