Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Louisville Metro Board of Zoning Adjustment to hear cases is advertised and docketed for hearing today. Public notice has been provided and materials have been available for review by the public. The following rules are in place for today's meeting. Please silence all cell phones. Please be courteous and respectful to the board and your fellow citizens. For those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on a case, you may send messages to the host. Today's proceedings are being recorded. Anyone wishing to address the board must do so from the podium or virtually.

There are time limits in effect for today's meeting. The applicant or their representative shall have no more than fifteen minutes for their presentation. Other persons in favor of the application shall have a total of no more than three minutes per person. The opposition representative shall have a total of no more than fifteen minutes for their presentation. Other persons opposed to the application shall have a total of no more than three minutes per person.

Rebuttal by the applicant or their representative shall be no more than five minutes. If you plan on speaking, please fill out a speaker's form as soon as possible. Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Priority shall be given to speaker cards in the order that they are received. Only those who have completed the speakers form will be allowed to speak. Procedures shall be as follows. Staff will present a summary of the request. The applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation giving reasons for the request. Other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. The opposition representative will be heard.

Those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. The applicant or their representative shall then have an opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during rebuttal. If there are further questions by the opposition after rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. The board may ask questions of the applicant, representative, or opposition at any time.

Pursuant to KRS Chapter 61 and the board bylaws, the board's deliberations and voting today will be held immediately following the public hearing for each case. No party will be allowed to speak during the deliberations of this board. Roll call, please.

Present. Present. Board.

Present.

Rodriguez.

Present.

Bozos.

Present.

Lewis not present. Bond?

Present. We have a quorum. First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the 05/04/2026. I'm sorry. I will. Yeah. 05/04/2026 board of zoning adjustment meeting. Members, if you had an opportunity to review the minutes. Any revisions? Ready for a motion?

Madam chair? Yes. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the minutes as written from the 05/04/2026 meeting.

Is there a second?

Second, Horton.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the minutes from the 05/04/2026 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting. Roll call, please.

Horton? Yes. Rodriguez? Stane. Board?

Yes.

Buzos? Yes. Bond?

Yes. The minutes have been approved. Staff, would you stand so that I can swear you in? You swear that the testimony you're about to give today is the truth. Thank you.

We have, revision to the agenda. We have two cases, 26 appeal zero zero zero one and twenty six appeal zero zero zero three that are proposed for continuance.

Jay.

Jay Luckett, office of planning staff, 444 South 5th Street, 40202. Yeah. We have, we're requesting that these be continued to the June 15 board of zoning adjustment meeting. There's a matter before the code board that's related to the citations at issue here, and we wanna let the code board finish their thing, is on June 12, before they're here and here just to make sure that everything is is proper and in the right order.

So

And the applicant is aware of of this? Okay. Alright.

Members, any questions for Jay? Yes, please. Question. Did the applicant bring in any additional information other than what we have right at this point?

I do not have anything additional right now. No. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Alright. If there are no questions for Jay, We will take action on the two appeals. Is there a motion to continue?

Madam chair, I'd like to make a motion on the appeal zero zero zero one.

And they can be taken together.

And zero zero zero three that we approve

the This request is related to each other.

Change the date

to certain 06/1526 as requested by staff.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second, Horton.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to continue cases 26 appeal one and twenty six appeal three to the 06/15/2026 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting. Roll call, please.

Horton? Yes. Ford?

Yes.

Bozos?

Yes.

Rodriguez?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. The cases will be continued. Thank you. Now moving back to the public hearing portion of the agenda, beginning with 26 appeal zero zero zero two.

Good afternoon. This is twenty six Appeal two. I'm Amy Brooks, Office of Planning Staff. This case was continued from May 4 due to a staff, error with the legal ad. So the request is for appeal and administrative decision to deny nonconforming rights for offense in the R7 multifamily residential zoning district and traditional neighborhood form district.

The applicant has requested a nonconforming rights for a fence. That was submitted in December 2025. Within the evidence in 1965, that zoning district on the site was R7. Directories indicate that there is a commercial use there prior to 1971, sometime in 1963, I believe, up until 1997. Those non residential buildings and that commercial use are not the subject of the appeal request that you're hearing today, nor were they the subject of the non conforming rights case.

We're just looking at the fence in the front setback. The highest point of that fence in the front setback is 9.6 feet. And I will show that a little bit more in my slides as we go along. There is barbed wire that has not been completely removed from the entirety of the fence.

You know when the barbed wire was added to the fence?

I do not. I believe the applicant's representative is going to have a slide in their presentation that address that. But I did go back through the 1970s and did not find any regulations regarding barbed wire fencing. But I had a hard time ascertaining if that barbed wire was there prior to 1971.

Okay.

So needed to establish that the non conforming so the applicant needs to establish that the non conforming structure was on the property in 1971 and has been present without modification expansion since that time. In 2019, the building on the site at 1744 Wilson Avenue was demolished due to a fire that happened within the structure. And the fence was changed during that point. The barbed wire was added to the front portion adjacent to Wilson, and screening was installed. Staff determined that there is sufficient evidence to deny the nonconforming rights.

An appeal of this determination was submitted to the office of planning on 02/26/2026. It shouldn't say 2024, but apologize. So the technical review, this comes under the land development code section 1.3. A nonconforming use may be continued until it is abandoned, And a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, expanded, or changed except as expressly permitted by KRS 100.253. This is the evidence.

So over on your left is an aerial from the 1960s. You can see that there seems to be a fence present. I apologize. It's a little bit up right there. So there seems to be a wall or a fence present on those aerials. Over to your right is a historic zoning map. So in 1965, this was R 7. Next slide. In the center top portion of your screen, you will see the street view from August 2011. As you can see, there is a building standing there at 1744 Wilson Avenue.

There is no screening on the fence, and there's no fence where the building there is. In June 2019, so a few months after that emergency demolition was performed, you can see their screening on the fence. And new panels have been added.

And that was added when? I'm sorry, Annie.

2019. So in 2008 is when that structure at 1744 Wilson Avenue caught fire. And there is an emergency demolition permit granted that year as well. And so the following year in June 2019, where we have Google Street View, you can see that the fence has been modified, Screening has been added. And that barbed wire was added to the front of the fence.

Now that portion, the barbed wire there, has been taken off. This is the aerial I'm sorry, this is not the aerial. This is the zoning map. As you can see, it is East of Dixie Highway, just South of Wilson Avenue. It borders easy one to the south. This is the aerial current site conditions. Current site conditions when this was taken, there are no longer any storage of vehicles on the property. Next slide. This is the subject property along Wilson Avenue. This is the highest point of that fence along Wilson Avenue, so it's 9.6 feet.

It it includes the the posts and adds in the height of the retaining wall where it abuts the public street. This is the fence as you're looking east on Wilson Avenue. And this is the height of the fence on the side where we see the barbed wire, and it's about 9.3 feet. It's still within that front setback because it has come out in front of the structures. So it's within the front setback.

So that one and this is the interior of the property. The photo on your left was taken this morning. The photo on the right is dated from December 2015. As you can see, there are no longer any cars being stored on the property. This is across Wilson Avenue.

There is no definitive evidence to indicate that the fence was enlarged, expanded, or modified prior to the 2019 Google Street View. And no additional evidence has been provided by the appellant that supports a claim of nonconforming rights. Therefore, the administrative decision should be affirmed and the appeal denied. So your required actions today are to approve or deny the appeal of an administrative determination to deny the offense. Any questions for staff?

Not at this time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Didn't have anybody who I see that spoke up that signed up in support of staff. I think we just have the appellant and their counsel.

Alright. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Thank you, madam chair. My name is John Talbot with Barden Warper Talbot and Roberts at 1000 North Hurstbourne Parkway. How are you all today?

Doing quite well. Thank you. You swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth. I do. Please proceed.

Thank you very much. Before I get started, just a point of order. Joe, my paralegal was on. I was gonna send you a new PowerPoint just a couple minutes ago. I was looking through. There was one mistake on it. I don't know if you've been able to receive that yet. But while you're looking for that, let me just kinda give some preliminary comments.

I wrote it.

Ask you a question first.

Yes, ma'am.

Is there someone else who's signed up to speak?

The my client is Chapuk Dizay is here, but he'll be here just for questions if you have anything necessary.

Okay.

Alright. I don't think you're gonna need him because this whole question has to do with matters that far preexisted him purchasing the property. So we could tell you a little bit about why he still wants to have the fence. But in terms of the legal issue of what really is an issue before you all, I'm not sure it'll be terribly relevant.

Alright. Please proceed.

The and thank you, Amy, for your presentation. The question we have for today is whether or not there is a nonconforming right to have this fence around this property. I have seen the evidence that was submitted to staff, and, mister Dizay has done a really good job of presenting articles, some of them that go back, I think, to the nineteen forties that show this property was used as a commercial site. Originally, in the nineteen forties, it was used, I think, as, like, a construction site for, like, storing lumber and building materials. Sometime, best I can ascertain, was in the sixties, leased as early as 1962.

It changed commercial uses to a painting company. Both of those companies would have had a use for that fence, and the evidence from the photographs we show of that property show that the fence existed. And the question is, what do fences exist for? I mean, it's pretty clear. They exist to protect the belongings inside and to keep people out.

