Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

planning and zoning commission. Uh we are a full house this morning. I know we also have some folks who are um down below um listening and if they choose to participate they need to come forward outside and then come in and uh come forward to um the podium if they wish to. So, I'm calling this meeting to order and I will ask if one of our uh commissioners will provide an invocation for us.

I'll do it today. Thank you. Uh pray. Let us pray for a minute. We thank you for this guidance. We get thank you for your your vision. We thank you for your leadership, oh Lord. We'd like to also make sure a special thanks to the the fire department, the safety department, the police groups, and the various various nonprofit organizations we have in our area. It's very important that we support them and we work with the leadership. Help us in understanding and working through the planning and zoning agenda today. And uh Amen.

Thank you very much. So, we're going to go forward and look at approval of the minutes of the October 22nd um meeting. Are there any corrections? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've got one correction that's I think substantive. In page four at the bottom, paragraph H, um it says it was not their intention to build something that is going to be a win-win. I think the the intention was that it is going to be a win-win, right? So, just if we could correct that before we approve them, we'll make that correction. Yes.

Okay. Are there any other corrections? If not, may I receive a motion for approval? I make a motion to approve. Thank you. Second.

All those in favor? Thank you. they both are uh taken care of. We do have one item of old business which relates to last meeting and that is the zoning ordinance text amendment fiscal court response and uh perhaps if u Miss Gray will give us a little bit of an update upon that for those of you who were either not present at the fiscal court or didn't look at the live stream. So, at the last fiscal court meeting on November 25th, their motion was to push this back to planning and zoning to regroup and come up with possibly looking at going back to the minor final plat option and possibly getting together individuals to help guide that. Um, so officially their amendment or their motion was to deny the amendment as presented and send back to PNZ to consider other options.

Um, so that does mean that the amendment did not it's not in force for the conversation today.

That's correct. Yes. Okay. So, um I would like to note that that text uh amendment came forward to planning and zoning from the advisory committee. Uh in listening to the live stream from the fiscal court, there was discussion about um other suggestions about review uh and um consideration of the amendment. Uh it is my recommendation which I'll ask the commission to approve or not approve that the uh advisory committee serve as a sub as a committee to review this um response from the fiscal court and that they add to that group uh a the representatives that were discussed at the fiscal court i.e. They discussed that a local contractor, a farmer, and a land owner be added to the review and consideration as the time of uh our changeover of leadership and Jim Boyd leaving the commission that left us with only myself and Mr. No, who were who are members of the advisory committee. I believe that we need a further representative to fill Jim's Jim Boyd spot throughout towards the end of the year. And I have contacted one of the commissioners asking that individual um to join uh the group at least until the end of the year and it's being considered by that individual. So we will meet as soon as we can and we will gather those individuals if you agree with this recommendation.

I have I have a question about the future activities that might help influence here. Sure. Whatever the results come back from recommendation by the advisory committee comes back to this larger group. Correct. Okay. And then we will forward that back uh as a to the fiscal court if does it also go to the all the other receiving groups? Yes. The city mayor. Yeah, my my question would be also that we do we need to do something to make sure that we're not presenting that amendment to the other legislative bodies.

I've talked to the director about this and where this is a recommendation that comes from you all. I wanted her to get your input on not taking that recommendation forth to them. I think it makes sense since the fiscal court is the body that's going to be most impacted by it. you know, if she did pass it along to them, uh, they would have something on the books that showed split standards between the cities and the county, and it it would be cleaner to have all hand, especially if we're going to decide to take another approach. Exactly. We should make sure that we're consistent if we can across all entities, right? So, I think that we have the discretion to,

you know, circle the wagons and recalibrate them and send something else forward and not forward our previous recommendation. So if the commission is okay with that. Yeah, I'd like to make that part of your recommendations. Sally, I have a second question that kind of follows up the yourself and Dan. I don't recall who said yay and who said nay during that. Will we have a mixed? Yes. The individual that I have approached from the commission to be added uh was a Okay. Thank you,

Madam Chair. There's one other thing I wanted to introduce into this discussion. It was a commissioner concern that was brought to me and the question [clears throat] was in the interim before we have something that does or doesn't adjust the lot sizes. Is it problematic for us to sign plats where there might be utility concerns about serving all of the lots? You know, can the utilities effectively serve the lots? What if the utility is declining to sign the plat? And I think this body is protected in its decision making. So long as we follow our ordinances, I know that we are uh moving with all expeditiousness. I I will just point out that the subregs do require us to have signatures from utilities. So if they're not participating in that there there could be some problem in the validity of some plat going forward. It doesn't affect any of the plats before us this morning, but it's it's something to consider um when we're drafting this to make sure that we're producing lots that can be served by utilities and that utilities will agree to serve.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Informational note and that's all. So, I would ask um the uh commission's uh approval for the way in which we will handle this. Yes. I'd like to move that we approve your suggestion as we've discussed. Can I have a second? Thank you. All those in favor, please say yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. We will move as quickly and as effectively as we can on this matter. Okay. Let's move on onto the agenda then for the financial report.

Yeah. We'll talk to the very large sheet financial sheet that you have in front of you. And I just have a couple of comments. First of all, what we're looking at in the I guess it would be the second column over is the November year-to- date both expense income and expenses. And if we were right on budget, we'd be up 42%. since we're five out of the 12 months through the fiscal year. And first, if you look at income, I just have a couple comments again and we've talked about this a lot in the past. And that is oh the g you'll see the Danville contribution uh again if we were right on budget would be at 42% at 75% because it includes as we spoke before the fourth quarter fiscal year 25 contribution which didn't make it into last year's checking account that came in oh this year which is why that's over and the boil county contribution which is close to 42% but the reason it's not as high as Danville is they have not yet made their second quarter fiscal year 26 contribution.

So if you drop down then total commission revenue you'll see it's about a third of the page way down the page you'll see that year to date we're at 116,336 which is 60% of our total budget and again that's because we've got these contributions from the last year's fiscal year in this year's numbers. So if you pull those out, if you pull out both Boil County and Danville's fourth quarter 25 contribution, uh we would be at 40% of our budget income versus 42. And the only reason we're not over is because we don't yet have Boil County's second quarter fiscal year 26 contributions. So bottom line, everything's okay on the uh income side. Then we'll go to expenses. And again, I'm only going to just make really one comment uh on the expenses, and that's if you go down about twothirds of the page down to contractual services. Uh we finally have the bluegrass ad charges in here for their comp plan support and providing a a director for us during the time when we did not have a director. And so if you go down to the total contractual services number, which is probably twothirds down the p almost to the bottom of the page, you'll see our total contractual services expenses so far this year have been 71,084, which is 113% of our total budget. Mhm.

And if you go up two lines, you'll see the 52,663, which is the bluegrass ad charges, which have finally made it into our expenses for the year, which is why we're so strongly over budget on the expense side because we had not budgeted for the comp plan support in this year's budget and or the director's support in this year's budget. of the plan in general was to pay for any blueg grass ad charges out of the cash that we have in our checking account because we we had a pretty healthy checking account and uh we didn't expect the charges would be as high as they were. It's probably double I I would have guessed what we thought they were going to be. But we still should be okay for the total year. We should still have sufficient cash and we still should end above the $40,000 minimum ending cash balance that we want to try to target having. So, if you were to pull that blueg grass ad charge out of our total expense column, we'd be at 39% total year expenses versus a target of 42. So, again, our normal expenses are in in good shape. It's just this uh bluegrass ad charge that we knew was coming and now it's here. So, any questions on the financial report? I've just got a couple other comments and one is on the annual audit that's underway and probably should be done the next what four to six weeks I would guess.

Yes, that should be ready for the January meeting and then we should be able to do the amendment by the February meeting. Yeah. Then again, we'll also then be bringing forward a fiscal year 26 budget amendment uh which will reflect our most current thinking and all these charges that we've talked about and additional income that we've talked about will be reflected in the in the budget amendment. So, we do need a motion to accept the financial statement. Make a motion to accept. Thank you. Can I get a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor, please say yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mannon. Anything else? No. Okay, let's move on to construction. Miss Greg,

we've got four things on the agenda for this construction charity section. Um, the first one is a release of Jodie Sharp's LOC letter of credit. Um, so we we will be releasing the $6,493 letter of credit. It has been reduced twice and um that section is completed 100%. Um, the next on the agenda is a reduction for Jody Sharp Construction Company of 75% from 357,000 down to 89,326. Um there is only one sidewalk left for that section of Hunt Farm. Um so we're comfortable with that. Um the next on the agenda is Brown Family Holdings um request the acceptance [clears throat] of a letter of credit in the amount of 1,641,164 as shy for improvement um of completion of the bypass center section 4. Um and we'll need a motion to approve that. And the last thing on the agenda is releasing Nancy Davis um cash bond of $47,888. And that is complete as well.

So, Miss Gray, um the only thing that we need approval of is the Brown U Brown family holding. I believe that's the only thing we have to make a motion for. Okay. Can I get a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. I was incorrect. uh that for the acceptance and the release of the um cash bond of Nancy Davis and the uh Jodie Sharp um section five. Can those be handled together? Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. Can I get a motion? I'd like to make a motion to that effect on those both all three of those items. Can I have a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor, please say yes. Yes. Yes, ma'am.

Sorry. Would you mind to add that in your motion that it gives the chair permission to sign the contracts. Uh yeah, we didn't talk about that, but yes, we'll have to vote again, but I'd like to also add the give you the permission to sign the contracts. And and I'll second that as well. Okay. All those in favor of that motion. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Gray. Anything else under um construction charities? That's it for that one. Okay, we're going to move on to subdivision approvals. And uh we will start with Miss Gray talking about Brown family holdings.

And I believe we're also going to um combine some of these in the same motion. Um

we [clears throat] So we're going to combine items one, two, three, and four together. Um so I'll go over that. So, Brown Family Holdings LLC have applied for the subdivision of a 29.9 acre parcel of land located at zero Shannon Way, Danville, being known as Bypass Center, section 4A, 4B, 4 C, and 4 D. And the property is currently zoned single family residential. Um the next on the list is Danville Host LLC has applied for a final plat amendment of 51.395 acres known as bypass center section 3 and fronting on Shannon Way south anvil bypass and goes Pike and being zoned highway business multif family residential RM3 and RM4. The next on the list is Matthew and Renee Ellis has has applied for the subdivision of 30.822 822 acre parcels of land into two tracks known as 8015 Pville Road in Bo County and it's currently zoned agricultural. And the next is the Saddle Ridge Homeowners Association has applied for the subdivision of a 2.516 acre track. Um, sorry, hold on one second.

I'm sorry I went out of order a little bit. Um, the fourth one on the list is not Saddle Ridge, so scratch that. We'll get to that next. Um, but Dan Man has applied for the subdivision of a 36.936 acre parcel of land into five tracks located at 4156 Perville Road in Danville. And it's currently zoned agricultural. And all these have been through technical review and and have been approved by the technical review. Yes, there was no comments about these in technical review. Um, and all those revisions have been made. Um,

couple of questions, director. The um the bypass center, which one? Final plot. Mhm. Has some notes on it about storm water. Yes. Yes. Um, so anything above an acre is required to go through storm water and get their just requirements of ensuring that they've met, you know, all the storm water requirements for the state. And those those are approved. The tech tech committee saw that uh they'll have to go through certain requirements with MJ or the storm water director of the city of Danville. Okay. Just to make sure that environmentally speaking they're it was more it was if I recall it was more of note to remind us to do that.

