Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. This is the regular meeting of the Louisville Metro Board of Zoning Adjustment to hear cases as advertised and documented 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 15 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 15 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 speaker's 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 will 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.

Horton present for rather was us present Louise as a Scott is a bond.

Present we have a quorum. 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 yes all right. K first item on the agenda. is approval of the minutes from the August 17th, 2026 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting. Members, have you had an opportunity to review the minutes? Any revisions? Is there a motion regarding the minutes?

Madam chair.

Yes.

Uh huh. Motion, please. Um, I have read the minutes and I'd like to approve the Bozeman. It's the Bozeman minutes, uh, dated of eight 1726 approved. Is there a second second Ford?

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the minutes from the August 17th, 2026 board of zoning adjustment meeting. Roll call please. Yes.

Four. Yes was us yes, yes Scott yes bond.

Yes, the minutes are approved.

All right. We're going to very the agenda beginning with the order of the agenda and begin with case number 426 C P 0, 0, 9, 9, All right, we'll need our translator devices for this.

Okay, does everybody have their device? everybody's device working okay

Good afternoon. Jude Mattingly, office planning staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. And before you today is a conditional use permit request for an accessory dwelling unit at 9608 Titan Drive. Next slide, please. Again, conditional use permit to allow for an accessory dwelling unit in an R4 residential zoning district with reliefs from items B and J of land development code section 4.3.27. The subject property again is zoned R4. It falls within the neighborhood form district and contains 0.28 acres. The applicant is requesting that a 1024 square foot accessory structure be turned into a 2 bedroom accessory dwelling unit. uh this request is not meeting all the special standards of land development code 4.3.27 which would have allowed for an administrative approval it exceeds a maximum of 800 square feet size by 224 square feet and it is currently owned by an llc meaning that it cannot achieve the owner occupied requirement as stated in item j next slide please Here is the site plan. The structure to the south is the existing principal structure and then to the north you can see it was once a garage that has already been converted into an accessory dwelling unit. Next slide please. These are floor plans that the applicant had submitted during a accessory dwelling unit application review. I know it can be a little hard to read, but you can see the two bedrooms, the points of ingress and egress, and then some of the other amenities that they're proposing. Zoning map, it is squarely within R4. However, there is some R6 off to the west a little bit there. R6 would allow for two dwelling units by right. Next slide, please. uh here's an aerial of the subject site next slide please uh the existing structure as shown on google images and then just some site context time drives just your traditional suburban residential uh you know single family dwelling units next slide please All right, so again, the conditional use permit requires relief from two items of a different section of the land development code. When accessory dwelling units don't meet all the special standards, they just have to get a conditional use permit. They have to request conditional use permit. The two items that they're not meeting is they're exceeding a maximum size that's allowed by the land development code of 800 square feet by 224. And again, they cannot achieve the owner occupied requirement because it's owned by an LLC. We do still believe that the proposal is consistent with the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan as I outlined in the staff report. We have recommended an additional condition of approval that you don't see regularly, that is to try to promote affordability. This was taken from a previous example of an accessory dwelling unit that could not achieve the owner-occupied requirement, so we copied it here. Uh, now, you know, staff's report and status recommendations only a piece of the puzzle here. Uh, the board is only adjustment must determine if this relief is appropriate. Uh, base it on the staff report testimony that's given today public comment that has already been turned over to you and consideration of the immediate area. So staff's recommendation is gonna be that the justification for the request are adequate, and we would recommend that you approve this conditional use permit with release from items B and J from land development code 4.3.27. So your required actions would be to either approve or deny the conditional use permit. And I would imagine that there's questions for me.

Could you go back just a couple of slides? Yeah, that one.

So the condition of approval was pulled from what previous document a previous changes are not changes zoning, sorry, previous conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit that was not owner occupied. This was just a condition that the board had previously felt comfortable with. And we feel as though it would promote affordability and can potentially act as a trade off for not meeting this owner occupied requirement. Okay, the language of which is condition of approval number three.

Yes. Members, any questions for staff? I have a couple.

First of all, is the only change interior on that garage or are they expanding the footprint of the garage?

No, my understanding of the request is that the accessory dwelling unit would completely, the garage exists as the 1,024 square feet. So there would be no changing of the footprint. Interior, I guess that's a roundabout way to say yes. It's my understanding it's an interior renovation only.

Okay, and Was there a neighborhood meeting on this?

Yes. And the neighborhood meeting summary was provided as part of the documents. Some residents came, I believe some are here in attendance today. They did have some concerns about the request. They were concerned about things such as traffic and intensity and such. I'm paraphrasing, but...

Okay. One of the cases I read on the neighborhood meeting notes, there was an asterisk that clarified, I think even after the meeting, that the owner would live on the property. Was that this case?

Yes. So this is kind of like a technicality thing. So it's owned by an LLC. An LLC at the end of the day is a different entity. It might be one individual. It might be comprised of multiple individuals. It can also change pretty frequently as Laura might be able to describe further. The individual who is currently living at the property in the main structure has turned over a sworn affidavit indicating that essentially they are the llc it to my understanding i'll let sophia mazaga who's representing them explain that further but it's somewhat of a moot point for us it doesn't achieve the owner occupied requirement just like short-term rentals if you're owned by an llc or something other than an individual's name you can't achieve the owner occupied requirement even if you live there even because it could change, it could change overnight. I mean, to our understanding.

This is Laura Ferguson, assistant county attorney. Part of what goes on is you've created a separate legal entity and you get some benefits from it. You get like a legal liability protection by having a separate corporate form on the building. But the trade-off is a corporation isn't It doesn't occupy things. It has a principal place of business. It's not a residence. So individuals have residences. Corporations do not. So for these owner-occupied requirements, an LLC or a corporation simply can't meet it by virtue of its structure. Now, if she wanted to dissolve the corporation and own it in her individual name, she'd meet that requirement. And I think that's why they get to condition of approval number three is to try to mitigate the fact that this non-individual owns the the property.

Okay. Well, speaking of condition of approval number three, how often is that fair market rent limit reduced? Is that an annual thing?

My understanding is that it's currently an annual review. However, you know, the federal government could change those policies. But right now and for as long back as I could go, I've seen it as an annual report yearly.