And both of those commercial uses would have had the use of that fence and the purpose of it long before, 1971, which is the critical date. And you'll see some of the articles that we show the fence clearly was there as early as 1962, and I I I present that it probably went back to the nineteen forties, but we at least proceed the the drop dead date by nine years, which is really important. The question that's ultimately before you is not whether a fence is a nonconforming use because it clearly is. The question is just some parts of the fence, whether or not they would also receive that status. We have the issue of the barbed wire.

We have the issue of the the mesh or what's to block the viewing, and we also have the issue of where the fence existed where the building out front has burst down. What you'll see in those pictures is that there was not a fence going all the way across the front with a building that burnt down because you did not need it. The building itself came all the way to the front line of the property, and the fence connected to both sides. And so the purpose of the fence, which is really important, the purpose of the fence was satisfied all the way around the property, even where that building was. When the building burnt down, that area needed to be replaced.

That's not a new fence in the terms of what you're using it for. It's a maintaining the use that was there before. It doesn't look exactly as as it did as a, as a facade of a building, but it's the same point. You also saw a lot of slides about the height of the fence. It's really not relevant except in the area that we have replaced it.

The question would be, are you going in excess of what was there before? The facade of that building that had been there since the nineteen sixties at least was higher than the fence, and so we're going lower than that. And so in terms of what the fence height is, if anything, we're below that original amount, and we don't have any reason to go higher than that. And so he has put the fence back just in the limited nature to preserve that prior nonconforming use that had been there since the nineteen sixties. I also have some slides.

And, you know, the little grainy, I mean, when we're trying to get pictures from the '19, sixties, it's hard to do that. I was really impressed with what, he was able to present. He did a lot more homework than most of my clients do in these cases. Usually, we're just going back to the Karen's book and looking, you know, was there a second residence at the property with no pictures of any kind? And this one, he actually has a photograph going back to 1962, and you'll see that. So with that initial Joe, were you able to get the newer version queued up?

I think so. When this light gets there, let us know. We got a couple different emails.

Very good. Well, we'll see. If it's not, it's my fault. So this shows the address. This shows the, nature of the building. You can see where the purple dot is. You can see that rectangular area. That that was the building footprint of where the building that burnt down. So, where that building, that facade came to the front line of the of the property, that's the only place that any fence has been replaced. Next slide, please. This is the important statute, KRS 100.253. Next slide, please. The lawful use of a building or premises, and that's really critical because it doesn't say the lawful use of a structure. It doesn't say lawful use of a fence. It's talking about the building or premises itself.

And my point to you all is that the premises has always been used to have a fence that protected or a a a protects the property from the inside. It protects people from coming from the outside, and that was satisfied by the building facade itself. But a building or premises existing at the time of the adoption of any zoning regulations affecting it may be continued. There's absolutely no question, and I don't think miss Brooks can test the fact that there has always been there's never been an opening where somebody could travel through that one place that we have, added the maintenance of the fence where the building burnt down. No one could ever walk through that, and that's not a change in the use at all.

Next slide, please. These two slides and Amy was kind enough to send me her presentation. I thought these two slides did a really good job of showing you really the critical area. The you see two buildings in the top picture. The one to the far left, that's the building that still stands. And then the building that's closer in the frame with the the door and the little gable above it, that's the one that burnt down. So you can see the fence in 2011 goes to both sides of that building. And from the pictures, you'll see that that fence has always existed. There's really no question about that. The only issue is the fence that's now been added, if you look at the site below where the building no longer exists.

You'll also notice where the building facade, which effectively is being used as a boundary to keep people from the outside, no different from what a chain link fence does, that goes much higher than the chain link fence we have. So we have not exceeded that nonconforming use at all. We fit completely with inside of it. Next slide, please. And, again, this blue part, that shows the only part that offense has been added, and that's the only part where the nonconforming use effectively has been denied. Next slide, please. This shows the building that had burnt down. I think you've already seen that. Next slide, please. This shows the building.

The other building goes back to 1920. Again, I don't know if our fence goes back that far, but goes back at least to 1962 and I think to the nineteen forties. Next slide, please. These are some newspaper articles, and they talk about they're they're referring to this address, 1744 Wilson Avenue, which you can see in all three of those top slides from 1944. And they're talking about needing roofers and painters, and that was where I said it was being operated as a commercial construction business back at that time.

The second article, it's talking to a girl, help lead police to forgery suspect. It match mentions McAnulty Brothers, construction company at 1744. So that's the evidence that this has been used as a commercial property since that time. Next slide, please. And this is from the nineteen sixties, and now they're looking for painters and so forth. Same address. You can see, again, 6768, and also in 75. So there's no issues. And this and Amy's not debating this. She said that it's been used in the commercial business for long before that time.

Next slide, please. Here's the newspaper article that shows at the top. I'll have a close-up. You can see a little better. But at the top, it's May 1962, and then the building in the middle is the the building that I saw that you I was showing you. This is not the one that burnt down. This is the one that's a little bit further to the right. Next slide, please. And this shows you can see the date to the right, 05/20/1962. Next slide, please.

And, again, you can see the fence in this picture on that corner. So there's no doubt that it the fence, except in the area where the building that burnt down, has always been there well before 1971. Next slide, please. Now this is a close-up. There's two pictures here. The one on the left, the black and white, that's a close-up of the picture I just showed you from the 1962 newspaper article. And if you look where I've got that arrow pointing down, you can see what appears to be the ball on top of the fence. It looks like it's about this far above the fence line, and you see a ball. And I can test you all. That is the structure that held the barbed wire fence.

So that also existed well before 1971. And the picture here, this was taken from a Google Street View. It's kind of overgrown, a little bit hard to see. But you can see the fence, and you can see I'll close I'll just zoom in. You can see a little better, but you can see that same piece sticking up. And what I would also point out to you, if you look do you mind if I walk over to the screen just since I don't have a pointer for a moment?

Don't say anything because it won't get picked up on the recording.

I will not. And what I'm gonna point to is is the line the fence lines where they are on the window because I think that's really important. Old men can't jump. So, but what you can see on the black and white, you can clearly see the line on the what appears to be the top of the main part of the chain link fence. That hits about the same place as the current picture.

So I would submit to you, even though it's grainy, what you're looking at there is the top of the fence. And then on the other part, you also see shooting up from the grainy part, you see that white ball, and that is the same ball that's holding the barbed wire fence in the picture today. Next slide, please. And this shows a close-up. Again, it's a little bit hard to see, but hopefully you can imagine that it's metal.

It's like a domed piece on top, and that's the exact same shape as that white element you see in the dark structure. And, that is that dark structure is holding the barbed wire fence. Now, additionally, while I was pointing out the commercial uses going back to the nineteen forties, both of those businesses would have had incentive or reason to put barbed wire fence. They both had things of value put in there. And so I don't think it's just a a complete leap of faith to say that that was the barbed wire fence existing at that time.

Next slide, please. This is another article, and this is, I think, from 1977. It's got the the, address the date on top and then a picture down below for the real estate sale. Next slide, please. This shows a close-up. Again, it's a little grainy for sure, but I think what you can see, you can see the main building that still exists. On the left hand side, you see the building, long building that burns down. And then it's pretty evident that that fence exists going along the front side. They do have a gate open so cars can get in, but presumably there was a gate to close that at night. And what is also there's something obscuring that view through the fence.

It seems to me that they had some kind of blocking to to block visual viewing through that fence. Even though it is in black and white, a chain link fence simply would not have that dark area unless something else had been, in fact, put on top of it. Next slide, please. These are a couple, letters. My client was asked by staff to produce some letters from neighbors, and these are the same ones that have been in your files.

I'm sure you read them. But they basically both state that as far as they have known and they've been on the property for a long period of time, that those the fences always existed. Next slide, please. And next slide. But I think at the when at the end of the day, I think the photographic evidence is really what's important.

And, again, the statute does not say it's gotta be a preexisting fence that's there. It was a preexisting use, and the use was to prevent people from coming in that were not wanted and to protect what was inside. The replacement of the fence where the building burnt down is simple maintenance. It's no different if the fence had fallen down and replacing the fence in that area, and they did not go as high. The barbed wire, it seems pretty evident, has always been there.

And I think these are the important points. I mean, the relevant protected right is the preexisting lawful use of the premises, protecting the the property with a fence, not merely the exact prior structure. The proposed additional fence where the building facade existed does not intensify, enlarge, or extend the nonconforming use at all. It's exactly the same as it's been since at least 1962. It maintains the same preexisting boundary or screen condition formerly occupied in part by the building, And and our contention is that barbed wire has always existed and certainly would have had a good reason to exist with the prior companies that had been there. So that's the end of, my presentation, and I'm welcome to entertain any questions. Thank you.

We don't have any photos that clearly show where the barbed wire was prior to '71. We can see the ball.

Yes, ma'am. There that ball would not be there for any reason other than barbed wire or an extension of the fence to be up that high. There would be no other purpose to have it. In that picture, you're simply trying to get photographs to go back to 1971. I mean, frankly, we're fortunate to have found what we found, but I think it's I think in terms of the evidence that shows it, you know, we have to extrapolate from that slightly.

