Board of Adjustment Meeting

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Board of Adjustment Planning Services Section held a meeting on January 27, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Chairman Louis Stout presided over the session, which included six agenda items, six motions and votes, and nine public comments.

The board considered six cases during the meeting. Two items were postponed: David Bennett's administrative review for a shopping center sign at Lexington Green and Crestwood Christian Church's administrative review for directional signs. Three cases were approved: Hallmark Student Development Co., LLC's variance appeal, Quality Plus Homes' administrative review for a second kitchen, and James Hickey's variance appeal for a home addition and deck. One case was denied: Boone Creek Adventures, LLC's conditional use appeal.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on January 27, 2012:

• Louis Stout
• James Griggs
• Barry Stumbo
• Kathryn Moore
• Jan Meyer
• Noel White
• Thomas Glover
• Chuck Saylor
• Jim Gallimore
• Capt. Charles Bowen
• Rochelle Boland
• Bill Sallee
• Jim Marx
• Jimmy Emmons
• Wanda Howard

No members were recorded as absent or late.

Votes and Decisions

Postponement: A-2011-76 – David Bennett / Lexington Green Shopping Center Sign 1:38

Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by Thomas Glover, to postpone administrative review of a shopping center sign on a stone planter box projecting into the street right-of-way. The motion passed unanimously.

Postponement: A-2011-80 – Crestwood Christian Church Directional Signs 2:41

Motion by Noel White, seconded by Jan Meyer, to continue administrative review of four directional signs in an R-1C zone. The motion passed unanimously.

Variance V-2011-82 – Hallmark Student Development Co., LLC 7:02

Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by James Griggs, to approve a variance for Hallmark Student Development Co., LLC to reduce front setback from 20 feet to 5 feet and interior landscape area to less than 5% on a single lot with cumulative total of 5% or greater. The motion passed unanimously. Conditions include compliance with the submitted application and site plan, obtaining all necessary permits from Planning and Building Inspection divisions prior to demolition or construction, and noting the Board's action on the Final Development Plan.

Administrative Review A-2012-1 – Quality Plus Homes Second Kitchen 10:33

Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by Noel White, to approve administrative review for Quality Plus Homes to allow a second kitchen in a single-family residence in an R-3 zone. The motion passed unanimously. A condition requires the property to be reviewed by the Zoning Enforcement Inspector within six months after issuance of an Occupancy Permit to ensure the accessory kitchen is used as represented.

Variance V-2011-58 – James Hickey Home Addition and Deck 1:00:24

Motion by Barry Stumbo to approve a variance for James Hickey to reduce side yard from 3 feet to 9 inches and rear yard from 10 feet to 0 feet for retention of a home addition and deck in an R-3 zone. The motion passed unanimously. Conditions include installation of guttering on the southern wall, filing a consolidation plat to rectify the deck's encroachment over the rear property line, and retention of an independent engineer to evaluate runoff and recommend treatment methods.

Conditional Use Permit C-2011-70 – Boone Creek Adventures Outdoor Recreational Facility 3:59:26

Motion by Barry Stumbo to deny a conditional use permit for Boone Creek Adventures to construct and operate an outdoor recreational facility in an AR zone. The motion failed on a roll call vote, 4-3. Voting in favor of denial: Barry Stumbo, James Griggs, Kathryn Moore, and Jan Meyer. Voting against denial: Louis Stout, Noel White, and Thomas Glover.

Public Comment

The meeting included public comment on two primary matters: a variance request for a home addition and a conditional use application for Boone Creek Adventures.

James Hickey Variance

Greg Harris opposed the variance 12:18, citing loss of privacy, drainage issues onto his property, concerns about maintenance access, and damage to his yard. He stated the structure is too close to the property line.

Richard Murphy spoke in support 16:44, arguing the addition enhances privacy, is consistent with the original Walden Grove subdivision design, and has been approved by neighbors. He emphasized the structure is entirely on the appellant's property and does not harm neighboring values.

Boone Creek Adventures

Multiple speakers opposed the proposed facility. Julie Goodman 1:15:45 argued the facility constitutes an amusement park under state law and zoning ordinances, and would violate public health, safety, and environmental standards in an agricultural rural zone. Hank Grady 1:34:29 contended the application fails to meet statutory requirements for conditional use, violates sewage regulations, and lacks a viable emergency response plan, calling it a disguised zoning change. Carolyn King 1:28:32 presented a petition from 50 landowners opposing the project and emphasizing the need to preserve Boone Creek's natural landscape.

Supporters of Boone Creek Adventures included Bruce Simpson 1:48:20, who characterized the project as a commercial outdoor recreational facility rather than an amusement park, and argued it is consistent with comprehensive and green space plans. Barry Grimes 2:25:04, testifying as an experienced kayaker and environmentalist, argued canopy tours are low-impact and environmentally responsible, and that the project would help combat invasive species. Sarah Carey 2:30:03 shared personal motivation for opening the property to the public to share Boone Creek's natural beauty and protect it for future generations. Burgess Carey 2:46:26 provided final rebuttal, reiterating that the project is not an amusement park and represents a rare opportunity for public access to a unique natural area.