So that means the rent could be adjusted every year to stay below 30% of that?

Potentially, yeah. And so we're not, the condition of approval doesn't recommend no more than 30% greater than this year's rate. It would be on a yearly basis.

But the 30%. Would not change the 30% would not change.

No, I think if I could, if I could interrupt really quickly on this condition, I think reading this and considering what the fair market rent limit represents. I think that, um. There's a misunderstanding about that and that the 30% should be removed from the condition and that it should just be rented at a rate that is no greater than the fair market rent limit for a two-bedroom unit because the fair market rent limit that's established by HUD is already the 40th percentile. Of rents within the city. So the reason that HUD sets those standards is because it then determines a number of different. Program limits for HUD, such as housing choice vouchers. So they already have established that that fair market rent limit is an affordable level. So my recommendation is that we would just remove the 30% and then it would just say at a rate that is no greater than the Louisville, Kentucky, Indiana metro area fair market rent limit.

Yeah, and where the 30% comes in is ideally your housing shouldn't take up more than 30% of your income. But if it's already, and the farm, yeah, and the fair market rent is, is it's affordable at a certain price point.

So I tell you that the fair market rent under HUD for twenty, twenty six for a two bedroom in the Louisville Kentucky metro Indiana area is one thousand two hundred and seventy two dollars a month.

So that would be the, that would be the limit, right?

That would be it could not be rented at a rate greater than that. I'm not monitoring 40% of that is the 40th. That is that is what HUD determines is the 40th percentile of rent for the metro area.

Okay. And, and this may be getting in the weeds, but when, when they determine that. for a two-bedroom unit, is there consideration, like, you know, some of these new apartment complexes going up have dog parks and resort pools and all that stuff goes with them. Yeah.

Right now, this isn't my area of expertise. I just, I do know a little bit about it just from, you know, my experience working with this kind of stuff. Right now, HUD determines it for the entire metro area, and it's not just... Jefferson County and includes some of our other surrounding counties that are in our metropolitan statistical area. They I know that HUD is working to make it more granular throughout the locality because they're starting to recognize that there are nuances right between different areas of a city and what those rent values may be. So in the future, it is possible that this condition um you know could be different because then it could only if if they do get that more granular level data but right now it just takes into consideration the averages for the entire metro area okay original i didn't capture everything that you said in your recommended revision uh is it sufficient to say staff is supportive of relief in this case

on condition that the amount of rent does not exceed the fair market rent. That's correct. Yeah.

Just removing that 30% number from condition of approval.

Number three is the only thing that would be struck is the words 30% and of.

Okay. Okay. Great.

Thank you. Um, Miss Lewis, anything else?

No, I'm good, thank you. I just had a quick question. This is Member Vozo. So how would that be enforced? I mean, would they have to like submit a form every year or some type of evidence saying?

How it would be enforced is if a complaint was submitted. Complaint was submitted, okay. we would ask for lease details that as it's written you could put some kind of reporting in that happens with some other affordable projects but this is kind of a unique case we're tying this to a conditional use we've had similar standards or similar conditions applied in the past that didn't require any reporting proactive reporting okay thanks anything else members

Thank you. All right. I'd like to ask the applicant.

Ms. Mazzucco, good afternoon.

uh address please sophia mazocco 108 daventry lane louisville kentucky 40223 do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth i do please Before I get started on my timer, can I clarify on this adjusted COA? So HUD does now differentiate by zip code. Would this new condition of approval be based off the zip code or just Louisville as a whole? Just clarifying for the applicant so she knows.

It's a fair question. I'll let you give your presentation and then I'm going to do some research to see what the difference is. Yeah, and so I'll just provide that information to the board so that you can make a determination on whether they feel it would be best to be the full metro area or by whatever the zip code limit is.

That's fine. I just wanted to clarify that. So I'll start. My name is Sophia. I'm with Milestone Design Group. I am a civil engineer. I also have with me today the applicant who is the owner of the subject property and also resides there. She is also the registered agent of the LLC that owns this property.

She's the registered agent of the LLC?

Of the LLC, yes. I just wanted to clarify, I had been working with a private translator to work with this client to help her through the process and explain how this process works. Our translator was pregnant. She had her baby last week, so the planning office helped us this translator that is here today and that's how we're communicating. I will say since the neighborhood meeting obviously you saw the asterisk in the meeting minutes there has been some further clarification that we were able to obtain through our translator and hopefully that answers some of the neighbors concerns and questions that they had and that will be part of my testimony today. So again thank you to the Office of Planning for helping us with this. This is a site. It's 9608 Titan Drive. It's located in the southeast intersection of I-65 and the Gene Snyder. That helps provide some clarification on where this is at. It's in a neighborhood that's primarily accessed off of Blue Lake Road, if that helps. Next slide, please. This is the zoning map. It is zoned R4. And like Jude mentioned, there is R6 in the area as well as some R5.

Next slide, please.

This is our current site plan. You'll notice it's a lot of gray and you guys picked up on this. There's no proposed expansion of any of the structures on the site. Everything is proposed to be inside of that detached garage that has been existing there since at least 2009. We're not proposing to expand it just to allow it to remain the same size essentially. Next slide please. This is supposed to be a little bit bigger, but I don't know if that did anything. But the back structure, which is a detached garage, is 1,024 square feet. And then the primary structure is up at the front, and that is 1,780 square feet. Next slide, please. Here's a bird's eye view of the property. So you can see the existing garage and the primary structure. And I'm gonna pause at this slide to kind of explain the timeline and how we got here. Starting with in October of 2025, the applicant requested a permit from MSD to essentially connect to the existing property service connection to renovate this garage. They were granted that permit. began renovating the garage into the accessory dwelling unit. Code enforcement came out and said you are missing this particular application from essentially your building permit application. That is the ADU application, which is one page, permitted with special standards. If you meet all the standards, you sign that, you give it back, everything's essentially good. When they submitted that, the Office of Planning came back and said, hey, this existing garage is 1,024 square feet. The way the code reads, it can only be 800 square feet. Because of that, you have to go through the conditional use permit process. that's when we were hired to help the applicant through this process submitted the pre-application held a neighborhood meeting explained what was going on and what the proposal is and then that's where we got here today at the neighborhood meeting there was some confusion on not necessarily this property, but there appears to be other properties in the area that also have accessory dwelling units operating without a permit. I want to clarify we are here specifically for 9608 Titan Drive. That is the one my applicant owns and as a request we are here for today and she is trying to work through the appropriate permitting process. So there might be some confusion about which property it is. I just want to clarify we are here about 9608 Titan Drive. Next slide please.

