Board of Adjustment Meeting

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Board of Adjustment met on May 31, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Chair Barry Stumbo presided over the meeting, which included 14 agenda items and resulted in 11 motions and votes. The board heard 15 public comments during the session.

The meeting covered a range of zoning and land use matters. The board approved the minutes from the previous meeting and addressed a postponement or withdrawal of scheduled business. The board then considered multiple variance appeals, conditional use appeals, and administrative reviews. Of the administrative reviews presented, one was approved and one was denied. The board also addressed informational items including attendance, discussion items, board items, staff items, the next meeting date, and adjournment.

Attendance

Present: - Barry Stumbo - James Griggs - Janice Meyer - Joseph Smith

Absent: - Thomas Glover - Kathryn Moore - Noel White

Late: None reported.

Votes and Decisions

V-2013-31: Michael D. Childers Variance Appeal [00:01:33] Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Griggs, to postpone the variance appeal for a side yard reduction to construct a detached garage. The motion passed unanimously with all four members voting in favor: Barry Stumbo, James Griggs, Janice Meyer, and Joseph Smith.

V-2013-32: Burlington Heights Condominiums Variances [00:04:50] Motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve two variances for reducing zone-to-zone screening width and eliminating the privacy fence requirement. The motion passed unanimously. Conditions include that landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the submitted application and site plan, and all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to installation.

V-2013-33: Elizabeth and Price Bell Variance Appeal [00:05:55] Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Griggs, to approve the variance to reduce side yard from 8 to 6 feet for a home addition. The motion passed unanimously. A building permit from the Division of Building Inspection must be obtained prior to construction.

V-2013-34: Philip Kent Variance Appeal [00:07:00] Motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Ms. Meyer, to approve the variance to reduce required side yard from 3 to 0 feet for a privacy fence. The motion passed unanimously. A fencing permit from the Division of Building Inspection must be obtained prior to construction.

V-2013-35: Pennington Associates Variances [00:08:38] Motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Ms. Meyer, to approve two variances for reducing sign setback and increasing front yard fence height. The motion passed unanimously. All fence and sign permits must be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction.

CV-2013-30: Bluegrass Marlins Conditional Use Permit [00:13:43] Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve a conditional use permit for a community center and variance to reduce floodplain setback to 0 feet. The motion passed unanimously. Conditions include obtaining a Zoning Compliance Permit and Building Permit prior to commencement of use.

C-2013-27: Highlands Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit [00:14:54] Motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Ms. Meyer, to approve a conditional use permit for a 3-bay detached garage in an A-U zone. The motion passed unanimously. Multiple conditions apply, including obtaining necessary permits, compliance with parking and landscaping requirements, traffic engineering review, and stormwater management implementation.

C-2013-29: Bryson Daniel Droz Conditional Use Permit [00:16:13] Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Griggs, to approve a conditional use permit for an athletic club in an I-1 zone. The motion passed unanimously. The applicant must obtain a Zoning Compliance Permit and Certificate of Occupancy prior to operation.

A-2013-28: Luradane, LLC and Anderson Homes for Rent Appeal [01:47:14] Motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Griggs, to approve the appeal of the Division of Planning's determination that two lots were consolidated. The motion passed unanimously.

A-2013-26: Boone Creek Properties Appeal [01:42:38 and 01:47:14] An initial motion by Mr. Griggs to deny the appeal of a Notice of Violation for a canopy tour course in an AR zone failed. A subsequent motion by Ms. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Griggs, to deny the appeal passed unanimously.

Public Comment

The meeting included fifteen public comments addressing the Boone Creek Outdoors canopy tour project, with speakers divided between supporters and opponents.

Supporters of the Project

Jane Heron [03:40:27], a neighbor of project owner Burgess Carey, supported the canopy tour, emphasizing its educational value and alignment with the agricultural zone's purpose of promoting agritourism and environmental stewardship.

Bill Rouse [03:52:59], a long-time member of the Boone Creek Anglers Club, testified that the club is a legitimate organization and that the canopy tour enhances the experience without harming the environment.

