or look at their mail, so it's a good idea to just know your address. And depending on the capabilities of the phone, if it's an older phone and not the best service, my mic can get close, but I don't think it's where they're exactly at. So it's a good idea to always know your address, always know your surroundings. We get a lot of people say, I'm not from here, but if you can tell me what business you're around or what you see around you, I can pinpoint usually where you are. I grew up here, so I'm very familiar with the streets, and we have this wonderful thing called Google Maps that we can pull up. Okay, I think you're at the Speedway and something else, so I can pull up the map and make sure I'm correct in my head, or somebody that's not from here that works here can figure it out. So you don't necessarily need to know the address, but you just need to tell me what you see, because I don't see what you see. So you tell me what you see, and we can figure out where you're at. I'd like to interject just for a second because Michelle, she does a great job. And a lot of times callers, they don't understand why we're asking the questions. You know, they just want to say, just get me somebody out here now. Well, we're asking those questions, number one, to keep the callers safe and to keep the responders safe and keep them apprised. we are dispatching when we get the location we have the capability to keep adding to the call so responders are actually on the way we just want a picture of the scene so we can relay that to the responders so you're typing information in and the dispatcher's already getting it and and talking to either the police officer or the firefighter before you get off the phone so you don't it's not one of those things that we're not going to tell us anybody until we get off the phone right okay right sometimes they're still on the phone i've arrived on calls and they still have the call taker on like oh it's officer owens i'm here and they're like okay i'm gonna let you go and i'm like oh that's nice to stay on the phone with them because they may be freaking out. We keep them calm or situation changes. You know, when we did, when we first get the call dispatched, the person's in the house and now they're down the street. And so the officers need to know that. And everybody thinks because we ask questions, yes, we're not coming, but it's because we are coming and we might get to you faster. The more questions you ask, the better location we can get, the quicker you can get response. All right. Well, very good information. Lexington is blessed to have the 911 system, the enhanced 911 system that we have and the folks that work here. I've been around for a long time. There's still a few voices that I remember from back in the day on the radio and understanding the importance of what you all do for both the callers and both for the first responders as well. So we appreciate everything you do as far as coordinating and being the director of the Enhanced 911 and everything you do as far as being a call taker. So thank you all very much for joining us today. Thank you. Thank you. and we are back and we just talked to the e911 director and the call taker so now we are going to talk to jessica carreras with dispatch so can you tell us how you became a dispatcher started as a call taker for about six months then got promoted to a telecommunicator senior police dispatch and i've now been doing that for about three years been here about three and a half so love it it's interesting you never know what you're going to get from day to day yeah well you know we talked to the call taker and the call taker is the one obviously dealing with the person that is having the emergency and the stress that's involved with that but you're our lifeline as far as making sure that the officer knows where to go and making sure that the officer is safe and maybe gets back up or whatever they need so what what are some of the things that you have dealt with that are are some of the stressors in your job that can make for a difficult day? My biggest thing is responder safety. I want to make sure everyone goes home at the end of the day, regardless of how I feel, what I'm going through, you know, leave it at the door. Biggest thing for me is location, you know. I don't really mind what you're doing, who you're out with. Just let me know where you are because if you yell for help, if you start chasing someone, shots fired because I've had those calls before, those will just pump the adrenaline make your heart stop and you really just want to get there and get people to them as quick as possible and as a patrolman that's yeah that's what I trained my recruits to or probationary officers was like location location location location because whatever the last location you gave is where they're going to send help and you may be five blocks from there so that car is not stopping give every block that oh we're turning here we're turning here oh we're in this parking lot now and they'll update your location so location is very important for us as well yes if i have to we're going to hold the traffic until we get someone to you if we can't find out where you are that's been a trend today because we talked about the importance of who's calling making sure that you give us location but it's also the first responders obviously knowing our location as well yes so we talked a little bit about the training involved in this so you went to is it uh you go to richmond for dlcjt okay weeks uh they certify you and train on how to handle stress, high priority calls, radio etiquette, just stuff like that. And we're lucky here in Lexington, again, we talked about it being an enhanced 911, so that helped. There's a lot more to learn here, I'm sure, from a telecommunicator side as well. Yes, a lot of information coming at you. So we are here with Paul Hamilton with Fire Dispatch. Thank you for joining us. Can you tell us how you came to be in your position? I came down and started working as a fire dispatcher, and I've been here for 10 years. So we talked a little bit about what a police dispatcher does and the type of communications they deal with as far as working with the officers. So tell us a little bit about the fire department and what goes on with that after the call comes in to 911. I think they parallel quite a bit because we work hand-in-hand with the police dispatchers, but the big difference is every call for service that we get, we're going to dispatch on within 90 seconds. The same concerns, you know, getting the information as to where we're going. If there are any responder safety issues, are there any firearms on scene, are there any knives, are there any biohazards there, you have gas situations. So most of the times in those priority calls, we'll have police going as well. So both Jessica and my job now becomes taking care of both sides of the equation. We have to communicate with her to make sure police officers are safe. She has to communicate with us to make sure our responders are safe. Well, a lot of people, I'm not sure everybody understands that in Lexington, fire services are both the fire department and EC, emergency care units, which are ambulances. So you're dealing with both of those. Yeah, and one unique thing about Lexington, and I believe all of our engines have paramedics on it. And I think it's one of five cities in the United States that have paramedics on their engines. So if this is a critical situation like a chest pain, we're going to send an EC. We have 13 ECs spread throughout the county. We have 24 first responders that we can send. So geographically, we can get a first responder in an engine or a ladder that are quicker that has a paramedic on it to start rendering care before we get on scene. Now, Lexington, like I said, is unique in that we're one of four or five, I think, cities in the United States that does that. We get a lot of questions about that. Why are they sending a fire truck? Well, it's because we're helping people before we can get an ambulance there, and the quicker we can get assistance, the quicker medical care can start, obviously the better outcome we're going to have. And we talked a little bit about the stressors of the job and, you know, the fire department. And as both of you all said, we go to a lot of the same calls, whether it's collisions with injuries or various things. We go to a lot of the same types of calls. But what are some of the stressors that you deal with as far as from dispatching from the fire side? It's similar to Jessica. We want to know where you are. We are unique in that we have GPS, so we can see where their truck is at all times. We can zoom to them on the map. But sometimes when they go into buildings, my great stressor is silence. When I'm calling out on the radio and I don't get a response back. Sometimes they're in these big UK hospitals. Sometimes the radio is not going to work inside. Sometimes, you know, there's a lot going on at the scene, and I'll say, Jessica, hey, holler at your officers. Have them check to make sure my responders are safety. She'll do the same thing. Hey, I can't reach them on the radio. Ask your responders if they see the officer and if he's okay. So in that regard, we have to really make sure we mesh what we do and communicate with whoever the dispatcher is that has that sector that's on scene with our responders? Well, you know, I would like to say that we are a team. Absolutely. And the entire public safety community in Lexington is a team. And we all work together. We all have functions. And, you know, we appreciate and the community appreciates what you all do as far as taking those calls all the way from the call taker into getting officers, getting the fire department on scene, making sure that the folks there are safe, making sure that we're safe. And so we appreciate everything you all do. And we want to thank you for joining us today. Thanks for having us. Thank you. Bajit was so good talking to the folks at E911. I learned a lot even being on patrol, how the setup is down here and everything. Yeah, and again, we're very fortunate in Lexington to have that enhanced 911 and having the people behind the phone calls, people behind the mics talking to us, just great, great team down here at Communications. So the folks out there in Lexington are very fortunate, and we're very fortunate too as first responders. And how important location is. Absolutely. Absolutely. Don't forget that. So, Baj, what are we going to talk about next month? Well, the whole public safety team is a lot of different functions, a lot of different people. But the whole police team involves a lot of different people, too. And you think about sworn, uniformed officers and detectives and all when you think about the police department. But we have a whole lot of folks that are behind the scenes that do amazing work and so much for the police department. So next month we're going to be talking about some of our civilian personnel and some of the different functions they have. It may surprise a lot of folks, things that they do to help us and help the actual folks out in Lexington, too, from that perspective as opposed to just seeing the uniform. And then from there we've got all kinds of different episodes, but I think that's so important to focus on those folks because they play a very, very key role. Yes, they do. So join us next month for another episode of Your Lex PD. We'll be right back. I'm out. guitar solo Sing that song. It was easy. I'm out. We'll be right back. Down on the corner, out in the street, Billy and the Pop-Po's a plan, bringing it to happy feet. Hits the white clothes, people just gotta smile. Lookin' folks at the face, yeah, solos for a while. Pop-Po's playing the rhythm, howl, on his talibu's do. And Willie goes into a dance, doubles on the zoo. Down on the corner Out in the street Willie and the Pope for the plan Bringing his fellow happy feet Down on the corner Out in the street, playing the ball for the plane, bringing it up to happy feet. Well, good afternoon. This is Councilmember Morton representing the 1st District and I'm here with Tim Vaughn with Kentucky 811. And we're here to talk about 811 dig and the process to take before digging. Yeah, summertime. Everybody's doing home projects. Digging is involved with a lot of those. We certainly want those to go safely. And there's a service that we provide statewide. It's called 811. You call or go onto our website, Kentucky811.org, and you request a utility locate. And what we do is notify the utilities in the area and they respond and they put paint down on the ground to mark where their utilities are. So that when you're using that shovel or using whatever tool, you don't hit that utility line. Right, right. So how about you just tell us about the importance of that, why that's needed? Wow. I mean, there could be penalties for violating the law because it is the law that you have to do, that you call 811. In addition to that, if you cause a service problem, a service interruption, then you've got a needless interruption to, So let's say you cut the fiber that's feeding your internet and your television, your services out. Or injuries. Someone could get injured. The cost of having to repair what you damage. And here's the key. Calling 811 is free. It's a free service. So trading free for something that could cost you a lot. There it goes. There it goes. So I know there's some misconceptions out there regarding, you know, if private property owners should do it or if it's just for contractors. Can you talk a little bit about the misconceptions? Sure. If that's for everybody? That is a good point. Most people think that this is geared just for the large contractors that's doing the big construction job. Nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, let's say that on a Saturday morning project, you're replacing your mailbox. It's about a foot off the edge of the road. Guess what else is about a foot off the edge of the road? This is a damaged gas line where someone got into it with a backhoe tooth. And if you've got this located, when you're digging that foot off the edge of the road, then you know it's down there, so you dig differently and use hand tools very carefully. Well, and what could that lead to? Gas, water, many different types of things. Well, this is a plastic gas line. Most gas lines are plastic nowadays throughout pretty much the whole state. You've got an escape of gas, so now you've got a response that needs to take place from emergency responders. The fire department's got to roll out on a gas job. Columbia Gas, who's very concerned about the safety. So they spend a lot of time and effort and money promoting safety around their facilities. But they've got to respond. now their workers are in jeopardy and working around blowing gas. Right, right. And no one wants blowing gas. And just with one call, 811, and maybe a couple minutes of a conversation, you don't hit that gas line, huh? That's right. And it's not just gas. It's water, electric, fiber, sewer, all the utilities that you have at your property. Okay, okay. Can you tell us a little bit about the color code system and what that really is? Sure. So there is an international color system that's used by the utilities to locate their facilities. It's funny that gas