But there are other ADUs in the area.

Yes, but she does not own those. That is not her. So I think there's just some confusion around that, and I wanted to clarify. This is the one she owns. Here is the relief we're requesting. So the first one is this 800 square feet or 30% of the primary structure. This site cannot meet that because the existing garage is 1024 square feet, which exceeds that requirement. Next slide, please. And then as we have already touched on, she owns this property in an LLC, which we have been told you cannot meet the owner occupancy requirement if you own it in an LLC. So after working through that with the client, she submitted a sworn statement of occupancy, which I can read to you guys. But essentially she says, I currently reside at the above reference property and maintain the property as my primary residence. I understand that the accessory dwelling unit associated with this property is subject to owner occupancy requirements and regulations established by the applicable local authorities. I further understand and acknowledge that if I cease residing on the property or move out of the premises, the ADU may no longer be legally occupied or permitted unless otherwise authorized or approved by the governing authority. And then lastly she says I make this statement voluntarily and under oath for the purpose of supporting the CUP application and related zoning or land use review and that has been signed and notarized. Next slide please. And then here's just some justification for both relief requests. These are for two of the 11 requirements. The first one is the size. Again, want to reiterate, no exterior construction or expansion is being proposed. The garage has been there since at least 2009. It meets the height and setback requirements of the LDC. There's other accessory structures in the area that are similarly sized and it is still subordinate to the principal structure. And then the owner occupancy relief. As I mentioned, the applicant submitted the sworn statement. Staff supports relief on the condition that is now subject to change, but the applicant is agreeable to that. Zoning and code enforcement still applies as it relates to property maintenance and upkeep, and they can still enforce action related to that. And then I also just want to point out that ADUs are permitted if they meet all of the special standards in this zone classification. Next slide please. And that's all I got and I'd be happy to answer any questions or bring up the applicant if you have questions for her.

How many people attended the neighborhood meeting? I don't believe I saw a sign up sheet.

Five signed in. I feel like I remember there being closer to seven. But some people choose not to sign in.

Thank you. But at the time of the meeting that that document had not been submitted. That's correct.

Yeah, we we thought that if we submitted like some mail or something that would satisfy the requirement, but we were informed that there's no possible way for us to satisfy the owner occupancy requirement. And that's why there was a bit of confusion at the neighborhood meeting. And this is new to me on that requirement. So that's on me.

And the property is being rented

now is that correct is there someone living no no no it has been converted though okay okay okay members any questions for ms mazzocco don't believe there are any thank you thank you

Ms. Rodriguez, is there testimony she wishes to offer? Okay. All right, moving into the speaker cards for those who are here to speak in opposition.

We have four speaker cards. And if you'll stand, I'll swear everybody in at once. And then when you come to the podium, you can give me your name and address. All right. Carl Riley. Yes.

Kathy Hilton. Daniel Als.

And Donna Avis. And Ann Ramser. Thank you. Would you raise your right hands? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

Yes.

Thank you. And who is the spokesperson for the group?

Yeah, that's Ms. Ramser.

You're okay. I know Ms. Ramser has a presentation and the spokesperson for the group has 15 minutes.

All right. All right. Um, I have 1 speaker card, I'm sorry.

Where, uh, and this is from his Hilton, um, who signed up as the opposition representative.

Stand up with the opposition.

Your speaker card says you're the opposition representative. We can only have one representative.

Ma'am, the difference is that the opposition's representative gets 15 minutes to speak and then everyone else in opposition gets three minutes to speak. That's why this question is being asked.

Do you wish to serve as the representative, ma'am?

It is up to you. Good afternoon.

Hello.

Name and address, please.

Kathy Hilton, 9605 Titan Drive, Louisville, Kentucky, 40229.

Ms. Hilton, would you please proceed with your testimony?

Okay. Well, to begin with, I disagree that the owner occupied because she doesn't live there. Secondly, we do oppose this going on because and the structure out back because if they have it, let me get someone live in there and then it opens up for everyone in the neighborhood and overcrowding, it puts a strain on, okay. The MSD, 50, 60 years old. And then we get, that's a four bedroom house. Then we got two more bedrooms, six bedrooms surrounding areas. They're all trying to do it where, like she said, it didn't matter. The one behind me has five buildings and it's too much on our MSD. It's probably too much in the school, too much on the, uh, they're building the green space, um, So we do oppose this. Like I said, it's not owner occupied. It's just they're buying up houses. They're putting people in them. And I know we have enough apartments that they can rent apartments. There's thousands and thousands of apartments going on. We really don't need this. It's a subdivision for families, single family homes. And that's what we'd like to keep it as instead of. If this gets started where they can do it, then that opens it up for anyone in the whole neighborhood where every garage can be turned into a rental unit. Or then they start adding more buildings on less than a fourth of an acre. I've seen one as many as four buildings. What I think is they have the garage they're going to rent out. They have the house and there's a attached one car garage. And I think it's already been used as a rental too that's not been mentioned. So people are living in the garage right now. They're living in the house. But the owner is not. Traffic. They just wind Blue Lake Road and it's already backed up. But if you get... two families to each lot or you get three families, four families per lot. If they're not getting permits, they're just building and building and building and doing it before until finally someone told them they need a permit or they need MSD, you know, they're just doing it on their own. But once we open the gates, It's just going to be thousands and thousands in this one little bitty subdivision, overcrowded, nowhere to park. People are parking in the backyards off the driveways. They're parking in the road where kids are playing and you can't see to get around the cars in the curb.

So let me see what else.