Van Meter Pett [04:03:15] urged the board to visit the site and experience the canopy tour themselves, arguing that it is a tasteful and beneficial addition to Fayette County's natural attractions.

Mike Levy [04:10:06], a Boone Creek Anglers Club member, shared his family's positive experience with the canopy tour, highlighting its safety, educational value, and emotional impact.

Linda Carey [04:12:24], mother of Burgess Carey, defended her son's project as a legitimate effort to preserve and share Boone Creek, criticizing the opposition as malicious and politically motivated.

Erin Rouse [04:16:16], a Presbyterian minister, argued that the canopy tour fosters spiritual connection with nature and should be celebrated rather than condemned.

Bill Mead [04:25:50], a longtime resident, stated that he has supported Burgess Carey since the beginning and believes the project has been conducted with integrity.

Callie Ricketts [04:27:25], a guide at Boone Creek Outdoors, shared how the project has transformed her life and deepened her appreciation for the natural environment.

Sarah Steele [04:30:09], a new guide, emphasized the safety protocols and environmental education aspects of the canopy tour, arguing it is a responsible and beneficial use of the land.

Opponents of the Project

Alex Martin [03:57:19], a neighbor, expressed concern about trespassing and questioned how a zip line could be allowed without proper permits, especially given the strict zoning rules for bed and breakfasts.

Melissa King [04:06:57] opposed the project due to the lack of proper permits and zoning compliance, emphasizing that the public should not be allowed to bypass legal processes for profit.

Joan Mayer [04:08:31], a Clark County resident, expressed fear about future tourism developments and the potential for increased danger to her livestock and property.

Martha Jenkins [04:20:39], a former Board of Adjustment member, stated that the project has significantly exceeded the original 2000 conditional use permit and should not be allowed to continue.

Jim Wharton [04:21:53] emphasized that the project has been built without permits and that the board must enforce the law to prevent continued illegal activity.

Charles Martin [04:23:02], a longtime resident, shared his personal connection to Boone Creek and expressed frustration that the project has caused division among neighbors.

Contested Items

The meeting included two contentious appeals that generated heated discussion among participants.

A-2013-28: Luradane, LLC and Anderson Homes for Rent

This appeal centered on a dispute regarding the legal status of two historically separate lots. The applicant argued that the lots were never formally merged and therefore met small lot provisions applicable to the property. Staff took the opposing position, contending that consolidating the lots would create neighborhood instability and chaos. The disagreement reflected fundamentally different interpretations of the property's legal history and the implications of the proposed development for the surrounding area.

A-2013-26: Boone Creek Properties

This appeal involved a conflict over permitted uses under an existing conditional use permit. The property operated under a 2000 conditional use permit originally issued for a private angler's club. The applicant sought to operate a canopy tour course on the site, characterizing it as a nature-based recreational activity consistent with the property's existing use. Staff and those opposing the appeal argued that the canopy tour course violated both the terms of the original permit and applicable zoning laws, asserting that the proposed use fell outside the scope of what was authorized under the 2000 permit.

Both appeals reflected disagreements between applicants seeking to expand or modify existing uses and staff or community members concerned about compliance with existing legal frameworks and neighborhood impacts.

Attendance

Chair Barry Stumbo called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 0:00

Members Present: - Barry Stumbo - James Griggs - Janice Meyer - Joseph Smith

Members Absent: - Thomas Glover - Kathryn Moore - Noel White

Approval of Minutes

The minutes from the April 26, 2013 meeting were presented for approval. 1:02

Mr. Griggs moved to approve the minutes, and Ms. Meyer seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.

Postponement or Withdrawal of Scheduled Business

1:33

A motion was made to postpone case V-2013-31 (Michael Childers). Ms. Meyer made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Griggs. The motion carried unanimously.

The applicant requested a one-month postponement to allow time to revise the application. The postponement was granted without objection.

No Discussion Items

2:03

The Chair inquired whether any items required no discussion. No objections were raised by the Board members present. The Board then proceeded to act on the remaining items without further discussion.