pipe is yellow because that's their color that they're going to mark it with. That's by design. That's not anything, but it's planned that way. Blue is for water. And you go to our website, and you can download a file that shows you what all the colors mean. Everybody's probably driven down the road in an intersection to see paint marked on the street. That's what that is. That's where someone is doing a project or have done a project, and we've had the utility lines marked with the different colors to indicate what different utilities are below the ground. I'm big for spreading information and this right here is actually a great tool to spread information. But what other sources or resources with information could folks use? Sure, our website. We just launched a new website last week as a matter of fact. It's full of training videos, full of information, just a ton of stuff that's there. It's Kentucky811.org and that's where you can actually go to request the utility locate. You don't have to call on the phone anymore. Go straight to the website and do it. Kentucky811.org. There it goes. And one last thing you want to tell the folks out there. Always call before you dig. Always go online and notify 811. It's the smart thing to do and it could save your life. There you go. There you go. All right. Well, you've got a cool little flag in your hand right there, and I know that there's also some misconceptions with those flags. Can you tell me a little about those and the importance of keeping those in place and what they actually mean? Sure. So, as Tim mentioned, sometimes when we get a call to locate our lines, we may use paint. But in some cases, we may use little flags like this. And so it's very, very important that you not remove those flags if you do see them in your yard. When someone calls to request a line be located, that locate ticket is good for 21 days. So after that period, then the excavator, if they haven't excavated yet, would have to call in another locate to have that done again. But again, that's another reason why just because you see them out there and you think, oh, wow, that flag's been out there for a week. It's still good. Leave it alone. And another thing too is that just because you see a yellow flag that says Columbia Gas on it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a Columbia Gas project. It may be a city project. It may be a water project, something like that. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a Columbia Gas project. So how do they find out if it's not a Columbia Gas project or if they just want to know what project it is? How can they figure that out? So Kentucky811.org, you can go on there and do a ticket search and put in the address of where you saw those flags. and it should be able to show you exactly what company requested those utilities be marked. Yes, ma'am. And you say do not remove the flag, huh? Right. You leave those flags right there, yeah. Yes, indeed. And can you just, I guess, talk a little about the importance of not removing the flag and what that might entail if they do remove the flag? Right. So, yeah, if you remove those flags, those are very, very important for whoever is going to be doing the excavation in that area. So if they don't have those guides to go by, it's very easy for them to then hit one of the underground utility lines, be it a gas line or electric or water or whatever. So it's very important to leave those in place because they're there for a very good reason. 100%. And assuming that they hit that, that could directly have a direct impact on those surrounding communities and those neighbors that are the reasons to fight for that, I guess. That's right. That's right. It's just to keep everybody safe. There you go. If for any reason at any time you smell gas, you smell natural gas, please call Columbia Gas, the emergency line, which is 800-432-9515, and report that. We will come out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and investigate that odor. It's all about safety. Don't hesitate to call. Yes, indeed. So if you see any flags in the ground or if you see paint marked on the ground, and you just are curious about what's taking place there or if they're going to dig there, you can go to KY811 to get more information. And always remember, if you do happen to hit a gas line or hit a line when digging, please call 911. Don't take it into your own hands. call 9-1-1 and make sure the appropriate personnel responds to the scene. So just remember, before you dig, call 8-1-1. That's the important piece. Yeah! I took it all for granted How was I to know To be letting go Now it cuts like a knife Yeah, but it feels so right Now it cuts like a knife Yeah, but it feels so right Yeah Oh, it comes like a night But it feels so right, baby Oh, it comes like a night Not you tonight I can't stand up now I can't stand up now I can't stand up now Yeah, yeah I can't stand up now Thank you. I took a look down Westbound Road, right away I made my choice. Headed out to my big two-wheeler, I was tired of my own boy. The beat on the northern plains and just roll that power on. Twelve hours out of Mackinac City, stopped at a bar to have a brew. Met a girl and we had a few drinks and I told her what I'd decided to do. She looked out the window a long, long moment and she looked into my eyes. She didn't have to say a thing I knew what she was thinking Roll me away Won't you roll me away I too am lost I feel double crossed I'm sick of what's wrong It was right We never even said a word We just walked out And got on that back And we roll And we roll clean out of sight We roll across the high plains Deep into the mountains Felt so good to me Finally feeling free Somewhere along a high road Air began to turn cold She said she missed her home I had it all along Oh guitar solo Still on a mountaintop, staring out at the great divide. I could go east, I could go west, it was all up to me to decide. Just then I saw a young heart flying and my soul began to rise. And pretty soon. My heart was singing Roll, roll me away I wanna roll me away tonight Gotta keep rolling, gotta keep riding Keep searching till I find what's right And as the sunset faded I spoke to the famous first star I said next time Next time we'll get it right. We're all the way. We're all the way. Come on! Roll the away! Tried to amend my carnivorous habits Made in nearly 70 days Losing weight without speed Eating sunflower seeds Drinking lots of carrot juice And soaking of a race But if not I'd have these wonderful dreams Some kind of sensuous treat Not zucchini, pettuccine, bulgur wheat But a big warm bun and a huge chunk of meat Cheeseburger in paradise How about all cookies and onion slice Not too particular, not too precise I'll just stop Cheeseburger in paradise Heard about the old-time sailor men They eat the same thing again and again Warmed in bread They said it could raise a dead world It reminds me of the menu at a holiday And times have changed for sailors these days When I'm at port I get what I need Not just habanas or bananas or daiquiris But that America creation all which I feed Cheeseburger in paradise Medium rare with mustardy knife Heaven on earth with an onion slice I'm just a cheeseburger in paradise. I like mine with lettuce and tomato. Pots, 57, and French fried potatoes. Big kosher pickle and a cold wrap. farewell good god almighty which way do i steer from my cheeseburger in paradise making the best of every virtue and vice worth every damn bit of sacrifice to get a cheeseburger in paradise cheeseburger in paradise cheeseburger in paradise I like mine with lettuce and tomato Hots, fifty-seven, and franks fried potatoes Big kosher pickle and a cold-wrapped beer Well, good God Almighty, which way do I steer? If you want it, here it is. Come and get it. Make your mind up fast. If you want it, anytime. I can give it. But you better hurry, cause it may not last. Did I hear you say that there must be a catch? Will you walk away from a fool and his money? If you want it, here it is, come and get it But you better hurry cause it's going fast If you want it, here it is, come and get it Make your mind up fast If you want it, anytime I can give it But you better hurry cause it may not last Did I hear you say that there must be a catch? Will you walk away from a fool and his money? Sonny, if you want it, here it is Come and get it But you better hurry Cause it's going fast You better hurry Cause it's going fast Ooh, ooh Ooh, that is money Sonny, if you want it Here it is Come and get it But you better hurry cause it's going fast. You better hurry cause it's going fast. You better hurry cause it's going fast. I know when to go out. I know when to stay in. Get things done. I catch a paperboard But things don't really change I'm standing in the wind But I never wave by But I try I try There's no sign of life It's just the power to talk I'm lying in the rain Better never wait by-bye But I try I try Never gonna fall for What's beside me What's on fire Gets me to the church on time Church on time Televise me Church on time Makes me darling Chug your time Whips my trust in God and man God and man No conventure God and man No revenge God and man Don't believe in mother love We'll be right back. But I never went by by But I try I try Never gonna fall for hard enough What's beside me Hard enough What's on by Hard enough Gets me to the church on time Church on time Terrifies me Church on time Makes me fall in church on time Whits my trust in God and man God and man No confession God and man No religion God and man Don't believe in modern love Modern love Walk beside me Modern love Walked on by Modern love Gets me to the church on time Church on time Terrifies me Church of life makes me body. Church of life puts my trust in God and man. God and man, no confession. God and man, no religion. God and man, I don't believe in modern love. Bye. Thank you. so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Everyone, please take a seat. Silence all your cell phones. If you need to take a call, just step out of the hallway. I'd like to recognize our planning staff would be on your left. Tracy Wade, Daniel Crum, Rael Browning, Patty Haley. I'd like to congratulate Rael on her promotion to the Board of Adjustment Senior Planner. Congratulations. Our legal counsel is Brittany Smith. Our board members, left to right, your left, James Persley. Chad Walker is absent today. Linda Tucker. I'm Bob Sturdivant. I'll be chairing the meeting today. To my left, Harry Clark, Ross Boggess, and Brandon Gross will be here shortly. I'd like to recognize any active or retired military that might be in the room. If that's you, please stand up. Thank you for your service. You should have picked up a copy of the agenda in the hallway. We are starting on that now. our first item will be considering the minutes of october 2025 for approval have all the board members reviewed the october minutes do you have any questions could i have a motion please move to approve the october 2025 minutes Is your mic on? A second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can you repeat what the motion was, please? Who did the motion? Linda Tucker, second by? Second. Harry Clark. I guess that's everybody. Thank you. Motion's passed. All of those who plan to speak on behalf of or in opposition to an application, please stand up and be sworn in. Raise your right hand. You promised to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Thank you. Please be seated. The other handout you should have picked up tells you about this next process called sounding the agenda. and the reason we do this is to expedite the meeting and take the easy cases first. Our docket has two sections. Section A is for variances and conditional use permits, and Section B is for short-term rentals. Each section has two parts, expedited and heard. In order to be on the expedited list, planning has to recommend approval or have no opposition. And to be on the heard list, planning recommends disapproval or there's opposition present. The same goes for the short-term rental side of the docket. So we're going to go through each one of the cases, put them in the appropriate place on the docket and move on with the meeting. If you pull out your agenda, please, on page one. Our first case is PLNBOA 26-52, James Matthews. He's requesting a variance to increase the height of a wall. Staff has recommended disapproval. So this will go on the conditional uses and variance. Her docket is number one. It'll be PLNBOA 26-52. Is the applicant here? I'm here. Okay. We will call you later. Okay. Thank you. So 26-52 goes first on the herd docket. At the bottom of page 1, PLNBOA 26-54. Erna Vestrig and Siri Yeramchuk asking for a variance to reduce the minimum length of the driveway. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Staff has recommended approval on this. Is there any opposition to this variance? Hearing none. PLNBOA 26-54. We'll go first on the conditional use and variances expedited docket. Flipping to page two of your agenda. PLNBOA 26-59, Kenwick Partners, LLC. Are you represented today? Yes. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this. Is there anyone here in opposition to this application? Hearing none, PLNBOA 26-59 will be number two. Whose cell phone is that? Thank you. All right, recapping. PLNBOA 26-59, Kenwick Partners, LLC, will be placed number two on the expedited docket for conditional uses and variances. Flipping to page three of your agenda, we're now under conditional use appeals. PLNBOA 26-38, the Berea Christian Church. I'm here representing and we're going to be asking for a post-conference. Is there a reason for that? Yes, we have a revised site plan. Thank you. Yes, we have a revised site plan. We still need to present to staff and show them, and we also agreed to meet with the Neighborhood Association Spindletop and meet with them and show them our revised site plan before we proceeded with the hearing. So we'd like to have those meetings and see if we can get a consent agreement on things before we go forward. So are you requesting postponement until the September meeting? Yes, I believe that's September 14th, if I'm not mistaken. So we'd like to request postponement until the September 14th meeting. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I recommend a postponement of BLM POA 26-38, Berea Christian Church, to the September 14th meeting. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Thank you. Motion passes. Moving on to page 4 of the agenda. Our next case is PLNBOA 26-55, Jessica P. Justice. This is a short-term rental. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not the matter to speak. Thank you. Staff has recommended disapproval on this, so we will put that as the first STR on the herd list, PLNBOA 26-55. Moving down the page, PLNBOA 26-57. This is also a short-term rental. Jacob and Lindsay Coleman, are you here? Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this application. Is there anyone here in opposition? Hearing none, we will move PLNBOA 26-57. As the first item on the expedited docket for short-term rentals, please flip to page 5 of your agenda. PLN BOA 26-60, LFG 1, LLC. So Chair Sturdivant, the applicant for this application reached out to staff prior to the hearing in writing to withdraw their application today. Okay. What was this? So this application has been withdrawn formally. Yes. Thank you. Is that a permit of the fraud? The applicant indicated in writing that they did not have an intention of pursuing a conditional use permit at the property in the future, and that was coming from LFG1, LLC, specifically. Thank you. Next item at the bottom of page 5, PLNBOA 26-61. Thank you, everyone. Abby Jones Consulting. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of both the conditional use permit and the variance. So I'm trying to figure out where to put this on the docket. Are you in agreement on both of those conditions? Okay. Well, I'm going to put you on as third. Chair, I don't know if there's anybody here in opposition to this application, so I think that would dictate. There is opposition? No, we haven't asked if there was. Yes, yes. Any opposition to this application? PLNBOA 2661. Hearing none. We'll put you as item 3 on the conditional uses variances expedited docket. That will be 26-61. That is all the cases for today. And we'll start calling our cases. The first case is PLN BOA 26-54. Vestrick and Sergei Yaramuk. Am I anywhere pronouncing that close? Staff has recommended approval of this application based on subject to the following two conditions. Are you representing them? Yes. And your name is? Cole Guthrie. So you're familiar with the conditions? Yes. And you're in agreement with those? Yes. The board have any questions? I have a question. It looks like there's a notice of violation on the back. Well, it says, I was just curious about that. I believe that the notice was sent. And then following that, the applicant reached out to staff to start the Board of Adjustment application process. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any further questions? May I have a motion, please? Motion for approval of PLN BOA 260054. With the request of variance to reduce the minimum length of driveway from the beginning location to the flare from 15 feet to 13 feet, 6 inches within the infill redevelopment area in the Sickle Family Residential R1C zone, property located at 643 East Loudoun Avenue based off of the staff recommendation. Subject to the conditions. Subject to the conditions, the two conditions. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. You've been approved. Thank you. Thank you. Our second case on our expedited docket for conditional uses and variances, PLN 26-59, Kenwick Partners, LLC. Please step to the podium. Staff has recommended approval of this application. Are you aware of the conditions? We are aware, Mr. Chairman. And are you in agreement with those? We are in agreement. Board members have any questions? Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of PLNBOA 2659 Kenwick Partners' request for variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 7 feet to 20 feet in order to construct a single family residence within the infill and redevelopment area. in a mixed low density residential zone on property at 272 lincoln avenue based upon the stats report and subject to the conditions second have a motion and a second any further discussion hearing none please cast your vote You've been approved. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item number three on our conditional uses and variances expedited docket. It's PLNBOA 26-61, Abby Jones Consulting. Staff recommends approval of your conditional use permit. Based on five conditions, are you aware of those? Yes, we're aware and we find them acceptable. Thank you. We're going to take two votes on this. We're going to vote on the conditional use permit and then we're going to vote on the variance. If there's any questions on the conditional use permit. Linda, do you have a question? I was just reading the staff recommendation to reduce the required side yard setback from 25 feet to 4 feet and reduce the required vehicle use to the perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 2 feet. So I was just reading that. And you're okay with that? Yes. This is a modification to an existing facility, so we're matching a lot of existing conditions there. Sure. Thank you. Okay, our first vote is going to be on approval of the conditional use permit. Could I have a motion, please? Mr. Chair, move to approve conditional use permit for PLN BOA 26-0061 Abby Jones and Consulting. reduce the required side yard setback from 25 feet to 4 feet and 4 feet and 2 reduce the required vehicle use area perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 2 feet. Mr. Percy, I believe we're just doing the conditional use permit, are we not right now? Because you mentioned that you're just doing the motion for the conditional use permit, not the variance right now. Okay, so that wouldn't affect the setback. Apologize then. approval for the conditional use permit and the recommendations that the staff had outlined. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Did you mention subject to the conditions? Yes. Okay, just want to make sure. Sorry, I was flipping through. And congratulations on taking the hardest motion of the day. Appreciate that. Thank you. The conditional use permit is passed. Our next vote will be on the variance request. Grab a motion, please. Mr. Chair, we'll move to approve PLNBOA 26-0061 for the approval of the variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 25 feet to 4 feet and reduce the required vehicular use area perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 2 feet. in addition with the staff's conditions. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Your application's been approved. Thank you. Thank you so much. Now we're going to move on to our conditional use and variances. Her docket. Our first item is PLNBOA 26-52, James Matthews. Staff has recommended disapproval. Staff will present first, and then we'll call you up. Good afternoon, everyone. Ryle Browning with planning staff, and this is PLNBOA 26-52, James Matthews, and they're requesting a variance to increase the maximum height of a wall in the Side Street side yard from four feet to five feet in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 298 Lafayette Parkway in Council District 10. So here's an aerial view of the property, so you can see the subject property. It might be a little bit hard to see, but it's outlined in orange right here, and it fronts along Lafayette Parkway, which is located here, And then it also has its side street side yard along Reed Lane here. We can also see Lafayette High School located across the street from the subject property along Reed Lane. And then for reference, Clay's Mill Road is located here. So here's a street view of the subject property from Lafayette Parkway. So the area of concern is going to be along this line of hedges that is along Reed Lane. and then we can see also from the street view from Reed Lane that this is the area where the wall is being proposed so there are hedges located here and then part of that has been removed and this is where the wall is being proposed. So here's a site plan of the subject property and the residence currently features that existing hedgerow along the property line that partially screens the yard along Reed Lane and it initially extended from the corner of Reed Lane and Lafayette Parkway to the subject properties driveway, but based on the most recent street view imagery, a portion of that hedge has been removed from the area where the wall is being proposed. And the proposed wall is located here, and it would be 50 feet long, 5 feet high, and 2 feet deep. And the applicant states that the reason for replacing the hedge includes maintenance challenges, and they also state that the 5-foot wall would provide privacy from the activities that take place at Lafayette High School, but that the usable space of the north side of the yard would be reduced by the setback of three feet or greater from the right-of-way. So staff is recommending disapproval for the following reasons. A, the applicant has not provided a sufficient justification to meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance or KRS 100-243. There do not appear to be any special circumstances that are unique to the subject property that don't generally apply to land in the general vicinity or in the same zone that justify the need for the variance. Four-foot tall fences in the side street side yard are typical across the residential zones. B, granting the variance could have adverse effects on the public health, safety, or welfare as a five-foot fence would reduce the site distances and create a hazard for pedestrians and drivers in close proximity to a public school. In C, the applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine that strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship or deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land the applicant could reduce the height of the fence to four feet without needing the variance and if you all have any questions at this time i'd be happy to answer them any questions for ryle thank you thank you Mr. Matthews, please come up to the podium and state your case. My name is James Hunter Matthews Jr. I'm sorry. It's okay. We need to get you on the record by microphone. My name is James Hunter Matthews Jr. and this is my wife and co-owner. Nancy Cristiano. And we live at 298 Lafayette Parkway. Thank you for this opportunity. I know being on this board is, I'm sure, a short sometimes. I'd also like to thank the planning staff who has, although they disapproved, recommended disapproval, they have helped me a great deal, particularly Rael, and I really appreciate that. This is what our fence will look like, roughly. This is not an exact model. This is just taken from the internet of a fence approximately like we want to do. Staff has said that we haven't met the special requirements and I intend to show you that we have. They worried about the effect on public health and I'll show you there will be no effect on public health and we'll supply justifications on why we hope you'll approve it. So Rael has pretty well stated this already in our justification letter. We have a six foot tall hedge that we wanna replace with a five foot wall along Reed Lane, which is our side yard. We're both in our 60s, so it's getting harder to maintain that hedge. The hedge has a limited lifespan. If you're familiar with chestnut blight or emerald ash borer, it's coming for the hedge, boxwood blight. And we need it for privacy and security. Next slide, please. And she's addressed why we need a variance because a four foot wall we could build flush to the sidewalk, a five foot wall requires a three foot offset. And the reason we want a tall wall there is, and we don't want a three foot offset, is that is our only living area. Our yard is constructed so that the rest of the yard is not usable for outdoor living. A three-foot offset would take away a lot of our space. So this is our backyard. As you can see, there's not much space there for entertainment. This is our yard to the south where you see the stone there. That is our side yard on the south side. This is our front yard. It's a nice long green space designed for a parkway, but there's no living space. And this is our side yard. This is where we spend time with neighbors and friends and walk our dog and all those things that people normally do. This is the edge where you see the cars parked on the street there where we would like to put a wall. And this is some more pictures of our side yard and you can see Lafayette Parkway there with 1,895 teenagers right across the street from us. Normally a very well mannered I might add. Other reasons. We have two scheduled traffic jams a day during school days. every day during school. It gets quite noisy between the 16-year-old new drivers, impatient parents all together. Something's going on almost every night, it seems, at Lafayette, which we like. It enlivens the neighborhood. But as you can imagine, honking horns from football games, people cheering on their favorite teams, etc. No privacy in the back of the room. Yeah, and no privacy. The drum line is also one of our perks living there. They play outside in front of Beeler and we can hear the drums until 9 o'clock in the evening. They cut it dead right there because the principal makes them do it. And we enjoy it most of the time, but it would be nice to have a little sound barrier. The other issue is security. There's a lot of petty theft in the area, normally by people moving through, and we've had several things stolen. Now we take precautions. Our patio furniture and our barbecue gear is cable locked, but we think a wall would help discourage additional thievery. All right. As I said, the existing hedge is days are numbered. There is no cure for boxwood blight. Several hundreds of boxwoods were taken out of the Henry Clay estate, I think about a year ago if you remember that. And I've got some quotes there from smart people about basically it will kill your hedge eventually. It spreads slowly. It's a gummy bacteria that spreads by wind, so it doesn't spread very quickly unless it's spread often by contaminated hedge trimming. On the safety side, in bullet 7, the staff has concerns that increasing the allowable height of the wall to 5 feet will reduce the sight distance from the subject's property driveway. Well, we are replacing a six-foot hedge with a five-foot fence. So the sight distance will be increased, not decreased. And it should be noted, the photos that you've seen were after we had cut the hedge down in preparation before we knew that we needed a variance for anything like that. So it's in the process of going back. It's about up to here now. I'm five foot four, just for reference. And so, you know, all the photos that I think you've seen were of it either cut all the way down or, you know, very, very short. So it's getting back its height now. Thank you. There's a typographical error on our site plan where it measures the distance from the road to the inside edge of the sidewalk. Inside edge of the sidewalk, it's marked 2-0 and it should be 12. In other words, it's written as two feet when the correct distance is 12 feet. And if you look at the image, you can see where that makes sense from a scale point. And I apologize, that may have given the staff some bad information to work with on site distances. A portion of the hedge has been removed from the area where the wall is proposed. That was true, it was, but it's back. It's got deep roots. It's been there for at least 60 years, perhaps 70. So the entire 100 feet of hedge is there now. Half of it's taller than the other half. So it will reach six feet again next year, barring winter burn or if we get that nasty disease coming. So there's some pictures of the current hedge. This is looking from our driveway towards Lafayette Parkway on Reed Lane. So you can see it's shorter and then it gets higher. All right. And that's me at the six-foot session showing how high it is now, which is higher than a five-foot wall. And this is me at the section that was cut down, which is now at four feet. So that section until it grows higher is actually shorter. And this is some pictures of when the hedge is at its typical height. These were taken before we cut down 50 feet of the hedge in anticipation of a wall. One of the things that staff notes is that side yard walls are not common