Music Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ The End ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ The End I can only give you love that lasts forever And a promise to be near each time you call And the only heart I own For you and you alone That's all, that's all I can only give you country walks in springtime And a hand to hold when leaves begin to fall And a love whose burning light will warm the winter night That's all, that's all There are those I am sure who have told you They would give you the world for toy All I have are these arms to enfold you And a love time can never destroy If you're wondering what I'm asking in return, dear, you'll be glad to know that my demands are small. Say it's me that you adore for now and evermore. That's all. That's all. I'm not alone. I'd be glad to know that my demands are small. Say it's me that you'll adore. Hello everyone. Welcome to the October Board of Adjustment hearing. The first order of business will be to elect a new chair. Do I have a motion? I'd like to make a motion that we elect as chair Peter Brown. Second. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays? It's unanimous. Thank you. Welcome back, Peter. I'd like to thank the mayor for reappointing me and the council for approving my appointment. But most of all, I'd like to thank my co-members for recommending my appointment to the mayor. I appreciate your support, and I appreciate the staff's warm welcome back. So I'm going to be a little rusty since I've been gone for over a year, but I'll muddle through. Let's see. The first order of business is to approve the minutes we have been provided with minutes from the September 28 2007 meeting August 22 2008 and the February 29 2000 meeting minutes everyone had an opportunity to review those minutes if so I'll ask for a motion move that we accept all three sets of minutes their second second all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed I abstain I wasn't a member of the board at the time of these were taken all right then the minutes of those three meetings are approved now we'll sound the agenda and ask that anyone who has a case on today that wants to postpone or draw the case to come forward to the podium please my My name is Scott Pennington. I represent Panagia Pantovocius, the Greek Orthodox Church. I think it's on page three. Welcome. Thank you. We'd like to ask for a continuance until December the 12th. We're still working with traffic and trying to get our plans in line with what they've asked for. We think we're positive about that, but at this time, I think we've recently submitted some more plans, and we haven't had time to do the give and take with traffic yet about it. I believe that's what's happened. this point. Now Mr. Timbson are you aware how many times this has been I haven't been here this is my first meeting back. How many times has this been postponed? I'm not sure the exact number of times but the reason has been that we haven't been able we've submitted our plans back to our architect to make several sets of changes in order to comply with what you know requests have been coming from the city on this and that's why we've been asking for continuances on it and that's what we're asking on this one as well. Now, are you here as the church's attorney? Yeah, I'm one of the two attorneys representing the church on this. The other attorney is Mr. Hank. I can't think of his last name. Grady. Grady, yes. And he actually will be doing the presentation when this actually comes to a hearing. He's much more experienced. I happen to be a parishioner at North Rock Church. You get drug into it. Exactly, yes. I understand that. Any questions? I'm concerned about this being a continuance, a case that's been half heard, and we have two board members that have been appointed since the initial hearing. Can you see any disadvantage to just withdrawing this case and resubmitting so we could start fresh? It's been so many months, and there's people that will be making a decision on this that haven't heard the first half. Well, I think when it actually does come before a full hearing, we can go over everything that has been done in the past. The plans have changed considerably since then, so really, in a way, it's all a new proposal since we've had several different drafts come up. actually I haven't been authorized by my client to withdraw so I can't do that in my own volition today I understand your perspective and I know that there have been new appointees to the board it's just at this point because we've made so many changes I think it's really a fresh thing anyway and it needs to have a full hearing on everything that's happened so far we've done a lot in order to accommodate the requests of the city on this gone back and forth and we're perfectly happy to work with the city and we you know have had a good experience you know so far working with the city on this it's just it takes time to do the revisions that have come up in this and it takes time for our architect to redo the plans you know whenever something else comes up so that's kind of where we are at this point you know this is a fairly large inconvenience to the neighborhood too while they I don't know if they were notified of this hearing and I don't know if they'll be notified in December or if in December you're actually going to perform we have we have notices to go out I think that's part of the reason that this is mr. Dennis Kronis he's heading the project for the church that's part of the reason that we're asking for the days we have to do We had to file a landscape variance to go to the landscape committee, and we'll have to re-notify everybody else, you know, in the community about this as well. That's why we're trying to bump it to December the 12th. Could I ask the staff a question, please, just a moment? Jim, do you – can you get us up to speed on the notification process, or are there neighbors here today thinking that this was going to be a hearing? we've been communicating with the neighbors that have called and asked what's going on so they were aware it would at least get postponed today with the revised plan that they haven't officially submitted yet but staff has reviewed it's been a while ago that we looked at it but with that revision they would have to ask for another variance regarding landscaping along a driveway that's going to loop around the back and the side of the church and re-noticed letters will have to go to all of the property owners as was originally noticed. So there'll be another notification for the December hearing? We've already prepared that. It's I understand your concerns about it but we've done everything that we can to accommodate the requests and back and forth of the city and that's why it's taking as long as it is. I mean I understand the city's concerns you know we and we're more than willing to take those into account and do everything we can to comply. It's just this process is taking that long because of that and because of the changes in the plan I think really you know it's almost a new thing you know to put out in front of everybody. When we actually have a hearing we can I think we can go over everything that's been gone over in the past. Well if there was a motion to deny this request I would vote in favor of it but I'll just say that and see how the rest of the board wants to handle it any other discussion for applicants request to postpone are there any motions Okay, then I move to continue CV 2008-24 Panagania Pantolophysia Greek Orthodox Church's appeal. Thank you. Second. All those in favor of continuing the applicant's request until the December 12th meeting, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Right. Okay. Your request to continue. Your case has been approved, so we'll look forward to seeing you in December. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson. I'm here on behalf of CarMax Auto Superstores. It is the first item on your agenda. And I'm sorry, sir, what's your name? Nick Nicholson, I'm with Stalkine and Ogden. And what's your request, sir? We would like to request to indefinitely postpone this matter. We've been before you several times and had to continue our postponements, and at this point we are not sure of the resolution and don't feel that it is right to continue this postponing. Well, I appreciate that. And so you'll just re-notice it then? Yes. Any discussion or any questions for Mr. Nicholson? I'm sorry, was this CarMax? Yes, it is. Okay, thank you. Okay, if there's no discussion, I'll take a motion. Okay, I move that V2008-67 CarMax Auto Store Superstore's appeal for variants be postponed indefinitely. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor of the applicant's request, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Thank you. Good luck to you. Are there any other cases that request a postponement or withdrawal? this time we'll go through the docket to see if there are any items that are recommended for approval for which there are no objectors present here first case is v2008-98 Daniel R. Violette. Are there any objectors here for that case? Okay. Sir, is Mr. Violette here? Okay. I'd like you to go out in the hall, please, and speak with this fellow and see if you can work out an agreement to his objection. Give it a shot, anyhow. Alright. V2008-99, Calvin D. gully are there any objectors for that case next case is C 2005 138 hardwood holdings now that I'm sorry that's not that's just for review okay the next case is C 2008-91 BOL land acquisition company are there any objectors here for that case next case is C 2008-92 Hurricane Hall Farms it's gonna I know you here are there any objectors to this case and then C 2008-93 Hope Springs Community Church there any objectors to that case see 2008-94 Emanuel Baptist Church is there any objective next case see 2008-95 Vulcan lands Inc are there any objectives to that case next case is C 2008-96 Beaumont Park townhomes are there any objectors okay so see 2008-97 basic tipton company are there any objectives here for that now mr. violette were you and the objector are able to work out his differences or is he's still going to object sir okay we'll put that the end of the document to be heard after all the cases where there aren't any objectors So our first case to be heard is B2008-99, Calvin D. Gully. Will the accolade please come forward? Afternoon. You state your name please? Calvin D. Gully. All right Mr. Gully, I will swear you please. You swear from the testimony you give here today will be the truth? Yes sir. All right thank you sir. Now our staff, have you received to copy the staff report yes sir okay they've they've recommended approval and I'm wondering does the staff have any amendments or changes to their recommendation or report no we don't does do any of the board members have any questions for mr. Gulley I noticed that there are two conditions that they support for granting this or recommending this for approval. Have you reviewed those? Yes, sir. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes, sir. If there's no discussion, I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend that V2008-99 Calvin D. Gulley's appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 40 feet to 30 feet to allow an elevated cover porch to remain as built in a single family residential R1B zone on property located at 720 Downs Avenue in Council District 5 be approved as recommended by the staff with the two conditions. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving Mr. Gulley's request, please signify with saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations, Mr. Gulley. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Good luck to you. I'm going to go to the review of hardwood holsings. I'll call C-2005-138. This is our year review that was part of their approval process. and in terms of review, I'll ask the staff to report. Okay. Our office has received no complaints since this was issued. Inspection found that their food handlers and their beer license were intact and in good standing, so we have no violations. So nothing untoward to report? No, sir. Would you state your name, please? I'm Joe Ciampa, and this is my son. Nick Ciampa. Mr. Ciampa, good to have you here. I don't know exactly what we're supposed to do as far as moving forward. The staff reported that you are in compliance with the six recommendations that were part of the original conditional use. Does the board have any questions for the Ciampa's? I've visited the facility. It looks really well kept up. Thank you. Is this a facility where they have the roller derby? Yes, sir. I haven't been out for that. Oh, you need to come out. So do we need to approve this? Yes, and there are some conditions that may be able to be deleted based on whether they've been completed or not. The first one, the second one, and the fourth one can be. And then there's a question about the fifth one and the sixth one. I'm not sure if those have been completed. I would assume that they have been, but based on engineering and traffic engineering's input, those may be able to be deleted also. All right. When she says the numbers, we only have numbers 8 through 13. Yeah, this is from before the original condition was. And I was wondering why number eight might not be considered in that two. If that's been completed, then that could be also. That's not completed. Those are the conditions of the occupancy. Okay. So, Mr. Akers, it's one, two. One, two, and four, and eight for sure, and then probably five and six. Okay. All right. Does the board have any questions for staff? Any discussion? Did we mention number 12 yet? No. So based on Mr. Hume's report, I think that's something we need to consider whether we need to have annual reviews or not. What's your recommendation on having annual reviews? The ordinance requires me to check it out once a year regardless. It's just the review that this had. I see no reason to have a further review for this. And if there's a problem, would you bring that to our attention? Absolutely, sir. All right. Well, if there's no discussion, I'll ask for a motion. Well, I'd be happy to make the motion, but I want to get it right. yeah I think that's why everyone's a little bashful we all agree that they're satisfying these conditions is there anything left on the list that needs to be continued for building inspection before they're not required to see us again I think you can find now based on this review that you do not need to schedule any further reviews. When you move to amend the conditions to delete the ones that Ms. Rackers has mentioned, you would adopt a finding that the conditions being deleted have all been completed and satisfied, and they are not continuing conditions. And then as to condition 12 that called for the one-year review, your finding can simply be based on this review. This use has shown itself to be appropriate in this location and no further scheduled review is necessary and that will take care of it. Well, I would like to move that the motion just described by Rochelle is my motion. So to clarify for staff, that would be to delete conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12. Is that your understanding, Barb? So that would leave 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13. Any discussion? Yeah, that would leave. I'm looking at the minutes. Three, seven, eight. No, eight we took out. That's the sanitary sewer, which has been released. Nine, 10, 11, and 13, that's correct. Is there a second to Mr. Greig's motion? Second. Second. All right. Any discussion? all those in favor of mr. Greek's motion please signify by saying aye all those opposed congratulations thank you very much I want to say I hope this is a toughest thing you have to do all day long because I've been here before and I know you guys have much more difficult out of it thanks thank you thank you sir Next case is C2008-91, BOL Land Acquisition Company. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, my name is Steve Rochelle. I'm an attorney with Stites and Harbison, and today I'm representing BOL Land Acquisition Company, LLC. Our client has reviewed the conditions and is amenable to following those and to comply with those and would ask for your approval. All right. Thank you, Mr. O'Shell. Staff, recommended approval. Any amendments to your report? No changes. Thank you. Any questions or discussion? All right. All those in – I'm sorry. Call for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2008-91 BOL Land Acquisition Company LLC's appeal for a conditional use permit for a bank drive-through facility in a community center zone on properties located at 6409-6413 Polo Club Lane Council District 12 be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the six conditions recommended by the staff or five conditions recommended by the staff. Is there a second to Ms. Morris' motion? Second. Second. We're all second. All right. All right. Second one, the enthusiasm. All those in favor of Ms. Moore's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations. Motion passes. Thank you. You're welcome. Next case is C2008-92 Hurricane Hill Hall Farms. Mr. Chairman, Sam Carneal of Guest Manningly and Acheson for Hurricane Hall Farms. Welcome. We're in agreement with the staff's recommendation and ask for approval. If there are any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. Are there any questions for Mr. Carnian? Then if not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that C-2008-92 Hurricane Hall Farms LLC appeals for a conditional use permit to operate a horse training facility in the agriculture rural AR zone on properties located at 3899 Georgetown Road and 3688 Hurricane Hall Road in Council District 12 be approved as recommended by staff subject to the two conditions. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. All those in favor of Ms. Edwards' motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations, motion passes. Thank you and congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Next case is C-2008-93, Hope Springs Community Church. Good afternoon. Hi. State your name, please. David Calhoun. Now are you the pastor at the community of Hope Springs? Yes sir. Have you had a chance to review the report prepared by our staff? Yes. And they recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you reviewed the conditions? Yes. We're in agreement. Are you and your parishioners in agreement with us? Yes. Staff, is there any changes? No changes. Okay. Thank you. Any questions or discussions with this application? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve C-2008-93 Hope Springs Community Church appeal for a conditional use permit to expand a church use into an additional existing building in a wholesale and warehouse business, B4 zone on property located at 1109 for sales Road and Council District 2 as recommended by the staff's approval and subject to the three conditions I'll second all those in favor of miss Meyers motion please signify by saying aye all those opposed all right motion passes good luck to you sir thank you next case is C 2008-94 Emanuel Baptist Church good afternoon you state your name please my name is Kelly Hale I'm the director of the early childhood education program at Emanuel Baptist Church miss Hale is there a daycare there now no there's not a daycare we serve children ages 3 to 5 right now in a preschool school. Now the staffs recommended approval of your application subject to four conditions. Have you reviewed the conditions? Yes I have. I agree to those. Do staff have any revisions? No changes. Any questions or discussions concerning this application entertain a motion so chair I move that C 2008 94 Emanuel Baptist Church's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a childcare facility for up to 40 children in a single-family residential zone on property located at 3100 Tates Creek Road be approved for the recommended reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions recommended by the staff thank you miss Moore is there a second second all those in favor of mr. Moore's motion please signify by saying aye all those opposed motion passes galactic ma'am thank you Next case is C-2008-95 Vulcans Lands Inc. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Richard Hopgood. I'm the attorney for Vulcans Lands Inc. with Wyatt Territon Combs here in Lexington. We've got one person who wants to speak on behalf of our application, who's Steve Austin, who's not here. He's due here any minute. Someone from the University of Bob Wiseman was going to speak. We just found out he's in the hospital. So we're trying to get, see if we've got somebody to come for UK. So if you don't want to take the other objector case ahead of us, then we'll come back, if that's okay. Sure, that's no problem. Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. Our next case is C2008-96 Beaumont Park Townhomes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Andy Holmes with Midwest Engineering. We're representing Beaumont Park Townhomes in their application. We've reviewed the conditions of approval and are in agreement and request approval. All right. Any questions for Mr. Holmes or any discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that C2008-96 Beaumont Park Townhomes, LLC, appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a temporary real estate sales office in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 3234 B. Street in Council District 10 be approved as recommended by staff subject to the four conditions all right thank you miss Edwards do I hear a second second all those in favor of Miss Edwards motion please signify by saying aye all those opposed motion passes thank you next case is C 2008-97 basic Tipton Company Inc good afternoon good afternoon my name is John Miller I'm representing the basic Tip Tip Company and their building design team. Mr. Miller are you you work with with Faisy Tipton? No sir I'm a site planner working on the building design. Now the staff has recommended approval for the application subject to five conditions. Have you and your client reviewed those conditions? We have and we're in agreement with those conditions. We do, however, I don't know if this is a good time to interject this, we do, however, have a small revision to our conditional use application that we'd like to request. When we initially applied, we showed a square footage on this proposed office building of 20,000 square feet. And that is still the plan to build 20,000 square feet, but the building has an under-roof area, which we are calling a mezzanine, that we'll be using for mechanical equipment in the first phase. But the personnel at FASD-Dipton are wondering if they might be able to expand onto that mezzanine floor at a later date, which would bring the total square footage of the building up to 25,000. I have some architectural renderings if you want to see how that would occur. Do you mean that the footprint would remain unchanged? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Okay, Mr. Miller, if I'm doing my math right, that's about a 25% increase in the square footage? That's correct. I'm going to ask the staff if they are aware of this revision and have any objection to it. We were, and we discussed our review this morning, and we're okay with it. Thank you, Mr. Murray. All right, any questions or discussion from the board? Is there any concern about notice with respect to changing it from $20,000 to $25,000? We can check. I don't think that there was a specific square footage on the notice. There's no other discussion. Then I'll ask for a motion. Oh, is he checking that? Okay, I didn't know he was going to check that right now. Sorry. There's no specific mention of the 20,000 square feet in the notice. In that case I'll move that we approve. C. 2008-97 Fasig-Tipton Company's Appeals for Conditional Use Permit to construct an office building for an existing horse sales facility in the agricultural rural zone on property at 2400 Newtown Pike based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the five conditions. Thank You Mr. Griggs. Any discussion concerning the application or the motion? If not then I'll entertain a second. I'll second the motion. All those in favor of Mr. Griggs motion please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed motion passes thank you Mr. Hopgood have your witnesses shown up? Bill Peterson with the department with the ag school is right here he's going to speak briefly on behalf what this means the university Steve Austin's on the way we can go ahead and get started I just Steve's just down the street he's speaking on behalf of the legacy trail okay I think well there's I hear the objective case and then get to you. That's right. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. All right. Then we'll recall V2008-98 Daniel R. Violet. Thank you. I live at 1937 Alexandria Drive in Lexington, Kentucky. Thanks, sir. I need to swear you. Do you swear or affirm the, there you go, the testimony you'll give here today will be the truth? Yes. Thank you, sir. Now, I wonder if staff has some photos of the property they can put up for us. We have a limited number. I was aware that Mr. Violet had a presentation with probably a lot more pictures, so if you want to go ahead with that. Okay. Well, Mr. Violet, the staffs recommended approval. We have an object here. So we'd like to hear from you and hear your testimony. Okay. First slide, please. This is the property. I purchased it at the end of December 2006. It's on Alexandria Drive. Quite proud of purchasing the property. The prior owners owned it since 1956 to 2006 and it was heavily neglected, overgrown trees, a problem with the property so to speak so I basically purchased the fixer-upper. Next slide please. It is one of the oddest lots. In fact I have a copy of the plat and there's no other property like that on Alexandria Drive if you look at the white roof right in the middle of the picture that is the roof of my property and if you'll notice on the opposite side of Alexandria Drive it's typical homes with typical lots the back of my property is actually if you look directly south the back end of neighborhood properties actually front on Alexandria Drive what it is is I'm in this unique triangle if you go to the next slide please it's a little wider if you look at my property and the dark line which starts I wish I had a pointer thank you this is my property line Okay. My property line starts here, just behind the sidewalk. Here's Alexander Drive. Runs in this direction, down here, and it runs all the way up here to this corner. The house is basically between the easement lines. It's almost built property line to property line. Right here, when I purchased the property, this was so overgrown that unfortunately some of the neighborhood unquestionable characters used that portion of the lot to go to the bathroom, beer. It was a very unsightly corner. this property their back their backyard actually fronts an alexandia drive you cannot see anything in the back of their property because they have a very high hedge this is actually what that corner of the property looked like it was overgrown and people were doing a lot of disturbing things in that area next excuse me violin I'm sorry I'm gonna show you I get to the point well no no I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to go buy your property I apologize but and so I'm familiar with Alexander's Drive could you explain to us where this is if you go through if you were out for sales road we turn right or left you would turn right you'd pass the Kroger all the shopping centers you go to Lane Allen okay it's the last house on the right before you hit Lane Allen okay so I took down all this vegetation and begin to build up the hedge