Board of Adjustment

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Board of Adjustment convened on February 26, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Barry Stumbo presiding. The board addressed five agenda items consisting of variance appeals, conditional use appeals, and administrative reviews from various applicants including individual property owners, a community land trust, and a homeowners association. During the meeting, the board took five votes on these matters, with outcomes ranging from approvals to denials, and one item being tabled for future consideration. No public comments were heard during this session, allowing the board to focus entirely on the scheduled appeals and reviews before them.

Attendance

The following members were present at the February 26, 2016 meeting:

• Barry Stumbo
• Thomas Glover
• Chad Needham
• Larry Forester
• Jan Meyer
• Branden Gross

Joan Whitman arrived late to the meeting.

No members were recorded as absent from the meeting.

Votes and Decisions

The board considered five matters during the February 26, 2016 meeting, with mixed outcomes across the various requests.

V-2016-3 - Jim & Mollie Sawyer's request for a variance to reduce the required side setback from 25 feet to 8 feet was postponed. Jan Meyer made the motion, seconded by Larry Forester, and all seven board members voted unanimously to postpone the matter. Voting in favor of postponement were Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Chad Needham, Larry Forester, Jan Meyer, and Branden Gross.

V-2016-4 - The Lexington Community Land Trust, Inc.'s request for a variance to reduce required side yards from 3 feet to 0 feet was approved. Chad Needham motioned for approval, seconded by Branden Gross, with unanimous approval from five board members: Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, Jan Meyer, and Branden Gross. The approval included conditions requiring gates for side yard access, a maximum fence height of 4 feet in side yards, and obtaining proper fence permits from the Division of Building Inspection.

C-2016-2 - Pinnacle Homeowners Association's request to amend a conditional use permit for clubhouse expansion passed unanimously. Branden Gross made the motion, Larry Forester seconded, and all seven members voted in favor: Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Chad Needham, Larry Forester, Jan Meyer, and Branden Gross. Conditions require construction according to the submitted site plan and obtaining necessary permits from Planning and Building Inspection divisions.

V-2016-5 - Gary Milton's variance request to increase fence height from 4 feet to 7 feet for columns and 5 feet for fencing failed unanimously. Thomas Glover motioned, Joan Whitman seconded, but all seven board members voted against: Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Chad Needham, Larry Forester, Jan Meyer, and Branden Gross.

A-2016-1 - The administrative appeal by Jonny & Lisa Cox regarding changing one non-conforming use to another failed, though specific voting details were not recorded.

Contested Items

Two variance appeals generated community opposition and required extended discussion during the February 26, 2016 meeting.

Variance Appeal by Jim & Mollie Sawyer

The Sawyers' variance request faced neighbor concerns that prompted the board to postpone their decision. The specific nature of the variance was not detailed in the available materials, but community opposition was significant enough that the board determined additional time was needed to allow affected neighbors to formally voice their concerns about the proposed variance. The item was tabled to provide this opportunity for public input.

Variance Appeal by Gary Milton

Gary Milton's variance appeal was denied by the board following community opposition. The board's decision was based on two primary factors: the lack of special circumstances that would justify granting the variance, and concerns about the potential negative impact the proposed changes could have on the existing neighborhood character. The denial suggests that Milton's request did not meet the standard criteria typically required for variance approval, and that neighboring residents or community members had raised substantive objections to the proposal.

Both cases demonstrate the board's consideration of community input when evaluating variance requests, with outcomes ranging from postponement to allow for additional public comment to outright denial based on insufficient justification and neighborhood impact concerns.

Variance Appeal by Jim & Mollie Sawyer

The board considered variance request V-2016-3 submitted by Jim and Mollie Sawyer, seeking to reduce the required side setback from 25 feet to 8 feet for the construction of a garage on their property.

Key speakers during the discussion included Jim Emmons and Jay Copley, who presented details regarding the variance request and the proposed garage construction project.

The primary issue under consideration was whether to grant the substantial setback reduction that would allow the garage to be built significantly closer to the property line than typically permitted under current zoning regulations. The requested variance would reduce the standard 25-foot side setback requirement by 17 feet.

However, the board determined that additional input was needed before making a decision on this variance request. Specifically, concerns were raised about the potential impact on neighboring properties, and it was noted that at least one neighbor had not yet had the opportunity to voice their concerns about the proposed setback reduction.