Yes. Yes. Than an item that has to be on the plat. Yes. It's more of a note to say that everything over an acre will have to go through that process. And I don't think it's just was it was a reminder having been at that tech meeting. Yeah. And then on the um the man property there's unclear as terms of the purpose of that subdivision. Is there anything more than just creating these tracks? To what to what purpose are we doing that? Do we have to have a purpose?

I I don't It's just creating the purpose is creating these other tracks. We we've had it but we haven't defined totally what the purpose means.

Kendall Wise from Vance Engineering. [clears throat] So the the purpose we've created some some some plats for his farm in the past and uh nothing's transpired or nothing's sold, you know, and the plan has changed as to what he wants to do with the farm. So the farm is now going to just be five tracks of land. We had it's kind of complicated over on on Cwell Lo Road by some utility easements that we created in the past that were actually requesting go away. They were never used and so we're releasing those utility easements to get those out of the center of a what's now a larger lot. But would you pop your microphone up a little bit? There you go. Thank you. Does that answer the question? I think so. Yeah.

Thank you, Kendall. Thank you, Mr. Wise. So would anyone wish to speak in favor of this besides Mr. Wise? Of course. Anyone want to speak in opposition to these? If not, then I'll ask for a motion to approve those subdivisions which have been recommended as through the tech committee is acceptable. I'll move to approve.

So, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Thank you. Okay, Miss Gray. Are we moving back then? Yes. Sorry about that. The Saddle Ridge.

Yes, we are moving back to number four on the list. Um, the Saddle Ridge Homeowners Association has applied for the subdivision of a 2.516 acre tract with improvements known as Saddle Ridge Circle in the village of Ridgefield Farm. The property is currently zoned multif family. Um, and in this uh plat there are a variances within the purpose of the plat. [clears throat] Um so they are going to dedicate a rideway um wave the sidewalk requirements and reduce the front setback width from 25 ft to 5 ft. Additionally the um city of Danville agrees to the following conditions to reduce the ride ofway width from 50 feet to 40 feet and to accept Saddle Ridge as built after adding a top layer of asphalt. Um so this will require the city of Danville to sign on that. So that right away is this extra little stub down below. Where is the

It's really the road. This is a private subdivision and they want to turn the road over to the city. Ah, and so if you look on the right hand side, it's the existing road is these are the conditions the city put on it and some of the requirements that we had to approve and tech review in order for it to be acceptable to the city. And and so what is the smaller is that a trail or a that smaller road right there? Yeah. I I believe it is a walking trail. So it's like a pedestrian trail, but I don't

uh sir either either come forward or allow your contractor to answer the question. Either way. Uh so what what what is the question? State your name please and address. Dale Sheperson, A. Thanks, Dale. Th this this little uh stub here at the bottom uh left hand side of the plat. Yeah, that that is a that is a gravel access road that that has been used in the past. It's really not. We just showed we just there is a road there. Not a road, but a a gravel access. Okay.

It's not intended as a something. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Did Did you want to add anything to that? Any other comments or questions from the commissioners? Anyone who wants to speak in favor of this in addition to Mr. Jefferson? Anyone who wants to speak in opposition? If not, I need a motion. Madam Chair, if I might ask. Yes. How long has this neighborhood been built out? A long time. For about 10 to 20 years, I believe. Yes.

Okay. I'm just thinking about the fact of these requests of waiverss. We could say that the fact of an existing neighborhood coming into the local road system is a hardship that justifies a section 1.5 exception to standards. Okay. Thank you. So, um, I'd like to make a motion and include that language, Henry, as you've suggested. Um, that we approve the the platform. Second. All those in favor, please say yes. Okay, that'll be approved then. And so then I believe we're going to Michael and Jennifer Dutton.

Yes. Number six on the list. Michael and Jennifer Dutton have applied for the subdivision of uh 625 acres into five tracks located at um on your staff reports and in the agenda it says 205 Old Bridge Road, but I made a mistake and it's 203 Old Bridge Road. Um but these were not advertised in the um for public. So um just my mistake there, but um so yeah, the property is currently zoned single family. So these are it's essentially just a subdivision consolidation plat of a single parcel. Since we since we didn't see this in the technical view, you want to give us the any other comments, please?

Yes. Dale Sheper again with AG Engineering. So, uh this is this is a vacant lot that is out on Old Bridge Road and um it has been purchased by the Dutton and they were going to construct a house on it or go going to construct a house. So they called us to come out to stake the house out. And when we got out there, the the two neighbors, the Halls to the north and the Wilkersons to the south, did not realize that the lines were skewed as bad as they were from the road. So in finding that out, the all three parties, the Dutton, the Wilkersons, and the Halls agreed to change the property lines to make them at a 90 to Obridge Road. So in order to do that, we've got to create these small tracks to convey back and forth between the parties. So that's the purpose of the platin. That's what we're doing.

And and there's nothing there currently, you know. No, they they have started some site they started some site work and u uh putting the foundation of the house, but that that's that's as far as it's got. Okay. And director, would you take a look at the purpose after this because I think it's a great thing to do, but just the wording so it better reflects that type of thing because I had a difficult time from the purpose reading that. Thank you, Mr. Jefferson. I believe there's a comment from the back and if you'll come forward, state your name and your address. [clears throat]

Hi, my name is Sarah.

You'll have to pull it down. Sorry. My name is Sarah Wilkerson. We are the neighbors to the south on 2011. And I just want to clarify for accuracy sake. Um we did not agree to all this. It it was staked. It was told this is what we are doing um respectfully. We were not asked. There was no engagement of respectful conversation between us and the halls to the north. Um this has not been handled well. And um the Dutton in the middle have proceeded with not only digging their footers not within the easements of their current property lines but also pouring concrete footers and laying cinder blocks. So I just want to I just want accuracy reflected that it's it's not been as simple and seamless as Mr. Jefferson is relaying. So,

well, I guess the question is understand that it wasn't handled properly. Are you comfortable with the way it's going forward or are you disputing it and saying this shouldn't be done?

We are on our end and um I don't know if Mr. Hall wants to speak on his and I on our end, we are not necessarily opposed to the line itself. Um, we're opposed to how it was handled. Um, it was not, you know, we're all adults, you know, engaging in respectful conversation, not coming in and saying, you know, we're going to rip out your dang pool and we're going to do this and I'm going to build my house and look, I'm just going to go ahead and build my house. Like, it's not the way to have handled anything. Um, so I just want that on on the record. the the line itself on our side on our 2011 side it the line itself is not the problem it is how it is all kind of transpired

so you are not speaking in opposition to this no I'm just I'm saying I do not feel like Mr. Jefferson accurately portrayed the the conversation was had and everybody was in agreement because that's Thank you. not exactly what has happened. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Are there other comments in regards to this? Any questions or comments from the commissioners? So, um I have a question. U Miss Gray, um you said this has not gone through tech review as yet. Yes. Um it was supposed to and it was an oversight on our on our side. So, it it was supposed to go through tech review. Um but but the staff does not have a concern about moving forward.

Um not from the planning and zoning side. There is a stop work order from the building inspector on this site until this gets resolved in the planning and zoning commission. So that will not be removed until this is signed by all parties and it's officially recorded at the deed room. So there is a stop work order on it. So any motion should include that that would be a requirement. Yes. Yes. So it on the plat itself there is a requirement for each of those neighbors to the north and the south and the homeowners. So, if they don't sign, um, it will not be recorded. Um, and the only thing I'd like to do is the purpose, just read the purpose on this and see if it really still explains what we

verbally. I didn't see that in there, which is something we do in the tech meetings, too, to make sure the purpose this looks like the purpose from the previous version, but maybe it isn't. It just the A's and B's. I had troubles tracking. Yeah. Um we had we over the plat um purpose, but do you have any comments about that purpose statement? The one that's on here I don't reflects what I heard in the conversation. You can look at it and you can make that judgment call after the fact. You just can't. You want to make sure it's accurate. That's all I'm saying.

So, um are we ready to have a motion? U It could be that we approve. It could be that we decide it does need to go back and go through tech review. It could be a motion to approve with the caveats that were discussed. Uh or we could not approve it. I don't see a reason to go back to tech is not that technical. I I would square up the lot. Yeah, I I would agree with that. I think I make the motion to approve it with the contingencies of adding the guarantee of the signature property for signatures and director sign off on the purpose statement. Yes. Yes.

Can I have a second for that? I'll second that. All those in favor, please say yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, that'll be approved then. Thank you very much. Okay, now we're going to go into public hearings. I guess I need to have a motion for us to go into um public hearings. Is that accurate? Yes. Thank you. I'll second. All right. We'll go ahead and move on then into public hearings. And Miss Gray, will you begin by talking to us about the first item?

Yes. The first item is uh was tabled from the October meeting. Um, Jennifer Paycheck and John Modlin have applied for a zoning map amendment from single family duplex to RM2 uh or single family duplex RM2 to central business on a 0.94 acre parcel of land known as 145 East Martin Luther King uh Boulevard and it is like I said current zoning is RM2 and the 2025 flume um is designated for the downtown district and so right there is the parcel of land. So, currently at the last meeting, um I know we had discussed the whole parcel itself being changed. Um but it's only she's only requesting now a section of the parcel. And in your uh staff reports, it'll show you she's only requesting a section of uh lot 18 um to be changed at this point.

So, at the last last meeting, we were talking about the property outlined in blue. Correct. And then today, we're talking about the property outlined in red. Yes, sir. Mhm. Yep. And so it's amended a little bit. Um and there will be a minor subdivision consolidation. So it won't be um different parcels that are going to be changed. So she'll consolidate that into one two parcels. So the the zone change that's requested, is it only on the red outline? Yep. I just wanted to make sure. Mhm. But a plan is going to solve the problem of split zoning. Should you proceed? Thank you. So, in light of that being so different than we had before, in essence, we're we're starting over on this.

Or are we? Um I don't consider it to be started over. Well, the information that we obtained from the last meeting that we tabled, yes, is part of this or can we consider Well, this I would assume since we talked uh about this at the last meeting and asked for further resolution, I would I would gather that it's in conjunction to what was so relative to that last meeting relative to that do we need a motion to unt

Yes we do and for our purposes that there is a public hearing where we're going to be taking testimony and evidence today and you may also rely upon the record from last time. So thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. So the first thing that we need to do is to have a motion to unt Thank you. All in favor? Okay. Now we can proceed. And uh do you have anything else that you wanted to say, Miss Gray? Um no further comments. Okay. Um I believe we must have someone wanting to speak in favor of this.

