Board of Adjustment Meeting

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on October 28, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Chairman Louis Stout presided over the meeting, which addressed eight agenda items including variance requests, conditional use permits, and administrative reviews. The board took 11 votes and heard 4 public comments during the session.

Of the eight items considered, four were approved, three were postponed, and one outcome was recorded. Approved items included a variance for Mid-America Apartments to reduce a freestanding sign setback from 20 feet to 0 feet, a variance for Thompson Thrift Development Co. to reduce front yard setback from 70 feet to 20 feet, a conditional use permit for Rhonda Henzman to operate embroidery services as a home occupation, and an administrative review for James D. Atkinson regarding a second detached garage. Three items were postponed: variance requests from James Hickey and James M. Ludka for side yard and setback reductions, and an administrative review for Ball and Wright Capital Holdings concerning a third wall sign. The board also postponed consideration of a conditional use permit application from Boone Creek Adventures, LLC for an agricultural market and recreational facility.

Attendance

Present: Louis Stout, Kathryn Moore, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, Barry Stumbo, Jim Hume, Chuck Saylor, Jim Gallimore, Rochelle Boland, Jim Marx, Bill Sallee, Wanda Howard, Richard Murphy, James Hickey, Greg Harris, Lynn Harris, Scott Book, Mark McIntosh, and Stephanie Beck.

Absent: Thomas Glover.

Late: Barry Stumbo.

Votes and Decisions

All votes taken during the October 28, 2011 meeting passed unanimously.

Approval of Minutes 3:30 The board approved the minutes of the September 30, 2011 meeting. The motion was made by Ms. Meyer and seconded by Ms. White. All six members voted in favor: Louis Stout, Kathryn Moore, Janice Meyer, Noel White, James Griggs, and Barry Stumbo.

Postponements Three items were postponed: - A-2011-71: BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS was postponed until December 16, 2011 6:01. Motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Stumbo. - C-2011-70: BOONE CREEK ADVENTURES, LLC was postponed until November 18, 2011 7:35. Motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Ms. Moore. - V-2011-72: JAMES M. LUDKA was postponed until November 18, 2011 13:01. Motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Mr. Griggs.

Variance and Conditional Use Approvals - V-2011-73: MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS (variance to reduce 20' setback to 0' for freestanding sign) was approved as recommended by staff with four conditions 11:32. Motion by Ms. White, seconded by Mr. Stumbo. - V-2011-74: THOMPSON THRIFT DEVELOPMENT CO. (variance to reduce front yard from 70' to 20' for Group Residential Project) was approved as recommended by staff with three conditions 13:10. Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Griggs. - C-2011-69: RHONDA HENZMAN (conditional use permit for home occupation: embroidery services) was approved as recommended by staff with three conditions 14:17. Motion by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Stumbo.

Administrative Review A-2011-68: JAMES D. ATKINSON (administrative review for second detached garage) was approved as recommended by staff with two conditions 15:20. Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Ms. White.

Continuation V-2011-58: JAMES HICKEY was continued until January 27, 2012 1:12:13. Motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Griggs.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned 1:14:38. Motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Stout.

Public Comment

Four speakers addressed the board regarding a variance request related to an addition at a property in Walden Grove.

Opposition to the Variance

Greg Harris spoke at 42:47 to express concerns about the addition, which he stated was only nine inches from his property line. He cited multiple issues including water runoff, lack of maintenance access, and privacy concerns. Mr. Harris emphasized that he had raised his concerns early in the process and had not been passive, but felt forced into a difficult position due to construction already being completed.

Lynn Harris spoke at 53:57 in support of her husband's position. She stated that the addition negatively impacts her property value and creates ongoing access issues, as any maintenance would require passage through her yard. She noted that she had rejected a financial offer to resolve the matter.

Support for the Variance

Richard Murphy spoke at 16:56 in favor of the variance request. He argued that the addition was consistent with the original development concept of Walden Grove and had strong neighbor support. Mr. Murphy characterized the construction as well-built and emphasized that the applicant had acted in good faith, stating that the variance was justified despite the lack of a building permit.

Code Compliance Concerns

Jim Hume from the Division of Building Inspection spoke at 57:44 regarding code compliance and fire safety. He noted that the current construction fails fire rating requirements due to a window located near the property line and recommended that the wall be re-rated. Mr. Hume also suggested possible solutions for the water runoff issue, including installation of gutters and a hydrology evaluation.

Contested Items

James Hickey's Variance Appeal

A variance appeal by James Hickey generated heated discussion during the meeting. The case centered on disputes between the applicant and a neighboring property owner regarding several concerns: privacy issues, water runoff problems, and access questions.

Despite Hickey's assertions that he was acting in good faith and claims of community support for his proposal, the neighboring property owner presented strong opposition to the variance. The disagreement reflected fundamental conflicts between the applicant's intentions and the neighbor's concerns about how the proposed variance would affect their property and interests.

Rather than rendering a final decision, the Board chose to defer action on the variance appeal. This deferral was intended to provide an opportunity for the parties involved to work toward resolving their disputes before the Board would reconsider the matter.