Appointments

The following individuals were reappointed to their positions:

• Louis Stout – Chairman (reappointed)
• Kathryn Moore – Vice Chair (reappointed)
• James Griggs – Secretary (reappointed)

Contested Items

Boone Creek Adventures Conditional Use Permit

The proposed Boone Creek Adventures recreational facility generated heated discussion among board members and the community. The central point of contention was whether the facility should be classified as an amusement park. Opposing arguments centered on legal definitions, environmental impacts, and public safety considerations. The disagreement reflected broader concerns about land use and community character. The board voted 4-3 on the matter, indicating significant division over the proposal's merits and appropriate conditions for approval.

James Hickey Variance Appeal

The variance appeal for James Hickey's property drew a split vote despite demonstrated community support and evidence suggesting minimal impact from the proposed project. Opponents raised concerns about privacy, drainage, and maintenance issues associated with the variance. Despite these objections, the board approved the variance conditionally, imposing multiple enforceable conditions designed to address the raised concerns and protect neighboring properties and the broader community interest.

David Bennett / Lexington Green - Administrative Review for Shopping Center Sign

Agenda Item A-2011-76

This appeal concerned a proposed shopping center identification sign to be mounted on a stone planter box that would project into the street right-of-way. 1:05

Key Speakers

The discussion involved Jimmy Emmons and Richard Murphy.

Issues and Concerns

Staff identified several unresolved matters that prevented a decision on the appeal:

• Questions regarding property ownership and legal interest in the proposed sign location
• Uncertainty about whether right-of-way restrictions could be waived or modified for this project
• Need for further investigation into the legal and property-related issues before proceeding

Outcome

The appeal was postponed to allow staff time to investigate and resolve the outstanding questions about property ownership, legal interest, and the feasibility of any potential waiver of right-of-way restrictions. No decision was made at this time.

Crestwood Christian Church - Administrative Review for Directional Signs

Case Identifier: A-2011-80

Type: Appeal

Outcome: Postponed

2:09

The board considered an appeal regarding four directional signs proposed for Crestwood Christian Church in a single-family residential zone. Jimmy Emmons presented on this matter.

Staff recommended denial of the appeal, citing two primary reasons: the proposed signs did not fall within permitted sign types for the zone, and there was no significant hardship demonstrated that would justify an exception to zoning regulations.

The appellant requested a one-month delay to allow additional time for the matter to be further developed or addressed. In response to this request and based on staff's recommendation against approval, the board voted to continue the appeal rather than proceed to a final decision at that time.

The matter was postponed pending further action or resubmission.

Hallmark Student Development Co., LLC - Variance Appeal

Case Number: V-2011-82

Outcome: Approved unanimously

Overview

The board considered a variance appeal from Hallmark Student Development Co., LLC requesting a reduction in front setback and interior landscape area requirements. 7:02

Key Speakers

• Bruce Simpson
• Jimmy Emmons

Staff Recommendation and Rationale

Staff recommended approval of the variance based on three primary factors:

• Public safety benefits associated with the proposed modifications
• Minimal impact on the surrounding area
• The project's compliance with development plan requirements

Board Action

The variance request was approved unanimously by the board.

Quality Plus Homes - Administrative Review for Second Kitchen

Overview

This agenda item (A-2012-1) addressed an appeal to permit a second kitchen in a single-family residence. 10:33

Key Participants

The discussion involved Lindsey Mosely and Jim Marx.

Outcome

The appeal was approved with a condition. The approval requires a post-occupancy review by the Zoning Enforcement Inspector to verify that the second kitchen is used as intended for the residence.

James Hickey - Variance Appeal for Home Addition and Deck

Case Number: V-2011-58

Outcome: Approved with conditions; rear yard variance not approved

The variance request to reduce side and rear yard setbacks for a home addition and deck was presented during this agenda item 1:00:24. Key speakers included Richard Murphy, Jim Hickey, and Greg Harris.

Approval and Conditions

The variance request to reduce side and rear yard setbacks was approved subject to five conditions:

• Installation of gutters
• Maintenance compliance requirements
• Filing of a consolidation plat
• Hiring of an independent hydrologist to evaluate runoff
• Additional requirements related to notification and setback compliance

Rear Yard Variance

The rear yard variance was not approved due to unresolved notification issues that prevented the board from moving forward on that portion of the request.

Boone Creek Adventures, LLC - Conditional Use Appeal

Case Identifier: C-2011-70

Outcome: The conditional use appeal for Boone Creek Adventures, LLC was denied by a 4-3 vote. 3:59:26

Project Description: The appeal concerned a proposed commercial outdoor recreational facility to be located in an agricultural rural zone.

Key Speakers: The discussion involved Julie Goodman, Hank Grady, Bruce Simpson, and Burgess Carey.

Arguments in Opposition: Opponents raised several concerns about the proposed facility: - They argued the facility constitutes an amusement park, which would be inappropriate for the agricultural rural zone - Health and safety regulation violations were cited as concerns - Opponents questioned the adequacy of emergency response plans - Sewage and waste management plans were identified as insufficient

Arguments in Support: Proponents of the conditional use appeal presented the following rationale: - The facility aligns with green space plans for the area - The project would promote environmental stewardship

Vote: The appeal was denied with a 4-3 vote, indicating a divided board on the merits of the proposal.