Yes. Hi, I'm Brendan Chevlin from Hilton Law Office. I represent the applicants. Jennifer Paycheck and John Mlin. Um I was not at the prior hearing, but I've been able to watch the video and am familiar with the issues that were and concerns that were raised. Um there were two main things coming out of that hearing. The commission had requested um the applicants meet with the surrounding neighbors who had concerns about the development and this uh aerial shows that primarily the blue area being essentially their backyards. what kind of development would would happen there. That meeting has happened and there's been agreement on with the neighbors on proceeding in the way that's now depicted. One of the other the other main thing coming out of the hearing was the commission I think was prepared at that hearing to treat the the two lots that fronted on um Martin Luther King and and pair those off and and provide that zoning that essentially is factored into the agreement with with the neighbors. They've taken the the big the bigger rectangle and divided up 3/4 of it will remain with the current zoning and it's anticipated those areas will be transferred

um to the neighbors essentially giving everyone a little bit of a bigger backyard and shutting down the concerns of the future that there's going to be some surprise development pop up in their backyards. That's essentially what's being done to lot uh 10 and 11 there is they're giving a comparable extension of their uh backyards there. Um and um new this is one of the new plats that have been prepared to reflect the change that the aerial I think also reflects how it will look on the ground. Um, I think as was [clears throat] noted at the last hearing, the area has been listed as uh consistent with central business on both the current and the future flumes. Um, and I think one of the neighbors, Mr. Riley, is here um to

as soon as you're finished, we'll call upon others to comment. Okay. And I think he can u advise whether what I've said is consistent with their uh agreement. and and with that explanation, we we'd request the zoning change as amended. Thank you so much. Thank you. I will take comments from others that um are in favor of this.

Okay. Thomas Riley, property owner of that particular section. Yes, we did meet with Jennifer and everybody else and we did come to an agreement as far as taking lot 18 and dividing it up into smallest sections and let each person in that area go ahead and purchase part of that to extend their property line back. Um, with that said, we will not have any disagreements about changing lots 10 and 11 and parts of 18, which the next of 10 and 11 from residential to uh, city business. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak in favor of this item?

Would anyone want to speak in opposition? Um, I will then call for a motion. I'll I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve as before us today. And I'd like to include in that just a a thanks to the property owners. That's exactly what we hope to see in this sort of situation that you can talk about this and come to a good resolution. Thank you. and we'd like to approve the the change. Mr. Nlette, would you uh include some justifications that this proposal conforms with the comprehensive plan?

It's outlined on your staff report on page four, but we talk about conforming to the existing character of the area, um preserving open space retention, allowing mixed use, and promoting infill. I think those goals are supported by this proposal. Thank Thank you, Henry. And I I would like to include all that language approved. May I have a second? I'll second. All those in favor, please say yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. It passes unanimously. Then Miss Gray.

All right. Moving on to number two. Express Oil through Tyler Henden um has applied for a site plan for the construction of a commercial structure and associated associated improvements at 216 Brent Avenue, Danville. The property is currently zoned highway business. Um, so it's right off South Danville bypass, Brent Avenue, and Jane Trail. They will do a demolition of the H&R block that is currently located there and then construct an express oil change and tire tire service. Um, there were no comments in technical review and there are no staff concerns at this time. Thank you. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this change, this uh site plan? Morning.

Morning. Morning. My name is Brad Boaz with CMW Architects out of Lexington and uh we're the engineer for the project and uh appreciate the staff's uh effort helping us do this review and uh here to answer any questions you all have on the project. My only question that I have sir is um uh regarding traffic and if there is any need for a traffic study. I know that there's already a business there. That's my only question.

Yes, ma'am. So, uh, as a tire and auto repair, it's it's a low volume business. Um, where not a lot of turnover like a fast food restaurant. Um, so we didn't feel the need if the staff has any objection to that uh for a traffic study. Um, like you said, it functions the same way as it does currently with the H&R block. questions or comments that he may answer. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak in favor of this? Would anyone want to speak in opposition to this?

I do actually have one uh more note uh that was discussed in tech review of the possibility of getting a variance uh due to the right side of Um, so they will possibly need a variance, but that was the only note from tech. So I just wanted to add that. But that would be handled by the board. That's correct. So make a motion to approve. Okay. Can I have a second to that? Second. Thank you. All those in favor, please say yes. Yes. Okay. That will be approved as well. So we'll move on to the next item, Miss Greg.

All right. 5B Properties LLC by and through Bruce Robbins has applied for a site plan amendment adjusting the gymnasium size and location from the site plan approved on in uh 2016 on the 15acre parcel located at 2405 Lebanon Road, Danville and the property is currently zoned highway business. Um so this is the original uh site plan that was approved in 2016. Um you can see that the gym is different than the current site plan. So the parking, the gym and size of the gym and all of that has been changed. So we u they have filed an amendment to uh update that.

Any tech review or anything? No comments on tech review. It's more of just u to amend the final plat because it is different than what is being built to ensure that it's correct and correct proper. Would anyone want to speak in favor of this change? Is there anyone here representing this today?

Sorry. If you'd like for me to speak, I'll be glad to. I'm Kendall Wise from Vantage Engineering. [clears throat] The Dawson Horkey's recently been doing some work at the site. Um, we initially didn't anticipate a new site plan was needed just because the proposed gymnasium is actually smaller than what was originally approved. Uh, so they actually started construction and at this point were asked to update the site plan. So, we've brought an amended site plan to you to to review and um the original site plan included a chapel and a storage building and a gymnasium and those were the three buildings being added to the property. The chapel and the storage building were constructed very much similar to what the original plan showed. And as uh Miss Gray said, uh the the gymnasium's in a little bit different orientation, but it's actually smaller and so

shouldn't be any concern for parking. Um they have more pavement than any property in in Danville [laughter] on that site. So yeah, thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. There's an adequate amount of parking. Uh the issue was in our ordinances if there is a 5% change in plats then we have to we are required to have an amendment um and it is changed more than 5%. Yeah there's specific thresholds and if it had been less than that then it could have been approved administratively as such we're required to bring it to you. Thank you. And and the building's up. So yes.

So can I get a motion in regards to this? I'd like to make a motion this approved. It's in accordance with our general plan, the sites and arrangements. There's no issues that I know of. Second. I'll second. Thank you. All those in favor, please say yes. Yes. Okay. Next.

All right. Number four on the agenda. Twinkle Patel has applied for a site plan for the development of a commercial structure and associated improvements on a 3.49 491 acre parcel of land located at 845 Stanford Road, Danville. The property is currently zoned Highway Business. Um, and this is the site plan right here. So, the comments in tech review included um ensuring that in the future there would be a fire hydrant located on this side of the property um and the potential for future roads um connecting in the future. Um but there were no staff concerns at this time. But

do we anticipate any issues with that being done? It's not shown on the plaque currently. Um, but we would like to see that in the future for future development. [snorts] Okay. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this site [clears throat] plan?

Is Mr. Patel in the room today? So, I guess it's just me. Um, Kendall Wise, Vantage Engineering, and the uh project is to build a a fuel center and convenience store. The entrance to the project share project is directly across from the main entrance to Pioneer Playhouse on Stanford Road. the the property um is larger than is needed for you know this fuel center and uh future development will happen on that south part or part open space to the right. We're we're building a planning to build a detention basin that handles water quality and water quantity concerns for both full devel both both projects which is the fuel center and whatever happens in the future. So, we're assuming full development on the entire two acres. I think it is. Um the the fire hydrant that was mentioned in tech review, we we talked about that and the uh this project is being built by Twinkle Patel. Michael McAfee owns the remaining property around it to the south to the north. uh immediately north of this property is uh is the location where a city street would be built. Um and at that time what we discussed with the fire chief was that uh when that street goes in and the water manes go in for the rest of the subdivision that we would place a a fire hydrant in that in that space. Um, and there is a fire hydrant immediately across the street across on the other side of Stanford Road. And as I wasn't thoughtful enough to make the comment in tech review, but one of the commissioners mentioned that if this fuel center catches on fire, Stanford

Road will be closed and they won't have any trouble accessing the fire hydrant on the other side of the street. So, [clears throat] um, they do have hydrant. Understood. However, should it be a fire, it's pretty close to an area where there would be a lot of people uh if playhouse were in session. So, it is of concern. Mhm. In my opinion.

Right. Um but they again they do have a fire hydrant on the other side of the Stanford Road to to pull water from in addition to whatever they might have in their trucks. And like I said, in the future as that subdivision gets developed by the McAfee uh Michael McAfee uh you know that that city street would require fire fire hydrants and we would strategically put one there at the corner of this this f fuel center. So thank you. Are there plans to make that a street? Yes. And when is that going to happen? It's happening.

It's happening right now. I'm working on a plan and getting the permit for these two entrances. This is Stanford Road's a state highway. So, we have to get entrance permits from the highway department. Uh so, we're working on getting those two entrances as well as the entrance for the the subdivision street. Build the street with the fire hydrant in or build the subdivision. Yes, sir. What the the the fire hydrant and the street would be built con at the same time. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Watts?

Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak in favor of this? Would anyone like to speak in opposition to this? Questions or comments from the commissioners? If not, I need a motion. I'll make a motion we approve the site plan. Okay. A second. All those in favor, please say yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. [clears throat] Okay, we're going to move on to the next item, the Cornerstone Assembly of God. Mr. Greg.

All right, so Cornerstone Assembly of God through um [clears throat] Tom Lane has applied for a zoning map amendment from agricultural to highway business on a 3.61 acre parcel of land known as 2035 Old Lexington Road. And so the current zoning is agricultural. the uh 2025 flume is designated garden neighborhood. Um and so in your staff reports um I do state that um the proposed zone change is in compliance with the following 2025 B county comprehensive planning goal plan goal and objective of grow a diverse economy to enable infill and uh redevelopment in the urban county urban cores of each city. but it is not in compliance with the 2025 future land use map. Um, and then they also included a general concept plan of what they will be developing on that site. May I ask u for clarification um what they are looking at building does does that require the change to highway business or could that be built under the agricultural zoning? This could be de developed under the current zoning

and and the proposal also requires the change of the property lines. Um so the uh city right ofway has been officially abandoned as of Monday, but the land swap would have to come through us through a consolidation and subdivision plat essentially kind of like what we just saw earlier. So they would still have to do that. That hasn't happened. That has not happened yet and they have not submitted that application to do that yet. So all we're really talking about today is the triangular existing triangular piece of land with the church on it. Yes. And now they own up to the middle of that rideway abandonment because that was official as of Monday through the city.

So that is what's being asked to change from agricultural agricultural to highway business. Yes. Correct. And and there there we've often used churches in agricultural plots and there's a conditional approval that you have for that. Yes. Yes. So that's in record of the existing one now. Is that do you know that whether this was conditionally approved to Oh the church and on I don't know about the conditional uh use but we did do a research of the um zoning and it has been agricultural since before planning and zoning was

um created. At this point the conditional use would be grandfathered in for that church. So even if yes that's what I so it is in that in that light that's all that's one that's a starting point. So to do just to clarify to do what they are uh proposing to do they could do it on agricultural correct? Yeah. Thank you. All right. Uh would anyone like to speak in favor of this change in zoning? [clears throat]

Pastor Tom Lane from Cornerstone Assembly. Uh it was my understanding that under agricultural we could not build anything else. Uh what we want to ensure is that uh we we don't have any um plans this coming year to build that necessarily. We're we're just projecting and um our church is growing quickly and so we'll probably be building in the next couple years. We're not positive that it won't we won't just expand the sanctuary and also do that. Uh so those plans are, you know, somewhat nebulous, but we just want to be positioned to be able to build and not have to have any roadblocks when it comes up. So

I believe the agricultural zone allows you to have up to 20 25% of the land in in an area being occupied by a building. That's and my understanding is we're over that right now. Well, if I look when you look at it, I don't see how even with the proposed youth center and proposed sanctuary that you're going to be over 25%. Okay. I mean, it just doesn't look like it. I mean, I didn't do the actual measurements, but you know, certainly the current church is not 25% of the existing land. The parking lot is not part of that number.