in the area. We think they're quite common on corner lots. These are some examples of people in our neighborhood who have put up side walls because they have a corner lot and want to protect the side of their yard. 21 Rosemont Garden. It's a nice fence, no problems with it. And I don't have problems with any of these fences, and I think they all worked a code when, you know, they were built or anything. I believe they're eight feet. Yeah, this one's, yes, some of them are eight feet. But this is 247 Southport Drive. It's just down Reed Lane from us. It actually, the side is against Reed Lane. The frontage is Southport, but it's right across from the football field, just for reference. He's doing the same thing we would like to do, have a little privacy. This is catty-cornered across the street. This is our neighbor, and their interpretation of a wall. Ours will be a little more traditional. A lot more traditional. Next one. This is another example on Rosemont. Rosemont, there are two houses across from each other on Rosemont that have again side fences. And another one. Another issue that the staff had was that our our wall would be out of character, but they provided no justification of why it would be out of character. It was just a statement. And I don't know how red brick can be out of statement where we live. I call them little Lego houses. So this is just the house is our house, and it's the high school and some signposts. But if you're familiar with that neighborhood, it's the most common building substance. there are some nice limestone houses and a few other things. But it certainly fits the character of the neighborhood. I'd like to go back a couple slides. Could you lower the microphone a little bit when you speak? I'd like to go back a couple slides. Thank you. Thanks. The fences that we've shown you, with the exception of that one, all have driveways coming out of them that are similar to ours. and we've been there for 15 years. The house has been there for 70 years. Coming out of the driveway is not an issue. We are, well, we're cautious for one thing. There's a lot of kids in the neighborhood. We have dog walkers. We walk dogs. So it's not the blind spot that one would think because we've got 12 foot of driveway. even when you're pulling out of the driveway, and we back in because otherwise we can't get out because the parents just won't break traffic to let you out. So we back in and we pull out going forward so that we can see if there's anybody coming from any direction. And that's pretty much common practice with all of these yards that have fences going all the way up to the driveway. It's just what we have to do there because of the school. So I just wanted to make that noticed. One last thing on the site distance. The wall will be lower than the hedge, and it will be further back from the sidewalk than the hedge. So site distance will improve slightly in all issues here. This is a modified list that the city gave us of our neighbors that we had to address a letter from the city telling them of the action we proposed. The ones in green, including ourselves, are people who supported the proposal and wrote a letter or a statement saying, we support our neighbors building a wall. The ones who didn't Lafayette High School, I didn't ask them. Patrick Hallowell lives in Minneapolis. I didn't ask him. The apples, I wasn't able to get a hold of them. And Mr. Tut has passed away last year, and his wife is in poor health, and doesn't need me bothering her about an issue like that. Okay. I did include one more, just one copy of the letter from Dr. Anthony Orr, our neighbor, but he is also the principal at Lafayette High School. And he has said some things in there that, you know, he supports it, but he also says that we've never complained about the buses and the noise and anything like that. And the last paragraph there, I am confident that the planned work will not create an eyesore nor compromise the beauty and safety of the neighborhood. So we appreciate that. So he's writing that as a neighbor, not as the principal, but we do have that. Anything else, sweetie? Really, the negative impact on us is having to maintain the hedge and cut it. And, you know, the earth is getting hotter. He can't do that. He has asthma, so that's me. And I'm getting old, too, not as old. But it's just getting to be, it's hard work to trim that hedge. Last time we did it, I think it cost $900. No, it was $1,400. And we have to trim it three times a year. And we do realize that we still will have half of it, but I'm okay letting that go away completely, the other half that's not surrounding our backyard. If that goes away at some point, I'm fine with that because it's in the front yard. And that's kind of my hope at some point is just not to have to have this hedge to trim as well. Physically, he can't do it, and we are getting older. We don't feel it poses a safety risk to the pedestrian traffic or the street traffic. You know, we use, we have a huge dog walking neighborhood, and we have lots, obviously lots of kids in the neighborhood. And so it's, you know, 70 years we've not had an accident there that we're aware of. And in the 15 years that we've lived there, we've not had any kind of issue or accident. So we thank you for your time. Any questions of us? Oh, yes. Well, questions for the Matthews? I'd like to just say I used to live on Lafayette Parkway, so I know your house, many years ago. I would like to ask also, what do you feel about the difference between a four-foot fence and a five-foot fence? What does that do for you that a four-foot fence wouldn't do? Well, I feel like there's two issues. One would be privacy. And the other one, I feel like a four-foot fence is scalable by a human being, easier than it would be to climb over a five-foot fence. You know high school kids will climb over five-foot fence without any problem. You know, we've not had any issues with high school kids whatsoever. They are wonderful. They're respectful. It's the people that are coming through the neighborhood at, you know, 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning that's our concern. The high school kids are not a concern. You know, they're great. And you're right, sir. It's just a matter of degree. It's one more foot. Yeah. I also know the band director, Lafayette, very well. I can ask him to just get rid of the drums. Well, our son was in the drum line, so we feel like we've paid our dues. We had five kids. We put our Lafayette flag out. Yep. So, yeah, no, we're fans of Lafayette. We had kids that went there as well. We knew the high school was there when we moved there. We're not, don't hate it. No. No. Any further questions? Tracy? Yeah, I just wanted to offer some perspective on why the ordinance is drafted the way it is, it has more to do with the person walking on the sidewalk and protecting that space. Because there's a phenomenon where if you are walking next to something that is a certain height, it's called the shy distance. If it's only three or four feet tall, you don't mind being up against it. But at five, six, or eight feet tall, it becomes more of an impediment. And and people tend to space themselves away from it. And when you only have a three or four foot sidewalk, that doesn't give, people tend to not use a foot or two of the sidewalk and scoot away from a taller object. And so the ordinance was drafted to ensure that people along the sidewalk, again, in the public right-of-way, have the space that they need to move, especially if it's an ADA issue, if somebody's in a wheelchair or using a stroller or something like that, that they would have the room in the right-of-way to be able to maneuver. And again, for ADA compliance, it's a three-foot width. So the closer a taller object is to that, the more it impedes the movement on the sidewalk. Okay, that is a really good point. As we said, the fence will be shorter and further from the sidewalk. Than the hedge. So the height distance from the sidewalk and from the street and from the driveway will be improved under this scenario. Yeah, the wall will essentially be shorter than the hedge would be. And when the hedge grows out, it actually overgrows on the sidewalk. That's why we try to keep it trimmed up. because we have people walking. The ordinance doesn't address the hedges. Yeah, and that's been our privacy fence, or the home's privacy fence for 70 years. So we just want to replace it with something that's easier to maintain due to our age as well as being, I guess, safer than the hedge overgrowing on the sidewalk as well. I don't think that we have an issue with a fence or a wall. It's just the location of it, the proximity to the right-of-way. I could hire a traffic engineer and bring you drawings of sight. How would you feel about a post at the end of our driveway with a mirror on it? I was driving home from work on Shinaway the other day, and they have a brick wall that goes right up to the sidewalk. And I just happened to, out of the corner of my eye, caught it. and I went, huh, that's a good idea. I mean, would that be acceptable? I mean, I'm willing to do that at the end of the driveway so that, you know, that gives the person that's walking along the wall a visual of a car that might be pulling out, and it gives the driver of the car a visual of somebody that's walking along the wall. That would be acceptable. I would be, you know, open to that. So that's not really my purview. So the privacy y'all are desiring is that the pedestrian that's on the sidewalk would not be able to look straight into your living room? Yes, living room, dining room. And park. And our, well, in our, basically our only patio area. It's our only backyard. And we have 21 feet. And, you know, three feet cuts that back. yeah it's that that is our only space that's our only outdoor space to sit to sit out so i think some interesting conditions here i totally do agree with the the shy space that what that creates on the sidewalk i'm also very familiar with on my walking path of the ashland park where things like this do already exist and also there's the overgrown hedges that do exist that not only create the shy space but also extend into the sidewalk. Seeing how much street parking there is, I'm also not terribly concerned about the sightline. Even though the stop bar, you'd have to peek a little bit past that, clear the pedestrian, and then clear all of the parallel parking that you all have on the school frontage. So I'm not terribly concerned about the sight lines. And I do find it to be an unusual space with the school across the street. Honestly, the parallel parking is more of a danger than anything. Kids will come out from on the street. You can't get out of the driveway. I creep as slow as I can when I leave for work. and I've got one foot on the brake because the parents just stack up in the parallel parking. And that's probably the, I mean, I am all the way at the end of the driveway and crept out into the street, creeping past that last vehicle to just get out. So that's probably more of a danger than, that is the biggest danger there. as far as that goes. Yeah, that was part of my concern, sorry, with the five foot, because when I went by there, you guys have a beautiful, it looks like I didn't go in and barbecue, but it looks like you have a beautiful barbecue area. Yeah, it's a nice outdoor kitchen. But not all, but a lot of high school kids are over four feet, and so they would be able to, that is a huge pedestrian bicycle hole area, and they would be able to see you kind of backing out, I think, better with a four-foot fence than a five-foot fence. And I realize there's been a six-foot hedge there. And will be. Well, and will be. Yeah, you could try some hollies or something. I don't know. But my concern, too, is with them, not just you, which I really appreciate you being very careful with them, but they need to also be careful. and I don't know that a mirror would, and we can't do anything to enforce a mirror. We're talking about the sidewalk versus the road, and we don't back out. We back in and pull out forward. You have to. There's no way you'll get out of the driveway. I understand, but I've also been a pedestrian and almost been hit by somebody coming out, And so I think that the visibility for both of you all, just this is my perspective after looking at your property, would be better with the four foot than the five foot. That's just my opinion on that, particularly with the school being right there and all the parking and stuff. And I appreciate that. I guess I'm just looking at the neighbors that have the eight-foot fences right along the sidewalk as well and wondering why my five-foot fence is, you know, they have eight-foot fences all the way up to the driveway. And, you know, I guess that's where I'm at. You know, why can they have an eight-foot fence and then I can't have a five-foot? And we're not going with a wooden fence. We wanted something that looked nice and, you know, consistent with the brick in the neighborhood. Any further questions? What happens when the rest of the boxwoods die? Would you say, well, we just have to do more five-foot fence? No. No. No, that would be the rest of them are in the front yard, and so then they'll just go away. Okay. And, yeah, there's no need for a fence in the front yard. That's not, we don't, you know, our patio is not in the front. It's in the back. Yeah. Gotcha. Yeah. Any further questions for the applicant? Any further discussion? Could I have a motion, please? I'll make a motion for PLNBOA 2652, James Matthew, for the request of a variance to increase the maximum height of a wall and the side street side yard from four feet to five feet in a single family residential zone on the property located at 298 La Paule at Park Play. And I'm going to agree with staff for the disapproval for the reasons listed there and for just the safety of it. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please cast your vote. Not here. We have a 3-2 vote for disapproval. Thank you all for coming in. Thank you for your consideration and time. Yes, sir. Thank you. Could I have the original of the letters? I'm sorry. They are. Sorry, we need those for the record. I have a photocopy. Would that work or do you need the originals? I can give you the originals. You already have a photocopy? There's two photocopies up here somewhere. It's got a cover sheet with a green Microsoft Excel spreadsheet on it. You didn't mess those out, Hunter. I think we probably need that version. We keep the originals? Yes. And then if you need a copy, we can scan it. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. Now we're going to move into our short-term rental application docket. Our first case is number one on the expedited docket, PLNBOA 26-57, Jacob and Lindsey Coleman. Could you please step up to the microphone, please? Hello. Staff has recommended approval of this application based on, let's see, four conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, sir. And you're in agreement with those? Yes. Have any questions for the applicant? So on your application, it says that you live at this property. Is that correct? or where do you, there's no like contact person or representative info and we have to have that on the application? We do not live at that property currently. We live at 362 Hellandale Road. We own the house and have had it as a long-term rental for the past several years. There's no one living there currently. Okay. So are you then, so you would be the contact person or representative and you live at Glendale Road? Hill and Dale Road. Oh, Hill and Dale. Okay. 360 Hill and Dale. Yeah. Okay. Any further questions? Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLN BOA 26, that's 57. Jacob and Lindsay Coleman request for a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental with an infill and redevelopment area in a single-family residential zone, a property located at 286 Rose Mountain Garden, based on the staff's recommendation and the four conditions. How do I get out of this? I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Please cast your vote. You've been approved. Thank you. Thank you. Just make sure on the licensing when you go through revenue to get your information put in. Right. That was actually a question I had. So we've obtained the business license and the special fees license, I believe. There was like a third license that we need to obtain before listing the property. Is that correct? Yeah. You need a zoning compliance permit, which this action by the Board of Adjustment actually prompts our office to generate that zoning compliance permit. So you should receive it within about a week of today's hearing and then you take that to revenue with the rest of your paperwork and they'll issue the special fee license. Thank you. Thank you. Our last case is PLN BOA 26-55. Staff has recommended disapproval of this application and will present first. Okay, good afternoon everyone. Rael Browning with planning staff and this is PLN BOA 26-55, Jessica B. Justice. And they are requesting a conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the infill and redevelopment area in a single-family residential zone on property located at 429 Ferguson Street, which is in Council District 11. So here's an aerial view of the subject property. You can see it outlined in blue. It's located here. And it's located near the corner of Ferguson Street and Martin Street. And then here is a street view of the subject property, so you can see that there is a vacant lot between that corner, and this is from Ferguson Street. And then here's a site plan of the property. So the subject property is a .08-acre lot, and it contains a two-story, 1,152-square-foot single-family residence, which was constructed in 1931. The structure features two bedrooms and two full bathrooms. The occupancy calculation for a two-bedroom unit would allow for a maximum occupancy of five individuals, and the applicant intends to utilize the subject property for up to five individuals. And then parking for the use will be accommodated by the street parking that's available within the surrounding area. Here's a map that shows the subject property within a 600-foot buffer and a 1,000-foot buffer, And we can see here that there are no other short-term rentals located within 600 feet or 1,000 feet of the subject property. So this table displays that information as well. And in addition, this table displays whether a property is located within a top 10 census block group. And this property is located in Census Tract 10, Block Group 1, which is identified as one of Lexington Veya County's top 10 census block groups in reference to vulnerability to involuntary displacement. So just to provide a little bit of additional information about that, nationally, communities are concerned that unhosted whole house short-term rentals have negative impacts on housing affordability and availability. And these topics have become key points when locally when discussing the future of neighborhoods. And within the Mayor's Commission for Racial Justice and Equality Report, which was published in October of 2020, the Housing and Gentrification Subcommittee recommended that the city should call out gentrification and displacement of residents within neighborhoods that have large percentages of people of color. And this subcommittee referenced and relied upon data from the Task Force on Neighborhoods in Transition Report. and that was completed in 2021 in June. And this task force was created by council members who were concerned about neighborhood changes when that change includes properties which turn over at an accelerated rate or when most of the new owners are more affluent and differ from the traditional residents in terms of race or ethnicity. And the task force mapped priority areas utilizing the following attributes. The median income at less than 30% of the area median income, the high minority population or non-white population, a low mean home sale price, and a low owner occupancy rate. And they use those to measure vulnerability to involuntary displacement. So census track 10, block group 1, is labeled number 8 on this map. So that's located right here. And then when we go to this chart and look at the label for number 8, it's census track 10, block group 1. and it shows that the count for the numbers of top 10 that it appears within is two. So it intersects with two of those four priority areas, and those include that the low mean home sale price for this census tract is $46,218, and for this census tract and block group, the low owner occupancy rate is 42.86%. So staff has concerns that a short-term rental at this property could put additional pressure on this block group relative to housing affordability and availability and could also heighten issues with gentrification and displacement within a neighborhood that is already vulnerable to involuntary displacement. So staff is recommending disapproval for the following reasons. The three factors listed in Article 313 of the zoning ordinance have been evaluated in addition to the requirements of Article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100-237. No other STRs have been cited in the vicinity as a nuisance, and there's no record of short-term rental compliance issues with the applicant. However, based on a review of the data, the subject property is located within a top 10 census block group identified by the Neighborhoods in Transition Task Force, which can negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood by heightening issues with gentrification and displacement within a neighborhood that is already vulnerable to involuntary displacement. So if you all have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those at this time. Yeah, so is the subject property going to displace somebody? Is it currently having a resident that's going to be displaced? I think the applicant would be able to answer that. Is there currently? We can ask that question and get there. Yeah. So would it be knowing that the radiuses already create the density and kind of create a protection and buffer from it, would allowing one be the best way to justify not allowing more in that same census tract? So, Article 313 states that for short-term rentals regulated as a conditional use, the Board of Adjustments shall take into consideration. And then, number three in that list is whether the property being considered is located within a neighborhood that may be vulnerable to involuntary displacement based upon socioeconomic demographics. So, as a staff, when this issue has come up, the perspective is that these should be recommended for disapproval. And that's with the assumption that short-term rentals, increased value, increased value creates pressure on others? The concern is that having unhosted short-term and whole house rentals have negative impacts on the affordability and the availability within the area. But I think his point is we just need to take it into consideration. It's not necessarily says you cannot do this. Similar to we shall demonstrate compliance is something we take into consideration. Yes. We often disapprove people with a track record of not compliance, but we also approve people who did have things before. Yes. So I think it's something we have to look at and we have to talk about and think about. But I don't know. And we often, or I shouldn't say often, I think we have approved some and we have denied some when this factor comes into play. Question. I kind of understand where you're coming from with the affordability piece. Could you speak a little bit more as far as the gentrification that was mentioned with it being the census block? Sure. Speaking not just to the affordability, but also the gentrification aspect of how it would contribute to gentrification to a preventive short-term rental in this area. And I guess what I'm asking, is this recently gentrified area or? It's locations within the intersection of these four factors that are listed at the bottom of the map. So specifically census tract 10 block group 1 is number 8 on that map. So it overlaps with two of those four categories. So the task force that collected and analyzed this data, they considered the ones that intersected with at least two or more of the factors on that list to be at risk for the involuntary displacement. Okay. So are these census blocks supposed to discourage improvements to it? Because if the value improvement is what's saying we'll price people out of it. It's not the improvement. I think it's the potential displacement of long-term renters or owners as opposed to the short-term renters. Yeah, I think it's that activity that occurs with that. And part of this, too, is this was in place with the original short-term rental. And so with the idea being is we didn't want lower income neighborhoods to be inundated and displace large populations of lower income people. But I think since the regulations have been amended, now we have the buffering, the 600 feet. So, I mean, at least in my mind, it makes it a little bit different when I'm analyzing it now. I think it's still something we need to consider. But in my mind, since we now have a percentage cap, we have not more than one within 600 feet. Like looking at this, maybe this entire area could have two, maybe three in this whole neighborhood just because if you put in the radiuses of 600 feet. We don't have the map up here showing the aerial, but it's not a very large neighborhood. and for those who have known me for a long time, my family actually lived on the other side of the tracks when they came from Clay County and lived in Irish Town there at Derody and High Street. It was torn down from the viaduct. Their house was, but I think that was kind of the reasoning is to protect neighborhoods from potentially pushing out. But in my mind, since we've revised the ordinance and now we have the percentages and the other buffering, I'm a little less concerned about two or three short-term rentals within the entire neighborhood having the same effect as having 40 in that same neighborhood. So that's just my kind of opinion on it. Mr. Gross, to your point, I do think the board has approved a few in the census blocks that kind of rise to the top here, the top ten. But I do believe they are close to Rupp Arena, and that was the factor that swayed the board to approve those because they were close to a destination or tourism-related use that, you know, these short-term rentals might support versus some of the other neighborhoods that are a bit further away. I think the red ones that are identified here, and then so that's one, two, three, four, five, and six are all a bit further away from our core downtown. And that's, I think, a factor for the staff in terms of recommending that they not be there as well. Again, there's not really a high destination draw to serve within those neighborhoods. So this one being within like a 10-minute walk of Rep Arena, is that? I think all of those are probably within a 10-minute walk. We've got a question for planning staff. So do you all feel that the buffering and the percentages supersede the gentrification displacement or vice versa? When the council adopted the revisions within, I guess that was about a year ago, they kept a consideration in there about the socioeconomic characteristics of an area so that the board could continue to evaluate this particular. I guess consideration. It was in the second amendment. Yeah, the most recent one. So that the board could consider to consider, continue to consider the vulnerability of some of our neighborhoods in terms of this. My sense was that they, the council in making those amendments thought that this was still something that the board should consider. That the spacing didn't necessarily override it but it is something that you know we want to continue to I guess understand and make sure that when we make those decisions we're not creating an environment that displaces people so I didn't see any parking on this property either no only street parking is going to be provided yes what I thought okay thank you Any further questions for Rael and staff? Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board and planning staff. Your name is? My name is Laura Kalmes, and I'm here today on behalf of Jessica Justice. Again, I'd like to thank planning staff for their thoughtful review of this application. Rael's been super helpful, as always. We recognize and appreciate the city's concern about protecting neighborhoods that she was just discussing that may be vulnerable to involuntary displacement. But at the same time, the zoning ordinance asks the board to evaluate each application based on its individual facts. In this case, the staff report confirms there are no short-term rentals, just to review, within 600 feet of the property, none within 1,000 feet, no nearby nuisance complaints involving STRs, and no compliance concerns with Jessica as the applicant, and that the existing concentration of STRs in the surrounding area is 0%. The recommendation of disapproval is based on the property's location within the top 10 census block group identified by this Neighborhoods in Transition Task Force. We certainly understand why the city considers the factor. However, we respectfully submit that the record before the board does not demonstrate how approving the single owner operated STR in an area with no existing concentration of STRs would materially contribute to displacement or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. This application concerns one home, one owner, and one carefully managed short-term rental. I'd also note that the staff report describes the immediate area as a mix of residential, neighborhood business, warehouse, and light industrial uses. We believe that a carefully managed two-bedroom STR serving no more than five guests is compatible with that existing mix of land uses. Jessica, the owner of the house, purchased this home because she wanted a place of her own that would allow her to spend more time with her family in Lexington and Pikeville. Her job is remote in Denver. She is able to travel, and so Ferguson Strait remains her home, and she returns to Lexington to be with her family occasionally. If approved, she intends to responsibly operate this as a single part-time short-term rental while she's away. Approval would allow her to continue using her Lexington home in the way that she envisioned when she purchased it, while keeping the home occupied during periods when she's traveling, rather than allowing it to sit vacant for extended periods of time. We also recognize that