We can't go back and get a Google Earth picture from 1962. That's just not possible. But there would be no other reason to have that ball than to have an extension of that fence to go a little higher. And, again, I think if you had the fence, it would have shown up more. But barbed wire with just a couple strands going across would not be really evident in a picture like that from a newspaper article of nineteen sixties. But that ball was big enough to be picked up, and that's the purpose of it. So I contend that the barbed wire has always been there.

Question, please. Is this new information or information that the staff has not seen to your knowledge?

I think that the information itself has been there, but in terms of emphasis, I don't think that it was necessarily made in terms of pulling in tighter on those images and showing that. I don't think that was done. And mister, Daisy, he did that himself. So, you know, he's you know, that's why he hires a lawyer, I guess, to to emphasize some of the points. But the evidence is the same. It's just the emphasis of the points that are made from the evidence. Okay. Thank you.

So the staff report states that the request needed to establish that the nonconstruct conforming structure, fence existed on the property in '71 and has been present without modification or expansion to the present. Your contention is that it's the use and not the structure?

Well, I mean, we're we're somewhat parsing words, but I think let me focus on modification. I think modification replacement is clearly allowed of a nonconforming use. You can maintain it, fix it, replace it as they wear out. You just can't change it for an expansion of that use. For instance, we couldn't have gone from 9.3 feet to 11.3 feet.

We could not have expanded the if if he had more real estate, he could not have expanded the real estate that was enclosed by that fence. My point is is that the the footprint of the fence itself and what was the purpose of the fence is exactly the same. The short section that you had a facade to acting as the same part point as a fence that was much taller is not an expansion or change of that use.

K. Members, any questions?

Do you know excuse me. Do you know what year that picture was taken, the one with the fence partially white and partially

If you could go back to that show, but it was it was 05/20/1962. '62. Thank you. And that was we determined that that the newspaper article on the top shows that. And if you go back, Joe, the I've got the one entire page, and then I zoom in that just shows the date, then the next slide zooms in on the images itself. In fact, on this one, you can see both. At the very top, kinda small, you can see the 05/20/1962, and then I zoomed in on it there.

Okay. The other picture I was talking referring to was the one

Yes.

With the white on it.

Yeah. If you go forward from that, Joe, that's a close-up of just the image. And then the picture on the left, that is the exact same one from that 1962 article. And then the next slide as well, if you go to that one, again, '19 05/20/1962.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, John, you're saying it's that the barbed wire is there. It that's just that the picture is so grainy. And given the nature of two strands of barbed wire, it might be difficult to see.

Well, I'm I mean, I guess the question I would have, the if you can put that picture back up, Joe, please. The the both pictures show the ball. It's not the one in the current today. It's obviously not new. They look I mean, they they look like a small dome. It's pretty evident they're identical. The only purpose for that would be to add barbed wire. There's no other purpose for it. I mean and if it was chain link, I think he would see a little more clearly because on the chain link below it, you can see the top. You know, it just has a bar on top.

Barbed wire would not have had the more substantive bar that you would see. Barbed wire is thin. I mean, I suppose if you look really close, maybe you could make an argument that you do see parts of it, but I'm not a magician in that way. I mean, it's it's grainy, so there's all sorts of little white and black marks. But the only purpose to have that ball and that extension on top of the chain link is to add barbed wire.

It's got to be there. And and I and, honestly, I would contend that with this evidence, this is enough evidence to to give an implication that it's there. If someone's gonna argue that it's not there, I mean, I think somebody needs to show that what we've presented is not adequate or doesn't purport to be what it is, and I don't think there is that. Or show something that's more clear that makes it evident it's not there. But any chain link fence you've seen, these are common. You know? And I think everybody's seen them probably hundreds of times driving around cities. That is a that's an extension on a chain link for a barbed wire fence.

It's it's just that text and the staff report that's giving me a little heartburn, but let's continue to talk. Does anybody else have any questions? I was

wondering if I think it was in Amy's presentation, some of the pictures, and I'm I may have maybe totally wrong. But it looked like there were those angled arms that go up above an existing fence that that then the wire the barbed wire would be strung from post to post. And I don't I don't know if I imagined it or if it was on another building.

This is all if you could go back Joe, if you could keep that up perhaps. The an angled bar is gonna depend on the angle of the picture. If you're looking straight on, it's gonna look dead straight. If you're from the side, it'll look angled. So I think that's perspective. But you can see I mean, I'm trying to just not have it in front of me. It's kinda hard to describe. But if you could go back one a couple of them, Joe. Yeah. That's a good one right there. So you see that corner piece. It looks straight up in this. This is a photograph. This is not the one on the right is not a 1962. That is a photograph taken at a similar angle as the newspaper article photograph is.

That one on that corner appears to be going straight up. Whether it's straight up or that's the angle, I don't know. Seems evident to me. Today's picture in 1962, whatever that is, it's the exact same piece of metal with a bulb on the top in both photographs, and the only purpose would be to have barbed wire fence to attach to it.

Yeah. Well, I was thinking that if even they're I think they're put at an angle to make it more difficult to climb over the fence, you know, if it's angled out towards the outside or

Well, I'm I'm not debating it. I mean, I think it probably is angled. I think it's or, you know, on most of it, maybe just in that picture, it just appears to not be

angled.

I was just thinking it might be something in your favor.

Yeah. Well yeah. Right. I I think the barbed wire is there. I think it's whether people want it there or not, it's been there, and it's got a right. It's a legal nonconforming use that should be allowed to continue.

Other comments? Other thoughts?

Just being more first off, I guess. So if if this gets denied, the whole fence have to come down or just that section where the l house was?

Just the sections that are nonconforming. Okay.

That would be where the house that burned down was?

Yes. To my knowledge, Amy can confirm.

Okay.

I just had a question. What's the current use of that structure now? Is that being used as residential, or is it commercial use still?

I I'm not sure. I'd have to pull my client up. He bought it at a foreclosure sale in in 2017, so I don't know exactly what he's used it for. But the we're not arguing that it can be used as a construction site or a painting site. But, I mean, the truth is, when you bring it up, he's had issues with, you know, vagrants, and he's got an issue with people wanting to come inside the premises and take up residence effectively or loiter and party or deal drugs.

And the other issue he has is them throwing, you know, refuse and so forth into it and dragging that, so keeping it clean. That's why his interest is in keeping it, but we're not arguing that it should be used as a painting company or a commercial construction company. Maybe he's got that right. I honestly, I just haven't evaluated that, and that's I don't think that's the issue in terms of what is before us today, though. Thank you.

Something you wanted to add?

I'm here for questions mostly and try trying to clear things up. So what Steph, I mean, we could see those photos from 1963.

I would hold, you get a rebuttal the way the appeal process works. So I would hear from everybody that supports the appellant if there's anybody else that has any more comments, then you can close. It's a little bit different than a normal staff presentation with an appeal.

Was there a specific question that you had that you needed answered? Okay. Okay. You're satisfied. Okay. Okay. Alright. Thanks, Joe.

And just a point of order. If if usually, in these cases, they're pretty simple and not terribly formalistic. If if I'm if I'm positioned with the burden of proof, I'll just present the note. I think Laura would back this that if there is a rebuttal from staff I mean, I'm hoping that we've convinced staff otherwise on it with some of the new information, but if not, that was the last word or the final word on it. And I do promise to be brief on it any under any circumstances.

K. Is anyone else signed to speak in support signed up to speak in support? Don't think so. You mentioned that your client's here for questions.

Yes, ma'am. That's right.

Okay.

Alright. Amy. Could you hold for one moment, please? Alright, Amy. I'm sorry.

Could you pull up my presentation again, please?

You have five minutes.

Thank you.

Can we go to the street view that shows the different years? There we go. So this is what was the determining factor for the staff level denial. This has been changed, altered over a period of time. In the 1960s, we can clearly see there's some type of structure that is providing screening on the perimeter.

Now, I can't be sure what exactly that material is, but we could definitely see there was a wall or fence both from the aerials and from the historic Courier Journal articles. But in 2019, we can clearly see that screening was put on the fence that wasn't there prior to that. There is also now the barbed wire, it has come down. And you were right, Board Member Ford, there is that, you know, kind of that tilting of the fence. Like where that barbed wire was strung across there.

But that has been removed. But this is really the significant difference for me. This fence was changed in 2019.

So you're considering that modification, not an expansion, but a modification.

It was a modification and there was an existing panels put in. And we can't tell if any expansion or modification happened prior to 2019. I mean, we only are using Google Street View to kind of give us a definitive answer. And it doesn't provide everything, especially prior to 2007 when we have no Google Street View available to use.

Okay.

And so, you know, the covering or the screening, though, was never there. At least what I can see in 2007. 2011, the screening wasn't on the fence in the front. And now it's on the front and some of the side of the fence as well.

And the purpose of that screening is to add more I don't know if you can answer that question.

I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

The purpose of that screening, would be to add more, or less visibility into the property.

Less visibility. And, I mean, the property is completely clear of storage at this point in time and has been for several months.

K. Anything else you wanna add?

No.