And the parking lot is not counted. It's just building. It's just a physical building. And it looks to me if you with the existing church and the proposed use center, even on the triangular piece of land, especially if you get halfway of the easement, you're not over 25% now then. And so I don't see a need for a zone change in order to do what you want to do. Commissioners, the the parking lot does count towards lot coverage. Oh, it does? Yes, sir. What's institutional? There's another zoning category, institutional campus. Is that something that they could ask for? And that's not commercial. I mean, if it's over the 25%.

I'd have to look into that, but from my understanding, the institutional campus is for it's not for it's only for center. It's not I'd have to do that. I was thinking I believe that that was something that we previously discussed in regards to the Danville Christian Academy. We talked about it. Yeah, I think that's also covered. It's It's more than just center. So I Excuse me. Just a moment. Just a moment, sir. I'll use voices. Sorry. Sorry, I moved away from the microphone. Um, currently what they have is greater than 25%.

Currently with their parking. Um, I would say yes, it's around 50%. That was my understanding. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Did you have anything else you wanted to say? No. Okay. All right. I believe there was somebody else who wanted to speak in favor of this. Okay. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this zone change? Good morning,

Sally Bright, 3456 Lexington Road. Um, I would like to ask for a postponement of this and [clears throat] the five-star zoning change request. The reason is um even though it seems really obvious to many of us in this room and downstairs um that there is no way this area should be reszoned as highway business because of the number one goal and objective 1A keeping things uh the same protect existing neighborhoods by encouraging conformity to the existing character for new development or redevelopment. The fact that also um if the zoning is not appropriate right now um it should be changed to garden neighborhood. it should be changed to residential because on the future land use map both of these properties are garden neighborhood which is residential. Um and because there have been no major changes in the area um since the comp plan was adopted since it was only adopted two months ago less than two months ago. So what but the problem is um that there have been a lot of behind the scenes work on this um including a city resolution that really was an end run around what we've got in our comp plan and our future land use map. So, for that reason, um, we need to

have a lawyer to make sure that number one, this doesn't go through here with planning and zoning, and number two, if you guys do deny these zone changes, that the city will not override those. So, I don't know. I've sp spoken to you guys and about this before the meeting. Is there any possibility of having a postponement until the January meeting? That's my question. Thank you very much. We'll hear other [clears throat] testimony. Okay. And that will be something that will be considered by the commissioners when they make a motion.

Okay. And just before I step down, could everybody who is here against these zone changes please raise your hand just so you have an idea. And there are also people downstairs and people who couldn't be here. So, just wanted to let you know. Thank you very much. So, I'm hoping that not all of you wish to speak, but [laughter] or or we'll have to order lunch. Um would you uh would anyone else like to speak uh against this? Yes. come forward, please.

Christine Christine Shannon, I live at 2055 old Lexington Road. Um, as Sally has mentioned, it's only been a few months since the future land use map was approved with this property being labeled as a garden neighborhood, and nothing has changed. [clears throat] uh in the in the uh runup to the approval of the um flume, we circulated a petition in the neighborhood and and in the community and 389 residents voted against having commercial development in this area. So, in light of that, a a zone change that would changes the highway business is definitely not something that anyone um would expect to be consistent with the flume. This weekend, a half dozen of us circulated in the neighborhood to share our information with our neighbors about the um the upcoming zoning change. And very very many of the people especially on Cardinal had absolutely no idea that this was even under consideration. They had thought that the the thing had been settled because of the flume. This area um has some very serious traffic issues as far as the highway is concerned. As you're coming out of Danville past the um the uh golf course, you come to Gagan, you come to Old Lexington Road, and then you come to the traffic light. That's a complicated intersection as it is. And the only plan that we have seen um about how this future development by New Oil would work has the um access to the gas station on Old Lexington Road. this would

complicate that end of the of the um of the road. And if we assume that people are often going to be going on to Lexington after exiting the the property, they almost surely will continue down old Lexington Road to the exit where it returns to um Highway 34. That point is also where Keer Lane comes in and it has been the site of numerous accidents generally because people want to make a left-hand turn stop to make that left-hand turn into Keer and the cars behind do not stop. And if we pass this reszoning, which will make this area highway business, you will have the potential that both intersections at the ends of Old Lexington Road become far more complicated and dangerous. You will inconvenience an established neighborhood that's been there for over 40 years along Old Lexington Road. And I would urge you to vote no on this zone change.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. [applause] Thank you. [cheering] Thank you, Madam Chairman. We have two topics on our agenda there. We're looking at the first triangle with associated with the church only. Yes. We'll do the same thing with the other triangle as a separate topic. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Yes. Hello. You'll see me a couple times. This one's on the fly. Uh, speaking in relation to the cornerstone application, u, my name is Laura Hoffman. I am at 2020 Old Lexington Road. The microphone,

the cons, sorry, usually I'm really loud. Uh, so I apologize. The concern that I have with the cornerstone application of highway business is it feels like an unnecessary ask and a conditional use permit might be an option. Um it sets a precedent and it's my assumption that it is being coordinated to um as part of a bigger plan to have the church go highway business and then subsequently other uh land within the area would follow precedents. So, I would just like to go on record in saying that I'm very concerned about a church, having looked around the county, uh, request a highway business designation. Um, and I think there's more to it than, uh, meets the eye. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I will urge you to be brief, please. Yes, I understand. uh Miss Davenport and I appreciate that and I will be as brief as I can while also exercising my right as a citizen to speak to the topic. So I just want to say hello to all of you and let

Sorry, sorry. Okay, I don't like to hear myself echoing. Um my name is Melanie Thornberry. I have been in front of you all before in a professional capacity. I am not here in a professional capacity as an attorney today. I am here as a citizen. I am here as a resident in very close proximity to the subject parcel of the church. But part of what plays into my personal perspective on it is the professional time and focus that I put into zoning and land use law in this community. And I've been practicing for 20 years somehow. So I do have a pretty good context. Um what I would like to say is that the commission as well as the director were correct in their observation that the church currently exists under a conditional use permit in the zone it currently is which is agriculture. So any of their future plans can be grandfathered in under that conditional use. There is not a legal need that I am aware of for the church to have a zone change from agg to anything else but certainly not to highway business. Additionally, there was mention of a zone with which I am very familiar which is the institutional campus development zone. I believe it was Miss Davenport who correctly remembered, excuse [clears throat] me, Danville Christian Academy being here not that long ago and it was I who represented them at that time changing from the agriculture zone that they were to institutional campus development.

Um, and that was because they were going to be for the foreseeable future at different points in time potentially doing some development, but most specifically they were preparing to build an addition and do some expansion in other ways. So my take at that time as an attorney was that to change from agg to institutional campus development best suited that property's use for a school much in the same way that under our current zoning institutional campus development does permit a religious institution to exist and therefore utilize more of its surface area for development of the property. property which does include your parking, your asphalt. So the point of that is that if the church in and of itself in isolation is wanting to expand and grow or if they need additional space, there are other avenues that are available to them. If they wanted to pursue a change other than proceeding under their conditional use permit, which is specific to the church. And as was mentioned, my greatest source of opposition to this is that this commission as well as the community recently undertook a very long and very thorough two plus year process when I was looking back at the newly adopted comprehensive plan. Over the course of those two years, this commission and those who may be sat on it at the time and prior directors that preceded our current director were very

interested in community input. They had drafts available. They published what they were considering. You all hosted community forums where citizens such as myself as well as others that are here today as well as land owners in any area of our county could come and offer their input, their concerns, and their thoughts to what you all were proposing. Only after you all listened, made revisions, published revisions, did you all adopt October the 22nd, not even two months ago, the 2025 comprehensive plan and flume. And the plan adopted by you all now is not in any way drastically different from the one that preceded it that I believe was dated 2017. So for this area, it has not ever been shown on a flume as being appropriate for highway business. It is shown as being appropriate for residential use. including the R1A through R1C that ranges in the density but not highway business. And that's because the uses permitted in highway business are completely incompatible with this area of our county. And to grant a zone change from what it is now to highway business will fly in the face of and completely undermine the

comprehensive plan and future land use map that you all just adopted. The time of public hearing and input was a time when the church as a property owner could have attended and spoken and asked that this flume designation be designated as something other than it is. And at the meetings I attended, there was no one there speaking to that. So the plan has been adopted. This is contrary to it and it ought not be changed to highway business and the church can

Thank you ma'am. Are you are you almost finished because others may wish to speak.

I am Miss Davenport. I just had one final thought which was that there are other avenues that the church will be able to pursue should they decide that they need to. Thank you all for your time and the stavport I will want to speak on the next one as well. So I'm sorry that you will have to endure me AGAIN [laughter] [applause] and and thank you for your comments and your summary of our previous actions by the commission. I look forward to your future comments. [clears throat] She's a tough act to follow. Uh, good morning. My name is Susan Bloom. Um, my husband Ben, our daughter, and I have lived at 2017 Cardinal Drive for 20 years. Um, the zoning change for Cornerstone in question today and the subsequent one, item number six, directly uh impact our home as they are located directly behind our our house. Uh, a home where we have raised a family, invested time and money, and that we love very much. a wonderful neighborhood and I want to thank PNZ and the commissioners for listening to community members during the planning phase of the comprehensive plan and the flume. You made a very important decision to keep commercial development out of our neighborhood and out of the entrance to our community. Granting a zoning change now for either requests contradicts those actions and negates the work that many many put into the CP and the flume. We are opposed to this zoning change and to item number six as well from Nukem Oil. I believe that the zoning J zoning change request for cornerstone assembly is unnecessary. Um as has been much more eloquently said

before me. Um I have a few observations just from today's meeting. Certainly, I have many points to make regarding the next item of business and I'll wait until that's uh the appropriate time, but I would just question comments earlier that um this is appropriate for our area where we live because it's urban core. That was a definition I think that Hannah specified before uh that this would be appropriate to change to highway business because this is an urb urban core area. Um, I don't believe that to be true. I've lived there for 20 years. Um, and I would also comment that, um, representatives for the, uh, cornerstone assembly seem unsure of, uh, the reasoning for the application and change to HB. Um, it doesn't seem to be something that was brought up during all the planning uh, the planning phases for the flume and for the CP. Um and it and it seems today to be something in question even by the ones applying certainly not by the second party that is applying. I know they are well repres represented here today. Uh and I think that is our concern is that there has not been time and availability for our representation, legal representation to be here. And I thank Sally Bright for bringing that up and asking for a postponement. Um and uh those are my comments now. Thank you so much for hearing um our remarks. Uh, and I would hope that you would um take this into consideration as uh voting down any zoning change proposed today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. [applause] Would anyone else like to speak? Uh, just a minute, sir. Which one? Okay,