applications involving this particular provision appear to be a little less common, so to speak. So for that reason, we do ask the board to carefully weigh all the factors identified in the ordinance together. While neighborhood vulnerability is certainly an important consideration, we believe the objective of evidence before the board supports approval of this application. So based on these facts, we respectfully request approval of Jessica's conditional use permit. And I'm happy to answer any questions. And I know, I think Ross, you had a question. Or was that answered already? Yes. What's the current use of it? Are the residents there will be displaced? Sorry, can you repeat that one more time? What is the current use of it? Are there residents there that will be displaced? Yeah, it is her home. She just recently moved to Denver to take a remote position. I'm not sure if it's temporary or how long the position lasts, but she would like to be able to still keep the home and, of course, use it when she needs to and then also create some additional income for herself. In her absence, what is the management plan for the property? My husband and I will be managing the property. We currently co-host five other places in Lexington, and then we also have our own investment property that we have a short-term rental for. My thoughts on it. I'm sorry, are you complete? I'm done, yes, thank you. I understand what the data points are that the census is reflecting, but I'm also looking at from your front porch, you can see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight empty lots. And that's more of a displacement than anything. I think this would bring more life back to a neighborhood instead of pose something to be vacant or torn down. Any further questions, comments for the applicant? Let me just say that I agree with the staff in this way. I think when the council made a decision to change the ordinance, I think there was probably still an awful lot of discussion about affordable housing and gentrification throughout the city, not just in these areas. But these areas are particularly subjective in terms of affordable housing and the possibilities of further change in the communities of these top ten census tracts that we're discussing. I would I certainly understand the fact that okay we have these we have distances now and the possibility of one STR in this particular area it's not going to really hurt anything but at the same time we're saying to the council these facts aren't important anymore and I don't agree with that and I think I think as a As a board, we should say to the council, we understand your problems, your concerns, and it's up to us to support that. So I would disapprove, and I don't know how everybody else feels about it, but that's the way I would feel. I'm inclined to approve. Looking at it and also just doing the math at it, if she purchased it for $185,000 in 2024, her mortgage is probably $1,400. That will be a stretch to get to pay for as Airbnb. It will be impossible to get with a long-term rental based off of the comparable rental rates in that neighborhood. Were you asking me a question? I'm sorry. Oh, okay. I would say, Mr. Chair, are we done with the applicant and we're ready to close and talk amongst ourselves now? Because if so, they can sit down. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Yeah, you can sit down. I think I'm willing to support this application, and not only because of some of the distancing requirements, but I do agree that this, one, is not the issue. This neighborhood has lots of empty lots that should be built in, built on. and I'm a believer that sometimes investment brings more investment. And I also find that short-term rental properties are some of the nicer kept properties within a neighborhood so they can attract people. And so in this instance, like I said, I think given how small this area is, this is probably the only one. Maybe there could be a second one in the entire neighborhood of the housing. So I'd be comfortable supporting it, this application of this instance. But that's just one of six of us today. James? Personally, I would hold the staff's recommendation for disapproval. I'm really big into data myself, and I kind of understand the repercussions with the approval as far as housing affordability, and that is a very hot spot right now in Lexington. That's just my stance on it. Thank you. I'm in agreement with that. I'd probably go with the board as well on this because the census group identified that and the fact that there's no parking available on the property, no on-site parking. And I know that that's not listed as a factor, but I think that it's also important. Well, it sounds like someone on the side that wants to turn this down should make a motion. I'll make that motion. Yeah, and then if we can see where the chair is and we'll go from there. Yeah, I move disapproval of P&M BOA 2655. Jessica, the justice request for conditional use permit for an unhosted short-term rental within the infill and redevelopment area in a single-family residential zone on property located at 429 Ferguson Street, based on the staff's recommendation to discussion today. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I would say just one quick thing about the parking. I think for the on-street parking where that is neighborhood character, that's important to say that parking is the problem for this neighborhood, that if it were to have on-site parking, that creates even more displacement and pressure and underutilization of the land instead of having parking on the parcel. I agree. Votes for disapproval. Thank you all for coming in. That was our last case of the day. Under board items. We have a speaker. We do have a board item today. We have a board item. Is that what you're here for? I have an email. All right. I don't want to butcher that thing. Is it Riley? It's Riley. So I believe that. Oh, it's not working. I believe the email that I sent you was about the notice and just letting you know that this was happening. So were you just coming to observe the meeting? Oh, so you're welcome to stay. I believe that I stated that I was just letting all of the applicants who had reached out about reasonable accommodation for recovery residences that this was happening. So that if you wanted to hear how the staff with the Department of Law would be presenting to the Board of Adjustment on how they would be addressing these concerns in future hearings, then you're welcome to stay for that. It's also live recorded if you want to watch it that way. Okay. Thank you. We'll now have a presentation on recovery residences by Michael Cravens, who's a managing attorney for the Board of Adjustment. Michael, it's all yours. Thank you all for having me. I worked on the local recovery residence ordinance, so I kind of asked for this opportunity to kind of brief you on what your role in this is going to be, because I hate to be the bearer of bad news if you don't already know, but y'all are going to have a role in this. But I want to kind of walk you through kind of the nuts and bolts of this. I do want to be mindful of your time, so I'll try to move through this efficiently, but some of this is important information. Well, I think all of it's important information. So I want to give you all a basic overview so that when you actually are called upon to act, you have a framework and some kind of general understanding of what your role is. So we can skip that. First, let's make sure we're all using the same vocabulary. What are we talking about when we say recovery residences? These are what you may have commonly heard as sober living homes. These are residential uses of residential property that for unrelated persons in recovery from substance abuse disorders are living for support as like a support structure. These aren't residential inpatient substance use treatment facilities. These aren't facilities licensed or approved by the state. These are, like I said, residential uses of residential properties. And these residences are housing unrelated persons. And the unrelated persons piece is important. So last November, the council acted at the invitation of the Kentucky General Assembly, who had adopted some recent laws about regulating sober living homes, to locally undertake to regulate this. And the way that the council elected to undertake to regulate this is through the vehicle of a licensing program. So recovery residence operators are required to acquire a license from the City Department of Revenue. They're also required to acquire a zoning compliance permit from the Division of Planning. And they're required to provide certain information in connection with those applications, including information related to occupancy. Because under the zoning ordinance, those last two bolts are important. Eight unrelated persons are a family or housekeeping unit, per dwelling unit, per the definition of family or housekeeping unit in zoning ordinance. And so that's the maximum occupancy, except as otherwise approved by the Board of Adjustment as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. So, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold your horses. Why are we talking about the Fair Housing Act? Well, the Fair Housing Act, as amended, prohibits local governments from applying land use regulations in a manner that will, A, exclude people with disabilities entirely from residential neighborhoods, or B, give disabled people less opportunity to live in certain neighborhoods than people without disabilities. Now, here's the key. Discrimination in the Fair Housing Act, as amended, includes, and this is a quote straight from the statute, a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. So, tell them what you're going to tell them and then tell them what you're going to tell them. So, under the Fair Housing Act, an accommodation to ordinary zoning rules, including occupancy limits, should be made if requested provided that. It's requested on behalf of disabled individuals, it's necessary, and it's reasonable. So what does all that mean? Let's break that down. on behalf of disabled individuals. What you need to know for the purpose of this slide is individuals in recovery from substance use disorders qualify as disabled persons protected by the Fair Housing Act, which means that the Fair Housing Act entitles them the opportunity to request reasonable accommodations from ordinary zoning rules. And an operator of a recovery residence can make the request on behalf of disabled persons. What does necessary mean? Well, an accommodation is necessary if disabled persons will likely be denied equal opportunity to enjoy housing of their choice unless it's provided. Some courts talk about this when they construe the Fair Housing Act as it's necessary if it's therapeutically meaningful. In other words, it directly alleviates the effect of the disability such that the disabled person can use and enjoy a dwelling like a non-disabled person. So in other words, to the extent that the disability is something that inhibits the individual from living in housing of their choice, an accommodation may be necessary to alleviate that handicap. The accommodation must be essential, not merely preferable, but I want to make this point. As I said, the zoning ordinance right now says that the occupancy limit for family or housekeeping unit is eight unrelated disabled persons. The fact that the zoning ordinance says that does not in and of itself mean that a higher occupancy is unnecessary. So I know that we've kind of established a general rule in the zoning ordinance, but that doesn't mean that someone can't ask for or receive an accommodation as to that rule, and that's where you all are going to come in. So what's reasonable then under the Fair Housing Act for a reasonable accommodation? A reasonable accommodation is one that, A, imposes no fundamental alteration in the nature of the program, or B, imposes no undue financial or administrative burdens. This is essentially, and again, I wish I could give you all bright line rules on this, but unfortunately, it's the law, so that's how we make our money. So we kind of live in this gray area where it's like a balancing. You're balancing when you weigh a reasonable accommodation request, you're balancing the public's interest expressed through the ordinary zoning rule against the requester's need for an accommodation. So you're kind of weighing, does this change too much? Does this fundamentally alter the zoning scheme so much that it basically alters the reason why we have an occupancy limit? and this may not make sense to you all in a vacuum but I'm trying to like plant the seeds so that when you have an actual controversy in front of you you're kind of thinking about what do I need to be listening for what do I need to be looking for what weighs on our ability to make this determination but an accommodation should even if you grant it it should allow the fundamental or essential purpose of the regulation to remain viable And here I'm kind of offering in this last bullet a flip of the previous bullet. That the zoning ordinance sets the occupancy limit at 8 does not in and of itself make a higher occupancy unreasonable. So setting it at 8 doesn't mean that a higher occupancy isn't necessary. Likewise, setting it at 8 doesn't make a higher occupancy unreasonable. It's a fact-specific, case-by-case determination that you all are going to have to listen to and weigh based on the information presented to you in conjunction with the accommodation. I put this slide in mainly to make sure that we're not overstating what the law is. because I just want you all to see the contrast between Section 111 defines family or housekeeping unit to include not more than eight persons who are handicapped or disabled as defined in the Fair Housing Act. But it also defines family or housekeeping unit to include any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, etc. So my point being, when I say the thing about overstating it, right now you could have 12 related persons living in a house. So don't overstate the eight unrelated requirement because while that has a sound policy explanation, it's not unprecedented to have more people in a house, I guess is what I'm trying to say. So you need to weigh what's in front of you, but also don't draw a bright line rule, because I don't think the FHA requires you to draw a bright line rule. And I think it will really be hard to draw a bright line rule under the Fair Housing Act. So I'm mainly just saying think about it and give weight to what's presented to you as you think about these things. So who decides whether or not to grant an accommodation? Well, no procedure has been codified in the zoning ordinance for administrative granting or denying accommodations, but we know, as I quoted from the Fair Housing Act, the city needs to give some thought to whether accommodations should be granted or not. So, without such a delegation, this board, which already has the authority to adjust zoning requirements, has that residual power. And also, by the ordinance that they passed for the recovery residences last fall, they've kind of acknowledged that you all are the ones they want to be looking at this stuff. in the first instance. So this is kind of my testing your knowledge