to prevent people from coming into the property next slide this is the hedge that is actually on the corner of my property that goes all the way to Lane Allen. Next slide. This is the actual, I'm standing on the corner of my property and you'll see a little opening there and I'm closing in that hedge because I didn't want people to do that anymore and I'm going to add landscaping there. Next slide. Some existing trees are there and you can see the the property where I've done a lot of beautification in this area. Next slide. I'm just going to tell you what happened. Because of the unique layout of the property, I called on 818 the Fayette County Building Department and I spoke to Michael Barton. I told him that I wanted to build a shed and I told him the size and he said you do not need a building permit and then my next question is I have a very oddly shaped property I'd like to you know put it on either what you consider the side or the front property line and I said Mr. Barton how many feet can I be off the property line he said three feet I said three feet the rear yes three feet the side yes three feet the front yes so I proceeded to construct a shed. I poured a concrete foundation eight feet by 12 feet and started construction and bolted the wood members so I wanted to make sure that this is a strong nice shed and I proceeded to add more landscaping. Next slide please. If you can see here the back end of the property I've got utility easements basically on all sides I've also have sanitary sewer veggies trees back there and there's just a big problem so I chose to get out of this alignment of easement here this particular corner and according to the building department I was okay three feet off next slide please I also added vegetation in fact I submit that to the board to not only add more vegetation but add some more trees and I actually went to all the surrounding properties and got a map and it said you have to notify all the people within 200 feet because you have to apply for a variance because I was informed by the building department that they never told me that there was a building setback line which I was very disappointed about and I said okay so I went to all my neighbors and got to meet quite a few of them some retired ladies in the community and it's a well established neighborhood and everybody basically signed off and said we don't have a problem I showed them this landscaping plan and they said we've seen all the work that you've done to improve the property you've done a really good job we're glad that you're there next slide here's the concrete pad and the the wood that's bolted there so it's it's not something you can move next slide then I got the notice they said stop work you're in the building setback line so I stopped work next note next slide and that's the letter that I submitted to basically my application and I talked to mr. George Dillon and he's in the head of the building department and he said I totally understand why you put the shed there you have a very odd lot you have utility lines you have easements everywhere and that is several feet from the neighbors several feet and very wide road right away along alexander drive and i've seen the landscaping you put so he said but you're going to have to go for a variance and this is why i'm here next slide here is the letter all the adjacent property owners that were on the list they signed the letter saying basically we agree to allow you to complete the completion of the shed including the neighbor that was here so i tried to add more landscaping and i'll talk about that next slide here is a view the shed frame is behind there. This is across Alexandria Drive and I'm actually on the road right of way. So you actually, by the time I add, more landscaping here and more landscaping here, and I'm going to use the same material because I want it very uniform. I want the street to look good. I want my property to look good. Next slide. Next slide. My neighbor came to me. Mark is to me, Mark is a really nice guy and he has a lot of pride in his neighborhood, and he said, I saw your landscaping plan, can you do me a favor? He said, the landscaping plan, you planted some trees, but he said, I want something more permanent versus crabapple. In other words, I want something green year-round. So I said, I'll go ahead and get them. I bought four. Their mature height is going to be about 14 feet, four feet wide. Next slide. That's before they're planted. What I'm going to do is to add more landscaping because my neighbor wanted something more permanent and so I said, I'll go ahead and do it. Next slide. And this is actually, I'm standing on his property line and there is the proposed shrubbery there. So my plan is, number one, I wouldn't have gone through all the hassle and the cost of trying to deal with the issue, but I am very concerned about my neighbors and my own property values, so when I'm finished, you won't see the shed. It's going to be totally landscaped. So thank you. All right. Does anybody have any questions? Mr. Hume Sir I know you heard Mr. Violet's discussion did you have anything that your office wanted to add no he has been cooperative with us he did call in and ask certain questions I question whether or not we said yes you could build it within three foot of the front yard Now, that's a little odd for us to answer for any kind of building. But I do know that he did call in and ask certain questions. I think I tried to get a hold of the inspector, Mr. Barton, who's off today. I was going to have him come and testify. But regardless of what kind of misunderstanding there may have been about that conversation, given the fact that he did call in, make an attempt to do the right thing, has been very cooperative and has gone far beyond what most people would do to try to satisfy the neighborhood as far as his landscape and so forth. We really don't have a problem with it. He is kind of at a disadvantage with his lot. So no, we really don't have any objection to it. Thank you, Mr. Hume. Are there any questions for Mr. Violet? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I will add one thing. The building does not require a building permit, so that is one advantage to the thing. If it were behind the building line, this wouldn't be an issue at all. So it is one thing that will not require a building permit, even if it is approved. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Good afternoon, sir. Would you say your name? Good afternoon. I lived next door, as Dan said, at 1933. And my main opposition is really the principle that we're violating regulations and restrictions here. And I'd ask that you look at another position, and that is, you know, this street, and Dan has done a great job, and we do too next door. The view that I have, and when I came in on after that started was another story. You know, the city approved it after the fact and all that. But I just want to say, having grown up here, I drive to my mother's house down in the streets just like this. Alexandria to Beacon Hill to Waller to Cooper to Chenoweth to Fairway to Henry Clay Boulevard at Bon Air where she lives. there's lots of odd properties and not a single shed three feet off of the sidewalk in the front yard I'm really afraid of the precedent that this sets and what property value effect that might have at my own property you know the precedent is endless you just don't know where that would stop and I have thought about if we can ask for an easement or an amendment to the rules here, why couldn't we take this out of sight like every other backyard with an outbuilding and ask for an easement around or a way to amend the rule to put the shed back there. You don't see a lot of outbuildings in front yards, and I just happen to be the one who sits out and enjoys my coffee and have a new view. I like Dan's plan. I don't think it's total concealment, and I just wish you would consider, again, land value precedent. Not only there, you know, this is Alexandria Drive, but all those streets along the way that I mentioned. And your name's Mr. Hanks? Hanks, H-A-N-K-S, Mark Hanks. Well, thank you, Mr. Hanks. Are there any questions for Mr. Hanks? All right. Thanks, sir. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you back there, Mr. Violet. Would you like to respond to Mr. Hanks's? Yes. Actually, the shed is not three feet off the property line. It's actually the application is six and a half, which gives me – I just wanted to clarify that is not three feet and all the other property owners have signed off including mark originally that they don't think it's going to impact their property at all mr. chair I'd like to ask maybe Jim marks to help to put at ease the opposition's fears that this is precedent setting because it is such an unusual situation I don't think he should worry that these sheds are going be popping up because of this case well as you all know it's a case-by-case thing so every case gets evaluated on its own merits i think this is so unusual that it's not going to come up very often if if at all so the burden is going to be on y'all or board members down the road just to make sure that they they look at the particulars of a case and make a good decision. Mr. Chair, I also think that given the fact that the owner actually called ahead and attempted to do the right thing, and somewhere in translation or misunderstanding, we're here. So this is a highly unusual case. Thank you, Mr. Hume and Mr. Marks. I personally always hate to see when someone's already begun constructions and and then comes to us asking for forgiveness but it sounds like mr. violet did did try to do the right thing is there any discussion by the board any questions if not then I'll I'll entertain a motion um would you like to go i'll go i move that we accept daniel violette's appeal for variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 6 feet 6 inches in order to accommodate construction of a storage shed in a single family residential zone on property located at 1937 and Alexander Drive as approved recommended approval by the staff and subject to the four conditions. Thank you Ms. Meyer for your motion. Do you have a second? Second. All right all those in favor of Ms. Meyer's motion please signify by saying aye aye all those opposed motion passes thank you I believe that the only case we have left is Vulcan lands case. Mr. Hopgood, are you ready to proceed? Okay, thank you. Then I'll call C2008-95 Vulcan Lands Inc. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, members of the board, my name is Richard Hopgood. I represent Vulcan Lands Inc. in this application. I've got a number of folks here. We have read the staff report, read the proposed conditions. I think there may be one additional change that Mr. Marks may have on a condition which we're okay with. And we've read the findings and we're in agreement with the staff's report and their conditions. And we've got a number of people here. If we can go through a full presentation or we can answer questions, whatever, since there are no objectors, whatever you would request. Mr. Hopka, that makes sense to me, since there are no objectors. and the staffs recommending approval. Let's see if the board has any questions. Now, I'm sorry, who are your folks that are here? Starting right here, Jim DeSink is the general manager for Vulcan Materials Operations in Kentucky. He lives here in Lexington. He's a geologist by education and training, now on the business side. Next to Jim is Dr. Kott Unrug, who is a professor of mining engineering at the University of Kentucky. Seated next to him is Braden Lusk, who is also a professor of mining engineering at the university and specializes in the blasting area. He's actually a certified blaster and does blasting research as a part of his academic work at the university. And then next to him is Steve Gardner, who is a mining engineer with a company called Engineering Consulting Services here in Lexington, who has evaluated and prepared reports in this matter. And in the back is Craig Morgan in the maroon shirt. He is Craig as an engineer here in Lexington who has worked a lot in the noise analysis area. and he's also done some due diligence and written a report that's filed with our application. All these gentlemen have written reports that are filed with the application, and they're in this booklet as well. All right. Well, then does the staff have any amendments to their, I guess, the conditions or their recommendation of approval? Just one addition on the condition number three. At the very end, if we could add and groundwater protection. So that would read at the end, federal and state regulations pertaining to mining activities and groundwater protection. Mr. Hopkins, is your client agreeable to that change? Yes, they are. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Also on condition 5 where it states about the reporting, and I may have missed it, it says, and I may not know, the Royal Spring Aquifer Wellhead Protection Committee. Is that here in Fayette County? It's my understanding that's in Scott County. Okay. Could we just get a – could we add for Fayette County to receive those reports also so we can track them? Sure. there's no way for me to enforce that without knowing they're giving those reports out so it's the LFUCG building inspection yes any opposition to that mister all right let's see I I'm gonna open it up to the board for questions and if the board would like to hear the full presentation request that I know if that the pleasure of the board fire away at mr. Hopgood of any of his witnesses here today well I have a question about the notification area since there's no opposition I'm I have a my gut instinct makes me worry about quarrying underneath the Royal Springs aquifer and I wish that there was some opposition here so that we could hear a different point of view and since there's not I feel at a disadvantage because there's a lot of people that have lined up to say this is okay but I'm in the position of having to make a decision without much information and it that worries me. Mr. Griggs would you prefer to have them make their presentation then? Well I would like to hear what you have to say and but I'm still worried that it will all be with the outcome that you're hoping for there's no dissent here and that worries me. Also I would like to have some of the people from the the protection, the water protection people here. What is it? The spring, you know, the Royal Spring aquifer wellhead protection committee and the Georgetown municipal water works people here you know we they we've been told that they approve it but you know I'd like to I'd like to have their input as well they're here okay well I think I'm gonna do a group oath since there's gonna be quite a few people to testify and that'd be most efficient so everyone everyone that anticipates testifying today I'd like you to raise your right hand ask you to swear affirm the testimony you give here today will be the truth. I do. All right. Thank you all. Start. Yes sir. Let me I guess it might help briefly. I didn't do an elbow. I don't know how . Yeah, check. We're looking for the portable mic. I'll start over briefly. This is the surface quarry right here and it's located on property, 194 acres that's owned by Vulcan that follows this boundary right here. It's been the operation since the 60s. It's a vested right. We adjoined, this is the University of Kentucky's veterinary Science research program right here. This 57 acres right here where my hand is is also owned by the university. And as a part of our long-range planning, Vulcan had been in the works in taking this operation underground, that is the actual coring would occur underground instead of on the surface. And the plan was to do it in this area right in here. We've had discussions with the university. They had told us they're in need of more land for their veterinary science operation, their equine research. So they started talking to Vulcan about swapping the surface of this track for the limestone rights under this track so that they could expand their equine research out here. At the same time that we started having those discussions, we were approached by the Legacy Trail folks who have plans, and Steve Austin's here to speak about that, and I think Marnie Hollaback may be here as well. The plan for the trail was to come through the area where we would go underground on our property. So after discussions with the university and with the trails folks, we have reached a letter of intent with the university, been approved by their board and it's approved by Vulcan's board to make this exchange that would then allow the trail to come where they would like to through here. And our operation would then enter down here and the underground mining would take place starting down here and moving back this way. But all of the surface operations will be at the same spot that they're currently occurring. But since this property was not a part of our original ownership that we started back in the 60s, we need and have applied for a conditional use just to mine underground here. There will be no surface operations here. This is Cane Run Creek through here, as you can see. and it is, I guess, a part of the Royal Spring Aquifer. We recognize that we needed to consult with the aquifer folks, and we have. We've had numerous conversations with them. We've had two presentations, one technical with all these gentlemen here who've done analysis, written reports. The Aquifer Committee, which is really a committee of the Georgetown Municipal Water Sanitary Sewer, Commission and it's made up of employees of the water company bill Jenkins who's back here is the manager of it of the water company It's made up of some other folks in planning and emergency services in Scott County And it also has two urban county government employees Jim Redman who's a senior environmental planner and Jimmy Emmons sit on that committee as well, and they've heard our presentations and had the benefit of these reports as well So the – and we've reached a condition with the aquifer committee. It's actually been to the Georgetown Water Board for approval of that condition as well, where when we have final plans for engineering plans for what we're going to do, we will take those back to the aquifer committee, have a meeting. They've engaged a mining engineer as well who sat through all these presentations. And then we'll make our final engineering plan presentation, take input from them. If there are questions or concerns they have, there's a timing opportunity for them to raise those with the appropriate people. And then as we proceed with the creation of what will essentially be underground portals, we will do reporting, monitor that, and provide those reports back to the water board and the committee so that they're aware of what's going on. Also, Jim Currens, who was on the Kentucky Geological Survey, was present at that meeting as well, and I think he may sit on that committee from time to time as well. The engineering plan is essentially to create, they're called portals, they're just open entries down into the underground from actually the Vulcan property in this surface pit, which is about 80 feet deep. So we'll be starting the mine construction here and then driving under and turning up this way. The portals are actually created by a rotary drilling device. They're not blasted down. They're a huge rotary device that just essentially grinds a portal down to about 265 feet in depth. So there will be 265 feet of limestone from the top of our underground facility to the surface. The Royal Spring Aquifer, at best, is no more than 50 feet deep. We're actually 80 feet deep in this pit right now. We've actually, over the years, surface mined below the depth of the aquifer. The mining after that is what's called room and pillar mining. They essentially sever stone by a blast each day, usually at the end of the day. It's a very limited controlled blast to sever enough material to produce the next day. They actually crush it underground, and then it's conveyed out and secondarily crushed here, stored, and then trucked out as it currently is. the what's that's the room part of the pillar part they actually leave 50 square foot limestone pillars from the floor to the ceiling that provide the structural integrity for the mine so they're gigantic pillars they stay they don't ever remove them after the fact typically a lot of bigger communities quarries end up after their useful life has gone end up being used for underground storage for documents and things like that. So there are three layers of what's called bentonite, which is a natural heavy clay substance about a foot in depth and they're at different levels here. We've got the exact elevations, but they and they're present at Central Rock and throughout the county actually and they act is actually sealants for groundwater to keep groundwater from moving uh down and those uh we've identified the location of those seams we know where they are elevation wise and we'll be well under them when the actual mining starts um we've done actually is a part of the due diligence mr. gardener's firm it's in his report we actually did core drilling samples down fairly deep I don't exactly Jim do you know how deep the cores went down how deep did the cores go down 300 feet or well they they actually core drilled down and inserted what they call piezometers which are tube-like devices that they can seal off certain zones and tell if water is communicating from one level to another and at the mr. Gardner can tell you about in depth if you want more but at the lower level of that there was no communication of water between that level and any upper level so and just by our own experience at at Georgetown Road or I'm sorry central rock which is the facility that vulcan operates on manchester road we've actually mined under mcconnell springs at that facility there's been no effect on mcconnell springs mr emmons is a part of his aquifer committee work actually toured that facility and we went up in that area he wanted to get up and near under that area to see if there was any groundwater and there's not groundwater in that facility and there won't be in this building because These mines are dry. We are way below the depth of groundwater. That occurs at a much higher level. We do surface runoff water is utilized for dust suppression. We spray it on stockpiles, on roads, to keep dust down. It's a standard method of doing it. We're monitored by the Kentucky Division of Air Quality for that. and we direct stormwater back down into our mines and they settle in ponds so that the particulate in the water will sink down and then we pump it back out and use it through our spraying system. So we actually recycle our water that's used to control dust on the surface. Dr. Lusk, as I mentioned, is a professor of mining engineering at the university as a PhD from the University of Missouri Rolla School of Mines he actually does academic research in the blasting area he's a certified blaster and is actually operating at another underground quarry in Scott County the Nally and Gibson quarry which is under Elkhorn Creek at that location they mine under that he does research under grants from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Navy developing materials that you can see through or wet or mesh to withstand blasts. So he actually does blasting himself as a part of his research. He's reviewed our blasting procedures at Central Rock. He's toured that facility. He's looked at our blasting records. We keep seismographic records of each blast. And our seismographic records are way, way under the state standard, almost to the point where, to give you an example, the state standard is two inches of what's called peak particle velocity per second. Our readings are .10 or under. So we are almost at the point where he characterizes being negligible. And his conclusion is at that level with 265 feet, it's a control blast. It's not a big area. It's not like a surface operation where you may blast for three, four or five days of material at one time. These are very small probably the faces are about 25 feet high 45 feet wide maybe 15 feet deep once a day. His conclusion from that was that the blasting would not have not only effect on surrounding property wouldn't have any effect on the aquifer as well. Dr. Unrug is a mining engineering professor has been at the University probably since the 60s or 70s maybe. He's a nationally renowned mining engineer. These other folks that work with him and have taken classes under him can tell you that. He's looked at it as well and his conclusion is the same as Steve Gardner's. One recommendation that he suggested which we're going to follow, we've talked about that with the aquifer committee is to drill ahead in small hose ahead of our decline down just to make sure that we know what's in front of us if by chance there was some groundwater all the indications are there or not but we'll be going ahead of that in small hose so we'll know if we see something like that then the engineers and construction people know how to deal with that and that's part of the reporting process for the aquifer committee so you know i can't the notice area is huge in a rural area i don't know how many it was there's a list it's probably 60 people 60 property owners it picked up a part of coventry subdivision i picked up a part of kearney ridge we've talked to the folks at spindle top hall and i've talked to the developer of coventry i've sent information to john barlow who developed Kearney Ridge. We've spent a lot of time with the aquifer committee, so I can't tell you why there's no opposition other than the folks who've looked at this don't have a problem with it. But we've, particularly with the aquifer committee, because we knew that that would be an important issue for you all and for them. We recognize that. And, in fact, we've probably slowed our process down quite a bit in order to work with them and make sure that they don't have an objection to what we're doing. So that, I guess, is that point. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hopkins. Sir, in the spirit of fair disclosure, I'd like to tell you that I grew up in an area where there's a lot of surface and underground coal mining and and also currently I live in the western part of the city and so I'm over the Central Rock quarry and I'm familiar with the blasting that occurs about five o'clock every evening so I just want I want to let you and your folks know that now that's my inclination is to hear from the Royal Spring aquifer committee I don't know if any of the board has questions for mr. Hopkins at this time thank you mr. chairman my name is Jimmy Emmons I'm a senior planner in our Division of Planning I'm also a member of our Royal Spring Aquifer Committee Bill Jenkins our chairman will get up and speak a little bit after right after me whenever I I want to clarify a few things about the committee it's a seven member committee that has five members that are people that are in Scott County and two members from Fayette County it's a joint committee that was created by ordinances of both Scott County and Fayette County. I've been on the committee for about four years and I feared the day whenever this Vulcan materials thing would come forward and to be honest I was I was fearful until I checked into it. I had the opportunity to as it was mentioned earlier I did go tour the site off of Old Frankfort which is the very similar to the site here in Georgetown instead of the Royal Spring aquifer under there and instead of Royal Springs you've got McConnell Springs under there I can tell you I was about 200 feet underground standing directly underneath the McConnell Springs and it was dry as a bone down there that I was very impressed by the by the applicants professionalism by their level of detail in their planning and we had two meetings the the last meeting that we had was about two hours of us asking very hard and detailed questions in protection of the Royal Spring Aquifer it was it was during that meeting that we recommended what is essentially now conditions four and five on your agenda those those two conditions are a direct result of our request after meeting with the applicants and we felt that that is that that with those conditions that we were in favor of this going forward if if you have any questions for myself like turn over to Bill Jenkins or the chairman of the Royal Spring Aquifer Committee Thank You Mr. Em Good afternoon. I'm Bill Jenkins, Georgetown Water Company General Manager. With this application, we were all concerned about Royal Springs. We're concerned all the time about Royal Springs. If it was our preference, there would be no development on Royal Springs, but in reality, it happens. The best thing we can do looking at these types of situations is I consider the best management practice. So when they came to us twice, the first time is to let us know, which is most times we don't get those type of calls, but the second time they came with a preliminary plan, and the plan looks good. The condition 4 and 5 is the most important part that we'll have a chance to review the actual plan, and from that point we'll be able to possibly make our comments. If there are some changes that need to be done, we would come back and hopefully those changes will be taken. and also too if it doesn't work we'll have opportunity to come back to this board here and explain what the problems are and hope if we can make some changes at that point but we're in favor of this as long as we have conditions four and five are met thank you Mr. Jenkins that was going to be a request I had for you is that you would agree to notify us of any problems and in any ways that we could assist you thank you for that I guess let our staff know and they can put this case back on the docket for you. Thank you. Mr. Jenkins? Yes. I do have a question. When you're analyzing these scenarios, does it ever get reduced to numbers? Do you ever think there's a 95% chance that this is all going to be okay and there's a 5% chance there'll be a problem? And what's the level where you would say we shouldn't do this because there's too big of a problem what's a small enough risk that you're willing to accept with Georgetown's water supply? Well you you look at each case by case you know we review cases just have a parking lot you know and those cases are taken consideration is also we had a case several about a year or two ago which was the stockyard and that was a big case for us too because it was directly over aquifer but as i said before the best management practice and most of the cases have been brought in front of the committee have worked out that it's either you know the best management practice or they've changed where there was conditions that we requested to be met so things have worked out royal springs itself it's it's such a big water supply area downtown lexington right now i don't know if you're sitting on it or not but it's so widespread through fayette county 80 of it is in fayette county 20 is in scott county so it's a hard target to find they may do some drilling and never hit royal springs the royal spring aquifer goes through the horse park and there was numbers of whales years ago was drilled and actually there was only one that came up with the water supply for a farmer so you know it's it's hard to pinpoint where royal springs is as far as the the uh supply of the water we have the a good idea where the main charge the main area is located but the recharge is real hard to identify so you have to work one-on-one with each case in this area right here where they're starting to go down into the uh the mine is on the tip of the we consider the recharge area we've only got look like about 500 foot we have to be concerned about and once they from my understanding with the experts that at the committee once they reach a certain level i think that we'll be safe that recharge area is only about 70 or 80 feet deep so thank you thanks sir any other questions mr jenkins I know Steve Austin wants to speak it. I don't want to forget him and cut him off, but we'll proceed as you wish. Okay. Sure, that's fine. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Austin. I'm the Director of the Legacy Center at the Bluegrass Community Foundation, and I'm here to very briefly talk about the Legacy Trail and how it relates to this particular application. I've put on an overhead, a general view of the trail. The Legacy Trail is a nine-mile walking and biking trail from downtown to the Kentucky Horse Park. The bottom of the drawing is the trail going into downtown through the Lexmark property. The top of the drawing, the white space with the little horse track, is the actual Kentucky Horse Park. So we're going to link... Mr. Austin, did I get the staff to hand you a pointer? That would be great. Okay, great. Sorry. Thanks, sir. Ah, this is fun. This is downtown Lexington. The route of the trail is in blue here through Lexmark property through Coldstream Park right here and then it turns onto UK property which is this blue line and goes underneath I-75 and then goes through Main Chance Farm up to the Kentucky Horse Park. This is the area that we're talking about today. vital to us that this link be established because without the ability to go right in through here in the alignment that UK prefers because this is a research farm there is little likelihood that we'll be able to connect the trail to the Kentucky horse park. So that's our interest in this particular application is seeing that this that this these relationships and this approval occurs so that we can complete the trail. The trail will be or is planned to be completed by the opening of the World Equestrian Games in 693 days. Another interesting aspect of the trail is its connection once we get into town. I don't have a detailed map of that, but this trail will connect to the Isaac Murphy Memorial Art Garden on the East End neighborhood. It's one of our missions is to tie the East End, which is a historically disenfranchised neighborhood near downtown to this larger project and we're going to do that via the Isaac Murphy garden at the corner of Midland and Winchester. Isaac Murphy was a genius thoroughbred jockey who lived and worked in the East End, a professional African-American athlete at the end of the 19th century, which professional athletes generally were rare, let alone an African-American. He was the first jockey inducted into the Thoroughbred Hall of Fame. His final resting place is at the front gate of the horse park. So when we're talking about Legacy, we're not just talking about a nine-mile walking and biking track, but really we're talking about coordinating and integrating our neighborhoods and our stories across the large section of the city. So just to kind of summarize, our interest in this is that we want to see this Legacy trail complete and having this approval today is vital to that. Thank you all and I'll be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Austin, thanks for being here, just so I'm clear. You're supporting what's being proposed here. We certainly support it and wholeheartedly support it. Yes, sir. Thanks, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Austin? Thanks, sir. While we're on that, Bill Peterson with the Agricultural College at UK is here. Bob Wiseman was going to come and speak. He's over the Facilities Management at UK. We found out today he's been hospitalized. Bill did not plan on speaking, but he will tell you that the university is in support of this. Obviously, they entered into this letter of intent because it provides a lot of needed surface area for their equine research that they would not have, but for us being able to go down in this other direction. Bill, if you want to affirm that. Yes, I'm Bill Peterson. I represent the College of Agriculture, University of Kentucky, and we do support approval. This is going to benefit our equine research efforts by giving us an additional approximately 80 acres of surface that we will have for benefit of our horses. I'll be glad to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Any questions? All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Well, I have a couple questions. Anyone else on the board have questions? I have a question. How often does drilling take place under a water source? I'm sorry, drilling? How often does drilling take place underneath a city's water source? Jim, you want to answer that? I want you to come up here. I'm Jim DeSink, Vulcan Materials General Manager. I'm not sure I understand the question, but... No, I'm just talking about, you know, how often, how many other places has drilling that goes on underneath a city's water source? Well, and I can only speak for what I, and some of these people here work in other locations. I work for Vulcan, so I can speak for Vulcan locations. Of course, McConnell Springs, which I assume you're familiar with, on Manchester, we operate there. We operate on three levels there. We operate an operation on Richmond Road, which is not connected to a water source per se, but there are water bodies around the area that we operate in. Now, there are several quarries in the state of Kentucky that I'm aware of that do operate. One operates under the Ohio River, as Richard mentioned, one Georgetown wrote out on Georgetown. I mean, they operate under the creek there, which I assume that feeds into the northern Georgetown area water system. So it's not unusual, in my experience in Kentucky, for people to operate underground where you have water above in an aquifer. Are there any problems with that? I'm sorry. No, we have never experienced that problem, and I'm not aware of anyone who has experienced a problem. Again, those bentonites that Richard had mentioned, they're volcanic clays, they're swelling clays. They tend to stop any groundwater penetration from the surface coming down into the undergrounds, and I'm not aware of anyone who's had groundwater problems in their minds. I'll say that they don't, but I'm not aware of those. And like I said, some of these folks here who work as consultants in other locations may have something that I don't. I'm sorry I was distracted that last statement you made about no problems with groundwater in your life? That I'm aware of in our operations or the operations that I'm aware of that's correct Now I'm not telling again they may be able to speak to something different but that I'm aware of Okay well thank you Mr. Hopgood, I've got a couple questions. I guess I'm more familiar with coal mining and there you have seams of coal and it sounds like you might have seams of limestone even though that's maybe not what you call them. How thick is the layer of limestone that will be quarried at this facility? Probably all I'm going to do in this area is to bring somebody else up here. So Steve, do you want to take one of these? He works in the coal mining area as well. Go ahead. How about if I go through a few of the exhibits? First, my name is Steve Gardner. I'm a consulting engineer here in Lexington. I've got some on PowerPoint here. If I go through those, I've got a few of the exhibits that might answer some of your questions. Okay. Well, first of all, our firm, ECSI, was retained to do a hydrogeologic evaluation of the quarry and provide an independent objective review of Vulcan's plans. As a licensed professional engineer, our first obligation is always to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare and do an independent review. And no opinion is given without that as our first consideration. and we've worked on a number of quarry projects and coal projects across the state. In fact, our firm was one of the first hired by the city to do the inspections under the quarry ordinances back in the early 90s, I believe. We've evaluated other quarries in the vicinity. The Lexington Quarry down in Nicholasville, which operates under the Conamera Golf Course, That property was recently sold to Alltech. We did an evaluation of the quarry operations and impacts on the surface to assure the new owners that there would be no impacts in that vicinity as well. You were talking about the drilling earlier. Let's see. Can you advance or do I have it done? Let's just go through the general location, the aerial view of the quarry. You can see the current pit down the lower. in this vicinity, the undisturbed surface area in here, and this was the proposed property owned by the University for the Trade. Next one. Topographic view of the area. Next slide, please. Okay, here is a geologic cross section, which is based upon the drilling that's been conducted over the years. recently there were five new holes drilled, I think the deepest one was about 500 feet, 25 and 600 feet, and goes through the different formations. You have the Lexington limestone on top, then through the Tyrone, the Oregon, and then down to the Camp Nelson. You might equate those to seams, but that's all limestone. The drilling was conducted to identify where identify where the bentonite layers occur in this strata. And there are three bentonite layers ranging in thickness from a few inches to about 10 inches that occur through this level. And the Royal Springs aquifer is confined to the strata above those bentonite layers. The actual quarrying will be conducted down here in the Tyrone formation of limestone. Now if that sums up what we did, Mr. Hopgood and Mr. Emmons summarized a lot of our other conclusions, but from our review of all the available information, it was our opinion that there would be no impact on the Royal Springs