good morning and thank you. [clears throat] I am John Wilkerson. I am a new resident to Danville, Kentucky and I live at 2076 Old Lexington Road. Uh my comments and concerns have been expressed to you in a letter which I think you have in your folders so I will not dwell on that. Uh but I would like to comment on the very quiet neighborhood that I thought I moved into less than two years ago. Um, I was attending the reviews of the comprehensive plan 2025 and uh I understand the wording in that. Some of the wording has been quoted previously and create quality neighborhoods by protecting existing neighborhoods and encouraging conformity to the existing character for any new development or redevelopment. I also would refer to a paragraph in that comprehensive plan uh referred to as aging in place refers to the ability of older adults of which I am a part uh to age safely, independently and comfortably in their own neighborhoods and community regardless of their age or ability. ility. Now, the point I'd like to make concerning those is that just after I moved in, there's been speed bumps added to Old Lexington Road. As I understand and inquire, because I have no history here, those speed bumps were to protect people who frequently walk on that road, control

the volume of traffic, which is used as a cutth through to avoid the congestion at the current light on Lexington Highway. And so it's also to in to encourage speed control as well as cut through Now, [sighs and gasps] I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do understand congestion and traffic control. Comments have been made about the corners of old Lexington Road on as it empties into East Lexington Avenue and the cut through by the church that empties into Lexington Road proper, of which the church has not been given any access to exit their parking lot to that road either. and any facility built on this property would not be given any access, as I understand, to Lexington Road for access or egress. Now, I was out yesterday afternoon on another piece of business and I came by a five-star station owned by Nukem Oil over on the bypass and I thought, my let me just stop and observe. In less than a twominute period, there were somewhere between 13 and 16 vehicles entered and exited that property, including trucks. My point is, if this is approved and you agree to do this and we agree to proceed, there would be all the traffic coming into this facility in the land swap. And we're not maybe going to talk about that next time, but this is pretty confusing to the residents. We approved zonings on the current land and then we're going to swap it. All the traffic to come into this gas station or service station to be approved [clears throat] has no access

from the Lexington road. It would all come into Old Lexington passing at least four residents where small children are currently living. Now, in that observation yesterday, that is just a high volume of traffic and it's going to come day and night. If they run out of gas, tractor trailers are going to be in there day and night. So, I just I'm thr we are we are talking about the church at this time. Yes, ma'am. Well, but that's the piece of property, but it's kind of been inrun on the conditional land swap. I understand completely. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. Thank you. [applause]

My name is Lesie Wigglesworth. I live at 103 Wigglesworth. I I do want to just reiterate that that we're sticking to the topic of the church and the application. Of course. Yes. Thank you.

Um at 103 Cypress Drive in Danville. My house does not appear on that map, which is one reason I wanted to speak. I'm not a resident of this neighborhood, but as a citizen of Danville and Bole County, it terrifies me that we would pass a comprehensive plan that people use to plan where they're going to buy, where they're going to invest, and how they're going to protect the property, and six weeks later, we would consider overturning that. I'm speaking as a citizen of the community, not as a member of this neighborhood. [applause] THANK YOU. [applause]

IF [clears throat] WE MOVE ON to the next item, I will come back again. But I would like to focus just for a moment on the item with the cornerstone church name as this group shows. We need your name name and address.

I'm sorry. David Shannon, uh, 2055 old Lexington Road. Um, husband of, uh, the person who spoke initially here. Um, she speaks better, so we let her go first. I think it's pretty evident that this crowd here sees these two items as one item. There's no doubt about that. Let's not by be naive. But I would like to simply tell Mr. Lane. He's been a good neighbor. We lived on 2050 Lexington before the church was built. When the church was proposed, we worried a little bit about that traffic flow. And I must admit, when I'm walking on Sunday morning, there's a little bit of traffic that I have to avoid. But by and large, the church has been a good neighbor. Indeed, I think the neighborhood has been a good neighbor for the church. At least one neighbor when the building was being built uh said, "Well, let me contribute to this because I would like the building to be more attractive to fit into our neighborhood." So, Mr. Lane, I'm opposing the change because it's allowing a business to be put in that property when you're in tenure or down the road. But we're not opposed, at least I am not, to a youth center or an expansion of your of your sanctuary. [applause]

Thank you, sir. So, um, at this time, unless there's someone else who wants to speak, I would like to receive comments or questions from the commissioners. Would that be satisfactory? I guess the only comment I would make is that, you know, the future land use map has this area designated as as a garden neighborhood.

Okay. The future land use map uh has this area these this piece of property the church is on designated as a garden neighborhood. And two of the zones that are allowed within garden neighborhood is R1C and RM2. And both of those have 70 and 75% lot coverage. And and that is something that obviously I would think would would meet the church's needs without having to go to highway business. And I actually um so that garden neighborhood zone actually we agreed to only do single family residential. So it's not duplex anymore. Just want to clarify for that. Okay. Any other comments or questions

from the commissioner? I just don't believe the zoning change is required to do what you want [snorts] to do and I think it's unnecessary. So uh I don't think it's necessary to do the Joan change even to consider it to do what you want to do there.

Yeah. I think as a comment that we're not opposed to the church expansion but there's not a requirement to zone to change the zoning to make that happen. And I I look through the county and the cities that we have now and you look at churches that have large amounts of their property set up on here. Yes, they've been that was done in the past and there's rules and regulations on here, but I don't see it being an issue that we can't accommodate somehow. So, are we ready to make a motion? Well, the the request was to go to zone HB. Is that that is what it request was?

Correct. That is what we're voting on. Yes. Yeah. For the church. I'll I'll make the motion if you wish. I would move to deny the zoning request in that it is not consistent with the future land use map as just adopted. It's not consistent with the um comprehensive plan is adopted and it's not required for the church to proceed with the plans that have been outlined here. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor? Madam Chair, if if I might, this is slightly lengthy, but just an addition for Mr. No. All right. Always willing to take additions. Thank you, Henry.

There's no future land use map or comprehensive plan conformity. The applicant made an argument of changing inappropriates to appropriate zoning, but the proposed zoning is not necessarily required for the proposed plan use. While a finding was stated to support highway business zoning, that zone by its purpose statement is intended for development of businesses that require a high volume volume of vehicular traffic due to the nature of products or services. The church is instead classified as an institutional use under our ordinance. Um, and other applications can accommodate the proposed plan use.

[laughter] Do you think all the extra wording is really required to discuss highway business and institutional Henry is I I'll accept it if you think it's required but it's I think it I think it's good to have on record what he's reflecting. Yes, please. Then I'll accept the change to my motion. Thank you, Mr. Nollet. Would we have a second? Already did. Thank you. All those in favor then please of denying this change to highway business, please raise your hand or say yes.

Yes. Then it's denied. [applause] I'll try. Okay, we're going to move on then. Um, I considered a little break, but I was told that maybe that wouldn't be good. So, let's go forward.

All right. All right. So, the last one on the agenda is Nukem Oil Company LLC has applied for a zoning map amendment from agricultural to highway business on a 4.26 acre parcel of land located at the intersection of Old Dandel Road, Lexington Road, and Kentucky Highway 2168. Um, so this information is in your staff packet as well. The current zoning is agricultural. The 2025 flume is also designated for garden neighborhood which is um just single family. Um but the comprehensive plan review um the proposed zone change is in compliance with the following 2025 Danville B County comprehensive plan goals and objectives. Grow a diverse economy by enabling infill and redevelopment in the urban cores of each city and preserving community resources by allocating an adequate supply of developable land to accommodate anticipated growth within the urban service area and to maximize development on vacant land within the urban service area and promote redevelopment of underutilized land in a matter in a manner that enhances existing urban form and/or historic features. But the proposed zone change is not in compliance with the 2025 future land use map of garden uh garden neighborhood. And so that is the parcel of land we are discussing today. And that is their um concept plan as well. Okay. All right. We'll begin by having anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this um change please come forward.

[clears throat]

Thank you, sir. Say, state your name and address. Good morning. Uh, my name is Mike Sullivan, 608 Frederick Street, Owensboro, Kentucky. Mike Sullivan. How's that? 608 Frederick Street, Owensboro, Kentucky. um attorney for Nukem Oil. Just go ahead and move your um Thank you. Okay.

Appreciate you all hearing from us today. U with me here from Nukem Oil are uh Bill Nukem and Thomas Nukem with vice presidents and uh also have Brad Miles, an engineer uh with Nukem. And uh we had had some slides that we and it includes some of this. I think

you don't Nukem Oil was founded in 1924. It's located right up the road in Barstown, Kentucky. That's where Nukem Oil is located. N speak into your mic. Okay. And please please be as brief as you can be. I'll try. You're talking to an attorney and I'll do my best. The uh

I knew that. [laughter] I noticed how you handled the last one. Um anyway, like I said that Nukem Oil was founded in 1924 and it's located in Bargetown, Kentucky. That's where it's headquartered. Um, this is the uh plat that was I think on the notice to property owners that shows the 4.268 acres that we're asking be reszoned from agricultural to highway business. Um, I call it Highway 34 and Lexington Road or 2168 if I'm I hope I I hope those are the correct designations of that of that intersection um up there. Uh let's see here. And so we're we're talking about this triangular tract right here. Uh Lexton Road is everybody in this room knows better than me, used to run here and was relocated in about 2013. Uh and what happened is it then this came from the farm that used to be located to the north. north is this way um of the highway and and has created this triangular tractor to ground and that's the one that we're here about uh today with with you. Uh Nukem asked the commission to approve the zoning map amendment application because under KRS 100.2131A and section 3.10.6B1 6B1 of your zoning ordinance, the existing classification of agricultural is not appropriate and we believe that the highway business zoning is appropriate and and as everybody knows, you know, the plan would be for uh Nukem Oil to locate a five-star store at that location. Um the property being reszoned, like I

said, was farmland. Um it hasn't been farmed for 12 or 13 years. Uh Nukem oil had tried to put it in hay uh but couldn't find anybody that was interested in doing it because the track was so small. Um so so they tried to tried to put it to an agricultural use uh after they acquired it and couldn't find anybody to assist with that. But it is approximately 4.2 acres. Uh your zoning ordinance defines agricultural as needing a minimum size of five acres. So it doesn't satisfy the minimum lot size for agricultural use under your zoning. I think that um one of the things that I one of the things that I wanted to point out that was that when Nukem Oil acquired the property back in 2013 uh the purchase price was $210,000 about about $49,000 an acre. A little bit more than that. Uh I'm not I'm not from Danville. Everybody knows that. But I don't believe that when land is that valuable that it makes it economically feasible to develop it for residential use. Uh so I mean that's one of you got to think about cost when you think about what future land use is going to be and when it costs too much to put houses on it, people aren't going to put houses on it. And I think that's a factor that that we need to remember here. So, just to talk a We're not here about a development plan. Um, uh, that would come next. We're not here to approve a

development plan, but I know people have talked about access and traffic. Uh, we don't think there'll be a a significant increase to traffic on the roads. Of course, there'll be there'll be traffic If I let me finish, please. Of course, there would be additional traffic coming into to this lot uh from those roads. Um the um see if I've got this right. So th this is I'm going to move to the next slide pretty quickly because this one's you know you'll see it easier on the next slide. But this is the concept plan of fivear superimposed on an aerial of of of that of that property. It has been it looks like trees there. Those are peach trees that I think grew up wild at some point and have been cleared in the center of the lot. But that's generally what what the lot will look like. And then that one gives you a little better view of of what of what we'll what it will look like. And as you can see, um it's got the uh there are two access points off of proposed off of O Lexington Road. Uh there will be right turn only signs at both of these. This one is is going to be constructed in such a way that trucks could not turn left to go that way down Lexington Road. Uh the the this is something that you have to work out with the Kentucky Transportation of Cabinet to do, but this this access point would be right in and and right out only. So, anybody coming toward driving toward Lexington would would be able to access the store this way. And if they're going anybody going toward Lexington again would go out that way, but there

wouldn't be a left turn there. The left turn would have to come up through here. So, everything is is geared toward uh Lexon Road, 2168. Um the the signs would the fivestar sign would be located here and there would be one here. The it's 24 feet in height is what this zoning allows. It's not going to be 24 feet in height. It wouldn't be any higher than 15 feet. Uh so so those are some of the high points of of how it's going to uh what it's going to look like and what they're going to do to try to prevent uh any more traffic going that direction down old Lexington Road. The um goal of FiveStar is to build a store that look it that's more, you know, cosmetically fits in with a more rural setting. Um, these are just some the canopy drawings, but it looks This is a store in Shelbyville that it would more closely resemble than the ones around town.