of have you been paying attention or not because the three key underlined words in red that I want you all to be thinking about when you think about the elements in determining whether or not someone is entitled to more beds in their recovery residence is, are you satisfied that the housing is going to be used by individual disabilities, i.e., individuals in recovery? is the requested accommodation necessary to afford equal housing opportunity to persons with disabilities? And think about that. The one thing I would call out about that would be, think about that in the macro, not the micro. Let me say that a different way. Everybody who comes to you with a request for more beds for their recovery residence is going to want more beds. think about have they shown you that more beds are needed in the community to meet a need for recovery housing. So think about it not just in terms of does this individual show that they want more beds. Think of it in terms of have they shown that there's a need for more beds to meet the need in the community that's out there for recovery housing. That's something to be thinking about as you listen to one of these cases. And finally, is the requested accommodation reasonable? Does it fundamentally alter land use, zoning, and building regulations, or does it pose undue administrative burdens? It's kind of similar to what you do with conditional uses and with variances. You're going to look at the facts in front of you and say, is this a bridge too far? Does this change things too much? Does this, and I added this fourth bullet, But does the accommodation allow the neighborhood to retain a residential character? That's kind of what I'm getting at with the whole fundamentally altering land use or zoning or building regulations. Does it change things too much? So, and again, this is one of those things where I can't give you a checklist, I can't give you a bright line rule, but hopefully when you start to hear one of these cases and think about one of these cases, this will click for you. And of course, I will be here and Brittany will be here to kind of help guide you. This is a slide I just wanted to put together because I think this kind of goes to what some courts have said you could consider when you weigh the city's interest. Health, safety, and welfare. Is there something about the accommodation that will result in a direct threat to the health, safety, and welfare of other individuals or in physical damage to the property of others? Again, I go back to fundamental alteration. Does it fundamentally alter the neighborhood as far as noise, lighting, parking, traffic, the kind of land use considerations that you all sometimes think about with other types of conditional uses? And, and this is just to reiterate, is the existing supply of recovery housing sufficient to provide disabled individuals with an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting? In other words, that goes to the necessary question. Have they shown that we need more housing on more beds for individuals in recovery, or is their existing supply of recovery housing in the neighborhood or in the community sufficient? Any denial of a reasonable accommodation request should be supported by evidence that the accommodation is not requested for disabled persons, or not necessary, or not reasonable, or not supported, or that it alters the fundamental purpose of the regulation. so the main takeaway I want you all to be thinking about is when you get one of these controversies and by the way I want to kind of comfort you that I don't think this is please don't take well this is going to be on the record anyway I'm joking but I don't think this will be I don't think this will be sober living houses the sequel you're not going to see like hundreds of these because I think based on the most recent list that I've seen there's only like maybe two to three dozen recovery residence operators in Fayette County that currently operate. And they're not all going to need an accommodation for every single one of their houses or every single one of their properties. So this will not be like a overwhelming kind of caseload for you all. But you are going to see some, I think, starting this fall of people that are maybe going to want 10 beds or 12 beds or 14 beds. And so just if you take anything away from this at all, take the words necessary and reasonable away, because that's really the standard, going back to that quoted language. A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy dwelling. So the two key words in that direct statutory language which are reasonable when such accommodations may be necessary. And think about the one other thing I guess I would say to close is, in terms of the distinction between reasonable and necessary, the way I think about it is, necessary is, are they entitled to an accommodation at all? Have they shown that there's a need for more recovery housing that they are going to meet by this accommodation? Reasonable goes to how much of an accommodation do they need. So necessary, do they need it all? Reasonable, how much? So the how much goes to, just to give you all a hypothetical, if somebody comes to you and says, I'd like to have 20 beds, and the zoning ordinance has an 8-person occupancy limit for unrelated persons, maybe you're not willing to go with them on 20 beds, being reasonable, but maybe you're willing to say 16, 14, 12. So it's not necessarily an either-or proposition. It's not eight or nothing. It can be eight, it can be what they want, or it could be something else that's reasonable based on the facts. Now that's the key point that I would make to you all. Whatever accommodation you might be inclined to grant, you need to have a factual basis for why that's where you're drawing the line. And of course, law is here to kind of help you kind of shape that through your questioning, through your findings of fact. But that's what I want you to kind of think about is reasonable and necessary. Have they shown you that more recovery housing is necessary? And if so, have they shown you that what they are requesting, the form of what they are requesting is reasonable under the circumstances? Again, I would love to give you a bright line test for that, but it's going to really be based on what you hear, the case they make, the rationale that they offer, and we'll just have to go from there in terms of like figuring out what the appropriate kind of where you land on that. So with that, I'll take any questions you all have. I know that's a lot, but I wanted to kind of go ahead and plant those seeds so that when you get one of these, you're not immediately saying, what is this? I don't know what to do with this. Why am I getting this? And what's my charge? So that's kind of broadly speaking your charge. Question. I have a couple questions. um so the relief would be eight persons per resident so if it's a duplex on a single parcel and you have five people on one side five people on another um is that looking at it as because that's a duplex that's not a single family single family is the eight person how do you It's eight people per dwelling unit. So whatever the dwelling unit is or however we're defining the dwelling unit, that's what we're talking about. So eight per dwelling unit. And fair housing shows that whether you're in Cardinal Valley or Chevy Chase, Hamburg or Heartland, that if there is a need for it in that area, then it should be fairly heard? What I would tell you is the Fair Housing Act requires the government to at least have a mechanism to entertain a request for a reasonable accommodation. The Fair Housing Act does not require you to grant any and every accommodation that you request that you receive. It requires that you hear the request, hear the facts supporting the request, weigh those facts against the public's interest expressed through the occupancy limit, and make a determination as to whether on the facts presented they persuaded you that an accommodation is reasonable in order to afford equal housing opportunity to the disabled community. That, in broad strokes, is what you all are doing. You're receiving a request for a different occupancy in these, and you're weighing that request to determine whether you're persuaded that the need for an accommodation exists and that the amount of accommodation requested is reasonable. Most of the ones we're going to see are going to be existing facilities coming in for licensure. I think in the immediate short term, what you're going to see are people that have been operating recovery housing for two years, three years, four years, five years, who now they're under this new ordinance requirement to get a license, which requires them to obtain a zoning compliance permit from planning staff, which they can't get if they're saying, I want to house 12 people who are unrelated. Planning staff will say rightly under the ordinance, yeah, sorry, max limit for unrelated persons is eight for this category, per dwelling unit. So we can't give you your zoning compliance permit, but we still need to have a way for them to petition somebody within the government for an accommodation to that occupancy limit. And because the Yawka-Mittalum exists in ordinance, specifically the zoning ordinance, it needs to use the authority that's there, which is your all's authority as the Board of Adjustment. So as I understand it, when these cases come in, there is going to be no staff recommendations on these. Is this correct? That is my understanding. I think staff might be, and I would defer to planning staff on this, so maybe I shouldn't even open my mouth. But I think they're going to provide you some background information, maybe about where it's located, what the zoning is, some basic nuts and bolts of context. But I think planning staff rightly would tell you, well, they want to house 12 unrelated persons and the zoning ordinance says eight. So we can't really, you know, we're going to tell you to stick with the zoning ordinance unless and until you're persuaded that an accommodation is necessary and reasonable under the circumstance. Under necessary accommodations, let's just say someone comes in here with an attorney, and they start throwing out numbers saying we have this much of a demand. Is staff going to do the research in order to validate or invalidate this information that's presented? Otherwise, how are we going to know if these statistics are accurate or if it's just something that's being inflated? Well, what I would say is it'll be like anything else. It'd be like a hearing that you had today on the short-term rental stuff. Somebody could come in with numbers, and then you give those numbers the weight that you think they're entitled to, and you can ask them about those numbers. You can ask them for more information about where those numbers came from and how they're arriving at what they're arriving at. But I don't know that staffs, given the way these are going to come in, will have done, like, tons of research about to, like, vet the accuracy of their case. I mean, it's kind of like it's an adversarial process, and staff will make their, you know, presentation, and then the individual who wants their request will then make their case to you all. And then, like with anything else, you weigh that and determine what weight you give to the evidence you're presented in terms of deciding how you want to go with it. Well, the problem I foresee is when they're here and we're going to have to make a decision, we're not going to have time to validate information and data. We're just going to have to take it on face value. You're either going to have to take it on face value or you're just – I think what I would mainly tell you as your attorney would be as long as you're making findings that are supported by the record in front of you, you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. And so if you have some question about the veracity of numbers or if you're not persuaded by some of the data that you're presented, you can give that appropriate weight. So if you determine that you're not going to give that a lot of weight, that there are other considerations that you're going to give more weight to, then I would say you're doing your job. You're working through the process, and that's really all the Fair Housing Act can reasonably expect you to do, is hear these and make a determination on whether you're persuaded that an accommodation is both necessary and reasonable. I think that's the point. Going back into the way back machine, we had a case. It's been several years, maybe 2018. It was on Bracel's Road. It was a former sister's house. I can't recall exactly which corner of Herselsboro, but in the Woodford Street area. And they had changed that to a facility like this. And we were able to work through the reasonable accommodation discussion without a lot of – right now you're thinking about all this in a vacuum. And so there's lots of questions. But we were able to – the board was able to get through it. And they weren't as good as you guys are. So you'll definitely be able to do it. And this may be the first time the playing staff we know and love doesn't have an opinion on something. So we also have that to look forward to. But that's just my take is that we did work through this. We haven't had a lot of them over the years, but the one I recall we were able to work through and get through it. But the biggest issue will be, since this would be a request to us, there will be notices that are sent to neighbors. And so that will be the harder part. We'll be navigating the various attorneys who may be in the room giving various statements of fact that we have to weigh through. But we did, similar to Duke Road, we did on Duke Road. So I think we'll be able to get through this. and then Brittany will be here to help us through the questions at the board. Keep asking her questions, but I just want you guys to know that we have done it before, and so we were able to get through it, and you guys will be fine on it. So with that in mind, we wouldn't see any newly established recovery residents this day, and it would be existing? Well, eventually, perhaps. I think just to let you all know just a little background of why this is happening now, when council passed the ordinance in November, they had a six-month grace period, which meant that it expired like at the end of May or whatever. So around that time, Revenue, who is overseeing the recovery residence license process, sent out letters to every single one that we know exists in vet county and say, hey, we have an ordinance now that requires you to get a license, so to get a license, you need to get your zoning compliance permit. So that's really, I think in the next six months, you'll see the ones that have already been operating coming in to get Square in terms of everything they need to continue operating. But I'm not going to say that in two years, if some new operator comes into Fayette County, they won't need one or have a fresh application where it's a new property where they've never operated a recovery residence, but they want now permission to do that. I think in the short term, the ones you're going to hear from are the ones that have already been operating in Fayette County on some level. So one of your slides was saying that the applicant must