The buildings, are they getting, when they're doing this and doing the MSD, like I said, they're 50, 60 years old. Some people are building over. Of course, it doesn't have anything to do with them, but they're building over the MSD. But once we open up this one, it's going to go through the whole neighborhood, which they're already trying it. They've been told, build a fence. You don't have to let them in your backyard. You can do whatever you want. And they don't want them in the backyard to see. And they're just building and building and building. But what I want to say is we do not disagree with this. And that's probably about all I have to say about it.

Thank you members. Any questions for Ms. Hilton?

I'm sorry.

I was asking the board if they had any questions for you. Okay.

I just had a question. So the, is this, you're referring to this property that has the multiple buildings in, or is that a different property in the neighborhood?

Just has one building, but I'm afraid if it gets approved and they go on and decide, okay, I got room to put two little smaller units and it just is going from there.

Well, No, we haven't got pretty sure that's that's not legal. Um, so they wouldn't be allowed to do that. I mean, I'm not. Not an attorney, but would that be the case that they wouldn't be able to build 2 other structures in the yard?

They could build additional accessory structures, but nobody could live in them.

Yeah. Okay.

They could build, you know, a shed, a garden shed, things like that, but it would all have to go through the proper permits. There are regulations in the land development code about how much of your rear yard can be taken up by structures. So it would still have to meet, you know, all the provisions of the land development code and have a building permit, but it wouldn't be permitted to have any other, any other. living unit any other uh sorry i can't think of get the word right in my head accessory dwelling unit as opposed to just an accessory unit yeah yeah or as opposed to just an accessory building so they could build like a garage yeah or tools or whatever okay okay so this is probably the first one and we're working on this to get it because then i know there there is one behind me

That has a house 2 garages and built 2 new buildings. Here's my privacy fence and they're even up over top the 2 new buildings. So I'm sure we will go through a process where that whole backyard is 5 units. So, I'm sure it will be a different case, but it's going on here.

There is a process for for code enforcement, for example, to be informed if there are issues like that. I just want to clarify that accessory dwelling units are by right allowed in the area. But the problem with this one, one of the issues is that that accessory dwelling unit is owned by a limited liability corporation instead of the owner who has submitted documentation that she lives in the property.

And I disagree. I think that needs to be looked into because I live across the street. She doesn't live there. She lived next door, rented that house, rented the one that we're talking about, 9608. I don't believe she lives there. Mm-hmm. Okay. I mean, she's never there. No one's there. The family's not there. She's not there. She rents it out. She moved somewhere across town.

I have a question for the attorney. Laura, whether she lives there or not is a mute point because this is owned by an LLC, correct? Correct.

Right now, she's not arguing that she meets the owner-occupied. Now, she's put this affidavit in support of that she lives there. But really, at the end of the day, if you're asking for a corporation that owns it, you're asking for a relief from that item. And the mitigating condition is this affordability provision.

So all the investigation in the world, whether she lives there or not, is not going to get out of item J, right?

Right, right. You know, whether the individual associated with the LLC lives there or not for purposes of this case today doesn't really matter. Okay.

And so if she didn't live there, it wouldn't matter? Is that what that means?

So say the application is in front of us on just relief from item B, the size of the unit, and it was in her individual name, and she claims she lived there so that she met. item J because it's owner occupied. Then they'd be raising these concerns and maybe there would be something we turn over to enforcement to look into to see whether this individual truly lives there or not. But she's asking for relief from J because of the ownership structure.

So what's to stop from LLCs to come in and buy all the houses and build? I mean, add more or take any of them that have a garage, then rent them out. And I just don't see a need for that when we do have so many apartments going up in the Louisville area. We don't need to have to put people in our backyards.

So accessory dwelling units are permitted with special standards. What that means is that if they meet the standards, then they are permitted without additional approvals. One of those standards is that the owner of the property has to live in one of the units, either the main home or the accessory dwelling unit. So anyone who, you know, on the street that is owner occupied and meets the standards could come and the accessory dwelling unit would be permitted. The issue here is that, as you said, it's owned by an LLC. Our office has determined that an LLC cannot reside there. Right? Because it is a business entity. So the LLC cannot reside. So that is why relief is being requested from those standards and why they're here today, because otherwise it would just be permitted if it was owner occupied. So if other LLCs. were to attempt to do the same thing they would have to come before the board and make the justification of why they should be approved and the same process would repeat itself so you would also get a notification there would be another neighborhood meeting so the only way that the accessory dwelling units are permitted without this process is if their owner occupied and they meet the other eight standards that are in the land development code okay any other questions for Ms. Hilton

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

All right. Mr. Avis calls. Good afternoon, sir.

My name is Daniel Avis. I live at 9608 Polaris, Louisville, Kentucky, 40229. I live right behind this house that we've been talking about.

Okay, and you've already been sworn in, and you have three minutes for your testimony, sir.

Yes, ma'am. Well, the thing I want to say, you know, I've been living there for 54 years. That garage has been there 54 years. I can tell you that. It's a brick garage, but it's been there 54 years. I have never seen anybody live in it. We've called the 3-1-1 number about it. They've come out. They cited him, and she's still living in there. She's still... dumping her waste out in the yard and when we're not fighting that we're fighting rats from the all the chickens they got because they got 40 50 chickens and i'm talking rats as big as squirrels so i think this should be turned down if he ain't gonna take care of that he ain't gonna take care of that the other and he's got two garages he cooks on the back porch he has a refrigerator on the back porch. He's running a slumlord house. We've seen anything from three-year-olds all the way up to 80-year-old people in there. And you may see them this week, and they'd be gone next week. He put up a privacy fence where we can't see over there as well, but we sure smell it, I can tell you that. we're talking about 9608 yes yes he he don't there's never been no woman make no decisions back there it's always been some man i don't even know his name he's 50 years old or so and like i said you you know i how you sit in the backyard with my dog because he was getting old, I had cancer, and we'd sit back there, and I'd see the rats come out at night from the chicken pen, and I told him about it. He didn't do a damn thing. That was three years ago, and they're still. I just picked one up out of my yard where I've been putting poison out. I buy a bucket of poison from Menard every five or six months to try to keep the rats down. If you all let this happen, What you're going to do is move us older ones to Bullitt County. Because we won't stay around there very much longer. It's just getting that bad. And this LLC, how many people, how many places can they buy? Is there a limit? You know, next door to me, I have some more. Their grass is up to their knees. I've cut their grass for them. And they seem like they don't care. Just three days ago, the city had to come out there because a tree fell across Polaris. And his property is the same way. They had a dog back there and the dog disappeared. I don't know what happened to it. Like I said, I've seen it chasing rats around the yard, so maybe one of the rats bit it or something. Hell, who knows? It's that bad. Like I said, we lived there 54 years, and we ain't never had nothing like this before.