Given the significance of the requested variance and the need to ensure proper notification and input from affected neighbors, the board decided to postpone consideration of the Sawyer variance request. This postponement will allow time for the neighboring property owner to attend a future meeting and present their position regarding the proposed garage construction and reduced setback.

The variance request remains under review and will be reconsidered at a subsequent board meeting once all affected parties have had the opportunity to provide input on the proposal.

Variance Appeal by Lexington Community Land Trust, Inc.

The board considered variance request V-2016-4 submitted by Lexington Community Land Trust, Inc. The application sought to reduce the required side yard setbacks from 3 feet to 0 feet for the installation of fencing.

Key speakers during the discussion included Barbara Navin and Ed Holmes, who presented details about the proposed variance and its justification.

The variance request centered on the practical need to install fencing while working within the constraints of the property's existing layout. The standard zoning requirements call for 3-foot side yard setbacks, but the applicant demonstrated that reducing this requirement to 0 feet would be necessary to accommodate the proposed fencing installation.

Following discussion of the merits of the application and consideration of the specific circumstances of the property, the board voted to approve the variance request. However, the approval came with conditions, though the specific details of those conditions were not detailed in the available materials.

The approval of variance V-2016-4 allows Lexington Community Land Trust, Inc. to proceed with their fencing installation project under the modified setback requirements, subject to compliance with the conditions established by the board.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.*

Conditional Use Appeal by Pinnacle Homeowners Association

The board considered agenda item C-2016-2, a conditional use appeal by the Pinnacle Homeowners Association requesting to amend an existing conditional use permit to expand their neighborhood clubhouse.

Dwayne Koller served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the association's request for the clubhouse expansion project.

The Pinnacle Homeowners Association sought approval to modify their current conditional use permit to accommodate the proposed expansion of their existing neighborhood clubhouse facility. The expansion would allow the association to better serve their community's recreational and meeting needs.

Following discussion of the proposal, the board approved the conditional use appeal with conditions. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting materials, but the approval allows the Pinnacle Homeowners Association to proceed with their clubhouse expansion project under the amended conditional use permit.

The approval of this conditional use appeal enables the homeowners association to move forward with their plans to enhance their community amenities through the clubhouse expansion, subject to compliance with the conditions established by the board.

Variance Appeal by Gary Milton

The board considered variance request V-2016-5 submitted by Gary Milton, seeking approval to exceed standard fence height regulations on his property. Milton requested permission to increase the maximum allowable fence height from the standard 4 feet to 7 feet for fence columns and to 5 feet for the fence panels themselves.

Gary Milton presented his case to the board, explaining the reasons for his variance request. Troy Myers also participated in the discussion as a key speaker during the proceedings.

The variance request involved modifying existing height restrictions that typically limit residential fencing to 4 feet in height. Milton's proposal would have allowed for significantly taller fence columns at 7 feet and fence panels at 5 feet, representing increases of 3 feet and 1 foot respectively above the current standards.

Following discussion and consideration of the request, the board ultimately denied variance V-2016-5. The denial means that Milton must comply with existing fence height regulations of 4 feet maximum, and cannot proceed with his proposed 7-foot columns and 5-foot fence panels as requested.

The specific concerns raised during the discussion or the detailed reasoning behind the board's decision to deny the variance were not specified in the available meeting materials. The outcome represents the board's determination that the requested height increases did not meet the criteria necessary for granting a variance from the established zoning requirements.

Administrative Review by Jonny & Lisa Cox

The board reviewed Administrative Review case A-2016-1 submitted by Jonny and Lisa Cox. The applicants requested permission to change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use on their property.

Jessica Winters served as the key speaker presenting information about the case to the board. The specific details of the current non-conforming use and the proposed new non-conforming use were discussed during the review process.

The primary concern raised during the review centered on the scope and intensity of the proposed change. Board members determined that the new non-conforming use would represent an increase in both scope and intensity compared to the existing non-conforming use on the property.

Following discussion and consideration of the application, the board voted to deny the Cox family's request. The denial was based on the determination that allowing the change would result in an increased scope and intensity of non-conforming use, which did not meet the criteria for approval under the applicable regulations.

The decision means that Jonny and Lisa Cox will not be permitted to proceed with their proposed change in non-conforming use and must maintain the current use of their property or seek alternative solutions that comply with zoning requirements.