So, sir, are you are you going to be completing soon? Yes. We would like to hear comments [snorts] from others as well.

Yes. Okay. Um I I would say yes, I'm concluding soon. Uh the uh the lighting, people are going to ask about lighting. Lighting would be all directed toward the uh toward the lot. Foot candles is how you measure illumination. There would be zero foot candles uh extending beyond the property line. Uh and also to further reduce impact of lighting and sound uh on neighboring properties on Old Lexon Road, Newm would increase by 50% the amount of trees required by the zoning ordinance along that landscape buffer that you see up there. Uh so that it would have 27 instead of 18 shade trees and 54 instead of 36 evergreens. Uh and in addition, uh Nukem was going to or would agree to build this parking lot for the trail head, um at a cost of approximately $40,000 to assist with the the trail that's in that location. So, uh we would ask that the property that you approve the application because the track consists, this is my finding final final expressions here, the track consists of 4.2 26 acres that was created when construction of new Lexington Road was completed, severing this track from the farm located north of Lexington Road. The tract is located at the intersection of two major roadways, highways 34 and 2168. The tract is less than 5 acres. Uh it does not meet the minimum size requirement for agricultural use as defined in the zoning ordinance. the property hasn't been used for agricultural purposes since it was severed from the larger farm tract. And that for those reasons, the commission should find that the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate and the proposed zoning

classification of highway business is appropriate because of its location at this intersection for the compliance uh with the parameters stited by your staff member, Miss Gray, as well. and given the feasibility of or lack of feasibility to be able to develop this property for residential purposes including the cost. Uh we're here to answer any questions that you may have and appreciate you giving your time and consideration to this matter.

Thank you sir. So I am mindful that there were comments which were made during the previous uh items discussion which blended over into this discussion including Miss Bright's uh comment that she would like to have this delayed for further uh investigation by her and her uh colleagues. Um, so with that in mind, is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this uh change, please? Just offering the opportunity. All right. Would anyone like to offer new information or comments about this particular area? Yes, come forward, sir.

Yeah. Just if I could just ask um because the postponement if if you grant a postponement then all these people wouldn't have to you know get up and say what they're going to say they would be saying it next time right so I'm just in the interest of time you know I thought I mean can you said yes ma'am but this commission is very interested in hearing from members of the public, right, on any of the items, okay,

at whenever they come forward, it's important to us to hear from folks who are opposed and in favor of Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yes. Good morning. [clears throat] My name is George Kumer along with my wife Valerie. We own a home in 6.25 25 acres located at 525 Cardinal Terrace in Wizerwood subdivision. Lower the microphone a little bit.

I'm pretty loud. All of my testimony this morning is truthful and correct to the best of my knowledge. I appreciate all of your all service to our community. As the former chair of PNC board of adjustments, I understand that you're often in a position to make the hard deci in a position to make hard decisions and are tasked with ignoring outside pressure and personal prejudice to just do what is right, fair, and equitable for the majority and betterment of our community as a whole. In my time on BOA, we took a great deal of consideration to the neighbors and how our decisions affected them. My testimony this morning will consist of a series of facts, professional opinion, conjectures, and a conclusion. And I'll be quick. Our Whizerwood subdivision was established in the 1960s. For the past 65 years, it has been a stable and wellestablished neighborhood. It continues to be a quiet, secure, walkable neighborhood and a great place to reside. This will all be disrupted by the probo of this gas station. There [clears throat] are a total of 62 single family homes in this neighborhood with a total t total taxable property value of $15,355200. That's per the Bull County PVA. Please understand that this is a PBA assessed value, not the true market value, uh which is a great deal higher, closer to 23 million. That's based upon the nine most recent sales. Based on the average taxable value of the two existing five-star stations, this new property will equal a mere 1.35 million in property tax value. Again, this is in comparison to 15 million. Uh there's already an existing traffic control problem on Old Lexington and Gagen Lane. This is evidenced by the city of Danville's installation of speed bumps on Old Lexington and KOT's installation of a temporary speed

monitor on Gagan. Uh the approval of this change will only exacerate what is already a major concern. The intersection of 342168 and old Lexington Road and Gagen is already congested without the additional addition of additional traffic on Old Lexington. This is poised to be another intersection equal to the madness at Starbucks and Kroger. We all are familiar with that. This zoning change was advertised as going from agricultural to highway business. I assume it is agricultural but uh the PBA site, the PNZGIS map, the 2025 flume and the 2025 master plan all designated as garden garden neighborhood which is residential. Um, so question, how is it that the 2025 master plan of 2025 flume were approved only two months ago after much thoughtful consideration, much public input, this property was wisely designated to be residential. Now a two mere two months later, we are considering a change to highway business. Please make that make sense. Professional opinion. I'm a Kentucky licensed real estate agent and licensed auctioneer who routinely represents buyers and sellers in real estate transactions. I serve on the board of director of the Kentucky Auctioneer Association. I serve on the board of directors of the Bluegrass Realtor, which serves 38 counties and over 4,000 members. I do have professional knowledge of real estate value. Um the ingress and egress of this busy station into a residential street will introduce an excessive amount of traffic to an already wellestablished residential neighborhood and will significantly decrease the property value of the 20 plus single family

residents fronting old Lexington and significantly to moderately reduce the value of the additional 42 single family residents in the Whiskerwood subdivision. Uh the approval of this change would introduce land use that is inconsistent with that which has existed for the past 65 years. Um just in conclusion, I welcome a fire station to the east side of Bull County, but for reasons pre previously stated, this is a very much inappropriate site for said development. Um, New Camole is not currently permitted to develop this residential property as highway business and forever change the stable integrity of the Whisker Woods neighborhood. They are asking for your pres your permission. I and I think we venomly challenge their request. We implore you for the good of this 65year-old wellestablished neighborhood and our community to deny this zone change. Are there any questions in my testimony? Thank you, sir. [applause]

Madame Chair, I submit this for the record. Give it to Miss Gray.

Hello again. My name is Susan Bloom, 207 Cardinal Drive, and uh my house is on the plats that you've shown. My property is um and I appreciate people coming to speak who just live in the community. That's that's wonderful. Um I wanted to speak just a minute to Mr. Sullivan's comments regarding this investment by Nukem Oil. Um their purchase of speculative investment property is certainly their right. It does not mean we have an obligation to them to allow them to develop it in whatever way they see fit when it is in uh contradiction to the flume. Um and so I think that's an important point to make. Um that I understand I'm a business person investment in property and we certainly all understand that point but that does not give them the right to be able to develop this in any way that they see fit. Uh and that's why we have a planning process. Uh, as I said before, I applaud planning and zoning and commissioners for making the very important decision to keep this area um residential uh for the future plan use map. And also to Mr. Sullivan's comments regarding uh light pollution, noise pollution, water pollution. Uh, I would disagree with that as well. Modern gas stations are extremely brightly lit with LED canopy lights and signage that stay on late at night, if not all night. And this lighting will permanently change the nighttime environment of our neighborhood. Noise pollution. A gas station will bring constant vehicle traffic. Early morning delivery trucks, mechanical sounds from pumps, HVAC units, and ventilation systems, creating a persistent background disturbance. And water pollution. This is potentially a major long-term risk. Fuel leaking just from cars, pumps, and trucks can build up over time. wash into the ground during rain. There's also potential for

leakage from underground storage tanks that could contam contaminate soil and groundwater. These impacts alone would be detrimental to a residential area and once built cannot be fully undone. So in addition, designating these two properties as highway business back to the cornerstone in this one creates an opportunity for additional commercial development in this area. And this change would be just the beginning of overdevelopment and commercialization directly impacting our homes uh and an area as George said um 65 years an established community. We have a lot to lose if these changes are approved. Our property values, the quality and peace of our homes and neighborhood and the integrity of this planning process. I would ask that you please prioritize our community health, safety, and the preservation of our neighborhood by rejecting both of these. and you've already rejected one. Thank you. By rejecting this proposed zoning change as well. Thank you so much. [applause]

Thank you, ma'am.

David Shannon again. I have a very quick u comment and I'd like to have the map that Mr. Sullivan had on there and I'd like to clarify a couple items on that map. Could we see that map again? that slide, the pre the other one that showed the egress and and hold on one second.

Well, if you can all imagine, um, he's correct. Uh, the land in in question at one [clears throat] time was a farm, a part of a farm. When 2168 was put in, they decided instead of having a roundabout at that intersection, they would then put a traffic light in it. I'm sure the state and the city didn't realize human nature. So, what happened with that traffic light? The traffic along Old Lexington became incredible. Two full, three full, four-fold. point that one of our neighbors purchased a radar gun and clocked the traffic and it was going 45 or 50 miles an hour. Why are they using that? Because they don't want that traffic light. They don't want to be stopped there. So to say that that there won't be more impact because of this station on Old Oxington Road, even though it's somehow fancily designed by an engineer with various kinds of uh stop signs and whatever is inaccurate. The other point I would make is Mr. Sullivan noted in in um uh a point that he made about that little uh parking lot up there. Said, "Oh, one of the benefits to the community is the trail that is uh on the other side of 34 will have additional parking. Isn't that good?" I've chatted with the city engineer. Uh he says, "Oh my god, to have a parking lot across a very busy highway uh is a disaster." And I had pointed out to him, you know, that little piece on Old Stanford, you know, just that little narrow road, the elaborate crossing that

they had to put there, it would be a safety hazard uh of a huge extent to have people walking from that trail, from that parking lot over to the trail head. Yes, the trail head needs parking, but it needs to be on the other side. So, Mr. Sullivan, that little piece up there, I would tell uh Mr. Nukem, throw that away. That is a safety hazard, not an enhancement to the project. It's a detriment to the project. [applause]

Thank you, sir. I'm back [clears throat] and I want to start by addressing what I'm hearing repeated about time here. And Miss Davenport, I mean this with all respect to you because I appreciate your role as the chairperson who leads these meetings and has to maintain order. But a planning and zoning commission meeting and a public hearing on any matter is only the first step in what could be a long legal process. Each matter that is before you all is a separate matter as you all observed with the church being separate from the new oil application. The record is made at the public hearing. That is the record that moves forward through the entire administrative process of a zone change as well as other processes that begin administratively and have to exhaust all administrative avenues before they can be appealed to the correct jurisdiction in the court system. So, while I understand that some folks comments may seem long or may seem repetitive, I can assure you

that every individual who comes here, myself included to speak to you as a citizen, does so because for whatever reason, the matter before you is very important to us. and we recognize the need to make the legal record at this step. So that is thank you for that reminder.