Okay, that's time, sir. Thank you.

Got any questions?

Don't believe there are any at this point.

Thank you. Donna Avis says, Okay, thank you. Mr. Riley.

All I'll do is get up and get mad.

All right. Okay, Miss Ramser.

Ann Ramsdorff, PO Box 14243, Louisville, Kentucky, 4214. Next slide, please. We're talking about the sworn statement. Well, it doesn't matter whether or not she lives there. It's the veracity of it that's important that she sign notarized document that she's the lawful owner of the property. She is not. Next slide, please. Oh, and she signed that in June. Nearly three months later, this is what the PVA shows as a lawful owner, Mayor Build, LLC, and that's at 9608 Titan Drive. And notice that the mailing address is Elizabethtown, Kentucky, not the address here. Again, veracity is at issue. Next slide. Mayor Build also owns 9606 Titan. Again, notice the address, Elizabethtown, Kentucky. Next slide. Here's the general information for Mayor Bill, for the Secretary of State. The principal office is at Avalon Drive, Louisville, Kentucky. Again, not the address of the person that says she's the only one of the LLC. Next slide. This is the Commonwealth Kentucky Secretary of State says she is a registered agent, which they said, but again, she's at 2416 Avalon Drive. Again, we're nearly three months out from her signed, notarized statement. Next slide. This is 2416 Avalon Street. Notice it's a single family dwelling. Now, this is the address that they have for the property, for the principal unit and the registered agent, but yet the registered agent claims she's living at Titan Drive. We've had at least two people testify that live in the neighborhood and say that she does not live at that property. Next slide. This one may have been explained. Apparently she did file something. I've seen no, but she said that it's built out already. But I found no building permits for this at all in CELA. So I'm a little bit concerned about that. I don't know what this awaiting client reply means. That's concerning to me. And then I want to tell you, when ADUs were initially presented, they were granny flats, mother-in-law units. This is something that we can bring in so family members can live there. I was one of numerous people that fought allowing the principal unit in the accessory unit to be accessible. When it oh, the office planning suggests that they both can be rental property. It's one. It's fair market value. I saw that one case in that particular case. They were already both built out. They were owned by an individual. And when I tried to follow that fair market value, it took me much. working with joe doc to try to make sure that it was trying to follow up on it was extremely difficult and to try and put this on the neighborhood to say every year you have to call 3-1-1 i think that it's unreasonable to do so thank you i'm available for any questions thank you questions for miss ramzer thank you thank you

All right. I don't have any other speaker cards related to this case. So, Ms. Mazzocco, you get five minutes for rebuttal. Consider the comments that you've heard from the opposition.

Sure. I guess I'll start. I apologize. I can't remember his last name that came up here and he said he lives on Polaris Drive. This is kind of the confusion I mentioned earlier. This property does not share a property line with anyone that lives on Polaris Drive. I unfortunately think there's a little bit of confusion on which property this is. And he very well may be talking about someone that adjoins his property, but this particular site does not adjoin his. She does not have any chickens on the site and the other things that he mentioned. So I just want to clarify that's a different property.

Could you hold for one moment, please?

Yeah.

All right.

Rachel or Joe, it might be helpful to put up the aerial that shows the property limits.

Okay.

We want to make sure that the properties that we are discussing are correct.

I would appreciate that.

Can I ask a question in the meantime? Yes. Does she own any other property in that neighborhood?

Yes, she owns one other property. It's the property next door, and that is a registered rental. There's not an accessory dwelling unit on that property. And that one's also on Titan Drive? Yes.

You're talking about directly next door? They share a property? Yes.

Okay. Sir, sir. Okay, we're in. Yes. All right. We're under bottle.

Okay, I have it pulled up here. So I know it's a little small, but that's because I just want to show you the full picture here. So where my mouse is in purple, this is the subject property 9608 Titan Drive. We all see that there. Again, I know it's kind of small. And then this right over here to the east is Polaris Drive. So I cannot confirm where that gentleman lives, but Sophia is correct that this property, 9608, does not have any border at all with Polaris Drive.

Sir, sir, you can. Excuse me, you can't speak right now. Thank you, we're in rebuttal. All right.

That's all, unless you guys want any more thing else, just that's.

It seems like he's referring to a different property.

It could be, I don't, I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. I'm just, this is the facts, what's on the.

So the address we have is 9608 Polaris Drive. Could we identify that on the aerial? Yes, this is. It's on the speaker card.

Yeah, this is 9608 Polaris Drive right here. Sorry, my clicker isn't working here. Let me, this right here.

So, sir, please. So what address on Titan does that house back up to?

9609. 9609, okay.

Entry does not own that.

No, that is owned by, according to our PVA data here, by a different individual. with a different name. These two properties are under Meyer build LLC 9608 Titan and 9606 Titan right here.

So we're talking about two different properties.

Yes, and that is where again some of this confusion has come into play with this request. I just wanted to clarify that I believe we are talking about different properties based on the evidence that we just showed here. As far as some other points that were brought up about granting the CUP opens up this opportunity to everyone in the neighborhood, you guys have already touched on ADUs are allowed by right in this zone if they meet all of their requirements. If they don't, they have to come here with a CUP, and the board has to grant relief for them to have that application. So even if another similar case comes before you guys, you still have to vote and base that on the evidence that is presented to you for that particular case. The owner, again, has signed that sworn affidavit. satisfy the requirement of owner occupancy as she owns it under an LLC, but she is trying to exhibit that she does live at this property and it is planned or is already her primary residence. Um, I did try to draft a condition of approval. Um, staff preferred the fair market value request and said that if I wanted to present this to you guys today, I could. I have a few copies of what I would like to present as a COA, but I think Laura might need to chime in here. Here's what I'm proposing and I'll pass out these.