JAMES HICKEY - Variance to reduce side yard from 3' to 9" and rear yard from 10' to 0'

Case Number: V-2011-58

James Hickey requested variances to retain a sunroom addition and deck that were constructed without a permit. The proposed variances would reduce the side yard setback from the required 3 feet to 9 inches and eliminate the rear yard setback requirement, reducing it from 10 feet to 0 feet. 8:07

Key Speakers: - Richard Murphy - Greg Harris - Lynn Harris - Jim Hume

Staff Recommendation and Issues:

Staff recommended postponement of the case rather than immediate approval. The primary concerns included the need for written permission from the adjacent property owner and proper notification of neighboring properties. These requirements were necessary before the Board could proceed with a final decision on the variances.

Outcome:

The Board continued the case until January 27, 2012. This postponement was intended to allow time for resolution of neighbor disputes and to address code compliance issues related to the unpermitted construction. The continuation provided an opportunity for the applicant to obtain the required documentation and for neighbors to be properly notified of the variance request.

JAMES M. LUDKA - Variance to reduce side yard from 3' to 0' and alley setback from 6' to 1'

Case Number: V-2011-72

James Ludka requested a variance to retain an existing fence located in a historic district. The variance sought to reduce the side yard setback from 3 feet to 0 feet and the alley setback from 6 feet to 1 foot. 8:38

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommended approval of the side yard variance while recommending withdrawal of the alley setback variance.

Key Speakers

• Richard Murphy
• Jim Sallee

Outcome

The Board postponed the case to November 18, 2011. The appellant was absent at the time of the hearing.

MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS - Variance to reduce 20' setback for freestanding sign to 0'

Case Number: V-2011-73

Mid-America Apartments requested a variance to reduce the required 20-foot setback for a freestanding sign to 0 feet, which would allow the sign to be placed at the property line 9:13.

Presentation and Recommendation

Stephanie Beck presented the staff recommendation, which supported approval of the variance subject to specific conditions. The staff analysis focused on ensuring compliance with sight triangle requirements and proper permitting procedures.

Conditions of Approval

The Board approved the variance with four conditions:

• Compliance with sight triangle requirements
• Permit requirements to be satisfied
• Additional conditions as specified in the staff recommendation

Outcome

The Board unanimously approved the variance request for Mid-America Apartments to reduce the 20-foot setback requirement for the freestanding sign to 0 feet, allowing placement at the property line.

THOMPSON THRIFT DEVELOPMENT CO. - Variance to reduce front yard from 70' to 20'

Case Number: V-2011-74

Thompson Thrift Development Co. requested a variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 70 feet to 20 feet for a residential project. 9:52

Presentation and Discussion

Key speakers Richard Murphy and Mark McIntosh presented information regarding the variance request. The applicant cited floodplain constraints and design preferences as reasons for seeking the reduced front yard setback.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommended approval of the variance with conditions. The conditions required compliance with the development plan and adherence to applicable permit requirements.

Board Action

The Board unanimously approved the variance request.

RHONDA HENZMAN - Conditional use permit for home occupation (embroidery services)

Agenda Item C-2011-69

Rhonda Henzman requested a conditional use permit to operate a home-based embroidery business. 13:47

Staff recommended approval of the permit with conditions requiring compliance with applicable zoning rules and occupancy restrictions. The Board unanimously approved the conditional use permit for the home occupation.

JAMES D. ATKINSON - Administrative review for second detached garage

Agenda Item A-2011-68

James Atkinson requested administrative review approval for a second detached garage on his property. The proposed structure would exceed the lot coverage limits otherwise applicable to the property.

Staff presented a recommendation for approval, citing two primary factors supporting the request: the property contained ample lot space to accommodate the additional structure, and there was neighborhood precedent for similar approvals in the area.

Scott Book presented information on the matter 15:20.

The Board voted unanimously to approve the request. The approval was granted subject to two conditions.

Outcome: Approved

BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS - Administrative review for third wall sign

4:59

BALL and WRIGHT CAPITAL HOLDINGS requested approval for a third wall sign to be located in a professional office zone.

Richard Murphy presented the matter to the Board. Staff recommended disapproval of the request, citing zoning limitations that restrict the number of wall signs permitted in the professional office zone and noting prior conditions that would be violated by approval of an additional sign.

The Board postponed the case rather than ruling on the request at this meeting. The matter is scheduled to be reconsidered on December 16, 2011.

BOONE CREEK ADVENTURES, LLC - Conditional use permit for agricultural market and recreational facility

Case Number: C-2011-70

Applicant Request: Boone Creek Adventures, LLC sought a conditional use permit for a recreational facility featuring tree houses and zip lines, along with an agricultural market component.

Key Speaker: Bruce Simpson

Staff Recommendation: The staff recommended postponement of this case due to incomplete site plans and unclear land use designation for the proposed project.

Board Action: The Board voted to postpone the case to November 18, 2011, to allow for additional information and clarification to be submitted.

Discussion: 7:05

The case was presented with concerns regarding the adequacy of the submitted site plans and the need for clearer definition of how the land would be used. The incomplete documentation prevented the Board from making a determination on the conditional use permit at that time.