be an agent of somebody that qualifies by being disabled or handicapped, and this is. So I expect in the future there's going to be people that come with a property under contract and they have a prospective list of people who would like to be residents that qualify. Is that sufficient enough that they can apply and not have exactly who those persons are? I think the fact that per the state law that was passed in 2024, every recovering residence operator has to be certified by the Cabinet for Health and Human Services in Kentucky. So basically what we did when the council adopted the ordinance last fall, last November, they basically adopted that same certification requirement and basically said whatever you're showing the cabinet to establish that you're a certified recovery residence operator, you've got to show it to the Irving County government too. So anybody that comes with a request that is certified as an operator by us, or not by us, by the state, we can take it for granted that they're representing the disabled community because that's who they're basically applying to house, essentially, through the recovery residence process. So I think that's enough for us. If they apply and we're satisfied that they kind of meet the definition of a recovery residence operator, we can take – I don't want you all worried about the first bullet of do they represent the disabled community. The people that are going to be for you will be certified by the state to represent the disabled community. It's going to be the other two bullets of is an accommodation necessary, and if so, what's the magnitude of an accommodation that would be reasonable. And again, you all are mostly going to see, in fact, if not entirely, exclusively going to see occupancy requests. Because we know from talking to Kair when we were writing the ordinance for the council, we know that the model for recovery residents is multiple unrelated people living in a support structure that's drug-free and substance abuse-free. And so the way the model happens, you know, Kair basically told me that the model right now across the state is it could be anywhere from 10 people, 12 people, 16 people, 20. And Kair, in fact, talked about it in terms of like beds. Like you could have a four-bedroom house and put four beds in each bedroom, and that's 16 people. But under a zoning ordinance, that's a no-no. So that's why they would want you all to bless their accommodation to have the number of beds that would best accord in their estimation with what the model requires. But I'm going to let them make that case to you, not me. And is part of the support structure, integrated living, where there's people that are active residents because they're in one season of life, and then there's people that are serving as proctors or support that are in something like that? That was part of their story many years ago. Well, I think each operator will have a different way they do it. But my understanding is many of them will have usually, like you said, a sponsor who kind of lives there on a more permanent basis who's gone through the program that kind of keeps things. Because people may be there for 30 days. They may be there for 45. They may be there for four months. But most of it is voluntary. So if they decide we don't want to do this anymore, they can a lot of times just leave. But I think each operator that comes for the application will explain to us how the system works. But I think ultimately part of the push from council and from the state on certification was to weed out some of the bad actors out of the industry so that we could have these facilities in our communities without the stigma of what happens with some of the people who weren't running these appropriately, like we saw in the paper a few months ago with no electricity, no water, other things where they weren't operating like they should. And there are different, like under the National Alliance for Recovery Residents kind of standards, certification standards, there are like different intensities that range from like level one, which may be primarily peer supported or it's not as structured, all the way up to like a level three, which may be much more like centrally managed with like a house person that's managing everything and their sign-in and sign-outs. And so it's going to depend on the way each operator structures theirs. But it can be – it can run the gamut from something that's more peer-organized to something that's much more structured and regimented by like someone who's like managing the property and managing the tenancies, that sort of thing. And I guess my question with that was leading to the relief provisions are governed by persons with the handicap disability that qualifies. But if the person that is serving as a proctor is the one that pushes it over the eight, that the relief still can be given. So say somebody that has never touched a substance in their life is serving as a proctor very admirably. They are not somebody that is protected by the disability. but I just want to make sure that that's something that because that is such a strong part of integration, that that's not going to disqualify them as a technical. They would be bumping up against the zoning ordinance occupancy limit. So if there's like eight plus one other, I think it would depend. But yeah, we're really looking at, I think what we've done, and I think the council and the planning staff have looked at this. I think what's been done over the years, setting eight is a good kind of baseline, and I think we would hold people to that unless they show us that they need an accommodation. But like I said, what I think makes me nervous is if federal law says you have to give them a chance to demonstrate that they need more and that more is reasonable. you have to give them that chance. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them. It doesn't mean that you have to be persuaded by them. But I think giving them a forum and a vehicle by which to make their case that a higher occupancy is needed, that to me is key in this. As long as you all are working through this, and as Mr. Grove said, you've done this before in kind of other respects, I'm not as worried legally because I think you're doing what you're supposed to do. I'm not going to judge you as sharply by the outcomes as I am by the work that you put in in terms of figuring out what this should happen in a given case. And, of course, I will be defending you either way. So it's... May I ask, Tracy, what do you think the staff would prepare for us and what your responsibilities would be? Yeah, we've spoken with the law department several times about this from the very beginning, just to try to coordinate efforts and making sure that even to the point of saying, well, is the Board of Adjustment the right place for this type of appeal or discussion to happen, or is there some other board within the division or within the government? So it's been an ongoing discussion, but our anticipation is not to give a staff recommendation, but to give factual information about the request and the context of the area in which the request is being made. And so, you know, Ms. Smith and I were just discussing what kind of information we thought would be helpful for the board in terms of analyzing whether a request is reasonable or not. Not just the zoning of the area, but, you know, what type of dwelling unit is it. Mr. Boggess just mentioned a duplex versus a single family home. So I think sometimes that can have an influence on whether we think it's impacting the neighborhood or not. That's one thing I was going to ask now. The number of bedrooms, you know, characteristics of the unit itself will be helpful. Now that we're going to have licensing, and I don't know if this is even appropriate underneath the FHA, and I've always had an issue with the eight-person rule for anyone underneath the FHA, but the concentration, like are we going to be able to sort of like what we do for short-term rentals to say here is this neighborhood and we've got five of them in a row? We know where we've issued zoning compliance permits so far. And again, because we're about six months or at least a few months behind the requirement that they be licensed, we know that we've issued zoning compliance permits for certain locations, and so we have that ability to map that information and provide that to the board. And then, Michael, is concentration at consideration that could be discussed? I think I would generally answer yes, and here's why. One of the elements that I've been banging on is necessity. And the necessity really means there's a need for more beds to serve the people in recovery in the community. So to me, a case where it's a neighborhood where seven recovery residences already exist might look like there might be potentially a need of less magnitude than a neighborhood that's in a desert where there's no recovery support services. So I think it's fair to look at that because one of the bullets I mentioned, in fact, was is the existing supply of recovery housing sufficient to provide disabled individuals with an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting? So that kind of goes to how much recovery housing exists in proximity to this particular property when you're assessing whether this property needs to accommodate. I think this board's been fair in thinking about certain neighborhoods not being completely overrun with certain facilities. We've tried to spread them out. I shouldn't say spread, but when we have applicants, I think this board's been fair in allowing them in neighborhoods in which they weren't located. Unfortunately, the community hasn't been as embraceful, and several times we've been sued, and the projects weren't able to move forward because of community pushback. But I just want to make sure we're able to still look at that, because I think we have – that is something we've considered in the past related to facilities that are stigmatized, that we try to allow people to live in alternative neighborhoods. And it sounds like we will be able to continue to look at it that way. I think you can look at that with the caveat that, again, it's very fact-specific. So I wouldn't let the fact that there's none be any more determinative than I'd let the fact that there's only two or the fact that there's ten being a no. So it's really incumbent upon the operator who is requesting that this board approve a reasonable accommodation to make their case to you as to why an accommodation is necessary, why there's a need for more beds to house individuals in recovery in this community, and why the number of beds they're asking for is a reasonable number given that need. That's kind of how they're going to have to approach you all on this. So what happens with the neighborhood then? Are we asking the neighborhood to enter into this discussion? I would caution on letting – I don't want to say that the neighborhood doesn't have an interest. But I would caution some of the authorities I've read have not, by authorities I mean legal cases, have not taken well to deliberative bodies like you all giving weight to public comment or what the community thinks or those kinds of things. Because that's really, that's not in the lens that you all are applying the fair housing law. It's not does the community like it. It's does the community need it. And so I'd be very careful about giving too much weight to what the neighborhood might think over sticking to the black letter of the Fair Housing Act, which is, is an accommodation necessary? Is more recovery housing needed? Is an accommodation that they're requesting reasonable? And because if it gets to that level, just speaking candidly, everybody appearing in front of you is going to want their accommodation. and every neighborhood that has concerns is going to want you not to give them that accommodation. And if that becomes the determinative or decisive analysis, we're wading into some dangerous waters there. So I would keep it tracking the FHA's kind of standards in terms of how you all think about this. Feel free to hand out that pamphlet every time we have a hearing. And I would assume it's standard to have single-sex residents in this, that if there is somebody that comes in with all-male versus an all-female, that is a very usual thing in how this kind of thing happens. I will tell you that it's not uncommon in the recovery residence world to have some housing that is expressly targeted for women in recovery and their children. So I would not, to me, sex, gender is not really part of, if they're coming to you for an accommodation, it's because they are acting on behalf of a disabled community that needs recovery housing. So I would keep your focus oriented on, assuming they're disabled, assuming they represent the disabled community, the case that they make to you as regards reasonableness and necessity. Any other questions for Michael? And I know this stuff's hard, but believe me, I wish I could give you a checklist that if these three boxes are checked, granted, otherwise no. But it's so fact-specific, and it's so dependent upon kind of what cases made you all. So the only comfort I can give you is Brittany will be here, I will be here as these start to get in place to kind of help you all steer the ship in the right direction, and we'll go from there. Michael, thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you. And I have one question, most important question. This is for Tracy Wade. We are not allowed to use this as training. Brittany asked me that earlier. I think it kind of depended. My response was, well, how long is the presentation? How long is our discussion? My gut is if it's 15 minutes, it's probably not, doesn't qualify for training, but 30 minutes would. So I don't know. Are we close? I didn't check the clock before we started. Michael, I have a couple more questions. Yeah. Let's drag it out for 30 minutes. Yeah. It seems like it was maybe almost an hour. We can check. An hour or so. Yeah. I knew you would have to. Oh, yeah. I've got some. I still have many I have to hit before my two years is up. Of course, I knew it was going to come up. Okay. Tracy, are there any staff items to be presented at this time? No, the staff does not. You mentioned Rael's promotion, so we're happy to have her remain here on the BOA staff and really stepping up to the next level. So unfortunately, we won't see Dalton much anymore, but if you need to see him, you can always come to the office. He's working on zoning cases now, so just happy to have Rael here and helping you all. Congratulations on your upgrade to your position. So are you officially senior planner for the BOA? Thank you. Good. That's great. Do you think that we could shoot for two of the minutes per month to try to get caught up as we're October and now August? Do you think is that something that we have capacity for right now to get maybe two next month? We are trying. We are trying. It is extra meetings from not just you all, but obviously our staff works for the Planning Commission as well. So it's just a perpetual, and again, length of meetings is an issue sometimes too. So we are working on it. Sounds like we should adjourn then. Our next meeting date will be September 14th, 1.30 p.m. See you all then. Meeting adjourned. Alright.