And staff has seen

Staff has seen this. I'll let you go through and read it. Staff does not support, but I'll let you, go ahead and read it and let Sophia present it first.

Yeah, so it's essentially just trying to say, if the applicant, Leanne A. Borges Rodriguez, doing business as Meyer Build LLC, no longer resides on the property, the applicant must submit a modified CUP application within 90 days of residency change to re-request relief from the owner occupancy requirement before the board of zoning adjustment. In the event that the property is sold, the new property owner must provide proof of residency or intent to reside at the property in a form acceptable to the board of zoning adjustment or their designee within 90 days of ownership change. If the new property owner does not intend to reside at the subject property, they must submit an MCUP application within 90 days of purchase to re-request relief from the owner occupancy requirement before the Board of Zoning Adjustment. This is based on some things like short-term rentals that are grandfathered in before the new standards. They have this thing where you have to reapply for the license within a certain set time period to keep those grandfathered rights. It's kind of what I was going for. I'm just trying to help this applicant who has converted the garage, spent the money, understands the mistake in not getting the proper permits, and wants to make it right, but unfortunately owns the property under an LLC and is financed that way. And staff does not support this because they don't like, you can clarify, they don't like naming a particular individual in a COA is my understanding.

Yeah, that's correct. We just don't like tying. We just don't feel it's appropriate to tie conditions to individuals. This is something that Joe can comment on because he has more experience with this with short-term rentals. But we just do not support tying conditions of approval to specific individuals.

I mean, the logic behind why we have posed similar conditions for other conditional use permanences is you're approving the use on the land, not the individual asking for the approval. And if you tie it to them specifically, it kind of, you're straying away from what the review criteria are, which is to look at the land use and is it appropriate and will the conditions adequately mitigate it? Because the CUP resides with the land. Correct. Correct.

And so I, you know, I appreciate what Sophia has done to try to address that future land use, but still just from a, standpoint of why we're here and how the land development code operates is that this is a you know request for a special use on the property and uh the board and staff is reviewing this overall as a use and not based on the individual applying for that use and that's why staff feels that the fair market rent limit is a more appropriate Uh, mitigation to offer relief because it's tied to the actual use of the land and to plan 2040, the comprehensive plan, and because it's tied to the use of the land and plan 2040, it makes.

Sense to me to, um, that the language that's in the staff report would be the language that we carry forward.

And I'll add that once you grant relief, you don't typically re-request relief. You've granted relief. So that's sort of the problem here. I mean, where you come in with the short-term rentals is they have that requirement for that license. And so if you sell, it's really more tied to that new owner's got to go get the license and start acting. And at some point, it may be that that got abandoned or you've had a license, lack of license for so long, it's grounds for revocation. you know, this would be more inclined to be if, if you put some sort of condition, you know, it's like the ones where we do with the short term rentals where we say the person needs to live in one of the two units, the owner leads to live in one of the two units. Well, if they live in neither, then they either, at that point, they need to seek relief or we go ahead and revoke it.

Yeah, or the conditional use permit becomes null and void. So that's why just, and when we do that with the short-term rental, we talk about the owner. We don't name a specific individual. Right, yeah. Because that, again, can carry forward to future owners of the property.

Now, I mean, I could say if she owned this in her individual name and she was doing something, you know, it might be relief from a different provision that she be in one of the two. But that's not what we've got today.

Correct. Okay, you have been another minute and a half.

And I agree. I'm not an attorney. I was just trying to put forth a good faith effort for this applicant that she lives here and would like you to consider. This is her primary residence. She has tried to go through this process now to get the appropriate permits for a use that is allowed in the R4 zone. She is just requesting for relief from two standards. I also just want to point out that Metro Council when drafting or when approving these ordinances for ADUs did leave it open for this requirement to be waived. They did not eliminate, you know, the ability to waive this requirement and allows the board to look at this on a case-by-case basis. um i think i saw a minute here some other comments um related to msd msd will not allow for a connection if there's not capacity in the sewer system um and i think given that msc has granted a permit already but also uh reviewed this plan and gave preliminary approval msd gave preliminary approval is that what you're saying that as part of this submission yeah Yes. And I think that answers everything else. Again, the applicant is just trying to go through the correct process now and wants to be able to obtain the legal building permits and everything that is required to allow this building to be occupied.

And I've got a quick, based on just some of the opposition testimony, there were some documentation references to Avalon Park address. What role does that have?

I don't know about that address, but I can work with him to ask the applicant about that particular address. It is her mother's house. That is Lina Rodriguez, whatever was shown on PVA. I believe that aligns with what she said. Okay.

Anything else?

I did have one question. Where did you hold the neighborhood meeting?

It was at a church within a mile of the property. I don't remember the exact church name. Okay.

Wasn't at the house, though? No, it was not.

Okay.

I believe that's all the questions. Thank you for your time.

All right, we've heard from everybody who submitted a speaker card. And we've heard from the we've had rebuttal. So at this point, I'll close the public hearing, we'll move into deliberations on 26 CUP 0099. We've had the opportunity to hear testimony and, and review the staff report. Is there any discussion regarding the case?

I just, sorry, if I can, we did the research on the HUD fair market rent question and I consulted with someone from our Office of Housing and Community Development who has more knowledge on this. So HUD does report fair market rent values for the county and for each individual zip code now. And so I was correct in looking at the 2026 fair market rent for the county or the statistical area is $1,272. For the zip code, which is 40229, the fair market rent for 2026 for a two-bedroom unit was $1,490. So my recommendation would be to Determine which 1 you would prefer, and that we just make that specification in the condition of approval either that it would be the fair market rent limit for the county, or the fair market rent limit for what's called a small small area limit.

If you wanted to go with the zip code.

Yeah, and just to be clear, that changes every year. Both of those numbers are updated on an annual basis by the federal housing and urban development.

So $1,490 for the zip code or $1,272 for the county?

Right. And there's no guarantee that those numbers are going to Stay the same, but also that they might not flip flop. So all I'll say is that the small area rent, which is the higher one at this point, is a more precise measurement for that surrounding area. Obviously, it's in the zip code, whereas the other number for the county is an average of all of the zip codes put together. So whatever the board may feel is more appropriate in this case. Because, again, I wouldn't hold too much to the numbers right now because they could, just depending on the market, the numbers could flip.