aquifer from this additional coring that's proposed. All right. Mr. Gardner, is that you? Yes. I'm a little confused. I'm sorry. Okay, well, thank you for that presentation, but it doesn't answer my question. Okay. Mike, how thick was the seam of limestone that would be quarried at this facility? Okay. I thought I was trying to address that. You see the tyrone formation in here. I'm not sure the exact thickness. How thick is that? The quarry operations generally are done in a manner of cuts. The first cut is roughly 27 feet. I've described the process in the report and then in a second cut sometimes an additional 27 feet which can result in a quarry height or mining area of about 60 feet underground. The actual formation is much thicker than that. Does that help? That's helpful, thank you. Now you're the you're providing the hydrogeologic review Yes. Okay. Now, my other question is, and I'm not a geologist, and I won't play one here, but say we've got a worst-case scenario, and you are, it seems like from what I've heard, the slope is where you're the most, if something bad's going to happen, that's the most likely place where it will happen when you're digging the slope. Is that a fair assessment of the... That's where the major concern has been expressed. Now, if there is some disturbance of the aquifer and the water that would normally come out at the Royal Springs starts coming out at the portal that you are, one of the portals that you're preparing, if that unfortunately happens, is there any way to stop that if it does occur? Yes. This is a three-dimensional view of what the general operation would look like from the surface operations sloping down to the formation, the Tyrone, where the actual quarry will take place. and tunneling and slopes are done all over the country and in fact they do encounter water problems in some areas and the technology for sealing tunnels is quite advanced and if there were a problem it would be no issue to seal those areas off. Is there a possibility that if this discharge for the spring was disturbed that it is I guess the possibility is does the possibility of a possibility occur or could it occur that that the the aquifer the discharge in the Royal Spring would be permanently impacted in my opinion no and and why is that because Because the bentonite layers that are there, you have the potential to go through with the slope. And it's easy to seal those areas off if there was any connection to the aquifer. The bentonite is essentially a self-sealing material and will expand upon contact with water. So in my experience in other areas, if that's ever happened, it's quite easy for that to seal itself off. I don't know if that's a simple enough explanation but Simple is better, thank you Alright, any other questions for Mr. Gardner? Alright, thanks sir We might notice too on this photo that Corey Pitt is already below and well within the Royal Springs Occerer I'm not sure if that's the point we made yet or not. But the actual proposal plan will assure there's no additional surface disturbance within this area. I'll repeat that. The existing pit area is already within that Royal Springs Aquifer area. And this proposal will assure that there's no additional disturbance on the surface to the Royal Springs aquifer area. In fact, this, in my opinion, will assure that there's no impact on the Royal Springs aquifer by taking the quarrying underground and below the aquifer itself. All right. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. I do have one question for you here. I noticed when I went out and visited the site that the open quarries are all filled with water. Is that surface water runoff, or do you think that's Royal Springs Aquifer leaking into the pits? Well, a little of both. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gardner, I just have one question. Is this a single-level mine? Because I know the Manchester Street's going on four levels now. Is this just a single-level cut? That would be a question for Volcom, but right now the proposed plan is for single level. It would be one level. Okay, that's what I was asking. You're talking about many decades of operation. No, I understand that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. I have another question. Okay, go ahead. I have a question about the blasting. Is the blasting control, I assume it's a control type of blasting, but is there any disturbance or is there shifting of the layers that can occur with the blasting? I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Dr. Braden Lusk and I'm a professor of mining engineering at the University of Kentucky. and I think I'd probably be best qualified to answer your question. In regards to blasting affecting and shifting the layers, I don't believe that that's a possibility. What you have is ground vibrations that emanate from the blast and those vibrations will react on the mass of rock together. And when you talk about the types of vibration that you have from blasting, the actual displacement that you get could be equated to a couple pieces of photocopy paper. That's the displacement you get. Now the vibration, the limit is 2 inches per second velocity, but it's at a certain frequency such that the actual displacement is very small. So in my opinion, I don't believe you're going to have any shifting of layers that could cause problems for water coming through that bentonite layer. While you're... You okay? this might be far-fetched but if you're using that post method of removing the limestone and I think that would mean you'd extract 75% I'd say that would be probably a fairly high estimate I think it's probably closer to 60% but 55 to 60% extraction well I don't know what the dimensions are throughout the mine but what would happen if there was an earthquake that shook that area and could it collapse the limestone above the mine into the mine and I suppose it's hypothetical and it would depend on the strength of the earthquake but surely if there was some structural problems of great magnitude it would drop that limestone and damage the aquifer. I can let Dr. Unruh supplement, but I think really what you're looking at, if you have an earthquake of that magnitude to cause that kind of separation that was going to cause structural problems with the mine, you're probably going to be worried about cracking your bentonite layers and disrupting the aquifer anyway. That would be my statement to that. So an earthquake could damage the bentonite layers. I'm not an expert in earthquakes and I wouldn't venture to answer that. Okay, thank you. Well, I think that I may... My name is Kod Unruh and I'm professor of mining engineering. We have fairly large body of data from earthquakes that are happening and probably most of you remember the earthquake which happened in San Francisco which was the most recent decades on our terrain in the United States was the most serious one. And you remember that the bridges were broken and some cars toppled and so. So that happened at the surface where the surface waves are the most damaging to any structures. When you go underground, then there is a confinement of the ground which is around. For instance, there was no any damage for tunnels in San Francisco area. Of course, they have substantial number of BART, which is their transportation system out there in subways. There was no single problems out there. what it comes out is the nature of rock which is a brittle material and as it is strong in compression is weak in tension and this is how we break rock we take advantage of this sort of things if we are making mining excavations including blasting however in underground conditions where we have full confinement then there is no way really to create tension in rock is most of it is in compression and that rock is very durable so we have in New Madrid fold area they were historical it was happening in 18 there were several of them in 1802 and 1804 and 1807 I think where the unconsolidated material which is close to the surface with the aquifers in them was completely liquefied and that thing behave somehow like a soup while the rock rock does not rock being confinement and being stiff material is is really durable for that so we really don't don't experience anything in mining in vicinity of major seismic events. That's it. Thank you, sir. Mr. Tropp, could I have a question for Mr. D'Sink, please? Thank you. My question is, say we grant the request of relief here today, when When would your company plan to commence the building the portals? Yeah, the actual declines themselves would take anywhere to two to three years to construct just by themselves before you would even start the mining process. And we're looking at least five years out before that construction would even start. So you're talking about something, the actual mining process itself would be in the next five to ten years. but the construction of the declines would be five plus with two to three years of that construction going. All right, so you're not even, just so I'm clear, you wouldn't even start constructing the declines for five years? Yes, that's correct, and that's one of the reasons why the water board had asked that we come back and work with them at the time of the construction itself so that it would be more immediate to the operation. So you wouldn't get your first shovel full of gravel for seven years if you started? Exactly. All right. All right. Well, that's helpful. Thank you, sir. I have a question about the inspection process, Mr. DeSink or whoever. Okay. How often it – what's the process of inspection and who does it? I'll take that one. The code of ordinances require that the mines be inspected once a year. We get maps and geological report from an independent engineer that verifies those items mentioned in the ordinance. Also during the construction phase, as they start to do their construction and get ready to start drilling? That would be monitored by the state and federal agencies, I'm assuming. We have multiple inspections by state and federal agencies as well as the city itself. MSHA, Mine Safety Health Administration, four inspections a year. Those inspections are two to three days long. They walk the entire length of the mine, all the operations themselves, the equipment and everything. We also have the air and state air for many folks. They do not announce when they're going to come in. They usually inspect at least twice a year. They're more likely, you won't see them seven or eight times in a year. There's no announcement for that. We also have Groundwater Division. We have the Surface Mining Division, who's in charge of blasting and noise and all those type of things. They inspect the same thing on a frequent basis, but I think it's at least twice a year. Most times we see them seven to eight times a year. Any other questions for the applicant? Anybody need a recess? Well, no other questions, then I'll ask for a motion. Before we move, I'd like to say as an employee of the University of Kentucky, I'm going to abstain. Thank you, Ms. Moore. I do have some things on my mind. I thought that, are they finished with their presentation? Well, let's ask Mr. Hopkins. Are you, sir? Yes. As I mentioned earlier, it's bothersome to me that there's no one here presenting a formal oppositional point of view. And maybe that's because there's not a legitimate one. I don't know. I'm not trained in the area that we've been talking about. but I would like to add into the record, if the board would indulge me, there's a case that was similar to this one almost 20 years ago, and so that you don't think this is a conspiracy, there was the minutes from those meetings submitted to us for approval because they'd been left in draft form for a decade. So a year or more ago we got the minutes to approve for a case that happened in 1989 and it was very to this and that it was Vulcan Materials asking for permission to expand their operation and it was also in the vicinity of a delicate water feature so I read it a year ago and then saved it and reread it recently and marked some areas that I thought would be interesting because there was a heavy oppositional team that testified in this case. And if nothing else, it will give us a reminder of the limestone, the geological characteristics of the limestone that we're all settled on here. So if the board doesn't have any objection, I'd like to read some excerpts from these minutes from... It was a conditional use C89-35 and combined with 37, the two cases heard at the same time. Vulcan Materials was the applicant. And it was an application for their Old Richmond Road quarry in the vicinity of Elk Lake Creek and Dr. Mary Wharton's Floracliff Nature Sanctuary. And I have to say I was really surprised and glad that Richard Hopgood is here today because he will be able to offer us firsthand comments about this because he was the attorney for Vulcan 20 years ago. In any case, Vulcan was asking to increase the area that they were mining, and they brought to the meeting a team like they have today that included their attorneys, James Park and Richard Hopgood and three experts a fella named Vincent Aimee who was a hydrogeologist and James Scott a mining engineer and a fella named Froedge who was a physicist and also they had a Mr. John Mount who was the district production manager since 1970 so he'd been working in this mine for 19 years and Will Glasek of Knoxville Tennessee he was the vice president and general manager of Vulcan materials so that was the applicants team The hydrologist, that was Mr. Amy, and I'll quote from the record here, he stated that he was assigned to investigate the relationship relative to groundwater of Elklick Creek and the construction and operation of the new tunnels proposed by Vulcan Material. He visited the mines on three occasions and that the last visit was this morning. He went into the mines and inspected them when there was no ongoing