You're welcome. I wanted to open with that so that I could then say that is the preface upon which I come to you again and I know you probably don't want to hear from me again but I do so because this is its own matter and the record is being made now and as um the attorney who previously spoke well observed I will do my very best to be succinct But we attorneys are not always good at that. And I apologize for that, Miss Davenport. But I am going to exercise my right as a citizen of this community that this commission represents and serves as well as you do. With that being said, and it was not how I wanted to start out, the application before you of Nukem oil to reszone this property from agriculture to highway business should be denied. And that is because they failed to meet their statutory burden under KRS100213 and the requirements for obtaining a zone change. First, they could not show that this was in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan. When that is absent, the burden of proof lies on the applicant to show that the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate and the proposed zoning classification being sought is appropriate. Or

excuse me, the other option is they have to show major changes of economic, physical or social nature within the involved area that were not anticipated in the adopted comprehensive plan that have substantially altered the basic character of the area that is the subject of the application. That second one that I mentioned fails because as has been noted, you all just adopted the 2025 comprehensive plan and future land use map that this is completely counter to. The other one that I mention about the existing zoning classification given is inappropriate and that the proposed one of highway business is appropriate is I believe what I heard the attorney presenting this matter for the newcomes to indicate was the basis that they seek the change. He mentioned the required five acres for agricultural zone. The adoption of that five acres came after the zoning of this parcel as agriculture. So this parcel predated and is grandfathered in just as we discussed in the prior hearing. The area out there on our future land use map and in our comprehensive plan is designated as the garden neighborhood. That was this commission's belief that that area is appropriate only for future

use as single family residential development, not highway business. Um, the vision of the comp plan that was just adopted, states that Bole County is a vibrant and growing community and is committed to support all its citizens, both rural and urban. It also states that it is now the task and policy of the planning commission which is an administrative body to implement this vision in every decision made by the commission. The introduction to our comprehensive plan states that the plan is to bring the community vision for Boil County to life, helping address the community needs, guide development decisions, align projects and policies with the community's long-term future. It then goes on to say that this plan is to serve as a resource for the public, for developers, for staff, legislative bodies, community partners, enabling everyone to contribute to Bole County's success. It's a policy document that outlines the long range vision for land use, community facilities, and economic development in our community.

The reason that I felt it necessary to read that into the record is because it gives the requirement of this commission to find that the applicant met its burden to show that the current zone is inappropriate and the one they are seeking is appropriate. But under our comprehensive plan, when you look at the appropriateness of a sought zone, one factor to consider that is very important is what is the least restrictive or least important, least I'm not finding the word, so I'm not going to stay trying to find it. But what is the best alternative? If its current zone is inappropriate, then what is the best alternative? And the place that you look for that is in your adopted comprehensive plan. And it is not highway business. That is nowhere near this area. The Garden neighborhood has been determined by you all in the comprehensive plan to be the most appropriate alternative. It's been determined to be the best alternative for the development of this area as a whole because it would honor the neighborhoods that exist around it already in which in the objectives and goals of our comprehensive plan. You all first say that a goal and

objective is to create quality neighborhoods. And the first bullet point under that is that is protecting existing neighborhoods by encouraging conformity to the existing character for new development or redevelopment. And I also want to point out that the user guide in our comprehensive plan specifically states that your goal in adopting the comprehensive plan was for the users to be your staff who is here today. the legislative bodies when making decisions on zone changes or amendments to ensure the long-term vision for the community is a consistent point of reference and that the comprehensive plan will be used to guide projects and priorities for the community over the entire planning period. Residents are also told that they can use this as a guide when addressing proposes, proposals, excuse me, and other matters before legislative bodies, appointed boards, of which you are one, and commissions. It also says that developers and property owners should use the comprehensive plan as a guide for minimum design criteria, development plan review, approval process, and required permitting. This property was purchased by Nukem Oil in 2013. To be honest with you, I don't remember if the connector had been finished at that point or if it was in process. [clears throat]

They made a business decision to purchase it. When you buy property in the state of Kentucky, you as a buyer are to understand what you can use it for by looking at local governing ordinances as well as state ones. And you take a risk if you need to pursue a zone change or any other change to your property in order to use it the way that you want to. Some investments succeed and some investments don't. And it's nothing personal to Nukem Oil or FiveStar because I use the gas stations here as they're nice gas stations. They're well lit, they are clean, and they are appropriately located. I know, Miss Davenport, I'm being long-winded. It's what happens. [clears throat] So,

I would like to have others have the opportunity to speak. Oh, I understand and I do think that under the law it's required to give them an opportunity to speak even if in your opinion I take too long. So I am going to wrap up which was my plan by saying that this application should fail and be denied because they have not met their burden under the governing statutes. And now I feel confident that I have done the best I can do as a citizen who cares a great deal about our community and who cares a great deal about the processes working as they should and being able to count on them as a community. So, I appreciate you're indulging me so that I could make the record as is required under [clears throat] this separate hearing matter. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause] I'm sorry, but we're going to take a very short bio break because some of us can't quite make it and and then we will come back. So sir, as soon as we finish five minutes of bio break, I will hear from you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

chair in the brief break that we had. Um we were uh in the process of receiving comments from those who might be opposed to uh this particular change. And um if you wish to speak, particularly if there's something new that has not been expressed, we would love to hear from you. But this this is an opportunity for you all to provide your thoughts and feelings for the commission's review. So sir,

I'm Dick Byum, 240 Cardinal Drive. Just a couple of quick comments that I lived in uh Whiska Woods for 30ome years, raised a family here, uh enjoyed the neighborhoods, uh great neighbors. clean houses, uh, nice, neat lawns, uh, you know, stores sell sippy cups and Coca-Cas, and we don't have any of those showing up on our lawns right now. I'm sure that, uh, maybe if this new store comes in, that might show up. But my family also has had a habit of walking this neighborhood. Uh, there's a little what they call the block, walking around the block. And so many of the family do that. A lot of other families in the same neighborhood do the same thing. They walk up and down the roads. It's a good exercise place. Uh very little traffic. Uh people that do live there are cons uh courteous of uh people that are walking. So it's a safe place to walk. I hope that won't change. I I I hope we won't see that story. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. [applause] My name my name is Jim Brown. I live at 323 Clearbrook Drive in Streamland. So, I live a distance away. Uh to copy George a little bit, I've been a city, regional, and local government planner and community developer for over 30 years. And I just want to say briefly that this is not an appropriate use for this location because of a number of reasons, of course, traffic, lighting, and so on, but it's also an aesthetic point of view. It's an aesthetic point of view from the point of how it affects the entrance to our city. And I've lived here for 22 years, which I think gives me a little bit of right to say. Uh if you want to see an example of why it's inappropriate for the entrance of a city, uh you you only need to drive to Bardstown. And on this side of the city, as you drive in, there's a new large service station built right in front of a very old historic building, a house, and it hides the house and prevents it from having the place in the community that it should have. So, I want you to consider uh how you how do you want the entrance to Danville to look? How do you want people to perceive it as they drive into it? And I think this is would be

detrimental to that perspective. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. [applause] Yes, ma'am. I may wrap it up. Okay. So, first of all, I know

State your name again for me, please. I will. My name is Laura Hoffman. I live at 2020 Old Lexington Road with my husband. I have two daughters. We have been there for 24 years. We are do not have my laser pointer, but we are the driveway right between the two Nukem Oil five-star entrances. So, I want to thank you all for listening. I think someone mentioned the reason we're here is because it's important. This is extremely important to me as someone that has been part of this community and my husband who had to leave to go back to work. But we're raising our child, our other child's at center. Um, ever since this situation unexpectedly resurfaced on November 10th, I've thought about it every day. Every single day. And everyone else has eloquently expressed all the different reasons for why we object to this and why our concerns are present. Um, I will not belabor those points in the interest of time and your time specifically. They're just a couple things. One, this particular plot of land has additional space that this service station will not be using that could be used for additional retail as well. So, the unknowns are a concern as we look to a zone change in addition to obvious things that we've stated about the gas station. I think for me at the end of the day as a parent, as a citizen, as a resident of this community who's raising children and other parents who are trying to raise children in a safe environment, we need to be cognizant of that. And I just ask that you try to put ourselves in or put yourselves in our shoes. Um, we're not talking about a gas station up the road or down the way. We are

literally talking about a gas station on top of an existing single family home neighborhood and my home in particular. We've invested 24 years in this home. We love this home. We love this community. And I just ask that you please vote no. And thank you again very much for your time. Thank you. [applause] Yes, sir.

Lenny Dearanville, uh 2965 Waterworks Road. So, we've been talking a lot about the Nukem Oil situation and as I've been sitting here listening to comments, something that um just got said triggered in my mind. I've been thinking I don't know a whole lot about zoning, but when I think about highway business, I assume that most of the bypass is highway business. And so I've been driving down my the bypass in my mind and I've been thinking about what business there would I want on that corner and my answer is none of them. Right? This isn't just about Nukem Oil although right there's been a lot of talk about that. I'm not specifically opposed to Nukem Oil. I'm opposed to this zoning change that would allow any business to go on that corner given the current uses, the look of the town, all the comments that have been made. And so I just want to I think that many of us that are here would agree that this isn't necessarily just about a gas station. It's about any business that would go there. AMEN. [applause]

Thank you, sir. Ma'am, my name is Fran Howerin. I live at 302 Brier Cliff Lane, which is Old Bridge, and I drive in and out of from Old Bridge into town many times during the week. Uh, and that corner is interesting. It's challenging at times. Um what I find is that driving in to le to into uh Danville and going through past all the greenery and the open spaces is a very relaxing experience and I get into town and I don't feel hassled or harassed and I value that. I also come from Connecticut and I've only been a resident of this area for 16 plus years. And I find when I first came here that entrance into Danville was so attractive that it really made us want to continue exploring living in this community. I have not been disappointed by it and I value it and I really think we need to consider very sa very carefully what we want our community to live to look like. One of the things that was expressed in the early um exploration of the uh comprehensive plan and the future land use map was when the community got together out at the showhouse. Many people also expressed how important it was to keep the green areas of our community green. And I want you all to think about that as we proceed. Thank you. [applause]

Audrey Pal and I live at 2056 Old Lexington Road and I am a new member of the Whiskaker Woods. I've only been there two years, but part of what attracted me to that area was it was family residents. The neighborhood was a neighborhood that you could walk in. What I find is that the neighbors get out and walk. And that's how I met my neighbors there. And living on old Gagan, I never knew my neighbors. Um because there was no walking area. So you never knew anybody. I know my neighbors here. I see them. We say hi to each other. You see people come and go. And walking outside is beneficial physically and mentally. And in a time of mental health crisis to have people that are aging in place and able to be self-sufficient, this neighborhood supports that. The additional ruling of it being a business um area increases and changes the whole complexion of that community and we will become isolated and that is not good for mental health or physical health. So I think we need to consider that this change is not beneficial to this not only the community but the residents therein and therefore residents of our community. Thank you. Thank you. [applause] So I think we will move now to any comments or questions from the commissioners. We're closing this part of the public hearing.