Yeah.

Okay.

And they're both still the 40th percentile.

Yeah, they're both still the 40th percentile. One is just a more precise measurement of the area surrounding this property, and one would be for the entire county.

Seems to me the more precise area is...

That would be what we would recommend using.

Anybody want to debate?

Are you crafting language based on that?

Yes, for the small area rent. you you

Okay, so I think it would read, the accessory dwelling unit shall be rented at a rate that is no greater than the Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana Metro small area rent limit for a two-bedroom unit for the 40229 zip code published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Okay. Okay. Period I don't think we need that other thing at the end.

Actually, I would say published annually.

Okay, and based on the stamp report there, there do not seem to be any concerns related to the property in question the property that we're talking about. 90608 Titan drive. because that was a concern. Whether or not this is actually the property that we're focused on. We did hear testimony regarding complaints about a property, but based on the aerial that we saw,

the property limits we discussed it does not appear to me that that is the property that i i mean yeah i i'm not that person who provided the testimony but uh just based on what the ownership was unless they own another property in close proximity or if that structure on titan that is actually behind them doesn't exist anymore or something along those lines i I'm having a hard time conceiving how that is the property in which they described. You know, I mean, when you look at the aerials, it doesn't look like there's a bunch of chicken coops or anything in the property. Okay.

Okay. So you have looked at that.

Yeah.

Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Members, any discussion before we.

I just had a question or. So as far as residency is concerned, it seems like the neighbors are concerned that she may not live there. And there's been evidence presented that maybe she doesn't. I don't really know. Was residency determined? I know we've tried to determine residency by driver's license, a bill addressed to the address with that person's name on it, things of that nature.

We wouldn't need to confirm residency. She's applying for relief to that requirement. So if you accepted that condition, we might have to go through those steps, but because we didn't agree to that condition, they didn't try to meet the standards before the conditional use. We've just never had to go through that analysis. Okay.

I guess, I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around, you know, why this, why relief from, you know, the residency is why we would grant this in this case instead of another case. That's just what I'm wrestling with, you know, because it seems like this has come up before and it was an issue because people weren't living there and the neighbors were very upset about it and it was a very similar situation. But in this case, it's different than in previous cases, so.

I don't know, I'm just trying to figure out what's changed or what's different.

Other than in the other cases that you're referring to, the individual was not requesting relief from residency. This case, they are.

Right.

And I think the other issue is for the board to consider is staff supports it because they feel that the condition regarding affordability mitigates. And you may agree or disagree with that.

I see.

But they felt the staff report and the staff presentation was, yes, it's an LLC that can't meet the owner occupied, but they've offered up this condition that normally isn't on. an accessory dwelling unit, to ensure that that unit is rented at a rate that is considered to be affordable. And in staff's opinion, that mitigates some of the concerns and warrants granting relief. And again, but that's your all's call. You don't have to agree with that assessment. But I think that explains how staff got to that point.

But the Plan 2040... encourages the increase in affordable housing. And this is affordable housing with that condition on it.

Yes, I think staff's opinion of why this is an appropriate mitigation is that the intent of what while our staff did not put the ownership requirement into the ordinance for the accessory dwelling units we believe the intent of the ownership requirement was to promote affordability so that uh it would as we um as you know miss ramser said to have owner occupied for family members that could help mitigate rent for seniors or others who may want to rent out a unit for them, you know, to help themselves with additional income. So because of that offering relief to the ownership requirement, staff feels that having a restriction to maintain affordability helps mitigate any negative effects of offering relief to the ownership requirement.

Because it helps promote affordability. Okay, that's helpful. Any other questions?

Well, the other question we've not really talked about is item B, which is the size being larger than the 800. But given that that garage was built as a garage and has been there all those years. I think that's certainly understandable.

I think staff also added that at the end of the day, while it's bigger than what would be allowed by right, it's still smaller than the main house. We don't have any setback issues.

No, they're not. Yeah, that's the other point. They're not requesting any waivers or variances because of where it sits.

OK. Anything further? Is anyone ready to make a motion based on what we've discussed?

So what we're charged with is approving a conditional use permit with relief from those two items, correct? All right. I'll make a motion that in the case of 26 cup 0099 that we approve the conditional use permit with relief from items B and J based on the evidence provided in testimony and the staff report and analysis and the conditions of approval on page 8 of 8 including number 3 which was modified to address the small area numbers as opposed to the countywide. I didn't write down exactly what you said.

All right. Is there a second? Second, Scott.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 CUP 0099 including relief from items B and J. in the condition that we discussed related to the rent would be included as stated.

All right, we're ready to vote.

Horton?

No.

Ford?

No.

Rosas?

No.

Lewis? Yes. Scott?

Yes.

Yes, so we have a tie, so under the bylaws, you have a choice. You can continue deliberating. See, if anybody's willing to. Shift their position, or we can continue to the next meeting where we'll have. Another member who will effectively be the decision maker. Of course, you could change your vote in in between then as well, but. Those are your options at this point.

Miguel.

So members, whether you voted for or against, is there any additional discussion that would help to clarify your position? It looks like there is no intent to change the vote at this point. So we would have our member who is not present to review the video and come prepared to vote at the next meeting. Correct.

The only thing I would say is that I would make it clear in your motion whether you're looking for additional testimony or not. If all we're doing is to continue to have the other member review the record and get a vote of the full board, then that is good. If you did want additional testimony to help determine the vote, I would just make sure that that was included.

I don't think we need additional testimony to determine the vote. I think we do need for our member who's not present to review the documentation. the record and then come prepared to vote. Any discussion on that? Okay. All right. We need a motion. Yes, please.

All right. I'll make a motion in the case of 26 CUP 0099 that we continue this. Do we need the date of our next?

Yeah, 9-14. I think it would be best if you say you continue it to business session of the next hearing.

Okay. that we continue it to the business session of our meeting on 9 14 20 26 that we take no new testimony and that uh our absent member reviews the video and discussion prior to that meeting and we do a revote is there a second second forward

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to continue 26 CUP 0099 to business session on 9-14-26. We're ready to vote.