Any questions for thank you. Alright. At this point, I'll close the public hearing. We're in deliberations on 26 appeal.

Madam chair, I would just I would like to have a I think I'm entitled to a short rebuttal of her. I think. Laura, what's your thoughts on that? I mean, I think it's a burden of proof. But I'm I

mean, under the appeals, I think it's up to you. If you wanna allow him a few minutes to do that, you can, but that's not by default. So

One minute or less is all that I need, probably less. So One minute. Okay. Very good. There's three pictures that you see. Two were in the picture that you just saw, one from 2011 that showed no screening, one from 2019 that shows the screening. The third picture is from 1977 that seems to show the screening as well. I have no idea if that picture in 2011 was taken when they were doing repairs or replacing. I don't know. It seems evident that screening has been a part of this fence for a long, long time.

I don't think that one static picture from 2011 should be carry the day to prevent them from having that screening when it seems to go back well into the nineteen seventies. The set fence has existed. It's existed clearly with barbed wire, and, we would ask that the purpose of that fence be allowed to remain. If you don't allow the fence where the building is gonna be, it makes the entire fence and purpose useless, which is not the point of KRS 100.253. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. So we've heard rebuttal and rebuttal to the rebuttal. So are is there any discussion?

I feel like, they they provided evidence to show that it was there since 1962. As far as the screening is concerned, you know, it's it's debatable. I don't have any problems with it. I think it's good. Honestly, looking at the zoning map, I'm not sure why they decided to to create or to to put that in r seven zoning when it's adjacent to E Z 1, and it's it was clearly a commercial use. So I don't know why they decided to do that. But here we are.

Yeah. I mean, I think it's always been, based on the evidence, somewhat of a commercial property, and and or, you know, our business in there, and there's seems like the fence was always there. As far as that the screen extra screening they put on the fence, you know, I don't know if we can there's something we could do about it or you know? But I'm I'm okay with it as well.

Yeah. The only question about the the screening in my mind is is that considered a modification or an expansion?

Do we prove the fence without the screening on it?

I I don't mind the screening, personally. I mean, that's my that's my opinion.

I don't mind it either.

But, I mean, I don't know.

And if it's a commercial use, industrial use, it's it's probably gonna be nicer with the screen as far as, like, a neighborhood aesthetic. If if you can't see what's going on back there, you know, that's my personal opinion.

Mhmm. Okay.

Thoughts?

I agree that the the screening seems to be better than not,

but I don't

I think it's a modification.

You you consider that a modification?

I would absolutely consider it a modification.

Alright. Mister Horton.

The staff the staff looks at these things daily, I think, by the hundreds, probably even maybe by the thousands. And if if and then the rebuttal from the staff here together to me, it would make would make me lean towards the denial. Alright.

Is anyone ready to make a motion based on the discussion you've heard?

I'll make a motion. Please proceed. How it goes, I guess.

Please proceed.

With regard this is member Vozos with regard to case number 26Appeal0002, location 1744 Through 56 Wilson Avenue. I move that we approve the appeal of the administrative, decision. Is that how should I word this?

Yeah. I mean, how they have the required actions is approve or deny. I I think it's really like grant the appeal.

We've done grant the appeal. And then if you wanna add for clarity, because appeals approving an appeal and denying appeal can be confusing and overturning the staff decision. And then that's how I would word it. So the appeal. Don't know overturning the staff decision.

Yeah. If you grant the appeal, you're overturning the staff decision.

Provide whatever findings of fact, that you're going to use to arrive at that.

So I believe that we grant the appeal overturning the staff decision, And I base that on the presentation made by the appellant today providing evidence that the fence was there, in its entirety, since at least 1962 as we saw on photographic evidence.

And that you feel that they provided evidence that moving from the building to the fence didn't real materially alter, enlarge, or expand that nonconforming use?

Correct.

Is there a

second? Second, Rodriguez.

Sorry, would you repeat the motion, please?

A little bit louder, please.

I move that we approve the excuse me, I move that we grant the appeal overturning the staff decision, and I base that on the evidence presented and

what the counsel

He had said, based on the evidence provided by the appellant showing that the fence had been there and that based on the evidence, he didn't feel that the fence where the building was was an impermissible expansion or modification of that nonconforming use. K.

That makes sense.

It does. Yep.

Yes. Yes. Alright. Properly moved and seconded to uphold the appeal twenty six zero zero zero two for the reasons stated. Roll call, please.

Horton? No. Rodriguez? Yes. Ford? No. Bozos? Yes.

Bond? No. The appeal has been denied.

No. You need another motion. You you need a motion. Right. Yeah.

Okay. Is there a motion regarding the denial of the appeal?

And if you're moving to deny the appeal, you can base it on the staff report.

Yeah. Is that clear?

Madam chair, regarding case, 26 appeal zero zero zero two, Make the motion that the appeal be granted

Denied. Or denied. Denied and the staff

Oh, I'm sorry.

And the staff determination be upheld.

Yep. And that the information from our staff be upheld.

Based on?

Based on the information, the testimony we've heard today.

And the staff report.

And the staff report. Right.

Or second?

Second, Horton.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to deny the appeal for the reasons stated. Roll call, please.

Horton? Yes. Ford?

Yes.

Rodriguez? No. Fozos? No. Bond? Yes.

The appeal has been denied. Next on the agenda, 26 variant zero zero four two.

Good afternoon. Abby Bills, office of planning staff. 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. This is case 26 variance 42 for a parking lot expansion on 3rd Street Road. The variance is from section five one twelve to allow the parking lot to encroach in the front yard infill setback.

To preface, the applicant has provided an updated site plan after the staff report was published, so the information in the PowerPoint is more accurate than the information in the staff report. That being said, the site is approximately point seven four acres in the C 1 Commercial Zoning District and neighborhood form district. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing parking lot by 50 feet, and the dimensions of the existing parking lot and the new parking lot are listed. The parking lot will encroach 80 feet into the front yard infill setback. This is a zoning map of the property.

It's a C one property surrounded entirely by residential. This is an aerial view. This is the subject property from 3rd Street Road. The expansion is gonna be on the left side of the screen. And this is a view of the subject property from the road on the west.

This is a view of the adjacent properties across 3rd Street Road. And this is the site plan provided by the applicant. As you can see in yellow, that is the location of the new proposed parking lot, and in blue is the location of the existing parking lot. I will also note that the the property lines shown on logic and on the site plan are off just because it was an error with logic, and the actual property lines do reflect the edge of the existing parking lot. And so this is just for reference because the infill setback goes all the way back to the house at 90 feet.

The variance request is for the entirety of the expansion. So the requested variance is adequately justified for approval based on staff's analysis. And the requested variance will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare, and will not alter the essential character of the vicinity. So your required action is to approve or deny the variance from section five one twelve to allow a parking lot to encroach in the front yard infill setback. Any questions for staff?

Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any speaker cards for this case. Did anyone sign up online?

No. But I see the applicant in the courtroom. If you wanted to speak, or be available for the board to ask questions, you could approach the podium so that if the board has any questions about the case.

My name is Richard Osorto, principal broker of Royal Real Estate Firm. The purpose to extend the parking

lot I

need your address, please.

Address is 10014 3rd Street Road 40272.

Thank you. Thank you. Let me swear you in. I'll raise your right hand, please. Your right hand. Alright. You swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth.

I swear. Please proceed.

The purpose to extend the parking lot is to add striping to the parking lot, which there currently is not, and to have the, traffic more organized. Any questions?

Questions? None at this time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. I don't have anybody else signed up to speak on this case. So I'll close the public hearing. We'll move it to deliberations on 26 variants 0042. And we've heard the, the corrections to the staff report from Amy Bills. So is there any discussion on on the action on the proposed action? And we're looking at variants to allow the parking lot to encroach into the front yard infill setback. Anyone ready to make a motion?

I can make a motion, ma'am. Sure.

Please proceed.

I move that we approve 26 variance 0042 based on the staff report and analysis of applicant and staff testimony heard today.

Is there a second?

Second. Ford.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 variance. 0042. Roll call, please. Proton?

Yes.

Lozos? Yes. Ford? Yep. Rodriguez? Yes.

Bond? Yes. The variance has been approved. Thank you. Five Variance0118.

Tyler.

Good afternoon. Tyler Bobczynski, office of planning 444 South 5th Street, 4202. Here to talk about 25 Variance118. Variances, from section four four point three to allow fence to exceed the maximum permitted height of three and a half feet within the required street yard setback. The requirement is three and a half feet.

The request is for eight feet and three inches. The variance would be for four feet nine inches. It's an r five residential traditional neighborhood form district. It's approximately a little under a quarter acre. Existing wooden fence is approximately five foot nine inches, but it's located part of it's on a berm and the other part's on a retaining wall, giving it a combined height at the tallest point at eight foot three inches.

Here is the zoning. Highlighted in blue is the property. It's the aerial with the you can see there's a alley in the rear. Here is the subject property. Adjacent property to the west, the across, the property.

And this is across Rosedale Avenue also. This is the site plan provided by the applicant. Here's the elevations of the existing fence, and this is from the other direction. Loaded the shaded red is where the variance is located for the street side yard. The staff finds requests, justified for approval, and the fence has existed since 2021 and is integrated into the existing site conditions created by the wall and berm.