operations. He examined the rock outcroppings being mined and those surrounding the mine, the pillars, the roof of the mine and access road. He inspected Elkwick Creek in the vicinity of the proposed tunnels, examined the cores taken from three core areas located in the vicinity, and examined the log records of those cores. Based on those core samples and his knowledge and experience, Mr. Amey stated that he had determined that there would be no effect of Elklick Creek as a result of the construction of the proposed tunnels in the area. He had prepared a geologic cross-section of this area and stated that the rocks underlying this area were like a geologic layer cake, all with similar properties and all being limestones which had been deposited during the same geologic period and under subtropical conditions. Over the course of the intervening years they had been compressed, compacted, and crystallized so that today they are very dense. They have been subjected to stresses resulting in minor cracking and jointing and so forth have occurred. The secondary deposits of calcite have occurred so that the existing fractures have been sealed by this calcite, all these occurrences have created a very massive, dense body of rock which will not, according to Mr. Amy, transmit water by itself. As what few fractures are existing have been sealed and the limestone underlying the stream bed of Elklick Creek and between there and the top of the proposed tunnel is, for all practical purposes a water barrier. He testified in regard to the condition of the interior of the existing mine that it was dry. A couple pages later, by the way this is 40 pages of testimony I've highlighted a few things I've reduced it by 90% but please bear with me I'm not a good public speaker but this is actually It's actually a fairly interesting story and it has a surprise at the end. Two pages later, he repeated that the mine was dry. Then Dr. Scott testified. He was the mining engineer. He'd first visited the Richmond Road Quarry in 1965. And he'd stated that he'd been in the Vulcan mine many times. area of expertise was the roof bolts that would help secure the top of the mine Mr. Mount well that's that's just talking about Mr. Mount he was the district manager and had been working there since 1970. There was a lot of testimony about the safety of doing this expansion and when their Vulcans team gave up the floor Walter May who was the attorney for the The opposition called a Dr. William Bryant. Dr. Bryant is a graduate education in zoology and botany with the emphasis on planned ecology. Mr. May asked Dr. Bryant to indicate the importance of the sanctuary. He then noted that the National Park Service mentioned the sanctuary as the highest priority site. In terms of its uniqueness geologically, biotanically, ecologically, there is no other place like Elk Lake Falls. Mr. May then listed the two, I'm skipping pages, but Mr. May then listed two prime reasons for the adverse influence on Floracliff of the expansion. First there were tons of gravel in the creek. Second was the loss of water flow from the creek. Dr. Wharton, Dr. Mary Wharton, testified that the water flow of Elklick Creek as it passes Vulcan had decreased drastically over the last 30 years. Mr. May then called Mr. Ed Hardowitz, he's assistant director of the Kentucky Division of Water Quality, and Mr. Hardowitz showed photographs of the area before the confluence of the branches between there and the Kentucky River he pointed out the amount of crushed stone and said he did not know of any other stream in Kentucky with a similar condition the stream is running above three or four feet of crushed stone that fills the stream from bank to bank a final picture shows a fan of crushed stone where the mouth of the creek enters the Kentucky River mr. May then called dr. Ralph Ewers degrees in earth science geology and his PhD is in geomorphology and geohydrology. Many of the papers he has published are on the subject of groundwater and limestone formations and has done consulting work for the US Department of Interior, the state of Kentucky, the US Army, all dealing with groundwater flow and limestone. Dr. Ewers then indicated the sources of the creek as water running between the layers of limestone and dolomite. Such springs were noted as responsible for the base flow of the stream. He disagrees with the earlier testimony that the limestone was very impermeable and non-porous as it would appear from the core samples. Instead, it has many plumbing elements developed in it naturally to carry water. Dr. Ewers then stated that what Vulcan will do in mining out the limestone from this area would be to under drain it. Take all the water that would be going to Elkwick Creek and put it into the mine. Pull the plug underneath the topography and short circuit the flow of the water. He stated that he suspected that the present lessening of the water flow in the main fork is due to under draining of the part of the stream by the present mining operations. He stated that the new mining under consideration would cut out half of the recharge water to the two streams and would constitute an effect off-site which is unacceptable. Mr. May then called Mr. James Hugh. Hugh is an MS, has a master's in engineering and geology. Mr. Hugh moved on to discuss shock waves and mining blasts of bedrock. The shock waves cause recurrent or renewed movement along the bedrock joints and fractures. It makes no difference how the fractures are sealed, he said. A small amount of movement can break the seal. Blasting disrupts the entire system. The result is an irreversible loss of surface water and groundwater. He stated that he suspected that in the upper reaches of Elk Creek branch he could perceive what he considered to be a vegetative stress or lack of water. In reference to this vegetative stress, Mr. Hugh referred to a telephone conversation he had with a private satellite imagery operation. Mr. Hugh then stated that he had asked the person on the telephone if he could detect any evidence of vegetative stress in the area. Yes, very definitely. He then stated that the satellite imagery may also indicate that some illegal action underground trespass evidence that there has been some mining out from underground that does not belong to Vulcan. Mr. Hughes stated that such indications can only be confirmed through the performance of an independent underground mine survey tied to the ground surface property boundaries. He stated that he had recommended that this survey be done to determine if the mine was only on the correct property, but this had not apparently been acted upon. Mr. Hughes said he believed that someone else had asked for a mine survey and the applicants did not grant the request. And he believes this raises a red flag that they may be hiding something. Mr. Hughes then read a letter from Chuck Taylor with the National Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet Department for Environmental Protection in Frankfort. Mr. Taylor is a senior geologist with the Groundwater Branch, Kentucky Division of Water. Mr. Taylor was quoted that blasting often causes adverse effects due to fracture propagation, that blasting creates new fractures and alters naturally existing bedrock fractures such as joints and faults. Mr. Taylor continued, blasting could permanently disrupt local groundwater flow, resulting in a decrease of water supply. Blasting may lower the local water table level and could also impact the water, the supply of water to the stream and may result in the pirating of the stream's flow, possibly devoting the stream's flow underground. Back to Mr. Hugh, he stated that there was absolutely nothing that regulation or responsible behavior by the mining company could do to prevent this. It would make no difference in which direction they mined. There's one thing man cannot do, and that's regulate nature. He stated, once destroyed, the area would be irreversible. He stated that it was irresponsible for Vulcan to state that they could guarantee or ensure anything related to the water flow. He characterized the proposed mining as environmental rape. there were several pages and then this is at 9 25 p.m. the chair asked about whether there had been a survey done to see whether they had gotten off their property and Vulcan said there had not been a survey any consistent surveying done for 30 years The chair wanted a map or survey by Monday. This meeting was on Friday. Vulcan says no public or media access that city engineers would be allowed. That concluded the meeting on Friday, and they reconvened the next Monday. A Mr. John Morgan, who was the surveyor, entered the mine over the weekend, and that it was acknowledged to him by Vulcan's representatives, based on their conversations, that they believed that they had encroached on Dr. Mary Wharton's property. Mr. Morgan had determined that, based on his own survey, that Vulcan was approximately 220 feet under the adjacent property very close to the Elk Glick Creek. He stated that when they were surveying the area closest to Elk Glick Creek they were surveying in water at depths of 4 to 1 feet and that water was seeping in there. He said they were unable to survey in the area toward Mary Wharton Sanctuary as the entire area is flooded up to depths of 30 feet. So Vulcan withdrew their application and Walter May, who was the attorney for the opposition, I ran into him three or four months ago and I asked him about this case and he said the thing that surprised him most was that the Vulcan people were not brought up on charges of perjury. That's all I have to say about this. Thank you Mr. Griggs. Mr. Hopkut I have uh would you like to address what Mr. Griggs? Well I'm not sure I know where to start. All I can tell you is I'm back here doing the same thing it shows you how far i've progressed in 20 years so first of all i'll just say this that facility and what we're talking about this location are apples and oranges the depth of that quarry is totally different than what we're dealing with here we did have problems there's no doubt about it you know i've never i saw these this morning they weren't they're not signed by Mr. Bagby weren't signed by Frank Thompson it's my understanding they got adopted a year ago by the board when nobody on the board a year ago was involved in this but the issues the real issues there were surface issues that quarry was opened in 1958 not by Vulcan it was acquired by Vulcan later from the period of the late 50s 60s and 70s and it wasn't it was everywhere compliance was not an issue with most most operations of manufacturing mining anything development real estate development over time we've adopted clean water act federal storm water regulations a host of things and what had happened was essentially, and this was the meat of this case, it really wasn't the water seeping out. That was a lot of speculation by people who weren't involved in mining, there was no substantiation. But the real issue was that aggregate over a period of that time when regulations weren't in place and people weren't focused on compliance had washed into Elk Lake Creek and there was aggregate. walked Elklit Creek from that quarry to the river three times and back. If you go out there today, Steve Gardner was out there this morning. It's clean. We went in and cleaned it out. We settled with Mary Warden. She's passed away. We have a settlement agreement with her estate and her sanctuary. And we have under that settlement agreement the right with certain requirements for them to go back in and seek a permit that they won't oppose. so a lot of history it was there was a lot of in my view throw throwing things on the wall to see what would stick people calling couldn't identify the landsat guy was never identified people say I called somebody don't know who they were don't know their name it was a free-for-all but we had a problem we We fixed it. I've represented this company since then. They are a compliance-oriented company. Jim Redman, who was the environmental planner for Urban County Government at that time, sits on this aquifer committee. He was involved in that. He's, as a member of the committee, is supportive of what we're doing. The folks here in the mine inspection, folks in planning, Jimmy Emmons, they've seen our operations. He commented it's a first-class operation. They are a compliance, employee health and safety and compliance are crucial aspects of the management of this company. I've seen the company develop, and these folks here have the background that none of these folks that were speaking in opposition had. And, you know, it's 20 years of history that you put it in perspective. It doesn't relate to today. I have one more question for you. If the members of the Royal Spring Committee are inclined to visit the facility while the construction of the portals is going on, would they be allowed within safety guidelines to have access? mr. DeSink is nodding yes obviously we've got you know you have to sign in and hard hats and some training and stuff like that but sure yeah that's part of the condition that we're agreeing with is to keep them apprised and provide information about what's going on well I saw that that you agreed to to provide them with reports I think that's the number five but I just wanted to make sure that if they were so inclined to go and physically inspect the premises themselves they'd be granted access to them. Sure. Absolutely. All right. I think any other questions or discussion by the board? If not I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair I'd like to move that C2008-95 Vulcan Lands Incorporated appeals for conditional use permit to conduct a mining quarry operation in the agricultural rural AR zone on property located at 2850 Georgetown Road in Council District 12 be approved per the staff's recommendation with the I think there are five conditions two of which were