Board of Adjustment

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Board of Adjustment convened on June 11, 2018, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed three agenda items during the session, including two variance requests and one administrative appeal. The board took six votes throughout the meeting and heard four public comments from attendees. Of the three matters considered, two were denied and one was tabled for future consideration, with the variance request for Luke Morgan and the administrative appeal for Non-Stop Towing both receiving unfavorable decisions, while the variance request for Ethington & Ethington was postponed for further review.

Attendance

Present: • Branden Gross • Raquel Carter • Chad Needham • Jan Meyer

Absent: • Harry Clarke • Thomas Glover • Joan Whitman

Late: • None

Four members were present for the June 11, 2018 meeting, while three members were absent. No members arrived late to the session.

Votes and Decisions

The board considered six items during the meeting, with four unanimous decisions and two items that failed to receive approval 0:00.

PLN-BOA-18-00044 - The board unanimously approved a variance for Mike Heitz to reduce rear and side yard setbacks to 0 feet. Raquel Carter made the motion, seconded by Jan Meyer. All four members (Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, and Jan Meyer) voted in favor. The approval is subject to two conditions regarding site plan and permits.

PLN-BOA-18-00040 - A conditional use permit for Bharatiya Temple and Cultural Center passed unanimously. Carter motioned and Needham seconded the approval. All four board members voted yes, with the permit subject to five conditions regarding site plan, permits, and usage.

PLN-BOA-18-00041 - Steve Wainright's conditional use permit application was unanimously approved. Chad Needham made the motion, Jan Meyer seconded, and all members voted in favor. The approval includes five conditions regarding site plan, permits, and landscaping.

PLN-BOA-18-00039 - Luke Morgan's variance request to increase the allowable projection of a covered porch was unanimously denied. Carter motioned for denial, Meyer seconded, and all four members (Gross, Carter, Needham, and Meyer) voted against the application.

PLN-BOA-18-00042 - The variance application for Ethington & Ethington to increase front yard setback was tabled. Meyer made the motion to table, Carter seconded, and all members voted to continue the item to the July 9th meeting.

PLN-BOA-18-00043 - Non-Stop Towing's administrative appeal to change non-conforming use failed. Meyer motioned for denial, Carter seconded. Three members (Carter, Needham, and Meyer) voted against the appeal, with one abstention, resulting in the appeal's rejection.

Public Comment

0:00 Four residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to Non-Stop Towing and its impact on their neighborhood.

Connie McCullough addressed the council first, raising concerns about the towing business operations. She cited specific issues including noise disruption, increased traffic in the area, and potential property devaluation resulting from the towing company's presence in the neighborhood.

Andrew Finn followed with his own opposition to Non-Stop Towing. Finn specifically highlighted safety concerns, noting that tow trucks operate at high speeds on their street. He emphasized the negative impact these operations have had on the overall character and livability of the neighborhood.

Diane Brashear also spoke against the towing business, focusing on how the operations have disrupted what was previously a quiet residential street. Like McCullough, Brashear expressed concerns about the potential impact on property values in the area due to the commercial towing activities.

Jake Michul concluded the public comment period by representing additional residents who oppose the towing business. Michul spoke on behalf of multiple community members who share similar concerns about Non-Stop Towing's negative effects on their neighborhood environment and quality of life.

All four speakers presented a unified message opposing the towing company's operations, citing common themes of noise disruption, traffic safety concerns, loss of neighborhood character, and potential economic impacts through property devaluation. The public comments demonstrated organized community opposition to the towing business presence in their residential area.

Contested Items

The primary contested item at the June 11, 2018 meeting involved community opposition to the Non-Stop Towing business operation.

Non-Stop Towing Business Operation

Residents voiced strong opposition to the towing business, citing multiple concerns about its impact on the neighborhood. The main objections centered on three key issues: excessive noise generated by the business operations, increased traffic in the residential area, and the overall negative impact on the neighborhood's character.

Community members who spoke against the towing operation expressed concerns that the business activities were incompatible with the residential nature of the surrounding area. The noise complaints appeared to focus on operational sounds from towing equipment and vehicles, while traffic concerns related to the increased volume of commercial vehicles moving through neighborhood streets.

The opposition also raised broader quality-of-life issues, arguing that the towing business fundamentally altered the character of their residential community in ways that negatively affected property values and neighborhood livability.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps, participant names, and the final outcome of this contested item are not available in the provided meeting data.*

Variance for Luke Morgan

0:00

The Board of Appeals considered case PLN-BOA-18-00039, a variance request submitted by Luke Morgan to increase the allowable projection of a covered porch from the standard 8 feet to 12 feet.

Staff presented their analysis and recommended disapproval of the variance request. The primary concern cited by staff was the potential impact on neighborhood character, with staff member Autumn Goderwis indicating that the proposed 12-foot projection would be inconsistent with the existing built environment in the area.

Luke Morgan, the applicant, participated in the discussion to present his case for the variance. The specific details of his justification for needing the additional 4 feet of porch projection were part of the deliberations.

The board ultimately denied the variance request, aligning with the staff recommendation. The denial appears to have been based on concerns that granting the variance would negatively affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, as the proposed porch projection would exceed typical standards for the area.

This case demonstrates the board's consideration of how individual property modifications might impact the broader community context, with neighborhood character serving as a key factor in the decision-making process.

Variance for Ethington & Ethington

0:00

The Board of Adjustment reviewed case PLN-BOA-18-00042, a variance request from Ethington & Ethington to increase the front yard setback for construction on Lots 2 and 3.

Key speakers during the discussion included Matt Carter and Jan Meyer, who presented details about the proposed variance and its implications for the development project.

Staff had prepared a recommendation for approval of the variance request, indicating that the technical review found the proposal met the necessary criteria for granting relief from standard setback requirements. However, despite the positive staff recommendation, the board determined that additional review was needed before making a final determination.

The item was ultimately continued and tabled for further consideration at a future meeting. This decision suggests that board members may have had questions or concerns that required additional information or analysis before they could proceed with a vote on the variance request.

The continuation allows staff and the applicant time to address any outstanding issues that may have been raised during the discussion, ensuring a more thorough review of the setback variance before the board makes its final decision on the Ethington & Ethington development project.

Administrative Appeal for Non-Stop Towing

The Board of Adjustment considered case PLN-BOA-18-00043, an administrative appeal for Non-Stop Towing requesting to change a non-conforming use from a carpet cleaning business to a towing business 0:00.

Key speakers during the discussion included Romie McIntosh, David McIntosh, and Autumn Goderwis, who presented arguments regarding the proposed use change.

The primary issue centered on whether the property could legally transition from its existing non-conforming carpet cleaning operation to a towing business. Staff analysis determined that the proposed towing operation would represent an increased level of non-conformity compared to the current use.

Concerns were raised about the potential neighborhood impact of converting the property to a towing business. The nature of towing operations, which typically involve vehicle storage, equipment, and irregular hours of operation, was viewed as potentially more disruptive to the surrounding area than the existing carpet cleaning business.

Staff recommended disapproval of the request, citing two main factors: the change would result in increased non-conformity of the property use, and the proposed towing business would have greater negative impacts on the neighborhood compared to the current carpet cleaning operation.

Following discussion of the merits and concerns regarding the appeal, the Board of Adjustment denied the request for Non-Stop Towing to change the non-conforming use from carpet cleaning to a towing business. The denial upheld the staff recommendation and maintained the existing use restrictions on the property.