The fence is not encroaching to any adjacent properties and is constructed in compliance with all applicable requirements. Your required actions is to approve or deny the variance from the land development code four point four point three to allow a fence to exceed the maximum permitted height of three and a half feet within the required street yard setback. Any questions?

Questions for Stan? Thanks, Tyler. Thank you. I have a speaker card for Ashley Bartley.

She's not the applicant, and I believe she's online. Yeah. But

Maria Hone. I do see your speaker card. Yeah. Yes. Name and address, please.

Steven Hone. 1833 Alfresco Place.

ZIP code?

40205 Louisville, Kentucky.

Thank you. Mister Hone, you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth? What would you like the board to know about your application?

I'm just here to answer any questions if they they come forward based off of the the report that that Tyler laid out.

Members, any questions for Mr. Holm? Any questions about the rationale for the height fence height? Okay. I don't believe there are any questions at this point.

Chair Bond, I believe, Ashley Bartley, who signed up to speak, is in signed up to speak in support but has some concerns. So you may just want to hear them in opposition.

She's she's signed up to speak in support but has some concerns in opposition?

But has some concerns about the design. That was expressed to us via email. Okay. So I would I would hear in opposition and just hear what she

has to say. Of course. Yes. Yeah. Are

we are we ready for opposition? I don't see the cards. If she's next, I'll bring her over to the panel. Okay.

I don't think we have anybody else signed up to speak in support. Missus Hone, you did you wanna speak? No. Okay. It's my turn. Your turn. Name and address, please.

Ashley Bartley. 1896 Richmond Drive, 40205.

I swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth. I do. Please proceed.

Thank thank you. And I won't take too much time. I I did sign up in support. I am in support of the general waiver, but I did just have a couple concerns. I've lived I live on Richmond, which is a block over, so I share an alley, with the applicant. The alley runs behind, both of our houses, so I drive this alley and walk it, multiple times a day. So when I saw the sign, I took a look at the case file and just wanted to express my concerns. So we've been there fifteen years, so I remember when there used to be a chain link fence with a kind of unsightly hedge before the applicant bought the house. So, that this is definitely an improvement. I think it's a nice looking fence.

You know, it's about twice the height that is permitted by code, but I don't really have a problem with that in general. The only thing that I have a problem with is the, the corner. I'll have to respectfully disagree with the applicant and staff that it doesn't create a health safety welfare issue. It's really, really hard to see around. This is a photograph brought by car so you can kind of see Not a lot of visibility.

You really have to approach slowly and basically pull out into the sidewalk in order to even see around the fence to see if anybody's either walking or driving. And then, really, I I have a couple more photos. You know, again, I I don't think there's any reason to ask them to to take the fence down fully, but I didn't know if there was just a way that they could chamfer the corner, maybe start at that left post and just even use the same material and just kinda create that 45 degree angle. I do have a couple more photos, so you can see that fence is super close to the sidewalk, and it's quite tall. There's another photo from more of kind of a pedestrian standpoint.

So, again, you can't really see very well around it as you're approaching the road. And then I felt that there was actually a code requirement to chamfer the corner of a fence. Go to the next slide, please. Which Rachel tells me that there's not, but there's a landscape code requirement that, in this situation, would be a 20 foot site triangle not to plant any landscaping between two and six feet in that site triangle. So, obviously, somebody's contemplated the fact that that should remain clear.

I'm not I'm not asking them to provide any kind of space like that. That's a that would take a big chunk of their yard, but just, like, a couple feet would be nice just to, kinda bring that corner back so you can actually see around so you don't have to drive all the way up to the sidewalk in or street when pulling out. Again, I didn't I I I signed up with support because I don't wanna make enemies of my neighbors, but, again, I I did when I look at took a look at the case, I would be remiss if I didn't bring it up because it is something that, you know, I I drive this way every single day, and and it is a little tough. So that's all I have.

Okay. Miss Bartley, would you reiterate your concerns about the plantings? It's a little bit hard to read on

this So it's not federally. It's not plantings. There's no landscaping there. Well, there is landscaping. I have no issue with that. It's just I was using this as an example that, like, the landscape code doesn't require you doesn't permit you to plant anything within that site triangle, and that that fence is taking up that same two to six foot space, you know, vertically and and is creating, you can't see around the fence. It's creating kind of a blockage on that quarter. So, yeah, I don't have any any issues with landscaping. Yeah. I was just I was wondering if they would be able to provide a little bit of a chamfer just so we could see her on the fence a little better. You know, everybody that uses the alley, which it's, very well used. It's a long alley all the way from Bardstown to Rosedale.

Okay. That answered my question. Any questions for Ms. Bartley? Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. I have no one else signed up to speak related to the case. So, mister Hone, you have five minutes for rebuttal to address the concerns that you've heard.

Sure. So acknowledging what her statement is, I think there is a level of people do have to slow down when they come to that street now where before you could move at pace and not have to stop there. So understanding what her request is, I do believe we're within the requirements that allow us to have a fence there. So that would be my statement is understanding her concern, but also I believe we are within the requirements that allow us to have the fence at that height. Well, it's above the requirements, but that's what the variance is requesting is to be above the 42 inches.

Questions? Alright. Thank you. Okay. We've heard the, testimony and the rebuttal. So at this point, I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations on 25 variance zero one one eight. You had an opportunity to hear the stat the, testimony and, again, review the staff report. So any thoughts about what you've heard or what you heard from miss Bartley regarding the side triangle?

I'll make a statement. I I I agree with the, staff report. I think it's adequately justified in with regard to the comments in opposition, I think if if they were to cut the fence down to three and a half feet, I think that the same issues would still exist. You know, think they were they were making the the case to cut cut the corner like at a 45 degree angle and it's just that's not I think that would be exorbitant to ask personally. I I don't think and and they're within the otherwise, they're they're within their their rights to construct the fence. It's just a little too high. But, you know, you know how I feel about that. I'm okay with that.

So Alright. Other other points?

I agree with I agree with the what he said. I mean, you would have to come to a complete stop there and ease out to turn left of the Alley. Left or right, I guess. But

Okay. Anyone else? Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion. This is member Vozos, with regard to case number 25, Variance 0118, Location 1833 Alfresco Place. I move that we approve the variance as written in the staff report. Location is the street side yard setback. The requirement, three feet six inches. Request eight feet three inches, thus creating a variance of four feet nine inches. I base that on the staff report and testimony heard today.

Do I second?

Second. Rodriguez.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 25Variance0118. Roll call. Portland?

Yes.

Rodriguez? Yes. Ford? No. Bozos? Yes. Bott?

Yes. The variance has been approved. 26Variance0033.

Abby Bills, Office of Planning Staff. This is 26Variance30 3 for a fence on T Rose Drive. This variance is from section four point four point three to allow a fence to exceed 48 inches in the front yard setback. The request is for 72 inches for a variance of 24 inches. The lot is r four single family residential and in the neighborhood Forum District.

The site has an existing six foot wood fence adjacent to the house. The six foot fence then drops down to four feet in the front yard, which you'll see in the photos. The applicant is proposing to remove the entirety of the existing fence and replace it with a new six foot fence all the way around in the same location. The existing fence does encroach into the right of way by approximately 10 feet. The applicant plans to remove this portion of the fence. This is a zoning map of the property. This is the aerial. As you can see on the left side, that's where the fence encroaches. This is a view of the subject property from the front yard. As you can see on the side, it's six feet kind of near the house, and then in front of the house is where it drops down to four.

This is a view from T. Rose Drive on the street side. This is a view of the adjacent properties across Connie Drive. And then this is other adjacent properties along T. Rose.

This is the location of the proposed fence. As you can see, it'll be mostly in the same area except for that portion that encroaches, and then it will extend further along the house. And this is the location of the variance as we're only approving the variance for the portion that's six feet in the front yard setback. The requested variance is adequately justified for approval based on staff's analysis, it will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare and will not alter the essential character of the vicinity. So your required actions are to approve or deny the variance to allow the fence to exceed 48 inches in the front yard setback. Any questions for staff?

Not at this time. Thank you. I don't have a speaker card related to this case. Is anyone online? Or is the applicant in the courtroom? Mister mister Gilbert? And if you didn't fill out a speaker card, you can do that before you leave. You don't have to do it right now.

K. How you doing?

Alright. Hi. Name and address, please. Jeffrey

Gilbert. Okay. My address is 6514 Main, T. Rose.

ZIP code?

40258.

Alright. Mister Gilbert, if you raise your right hand, do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

Uh-huh.

Okay. Yes. Alright. What would you like the board to know about your project?

Okay. The reason so my fence is only four four whole feet. So so I have dogs, and my dogs is is, you know, hopping over my fence Just what side, man. Just why I was trying not to, I mean, have that burn so I could I could raise my fence up to, I think, six feet.

Okay. That's it. So your dogs have been able to get out over the four foot fence?

Yes, ma'am.

Anything else you want the board to know? No, ma'am. Okay. And this is proposed. You have not started

No.

Work on this.

No. Alright.