amended being number three and number five let that be approved as their second to miss Edwards motion standing right so okay okay I think I could make a motion but I might need okay but it looks like we're not gonna have a second to miss Edwards motion and so question mr. Griggs will recess for about 325. I would think so. I would think so. Because he's going to have to work the time. But you're not going to vote. There won't be a time. Though I dream in vain In my heart there always will remain My stardust melody The memory of love's refrain I'm sorry. Thank you. Zoom the hearing, please. Zoom the hearing, please. Thank you. All right, we're going to reconvene the hearing of the Vulcan lands case. We had a motion that was not seconded, so I'll ask for another motion. Okay. Okay. All right, so there's going to be a motion in a moment. Now, I was told by staff that there's a representative from the State Division for Air Quality here. Is that correct? It's the Wellhead Protection Program. Or water bottle. on the organizational details but my understanding is somebody from the state is here with the wellhead protection program that might be a division of the state water quality I don't know but Mr. Hopgood do you know who that is? Yeah it's uh I'm not sure I've met but I'm not sure I recall his name but it's this gentleman here he's been to the wellhead committee Ernie Ellison. Okay Mr. Mr. Ellison, would you come forward please? Would you state your name please? Ernie Ellison. I'm the program hydrologist for the Kentucky Wellhead Protection Program with the Kentucky Division of Water, the watershed management branch. And what does that division do, the wellhead management? Wellhead Protection? we're charged with assisting public water systems in the state that get their water from either springs or from water withdrawal wells and help them manage their water supply as far as addressing any issues public water systems are required to have a public wellhead protection plan in place to protect their water supply address any issues related to quality and to quantity and identify any potential contaminant sources that can affect their water supply, whether it's point sources or non-point source. All right. Thank you. I think there might be some questions for you. What are your thoughts on the applicant's petition here? Well, I'm not allowed to give a personal opinion on it. As far as the state is concerned, what we wanted them to address was the fact that it's addressed in the number four condition with meeting state and federal regulations. And I was the one that asked for the amendment to include groundwater protection. The state's regulations protecting groundwater are related to the Safe Drinking Water Act. And unfortunately, a lot of it is reactive. The regulations, we have a groundwater protection regulation. It's an administrative regulation that requires activities in the state to have a groundwater protection plan, plan which i understand that vulcan does have one which is they address the situation where they would if anything happens to the groundwater they're going to address it and and fix it remediate it unfortunately as you hear the word remediate it's reactive it it's after the fact so as far as Because then meeting that requirement, I believe they've met that requirement. Now with the Safe Drinking Water Act, if they do affect the aquifer, the Royal Springs Aquifer, they are legally responsible for supplying water to the system that's affected, whether it's a public water system or a private citizen. Now one thing that they didn't mention is this geology that they're talking about is what we call karst geology. And in karst geology with the limestone, most of the flow for Royal Springs is going to be in the form of conduit flow. It's not diffused. It's you liken it to water flowing through a straw. It flows in a tube and if that tube is broken, then your flow has been impeded. Now, how they're going to address if they intersect this conduit on their downslope, how they address that, I don't know. I'm not a mining expert, but I know that if they address it, if they intersect that conduit, the flow will be impeded at that time. To what extent, I don't know. If their drilling prior to finds it, they can change their slope, change direction, they can do that. Now, they're going to be doing drilling. They're individual holes in the ground. If they miss that conduit with their preliminary drilling and then they run into it with their boring machine, I don't know what their options are at that point. I will state that the, and I'm sure the Georgetown folks will attest to that, the flow at Royal Springs has declined over the years. Now, from what cause, we don't know. There's development, probably development, loss of green space has occurred. and perhaps some of the flow this kind you have conduit flow but there's also flow through the soil and the loam and that that all collects in the streams and you have what we call losing streams in in the county and they'll all collect through the bottom of the stream it percolates down and it collects in these conduits and then flows in so as as you lose surface area you lose flow but the city of Georgetown doesn't have the resources to address you know where is our water loss coming from and and frankly the the state doesn't have the resources to I mean we give them the assistance that we can but our resources are limited mr. Ellison do you have any objections to what's been proposed here today does your program have any objections the the program itself we don't have a legal say as far as as saying no or yes we we do look at this application very carefully and in the in light of the program's objectives we strongly urge caution because if the water supply is compromised, Georgetown will lose their water and and then I'll be out of a job. A little personal appeal there. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Ellison? Can I ask a question? Certainly. I didn't know what your background is. I have a bachelor's degree in I have a bachelor's degree in geology from the University of Kentucky. And Mr. Ellison has been at all of the aquifer meetings, right? Yes, I have. I've been to all the meetings. I will say that we have put them through the ringer. It's as far as meeting all of the requirements that we need to address to protect the water supply. It's just that someone mentioned something about the percentage. What is the percentage? They can't say that they're not going to affect it, and we can't say that they will affect it. So it's not an exact science. And Ralph Ewers, I think, is still with Western Kentucky University, and Chuck Taylor is now with the USGS if you need to reach them. Now, you mentioned that you put them through the ringer. have they been compliant of all your growth? They have. Any other questions? You have any other questions? I just want to add no more questions for sales, and if I can follow up since we've kind of opened it back up. I know this question came up at the aquifer meeting, and I think Mr. Redman was the one that indicated the likelihood of the decline of flow in the Royal Springs aquifer is that 80% of the development in that watershed, 80% of that watershed is in Fayette County and it's been developed and it's been paved pervious services and that water is now going in stormwater systems instead of flowing through creeks. If I'm gonna say this with stand to be corrected, if there's a problem with the Georgetown water supply they can get water from Kentucky American. They have to pay for it we cause a problem I'd say mr. distincts go ahead upon his job as well it is it is we are on the same page and not wanting any problems with the Georgetown water system or the aquifer that's the why we've gone to the length that we have to work with them if we cause a problem and we've got a problem and we're going to take every step we have taken so far to every step to make sure that we don't do that and Mr. Ellison's been at these meetings and we've worked I guess with him as well because this is the first time we've ever heard anything from him about this so thanks all right any other questions for anyone or any discussion by the board If not, I'll entertain it. I'm sorry. I'd just like to say we've been handed a lot of material here today that we have to absorb by all of you experts. And for me personally, I don't feel comfortable voting on something of this importance with, given this notebook full of material that I'd like to be able to digest a little bit. Are you moving for a continuance? I would be open to a continuance, yes. Well, are you moving for one? I move for a continuance. I want to be able to, I want to absorb this information. And to our next meeting or November meeting? All right, the motion of Ms. Meyer is to postpone this or continue this, I'm sorry, continue this to our November meeting. Mr. Hopgood, your response? When is the November meeting? I don't know. November 21st. And the December meeting is early, so it's not that much later than November. December 12th would be the next hearing after November 21st. I guess the only question I have, and maybe one for your counsel, we're missing some board members today. If they come to the next meeting, and if we're continued, we can bring them up to speed and have them participate as well? I guess because you are the applicant, you would be in a position to object if you did not want them to vote. Our usual position is for them to be able to vote if they were not in the first part of the hearing, they need to be willing to sit down and watch the video on this meeting so that they know what evidence was presented. If we're continuing the meeting, though, the meeting is still the meeting, so if they come back, we could simply bring them up to date. I think you could indicate as the applicant that if the chair will allow you to recap your previous testimony, that's up to the chair to manage the meeting. If he's willing to do that and you are willing to waive any objection to having them vote, then I see no problem with it. I mean, I wouldn't want anybody to vote without having information that was presented, how they get it. If, you know, they want to watch the video, I'm probably okay. and there may be some questions as well that would be my preferences that they watch the video but that might be self-serving all right well that's anything else okay all right we have a motion to continue this matter to our November meeting is there a second all right well this minor motion fails for like a second okay are there any other motions 85 Vulcan lands Inc's appeal for conditional use permit to conduct a mining quarrying operation in the agricultural rural zone on property located at 2850 Georgetown Road be denied because the applicant has failed to support the burden of proving that the proposed mining operation will not be detrimental to the Royal Springs aquifer because the subject property lies within the resort charge area. Due to proximity to the aquifer, the burden is very high to prove that a major water source will not be adversely impacted. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. We have a motion to deny the relief. Is there a second? I'll second that motion. All right. All those in favor of Mr. Griggs' motion, I'm going to ask for a show of hands. please raise your hand. We have two of four. All right. All those opposed to Mr. Griggs' motion, please take a moment raising your hand. All right. And we'll show Ms. Moore is abstaining. So it's two to two, tie. And Ms. Bowlin, I've forgotten what we do in the case of a tie. If there is no action taken to grant the conditional use permit, it will not be granted. However, there has been no denial, so there is no prohibition upon a reapplication. What would it take to create a denial? I thought that's what we just did. Your motion to disapprove was not supported. I'm sorry? Your motion to disapprove did not pass. Okay. So no action has been taken on this application. We might have the privilege of hearing this again. Where there has been no denial, actual denial passed of this conditional use permit, there is no prohibition in your bylaws for reapplication. Well, that seems fair enough. Okay. So we, let's see. Well, I'll make one final call for motions. Mr. Hopgood, I'm a little confused here, as you might expect. I think if I understand the council that the board has failed to act and we've requested a permit, the board's failed to act, so we don't have a permit. That would be, I I guess my understanding if I don't want to put words in Ms. Bowen's mouth. Reapplication. That's basically what I said. Okay. And so there's no prohibition against him or the bringing the case back within any amount of time? That's correct. Where the bylaws say where there has been a denial by the Board of Adjustment then there cannot be reapplication. I think it's for six months. Disapproval is 12 months. Disapproval. I mean, I would like to give the staff an opportunity to look at the exact wording of that bylaw. I thought I had my bylaws with me, but I don't. But I don't think that there is a prohibition where no action was taken. Okay. We will double-check that, and we can respond to the applicant and let him know. Okay. Well, thank you, Ms. Bowman. I'm sorry there's no action taken, but maybe no action is better than other action that could take place. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. I think that concludes the cases on our agenda. And the next order of business is if there are – ask if there are any board items. Next is request if there are any staff items. I noticed there was a draft calendar in our packet of materials. Do we need to adopt that? Not until November. Oh, okay. That was just for your review. All right. And then our next meeting date will be November 21st. For no further issues to be addressed, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.