Variance Appeals

The Board reviewed four variance appeals during this agenda item, approving each unanimously with conditions.

The following variance appeals were considered:

• Burlington Heights Condominiums
• Elizabeth and Price Bell
• Philip Kent
• Pennington Associates

Key participants in the discussion included Mr. Emmons, Mr. Kahly, Ms. Elizabeth Bell, Mr. Price Bell, Mr. Phillip Kent, and Mr. Joey Svec.

Outcome

All four variance appeals were approved unanimously with conditions imposed by the Board.

Conditional Use Appeals

The Board considered a conditional use appeal regarding Bluegrass Marlins' request for a conditional use permit and variance for a community center and pool cover 9:40.

Speakers and Presentation

Mr. Roger Kehrt and Mr. Griggs were the key speakers during this agenda item.

Public Input

The Board received written correspondence regarding the appeal. Three letters were submitted in support of the conditional use permit and variance, while one letter was submitted in opposition.

Outcome

The Board approved Bluegrass Marlins' conditional use permit and variance for the community center and pool cover. The approval was granted subject to conditions.

Conditional Use Appeals

The Board considered a conditional use permit application for Highlands Baptist Church regarding a 3-bay garage. Mr. Larry Chalin presented the matter to the Board 14:20.

The Board approved the conditional use permit for Highlands Baptist Church's 3-bay garage project. The approval included six conditions that the applicant must satisfy:

• Parking lot design requirements
• Storm water management provisions
• Additional conditions related to site development and operations

The conditional use permit was granted with these conditions in place to ensure the project meets applicable standards for parking, drainage, and other site-specific requirements.

Conditional Use Appeals

The Board considered a conditional use permit application for an athletic club during this agenda item. 15:25

Applicant and Proposal

Mr. Bryson Droz presented the application for the conditional use permit related to an athletic club.

Board Action

The Board approved the conditional use permit with two conditions:

• The applicant must acquire the necessary permit
• The applicant must comply with the site plan requirements

The conditional use permit was granted contingent upon fulfillment of these requirements.

Administrative Review

1:28:22

The Board heard a staff presentation and applicant testimony regarding case A-2013-28, which involved a challenge to the consolidation of two lots.

Presentation and Arguments

The applicant argued that the two lots were historically separate parcels and met the requirements under small lot provisions. Staff presented their analysis of the consolidation matter for Board consideration.

Key Participants

The discussion involved Mr. Sallee, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Strom, and Mr. Chaz Haidt.

Outcome

The Board approved the appeal in case A-2013-28.

Administrative Review

The Board heard testimony on appeal A-2013-26, which concerned a Notice of Violation issued for a canopy tour course operation. 2:04:15

Parties and Testimony

The following individuals provided testimony during the discussion: Mr. Chris King, Mr. John Park, Mr. Burgess Carey, Mr. Hakan Shepciolo, Mr. Don Todd, and Ms. Mary Diane Hanna.

Key Arguments

The applicant argued that the canopy tour course use was permitted under a conditional use permit issued in 2000. This permit, according to the applicant's position, authorized the operation in question.

Staff and opposition testimony was also presented to the Board during the proceeding.

Outcome

The Board denied the appeal of the Notice of Violation. The canopy tour course operation was not found to be authorized under the existing conditional use permit.

Board Items

No board members presented items during this portion of the meeting 1:57:17. This agenda item was designated for informational purposes only, with no substantive discussion or presentations occurring.

Staff Items

Mr. Emmons presented information about two upcoming American Planning Association (APA) audio conferences scheduled for the coming weeks 1:57:17.

The first conference, focused on pedestrian and bicycle planning, is scheduled for June 5. The second conference will address planning law review and is scheduled for June 26. Both conferences will provide 1.5 hours of required training for participants.

This was an informational presentation with no debate or concerns raised during the discussion.

Next Meeting Date

The Chair announced that the next meeting will be held on June 28, 2013. 1:57:17

This was presented as an informational announcement with no discussion or debate recorded.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned by the Chair after all business was completed 1:57:17.