Members, any questions for Mr. Gilbert?

What kind of dogs do you have?

I have a I think I think I think the big wolves.

Thank you. Okay. Alright. If there are no questions thank you, Mr. Gilbert. If there are no questions and there's no one signed up to speak online, I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations. On twenty six variant zero zero three three, any discussion, or is there a motion?

I think it's great that he's here before he did it. That's unusual, but I appreciate that. I do too. I'd I'd like to make a motion.

Yes, please.

This is member Vozos case numb with regard to case number 26Variance0033, Location 6514 T Rose Drive. I move that we approve the variance as written in the staff report location. Front yard setback, the requirements 48 inches. The request is 72 inches, thus creating a variance of 24 inches based that on the staff report. Testimony heard today.

Second Ford.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26Variance0033. We're ready for roll call.

Horton? Yes. Rodriguez? Yes. Ford?

Yes.

Bozos? Yes. Bond?

Yes. The variance has been approved. Thank you. 26Variance48.

Good afternoon. Catherine Gomez, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4002.02. This is 26 variance 48 for a TNC maintenance garage at 6301 Pendleton Road. The request is a variance from the land development code table 4.8.1 to encroach into the required 100 foot protected water white buffer. On the next slide, you'll find the requirement is 100 feet. The request is 47 feet for a variance of 53 feet. Next slide please. So the site is M2 industrial zoning and the neighborhood form district. The applicant is proposing a 6,150 square foot maintenance garage. There are existing storage and maintenance buildings on-site.

So this would just be an additional garage for the related industrial use on the property. The site is adjacent to Weaver Run, which is a protected waterway. Because of this, the applicant is requesting to have the proposed garage encroached into the protected waterway buffer. On the next slide, you'll find the zoning map. It's all within M2. There is OR3 and surrounded by residential, but the garage would be in the M2 zoning portion of the site. Here are the existing conditions. On the next slide, you'll find the subject property. This is the front view. I think they've changed some of it.

And the applicant has a slide show that'll show the updated front image of the site. On the next slide, you'll find adjacent properties. So this is where the arrow runs. That's where Weaver runs through. But this is the adjacent property next door. And then on the next, you'll find a residential along Pendleton Road. And then on the next slide, you'll find the property across the street from the subject site. On the left is the overall site plan with the entire site. But on the right is a zoomed in version of the proposed garage. The gray is proposed pavement.

And then on the next slide, you'll see where the waterway buffer is. And you can see a portion of the building and the pavement encroaching into that waterway buffer. Staff finds the variance has been justified for approval based on staff's analysis. The encouragement will be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed use. The applicant will maintain a 50 foot landscape buffer area and the 25 foot buffer required by MSD. The proposed variance will not adversely impact adjoining owners or residents in the general area. So your required action is to approve or deny the variance to encroach into the required 100 foot protected waterway buffer. Do you all have questions for staff?

No questions at this time. It is an important consideration they are not encroaching into the 25 foot buffer, and that MSD is taking a look at this. Mhmm. Alright. Thank you. Yep. John oh, hello. Name and address, please.

Good afternoon, madam chair Bond and members of the board. My name is John Baker, with, Bricker, Graydon, Wyatt, four hundred West Market Street, suite two thousand, Louisville, Kentucky four zero two zero two. Here on behalf of the applicant, and I'll affirm that what I'm gonna say is the truth.

Thank you.

Thank you. Here on behalf of the applicant, which is Peekaboo LLC and also TNC Contractors Incorporated. Peekaboo LLC is the property owner, and TNC Contractors Incorporated are, they're the the entity that operates from the site, and they have been operating from the site for forty three years. So they've been here quite a long time. I'm here on behalf of, mister Scott Thornberry, who is in the audience with us.

His father, Thornberry, is the t Clark is the c of TNC, and Scott's dad actually helped build Weaver Run. This is a man made I don't wanna say ditch, but it's a ditch that has been bestowed, the protected waterway, from those, greater agencies above us. So, didn't want, you know, the record to reflect that this is a natural kind of spring fed, waterway. But regardless, we are not coming close to encroaching upon, Weaver The Run from where it is today. Also with me, is Keith Holes and Joey Black from Ulm Advisors.

They're the engineers on the group. Should there be any questions with regard to dimensions on the site plan, they're here to answer that question for the board. This title slide just shows you this is the office that is on-site too. So this office building that does resemble more of a residential feel, this is on the property. And right next door is you can see the footprint on the site plan there.

And this actually is a footprint that is replacing a building that burned down previously. So there was a building in this area that did occupy this this ground here. And it's also gonna be in a space on the property that's in front of an existing kind of these structures kind of resemble a pole barn, but they're metal. And they can be a garage for maintenance of heavy equipment. They're contractors.

They do construction type jobs and bigger excavating jobs. So these buildings do house their larger equipment and allow them to do maintenance on-site. And the reason this picture here is too is because that area is the area where the building will be placed. So no additional real encroachment, no new improvements, no removal of kind of pervious area with this. So that area that you're looking at right now would probably be in that those darker shaded rectangles or the concrete that are gonna be on both sides of the building itself.

So that area would probably include half of the white square and one of the rectangles on the right is where you're looking right now. And that's in the background is Pendleton Road. So that is the site itself inside the site taking a picture back at Pendleton Road. If I could take the next slide, the image on your right is the structure that is being requested to encroach into the outer layer of the stream bank buffer. Again, same picture that's just going to occupy that space on the left with the building on the right.

So a nice metal building with front garage doors that will allow the equipment to be driven in to the storage facility. If we can go to the next slide, you'll see the pictures that were in Catherine's presentation on the right. The applicant has has put in some some landscape plantings to kinda give a little bit better screening, and those are gonna those are newer plantings so that those will grow and really, kind of provide better screening. And that is the front of Pendleton, and that's the access to the property right there. And next slide.

This is outside the fence. So that is still between the fence of the site and Weaver Run. And for the forty three years that they had been there, water has not left the bank of Weaver Run and come anywhere near that fence line. So the building is gonna be inside the fence line, and there's still space between where the building's gonna be built and that fence line. So we're talking a good bit of distance to even approach the the top of the stream bank.

And this should probably be our final slide, and just wanted to provide some additional context for the record to reflect where the improvement is being requested for the property and really how much space between the top of the stream bank and where that improvement will be. We've got our whole team here. Should there be any questions from people of the board, happy to take them, and we'll conclude with that and really appreciate your consideration of our variance request.

Okay. So it sounds like no water quality issues, nothing like that because you're well outside the 25 foot again.

That's exactly right. Area.

Well outside. Mhmm.

Alright. Questions for mister Baker? Thank you. Thank you. Has anyone signed up to speak online? K. Alright. So at this point, I will close the public hearing, and we'll move into deliberations on 26 Variant 0048, TNC Maintenance Garage. Looking at a variance to encroach into the 100, 100 foot protected waterway buffer. We can see the data in the staff report.

Any discussion, or is there a motion? I'll

do the motion. Sure. Sure. Oh, go go ahead, please.

Motion, please.

Yes, please.

Okay. Regarding case number 26, variance 0048, I move to approve this this case based on the staff's report and the analysis and the staff and the testimony, both heard today in the open hearing.

Is there a second?

Second. Ford.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 variant 0048. Roll call. Horton?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Bozos? Yes. Rodriguez?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. The variance has been approved.

Abby Bills, Office of Planning staff. This is 26 variance 50 for a Del Taco parking lot on Bartstown Road. The first request is a variance from lane development code section five one twelve to allow a parking lot to encroach in the front yard infill setback. The request is 15 feet, making the variance 36 feet. There's also an associated waiver from section five point five point one a to allow the parking lot to be located in front of the building in a traditional form district and to allow the principal building entrance to face away from the primary street serving the development.

The site is approximately point seven five acres, zone C 1 in the Town Center Forum District. The applicant is proposing to construct a Del Taco with 24 parking spaces. 13 of these will be in front of the building, and the principal entrance will be on the north side of the building while the primary street is to the south. This is a zoning map of the property, and this is the aerial. As you could see, currently, there's one big parcel, but this is planned to be subdivided into two.

This is a view from of the subject property from Bardstown Road. It'll be directly adjacent to that property. These are the adjacent properties across Bartstown Road. And then this is the site plan. In yellow is the location of the variance against the infill setback, and then in green is the entire part of the parking lot that's in front of the building.

And then also in green is where the primary entrance will be highlighted small. And then regarding the primary entrance, this is the elevation showing that. And then this is the other side elevation showing the street serving the development. Staff finds that the requested variance and site design waiver are both adequately justified for approval and that the stripped application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant reasonable use of the land. So your required actions are to, one, approve or deny the variance, and two, to approve or deny the waiver from land development code section five five one a.

Any questions for staff?

To the location, there this will be a drive through?

Yes. There will be a

drive through.

Okay. And and the parking spaces are in front. That's closer to the entrance to the property. Correct?

Yeah. There's a number of parking spaces in front of the building, and then there are some on the west side as well. Okay.

I read the applicant owns the businesses on either the property on either side. Is that correct?

Yeah. The applicant can answer that question.

Okay. Alright. Any questions for Abby? Thank you, Abby. Thank you.

