Board of Adjustment

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Board of Adjustment convened on October 28, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Barry Stumbo presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed five agenda items during the session, including variance requests, an administrative review, a conditional use permit application, and a third-party appeal. The board took six votes throughout the meeting and heard two public comments from attendees. Of the five matters considered, two items were approved (the Raleigh Bruner variance request and Nancy Coppinger administrative review), two were tabled for future consideration (TTTT Investment Group variance request and Denise Edmonds conditional use permit), and one was denied (Bill and Kim Read third-party appeal).

Attendance

The following members were present at the October 28, 2016 meeting:

• Barry Stumbo
• Thomas Glover
• Joan Whitman (arrived late)
• Jan Meyer
• Branden Gross
• Chad Needham

Absent: • Larry Forester

Late Arrival: • Joan Whitman

Six of the seven members attended the meeting, with one member absent and one arriving after the scheduled start time.

Votes and Decisions

The board took action on six items during the meeting, with most receiving unanimous support.

PLN-BOA-16-00029 - Thomas Glover motioned to postpone the Clays Mill Road Baptist Church conditional use permit request, seconded by Branden Gross. The motion passed by voice vote 5-0, with Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Jan Meyer, and Branden Gross voting in favor. 0:10

PLN-BOA-16-00023 - Thomas Glover motioned to continue the TTTT Investment Group variance request, seconded by Branden Gross. The item was tabled by unanimous vote 6-0, with all members present (Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Jan Meyer, Branden Gross, and Chad Needham) supporting the motion. 1:15

PLN-BOA-16-00034 - Jan Meyer motioned to approve the Raleigh Bruner variance request, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, subject to four conditions outlined by staff. All six board members voted in favor. 2:30

PLN-BOA-16-00032 - Branden Gross motioned to approve the Nancy Coppinger administrative review request, seconded by Chad Needham. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, subject to three conditions set forth by staff. All board members supported the approval. 3:45

PLN-BOA-16-00031 - Thomas Glover motioned to continue the Denise Edmonds conditional use permit request, seconded by Jan Meyer. The item was tabled by unanimous vote 6-0, with all members voting to continue the matter. 5:00

PLN-BOA-16-00033 - Thomas Glover motioned to deny the Bill and Kim Read third party appeal, seconded by Jan Meyer. The motion failed on a roll call vote of 5-1, with Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Jan Meyer, and Chad Needham voting in favor of denial, while Branden Gross voted against the motion. 7:30

Public Comment

Two speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, focusing on specific land use matters before the commission.

Chris Clendenen [04:30] appeared as an attorney representing parties in opposition to the Denise Edmonds conditional use permit application. Clendenen delivered a PowerPoint presentation arguing against the proposed use, contending that it did not qualify as a lawful non-conforming use under applicable zoning regulations.

Paula Singer [08:00] spoke regarding the Bill and Kim Read appeal case. Singer raised concerns about the adequacy of oversight mechanisms for facilities that serve vulnerable populations. She also expressed worries about the potential negative impact such facilities could have on surrounding neighborhood property values.

Both speakers addressed matters that appeared to be on the commission's agenda for consideration, providing input from community members and legal representatives on pending land use decisions.

Contested Items

Two items on the October 28, 2016 agenda generated significant community opposition and debate.

Denise Edmonds Conditional Use Permit

The application to re-establish a child care facility faced substantial community pushback from residents. The primary concerns centered on parking availability and safety issues in the surrounding neighborhood. Community members voiced opposition to the proposal, citing potential traffic congestion and safety risks associated with increased vehicle activity from parents dropping off and picking up children. The specific outcome of this contentious item was not detailed in the available meeting data.

Bill and Kim Read Third Party Appeal

This appeal challenged a previous decision that would allow a dwelling to house four unrelated persons and up to four handicapped persons. The controversy stemmed from community concerns about the concentration of similar facilities in the neighborhood. Residents expressed worry about what they characterized as "neighborhood saturation" with group living arrangements, suggesting the area already had too many such facilities. The appeal represented organized community opposition to the approved housing arrangement, with neighbors arguing that additional group living situations would negatively impact the residential character of the area.

Both contested items reflected broader community tensions around land use decisions, with residents actively participating in the public process to voice their concerns about proposed changes to their neighborhoods. The opposition in both cases focused on quality of life issues, including traffic, safety, and neighborhood character preservation.

TTTT Investment Group Variance Request

1:15

The Board of Appeals reviewed case PLN-BOA-16-00023, a variance request submitted by TTTT Investment Group to increase the maximum allowable fence height from 4 feet to 5 feet on their property.