Uh I would like to close this part of the public hearing. Madam Chair, I I would suggest that if there's any closing statements, that's what our bylaws council for this time. Um as well from the applicant to offer a rebuttal. That's anything from the applicant. And if not, I have one or two questions for the

Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Henry. Madame Chair, I know you're not going to believe this, but briefly, [laughter] and and we understand all all the concerns of the neighbors, uh, but what what I simply want to say in closing is I think that the the facts show that the current zoning agricultural is not appropriate for this site. and that business is appropriate for this site for the reasons I previously stated and Miss Gray stated, namely the fact of this relocation and redesign of 2168 has has resulted in this major intersection here that would make business the appropriate use. And I and we respectfully don't believe residential is going is an appropriate use for this area given its location. And for the other reasons I previously stated, we asked for approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh I believe Mr. Smith said that he had some questions for you.

You Yeah. Thank you. Um you spoke to highway business being appropriate based on the uh major intersection and the nature of the road. any any other justifications where we have to make these findings about the appropriateness of highway business if we're going to offer recommendation in favor. I I was citing that in your at the end of your report you noted various consistencies and and I was look I was citing to those as well as as the uh issue of looking at something looking at something other than highway business for example well if it's it's it's not agricultural you got to make that finding first and then it's like well we we advocate that business is highway business is the appropriate use and one of the things you would consider well what other uses would there be And that's why I cited the residential factor and the price uh of this type of property. It's not the type of property that could be feasibly developed for residential and due to its location. Um and so those are the the additional reasons.

I I appreciate you taking the time to spell that out for me. My other question was whether there are any conditions or restrictions that Nukem might be ready to offer that could address any of the concerns today. I'm um you may not have anything to that extent but

well in in looking at this drawing up here u the you've already got landscape screening uh for trees is 50% more than required. Um you've got signs that are lower at 15 ft that are lower than the highway business 24 height. Um and and we we've tried to design uh these exits so that uh and we've got the right turn signs. Um those are things we can think of. Now, we aren't here on a development plan yet. And so there there could be a discussion about some of those things if if we got to that point, those items could be discussed at that point as well. and and if and you know I I will say that regarding this trail head I mean it's not it wasn't I want to say it wasn't our idea that that's something that in discussions somebody expressed an interest we said we would support that um you know but if there's a better location for it that's something we could discuss

is that it I think that's it you madam chair thank you sir thank you so now Uh I would like to move the public close the public input part of this and have any discussion amongst the commissioners. Any comments? Any questions that you would like to make? The the observation is pretty clear. It hasn't been that long ago since we did our comp plan and the future land use map. And that realized that's a big significant item for my background. We spent, as it was stated here, two and a half years creating that document and the corresponding attachments. I need to have that as one of the leading

leading issue potentials that we have on here, right? Because if it doesn't meet the flume, then we're in trouble. We got to deal with how we got to deal with it type of thing. Makes sense. And I think in the same sense with Commissioner Collier and Mannon and I were all on that drafting committee for the comp plan and we heard lots of public comment and and we tried to address as much as we could and tried in the areas where we thought we could not try to explain why and where areas that uh that we felt had to be contrary to what neighbors would want and try to work without some kind of compromise. Um,

it is it is one of the more more difficult corners we have around. It's not developed, right?

It's an extremely busy area. Traffic is going to be what it is no matter what happens on these properties. There's been some comments about why it why we are considering this at this time or reviewing this at this time. uh when an application is filed, whether it is or is not completely consistent with what the comp plan or the future land use says, we have a responsibility to to bring it forward, address it. That is what the purposes are of of what we're doing today. We certainly have had a lot of involvement in getting public opinion um preparing the comp plan. It was a lengthy process but when an application is filed we have a responsibility to uh address it, make decisions about it and so forth. [snorts] Just for myself and this is purely a personal comment. I understand the tension between desire to grow economically and grow a city and people who have homes and they want it to stay exactly as it has been. That's always the tension that happens when something comes forward to planning and zoning. And so we have to weigh what is best, what is part of our future plans and then make decisions with public input, but certainly just wanted to say I understand what the tension is here uh that we're dealing with.

I do have one technical question. It had to do with I believe Sally Bright had brought up a comment about requesting a table or delay and that would prevent us from voting today. It would is that I don't know why would you do that? Yeah. Why would we do that? That's my question. I'm asking the question would be if there was something that was missing from the discussion. Yes. I want to make sure we stated that out loud. Right. If we believe there's something that is missing. That's the only that's

I mean I think we we've today we have had all the parties present. We've had a large turnout from the community as well as the the applicants. We've heard both sides of this to to me I think it would be unfair at this stage for us to postpone. The awkwardness that comes up that the only times I've seen tableabling make sense is if we believe there's a section of the population not represented. Right. Are we ready for a motion at this time? [clears throat]

I' I'd like to make a motion that we deny those proposed zoning amendment. Um based on the testimony that we've heard here today that the proposal is not consistent with the future land use map and the comp plan that we've just adopted. It does not reflect what the work that we have put into those documents that the applicant um has not demonstrated that we must make this change in order to proceed. Development in that area inconsistent with the is inconsistent with the comp plan.

And Henry, please add

if if I might. Um there's not been demonstrated conformity with the comprehensive plan. It does not conform with the future land use map. The proposal specifically contradicts the comprehensive plan objective of protecting existing neighborhoods. The applicant has made the argument of changing uh inappropriate zoning into appropriate zoning. [snorts] The appropriateness of highway business does not necessarily arise from upgrades to the road. upgrades to the road better accommodate highway business, but they do not on their own make highway business appropriate. The appropriateness of highway business is further drawn into question by neighbor testimony and concern about traffic, other negative effects on the neighborhood. Um, and letters submitted by the public have also expanded upon these, including concerns about water runoff and the location of the site, which renders it an entrance into Danville. The appropriateness of highway business might also be set against comp plan goals, including providing access to walking resources, identifying and protecting landscapes within our community. Uh, for those reasons, we find there's no comp plan conformity, that we're not changing inappropriate zoning into appropriate zoning with this application, and there's been no arguments of major changes.

Thank you. No second. Repeat that. I I love lawyers. So, I believe we've had a second from Mr. Mannon. All those in favor of denying, please raise your hand or say yes.

Yes. [applause] Okay, we have a few more pieces of business for the commission. So, if you will file out quietly. You're welcome. You're welcome. And and we're not opposed. You know, you want to do stuff. It's just Yeah.

What do you know? It's a good [music] Please leave. Hey guys. Hey guys. Hey guys. We need you to move on out. Please. We got to continue. Settle down, please. Everybody. Thank you. We need to please move outside to have conversation. We need to have We need to move into executive session. It's not even executive session. It's still public. No, let's go public.

We are moving into private session. All right. Okay, we're ready to move into new business. Is there any new business, folks? We're ready to move into new business, please. See you.

We're ready to move into new business. So the first thing that we need to do, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing that we need to do is make a motion to come out of public hearing. Correct. I make that motion. Can I have a second? And this is to discuss personnel matters. Is this to discuss personnel matters? No. Eventually eventually we're going to move on to advisory committee but we need to get out of the public hearing I believe. Yes, we're voting on that now. So if we could get

now we're out of public hearing. Okay. Okay. So under new business is there anything from the advisory committee beyond what we've already discussed? Nothing today. Anything from the budget committee? Okay. Um, we need to move into a um, we need to move out of open session to discuss personnel, a personnel matter. So, sir, I'm sorry. You're going to have to step outside.

Can I hear? [laughter] Who's he? JJ, he's chairman of the Thank you. Oh, so uh do I need to have a motion to do that? Yes. Can somebody give it to me? [laughter] A motion. Thank you to move into uh a private session for personnel. Second. Second. All those in favor? Yes. I Okay.

Um, is there any other business that we need to talk about now? The calendar and committee, Miss Gray. Yes. So, in other new business, we are approving the um 2026 calendar, which is in your staff reports. Um and that is just um all of the deadline to file dates, the tech review dates, and the meeting dates. Um and that's at as normal. Um you know, third Monday or third Wednesday of the month. Fourth fourth Wednesday of the month. Goodness. Okay. And so, if that looks okay with you all, yeah, we'll approve it. Do do we want to at this point avoid scheduling November 25th and December 23rd? We do this every year.

Interest of honesty. We do. Um, we can definitely go ahead and change those two dates. Um, would you like a separate date for both of those months or consolidate it like we did this year? Consolidate. Consolidate. Uh, would you let me look at my calendars and we can do second Wednesday of the month in December? Yeah. The the only negative that you'd have if you have a large amount of applicants early in November, it's a long time to wait until December. That's That's true. You can't make that decision. [laughter] Let's just do what we've always done. Wait, I wait till then of the year. Yeah. Well, we'll have some sense if we wait until then, we'll have some sense of how just

but I think if if we put this on the calendar as this is the calendar, we don't have to have then special call meetings, right? Rather um uh so December 9th of 2026 would be the second Wednesday of December um to consolidate those two November and December meetings if that would work. Yes, because we can always add versus Absolutely. We can do another special called meeting, but that can be Okay, that's fine. All right, with that change, do we need a motion to do that? Yes, please. Okay, we need a little motion. Um, I'll move to approve the calendar with the change to eliminate the November 25th, December 23rd meetings in favor of December 9th. Second.

All those in favor? I Okay, we're good. Do we have a motion to approve the personnel committee's recommendation discussed during Oh, I thought we did. Yes, I thought we did. I thought we did. Oh, maybe not. Let's just do it just in case. Can Would someone make a recommendation to approve? I'll make a recommendation we approve the recommendation of the personnel committee. Thank you. I second that. Thank you. All in favor? I. Thank you again. Thank you. relative to the calendar, December 9th is a typical technique. Yes. Yes. So, those changes uh with the motion to change the November and December dates will also affect the tech review and the filing dates and I'll I'll amend those as well.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. [clears throat] Yeah. All right. Anything else that we need? Would you consider putting some kind of time limit on presentations or can you do that? You can and it's best to do it at the outset of the meetings. So, and do that going forward.

And I I considered that um maybe we should create a time limit. I decided that because the folks have so much emotional investment in this that people ought to have an opportunity to have their say. Now the pro the problem is the problem is is that when an attorney gets involved that can create a desire to have much more than what normal individuals who live in the area or have concerns in the area would have.

But she stated today she wasn't here as an attorney. She's still going to pontificate. She she she did say that, but she did talk about legal issues. And so it was probably hard. It's like me and I come from health care. It's hard for me not to comment about at length about healthcare. It's hard for her not to comment about legal legal issues. Exactly. And in the future, I will have a signup sheet so it goes I in situations like this when there's a lot of people to speak, I will do a signup sheet next and I think a three minute cap on speaking. Well, that's a great idea. Be organized next time.

Yeah. Yeah. But, you know, I don't I try not to intimidate anyone out there. Well, and I sure didn't like being in someone trying to intimidate me. Yes. I do want to state for the record that but I think it was I I think you made the right call that it was important to let people be heard because we had a large turnout of the community and we needed to hear that. You'll have to say to Melanie and Mark. All right, I believe we're ready for a motion to adjourn. Y [laughter] All right, the meeting will be adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.