Alright. Good afternoon, Ms. Jones.

Kelly Jones. 301 East Main Street, Suite 20140202.

I swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth.

Yes,

ma'am. Please proceed.

I'm gonna answer your question first before I get into my presentation. The owner of the property owns all of the surrounding properties except for those across the street. Okay. The applicant today, which is not reflected in the staff report, is actually the developer and the person who's going to be building and operating Del Taco. So I happen to work for both of them, but the owner of the property and the developer are different entities.

Okay.

The developer is in the audience, but he's just here for questions. So he has not signed out a speaker's form. If you ask a question, I can't answer them. We'll get him signed up. Okay. So this is again for the Del Taco at Ferndale Center. Next slide, please. The subject site is highlighted there in yellow. The whole site is the yellow part plus the part to the right, but we're just developing a portion of that site. The minor plat to divide that property has been approved by staff.

It's going through the process of getting stamps from MSD and Public Works in order to get recorded. But that piece is just about done. Again, this is the area you can see in the area. There are a lot of commercial businesses. Every single one of them almost has parking in the front. And some of them have significant amounts of parking in the front. Next slide, please. This is kind of an exhibit showing you what this will look like. I believe here in June, you're going to be seeing the SWIG next door in front of you for some very similar requests. But we're here today for Del Taco.

There's then a future development site, and then there's the Elenin Credit Credit Union that is developed there on the right. Now the aerials don't reflect that Elenin Credit Union existing, but it does exist. And I do have the development plan in one of the exhibits moving forward here. You can also see the Ferndale Center Moby Dick El Nopal site that the owner of the site also owns. So this whole strip along here is essentially a commercial strip with parking in the front.

And the detention for this development is there to the south of the Ellinan Credit Union, and that serves the whole development. Next slide. So this is our site plan. We've got a few parking spaces out in front. That drive lane in front lines up with the L and N Credit Union's drive lane and the SWIG that will be coming in before you in the next few weeks. We've got our drive through on the right. We've got some parking on the left, and then we have a vehicular connection to the existing center there between the Moby Dick and the the strip center. Go back to the site plan for just a moment. The lighter pavement that you see there is all pavement that has been constructed already. So a lot of the infrastructure for this development has been constructed.

The pavement that's in a little bit darker gray is what would be constructed as a part of this project and and the SWIG next door. Okay. Next slide, please. These are the elevations. You saw the one on the top there. That is the one that is facing the side. It's facing towards Moby Dick. That is the primary entrance there on the left. The elevation you see on the bottom is the elevation facing Bardstown Road. And although there is not a door there, there is a lot of animating features as well as some clear glass with some windows.

So I think for the most part, the intent of the regulation is being met. It's not a big ugly blank face of a building. Next slide, please. These are the other elevations. They aren't really important. So next slide, please. So this is the first variant or the variance that I wanted to talk about here. It's to allow parking to encroach into the infill front yard. So this development triggers the infill requirements, and the closest buildings are the Moby Dick to the left and the L and N Credit Union to the right. I also have the development plan, the latest I could pull off Exela for the SWIG next door.

But you can see all of the developments across this frontage have parking in the front yard or in the front area in front of those buildings. But because of the infill setback requirements, technically, we're encroaching into that infill setback. So to me, this variance is a little bit of a technicality. So this is the first waiver, and this is to allow parking to encroach in front of the building. As you can see in red, almost every single development on this strip of land has parking in front of the building.

We have a single row with one bay of parking in front of our building, which is significantly less than most of everyone else on this strip. And then next slide, please. This is the final part of the waiver. We have the main entrance to the building on the side where that red arrow is pointing. It does not face Bardstown Road, but it does face the majority of the parking for this site and it is closest to the accessible parking for this property, making it a more appropriate location than if we were to turn it around to the front of the building. And then that's all I have to say. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Are there other Del Tacos that you're aware of? Do they operate

the same region. Okay. There are some in The United States, but not here in in Louisville. This will be the first one.

Okay. Alright.

K. Any questions for Ms. Jones? Alright. Anyone on online to speak to this case?

Alright. I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations on we have a variance and a waiver, 26 variance zero zero five zero to allow the parking lot to encroach into the front yard infill setback, and then the waiver to allow the parking lot to be located in front of the building. And you've seen the slide presentation and have been informed that there is parking in the area, other businesses where parking is located in front of the business. So if you've got any questions on that or if there's any discussion, please speak.

Alright. If there's no discussion, I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations on the variants and the waiver.

Madam chair?

Yes.

Regarding case 26 variance zero zero five zero, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the variance based on the staff report, this testimony we've heard today. And no.

No conditions. Conditions. Mm-mm. Is there a second?

Second, Horton.

Thank you. Properly moved it's been properly moved and seconded to approve on 26 variance zero zero five zero. Roll call, please.

Horton?

Yes.

Bozos?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Rodriguez?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. The variance has been approved. Is there a motion on the waiver?

Madam chair? Yes. K. Regarding the waiver, 260048. I make a motion that we also approve the waiver based on the staff report and staff findings and the testimony we've heard today.

Thank you. Is there a second? Second, Horton. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 waiver 0048. Roll call. Horton?

Yes.

Rodriguez?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Bozos? Yes. Bond?

Yes. The variance in the waiver have been approved. Thank you. 26CUP0051.

Zach Jones. 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. We've got 26 C U P 0051 Breckenridge Lane Rehabilitation Home, 3116 Breckenridge Lane. I'll note in your staff report at the top, it says it has a reference to this, pre op number, but this is, again, CUP, 26CUP0051. This is a request for a rehabilitation home in this r four and r seven zoning districts pursuant to l LDC four point two point three one with relief from standards f point one and f point two.

Next slide. Again, this is in that r four and r seven zoning district neighborhood form. There's an existing nursing home on the property. It had a CUP approved in the sixties, b 2268, and the site is on 5.76 acres across three parcels. The applicants are requesting 217 residents beds, with no exterior, alterations to the building and no changes to site design.

This area looking for a total of a 115 people employed with this use, roughly 50 employees, though, at peak shift. This will have twenty four seven supervision with the site. Here's a picture of the zoning map showing those three different parcels and the R 4, which is predominantly where the structure is, and then the R 7 portion is mostly treed area that is proposed to remain. There's a better aerial of the site. Next slide.

Here's a copy of the group housing map, which is, reference to the standards in the CUP. You'll see there's no group housing, no transitional home, no other rehabilitation home within a thousand feet of this site. Next slide. Here's a picture of the proposed site plan. The happenstance have highlighted where that existing building is and the existing parking, which totals a 115 spaces, which meets the, parking standards in, chapter nine. Next slide. Here's the proposed floor plan. You'll see they've highlighted there where there are, double beds, the different square footages, a handful of single beds on the site. Next slide. And, more double beds, and it looks like one single bed on that sheet.

Next slide. Here's a picture of the subject property from Breckenridge Lane looking, south. Next slide. Again, that's the subject property now looking, northwest. Next slide. Here's the adjacent property to the west. Next slide. The adjacent property to the east or, excuse me, to the North. The first one was adjacent to the South. This one is adjacent to the West or not that one. This one is adjacent to the west. That's a residential home. There's a tree line, and you can see, some some of those trees in the background. And then there's the the residences that back up to it. You can't really see the nursing home from that picture.

But, staff findings that there's no approved group housing transitional and rehab home, conditional use within a thousand feet of the proposal, and the request is adequately justified for approval. Applicants are gonna meet all requirements of the conditional use permit, including the group housing group housing license. Rehabilitation home license is what that should say except where relief is granted from standards f one and f two. And then you'll see that repeated here in the required actions. I will note in your staff report, it could have been more specific talking about relief from those standards. References it in the above section, but that should be part of your motion if you, choose to approve this. Any questions?

How close are those residential properties?

They back right up to the property line. You mean to, like, building the building? I'm not exactly sure. Probably in the ballpark of 20 or 50 feet, but I'm not for certain.

But but you can't see the facility from those residences?

I don't believe so.

K.

I'll let the applicant speak a little bit more to what treatments are there on the the southern property boundary, but I think it's they're just staying the same with what was there for the nursing home.

Is the nursing home still in operation?

No. The nursing home, is not in operation. Again, I'll let them speak a little bit more as to how long it's been vacant and, their process, but, no, it does not still operate at that at that location.

Okay. Alright. I'm sure we'll have some questions for the applicant. Any questions for Zach? Thank you.

Of course.

Okay. Alright. Are you the applicant?

Yes.

Okay. And we will need a a speaker card filled out before you leave.

Yes, ma'am.

Alright. Are both of you going to speak?

Yes. All three.

All three? Okay. I'll swear you all in. You swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth? Yes. Alright. Who wants to lead off? Alright. Name and address.

Todd Sharp. My address is 901 Starlight Court, Louisville, Kentucky 40207.

Please proceed.

Our, program is one that we're very proud of here in the city of Louisville. We, I'm a person in long term recovery. I would like to say myself. So prior to that life, I was a full time coach, college coach. And after my recovery, get to do a different kind of coaching today with individuals in the community because I think we all can agree Louisville has been a war zone in terms of addiction and homelessness, and often those things go hand in hand.