Timothy W. Vaughn served as the key speaker during the discussion of this variance request. The board engaged in deliberations regarding the proposed height increase and examined the circumstances surrounding the existing fence structure.

A significant portion of the discussion centered on the historical height of the fence in question. Board members sought to understand the previous configuration and whether the current fence had been modified from its original specifications. This historical context appeared to be crucial for determining whether the variance request was justified.

The board expressed concerns about the adequacy of evidence provided to support the variance application. Members indicated they required additional documentation or proof to substantiate the claims made in the request. The lack of sufficient supporting materials became a key factor in the board's deliberations.

After reviewing the available information and discussing the merits of the case, the board determined that the application required further development before a decision could be made. The variance request was ultimately tabled, allowing TTTT Investment Group additional time to gather and present the evidence that board members deemed necessary for proper evaluation.

The tabling of this item indicates that while the board was willing to consider the fence height variance, they required more comprehensive documentation to make an informed decision on whether the proposed 5-foot fence height would be appropriate for the property in question.

Raleigh Bruner Variance Request

2:30

The board considered variance request PLN-BOA-16-00034 submitted by Raleigh Bruner. The request sought to reduce the required distance for overhead doors from the standard zoning requirements.

Jason Banks served as the key speaker presenting information about the variance request to the board members. The specific details of the current distance requirements and the proposed reduction were discussed during the presentation.

Following the presentation and board discussion, the members voted to approve Raleigh Bruner's variance request. However, the approval came with specific conditions that must be met, though the exact nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available meeting materials.

The board's decision to grant the variance with conditions suggests they found merit in the request while ensuring appropriate safeguards or requirements remain in place to address any potential concerns related to the reduced overhead door distance requirements.

Nancy Coppinger Administrative Review

3:45

The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-16-00032, an administrative review request submitted by Nancy Coppinger seeking approval to increase the height of an accessory structure on her property.

Gene Coppinger spoke on behalf of the applicant during the discussion, presenting the request to the board members. The specific details of the proposed height increase and the nature of the accessory structure were discussed as part of the administrative review process.

Following the presentation and board discussion, the members voted to approve Nancy Coppinger's administrative review request. The approval came with conditions, though the specific terms of those conditions were not detailed in the available meeting materials.

The board's decision allows the Coppinger property to proceed with the accessory structure height modification as requested, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions of approval.

Denise Edmonds Conditional Use Permit

5:00

The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-16-00031, a conditional use permit request submitted by Denise Edmonds to re-establish a child care facility. Edmonds presented her proposal to the board during the discussion period.

The board raised several concerns regarding the proposed child care facility, focusing primarily on:

• Parking adequacy - Questions were raised about whether sufficient parking would be available for parents dropping off and picking up children
• Safety considerations - Board members discussed various safety aspects related to operating a child care facility at the proposed location

During the discussion, board members examined the details of Edmonds' application and considered the potential impacts of re-establishing the child care facility. The conversation centered on ensuring that proper infrastructure and safety measures would be in place before approving the conditional use permit.

After reviewing the application materials and hearing from Edmonds, the board determined that additional information or consideration was needed before making a final decision on the conditional use permit request.

Outcome: The board decided to table the discussion, continuing consideration of PLN-BOA-16-00031 to a future meeting. This allows time for further review of the parking and safety concerns that were identified during the initial discussion.

The conditional use permit application remains under review, with Edmonds' request to re-establish the child care facility pending resolution of the issues raised by the board.

Bill and Kim Read Third Party Appeal

7:30

The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-16-00033, a third party appeal filed by Bill and Kim Read challenging a previous decision that allowed a dwelling to house four unrelated persons and up to four handicapped persons.

Bill Read and Kim Read served as the key speakers presenting their appeal to the board. The Reads contested the original approval, which would permit the residential property to accommodate both unrelated individuals and persons with disabilities in numbers exceeding typical single-family residential use.

The appeal centered on the board's earlier decision to grant permission for the expanded occupancy arrangement. The original approval would have allowed the dwelling to house up to four unrelated persons while also accommodating up to four individuals with handicaps, representing a significant increase in the property's residential capacity.

During the discussion, the Reads presented their objections to this housing arrangement, though the specific concerns raised during their presentation are not detailed in the available records. The appeal process provided them an opportunity to challenge the board's initial determination and request reconsideration of the occupancy permissions.

Following consideration of the appeal and any supporting arguments presented by the Reads, the board ultimately denied their third party appeal. This decision upheld the original approval, meaning the dwelling would be permitted to continue operating under the previously granted terms allowing both the unrelated persons and handicapped individuals to reside at the property.

The denial of the appeal represents the board's final determination on this matter, confirming that the expanded residential use would be allowed to proceed as originally approved despite the Reads' objections.