Our program has been in existence for coming upon three years with clients, and we've had, top, actually, perfect rating, according to our AODE, alcohol and other drug entity, survey that we just had last week where the first zero exceptions or deductions, in the history of them doing it. We are nationally certified. We did receive the top three year certification that was possible. Our our call tag that we say came about naturally. We are different on purpose.

We know that a lot of individuals that need the services we offer, traditionally, people are in a program just, you know, a short period of time. They have to it's very common in the city of Louisville for individuals to show up at a hospital emergency room. And then from there, basically, providers like us are called, to get people stabilized and then provide treatment and care for them. We've really worked to change the overall trajectory. We've had excellent excellent success, with rehabilitating individuals that suffer from SUD.

So this new property would be ideal for us and perfect. It's perfect setting, perfect space to accommodate our clients and our staff. I don't know if this is the appropriate time to say this, but when we had the neighborhood meeting, you know, a lot of people the general consensus is not in my neighborhood. And we had a very big turnout for our neighborhood meeting, And it was emotional for us because we had zero negative pushback from the neighbors. They were excited to see that, hopefully, the property would no longer be vacant.

And that property was houseless encampments, drug paraphernalia, and some crime activity. So they were very excited at the possibility of it being a a beacon of hope in the neighborhood instead of an an eyesore that was deteriorating. We know the nursing home that had been there previously is one of the ones that was in the news a couple of years ago that was shut down for poor care of clients. And by the looks of the property at that time, it's pretty heartbreaking to think anyone would take their loved ones there for their final days. So the neighborhood has been very supportive. We simply, if I can say, we have just an incredible staff that has a heart for this work, and we're very hopeful to be able to provide more care for our city in that location.

And will you serve men and women?

Right now, our program is men, but we do intend, based on the size of the property, this is definitely a property that we would grow into. And we're really getting a lot of requests for women. We started with men initially just because statistically for every man needing this type of program, it's like seven to one ratio, men and women in our community. So the need being so much greater, that's why we had started with that. But we do plan, if we're approved in this area, to serve both men and women in the community.

And the average day is that the average day that's twenty eight days?

Well, you know, a lot of places, yes. What typically happens now which poses a problem is what poses a problem often is individuals go somewhere for a five to seven day medically supervised detox, right, with physicians and APRNs. Then at that point, you know, these are clients. They're not prisoners. So they then have a choice at the end of that detox while they're feeling better.

The typical practice is, you know, then they have to find another place to go. So with us, that trajectory would change. You know, once someone is ready and willing to receive help, if after five to seven days they are back walking out the door, and then they make a choice again, then they are they calling? Will they feel better? So typically, our program is a little different.

They will be able to do that five to seven days with us, and then they will be able to step down in levels of care into the residential. And that typically is a twenty eight day. And then we will also offer what is a PHP program, which stands for partial hospitalization. So we step down levels of care. We have a trajectory for our clients where they can be with us significantly longer, which statistically has proven to greatly increase the likelihood that they will not return to use.

And your role? I'm sorry. You may have missed My role? Yes.

I'm the founder and I hate to say CEO, it sounds crazy but chief executive officer, but one of the founders. And, primarily my role is I'm a person in recovery. I can't believe I'm alive today. I can't believe I get to do this work today. So it was it was my dream to do it, but I had a lot of help getting here.

Have you had experience managing, overseeing other facilities such as this?

Well, just ours the past three years. Okay. You know, it's my only experience. Now I did work after when in early in my recovery journey after I had been clean and sober for a year instead of going back into I was a college coach for twenty years. But rather than going back into that, I knew this was the work I wanted to do now. So I've worked for different agencies throughout the state and learned quite a bit. I came in entry level as a client care specialist at a very large facility, about an hour out of Louisville. And also also I've worked in Medicaid treatment. I've worked in private commercial, and I've spent an extensive amount of time working street outreach as well.

So a typical day for one of your clients, are they is their time spent basically at the facility or visiting health care professionals?

Right. Well, in in the new facility, we will have full and Oliver and Candice can speak on that a little more. I'm I'm surrounded by people smarter than me too, which is important. So they both hold clinical license and have been a great part of building our team. But, yeah, so what basically we have programming. So, you know, all of our clients, when they come in during the detox phase of just helping manage their medical needs and keeping them comfortable. That's the initial phase. After that, clinical services start immediately. So we have how many licensed clinicians do we have right now?

12.

We have 12 master's level licensed clinicians. So our clients will be assigned a clinician. We also do targeted case management is important. A lot of individuals come to us from the street, possibly don't even have an ID, have been houseless, that type of thing. So they are with their clinician. They have individual sessions with their clinicians, groups. And then medical needs often will be able to be met within the billing, but we do transport clients if they need medical attention that's outside of our realm. We also help manage if there's sometimes there's some legal issues hanging over their heads. So we help navigate those and transport that as well. We also we believe in many pathways to recovery.

We do expose our clients to various meetings. You know, they're 12 step meetings, And we do transport them to meetings and various activities. And then we try to do, you know, mainly activities there on the property for them.

Okay. So they're not, they're typically not outside the facility unless it's part of the program?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. And you have, for lack of a better word, house managers or people who are there So twenty four hours?

I can kinda run you through a day. Less than So, like, you know, like, house managers your name and address. Oliver Richardson. 311 South Beckley Station Road, Louisville, Kentucky, 40245. I'm the chief operating officer. I also manage the clinical side of things, so I can answer those questions a little bit better. That's just the reason I opt in. I appreciate you letting us come and speak today. So just Todd was talking about we currently have 12 licensed clinicians. I'm an LCSW, so licensed clinical social social worker as well as a licensed clinical alcohol and drug counselor currently.

We have 12 other licensed individuals. We have four case managers who are targeted case managers, and then we have what's called peer supports. The building will be staffed, twenty four seven. It will be staffed by nurses as well as having a director of nursing. There will be a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner that oversees the care of the facility for the clients as well.

So there will be full staffing all the way ranging from peer support to a targeted case manager to a clinician, to a nurse to a psychiatric nurse practitioner that's overseeing their care and APRN as well. Okay. So in this kind of just like what a typical day would look like, so we have a very structured program. We have a wake up time that's 7AM. After wake up, they would engage in hygiene. Then about 07:30, we would have med pass. At 8AM, we would have morning meditation. Then after morning meditation, they would go to their first clinical group of the day. Or they would have breakfast. Sorry.

Excuse me. I forgot that. Breakfast to start the day. And then they would have their first group from around either depending on which level of care they're in, the groups can be you know, there's three hour groups. There's five hour groups. So they would be in one of those two groups. In that, they would have lunch. There would be a lunch at twelve. And then after that, they would go into a recreational activity. We have a gym in the facility as well inside the actual facility.

We believe in treating a person holistically, and addressing all the issues that that might come with them. So, you know, like, we need we wanna focus on health and wellness. Right? So that they would go into a recreational activity, whether that would be working out in the gym, doing art therapy, doing music therapy, something along that. Also, life skills is an important part of our rehabilitation program, so we're wanting to take an individual and, by the time that they're done with our program, really be able to reenter back into society, ready to be able to contribute in a meaningful and impactful way into society.

So after that recreational group, they'd have dinner, and then that evening, they would have an AA meeting. Also, we would do an evening meditation where they can kinda check out, reiterate some of the things that they learned for the day, and then we would have med pass, bedtime, stuff like that. So everything throughout the day is extremely structured. As Todd mentioned, we we currently service, three levels of care. This at this building, we would service a fourth, so a residential level of care, a PHP, partial hospitalization level of care, which we currently already do, an IOP level of care, and a strict outpatient level of care that's just like seeing an individual therapist once a week.

Right? So we would be adding the residential component with this property. I can say in the three years that we have been operating, we've served over 2,500 individuals. So we've had a lot of really good success already. Had a lot of clients come through our door, a lot of success stories. We also have an internship program where our clients that go through our program are able to come back and after they're, sober so long, be able to apply for the program, stuff like that, or be able to apply to work for us so that, you know, from client to intern, to staff. Right? So we're trying to give people in addiction recovery pathways back to becoming members of the community and teaching them those life skills.

And I'm assuming there's security. I couldn't just come up and walk into the building.

No,

ma'am. There's security for a nursing home.

Absolutely. So so that was, one question that was posed to us in the community meeting. There's security. There is cameras. They do not face anyone's property other than our own. We can't you know? So there's no, privacy issues or anything like that with the neighbors. But, yeah, the building is locked one way, you know, one way in keypad. We also have security that monitors and then the twenty four seven staffing as well.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Questions? Question.

Thank you.

Yes,

sir. How many of your clients are referred to you from an institution, any kind of institution, or from a medical doctor?

So I would say probably probably 70% are referred to us through, you know, a a detox program like Saint Mary's, the Brook Hospital, right, one of those entities. Those are our main referral sources currently right now. So so probably at least 70 to 80%. We also do do some street outreach, so we do get some people like that off of the street. And then we also do work with corrections in some capacity, so we do have some of that in our population.

Okay. What level, do you what level is your practitioner that you said was a psychiatric provider?