Harden?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Bozos?

Yes.

Louise? Yes. Scott?

Yes.

Bond?

Yes. The case will be continued to the September 14th meeting as stated. all right next i'm sorry we'll take a minute to collect the devices let's take a quick break and resume at 2 30.

Right.

All right, we're back in session. Beginning with the public hearing 26 CUP 0126. Yep.

Good afternoon, Joe Haberman, Office of Planning. So this is a case that was continued from the last hearing, but we didn't discuss it. It was continued because it was partially noticed for that meeting. So we continue to to this meeting so that we could have full noticing and the staff report prepared. Go to next slide. So this is again at 1305 Pigeon Pass Road. It's for a conditional use permit where the owner will not reside on the property. Next slide. So the property is zoned R5. It's within the neighborhood form. The property is developed with the single family residence. within the city of lynnview which does not have zoning authority so we're using louisville metro code at the corner of pigeon pass road and warbler way and the dwelling contains will contain four bedrooms if approved as proposed currently there's three bedrooms The applicant is interested in converting a sunroom to a fourth bedroom. I'll note some potential concerns with that towards the end, but that's the plan. There's off-street parking available on the driveway. Next slide. So I couldn't get a traditional 600-foot separation map, but this is from our website. We had to turn the presentation over pretty quickly. Long story short, there's no short-term rentals within 600 feet and none in the general area. Next slide. And here is the zoning map that shows the area is predominantly R5. Next slide. This is an aerial that shows the property. Again, it's located on a corner lot. Next slide. So there's no Google Street View, so we traditionally show you Google Street View. So I had to pull some old photos of the property from a Zillow listing. That's why this one's a little bit differently. But there is the property. You might want to note that addition towards the front is the sunroom in question. Next slide. So with that, the applicant will or has demonstrated that they meet each of the standards. not a 600 foot separation issue at this time. Next slide. So the staff findings is that the application for a conditional use permit is sufficiently justified. There's no short-term rental again within 600 feet. They meet the other standards. There appears to be sufficient onsite parking for the use. And they would meet, again, all the standards of the conditional use permit. But I will note this. You can go to the next slide. I put the conditions up here. Staff recommends that you approve this conditional use permit. But in regards to that potential fourth bedroom, the applicant shared some photos of that. It definitely meets the general size requirements of length and width, which typically is 100 square feet for a bedroom. but there's some other potential concerns in terms of potentially the HVAC, the ceiling height, and some other things related to building code. I shared the photos with folks from property maintenance and construction review, and they kind of had the similar concerns as planning staff. So if you are to approve this, you're looking at the total intensity with the number of bedrooms. So the conditions reflect approving it as a fourth bedroom. but they can't use it as a bedroom if it doesn't meet other standards. So before they get the registration, I would like the opportunity for staff to inspect to make sure that it meets all the criteria for a sleeping area slash bedroom. But that doesn't have to delay the conditional use permit unless you just feel that on its face, it's not gonna meet those requirements, then you can approve the conditional use for a lesser number of bedrooms. You don't have to reject the entire application. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

It seems like if there were four bedrooms and one bathroom, that bathroom was awfully small. Is there any... There's no requirement for number of bathrooms to bedrooms or anything like that?

No. I mean, the only reason we have a requirement for bedrooms is that's how we control the intensity of the use. Occupants. Bathrooms is... you know, a choice of the guest. Most Airbnb listings, and I presume they're going to use Airbnb, list the number of beds and baths, and that might deter some people from staying there, but others may not care.

Other questions?

Just make sure I understand. So did you say that you all had more things to check out for the fourth bedroom? Should we consider this request today only for the three? Or can we consider it for the four? And then if your investigation determines that can't be a bedroom, it just drops down to three without further action? Yes, board.

What I'm suggesting is if you're comfortable with the intensity that comes with four bedrooms, what they get with a fourth bedroom is really two additional persons can stay in the short-term rental. Any short-term rental could add a bedroom through construction or converting an existing space. The reason why we lock them down in the conditions is because somebody is presenting potential intensity to the board and we don't want after they get approved to add two bedrooms and have four more people staying there. So you could approve it with the four bedrooms. But what I'm saying is if you do do that before we issue the registration, staff will inspect to make sure that it meets all the requirements and that might be planning staff it might be property maintenance staff i'm working out how that would look with them if you are to approve it because they're the ones that really look at chapter 156 of metro code which has all these bedroom requirements in it

But if we approve it for four and you find that's not acceptable, it's still okay for three?

If you approve it for four and it's not acceptable, they have two choices. They can either not use it as a bedroom or they can make the necessary improvements to make it a bedroom if they can so they could potentially rectify the issue. Like, for example, if ceiling height's a problem, that's going to be a tough problem to solve. but if the issue is just over not having appropriate electrical or HVAC, they could fix that with a permit and get that all installed.

Okay.

So kind of what we're looking at, you can think about this, is that it's truly a maximum number of bedrooms that you're approving. It is a, you know, a total number, but Remember that the short-term rentals are a two-fold process, the conditional use permit and then the annual registration. And so the annual registration also holds them to a maximum number of occupants. So if the fourth bedroom is not up to code and can't be used, then the registration would only be issued for three bedrooms.

Okay, thank you.

I don't think there are any other questions at this point.

All right. I have a speaker card for a representative of the applicant.

He's the neighbor. The applicant is online.

I just pulled the applicant over.

Were you going to speak for Selma?

No, I wasn't speaking for her.

That's why I'm making sure you'll go next. Okay.

All right. So thank you, ma'am. We'll come back to you. All right. Ma'am. It looks like I'm still okay. I just got unmuted.

Hello.

Yes. Yes. Name and address, please.

Selma Adam check. My physical address is 10915 Chinwood Court. That's where I reside. Louisville, Kentucky, 40299. Are you able to turn your camera on, Ann? I think it is on. I mean, as far as I know, it's on.

Okay. So we can't see you. You may proceed with your testimony without it. But at this point, we can't see you.

Okay. I don't know if anybody can tell me. Oh, wait. Here it says.

All right. Great. Thank you. Would you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth.

Yes.

All right. You have 15 minutes for your presentation.

Okay. Um, so that was my primary home. When I moved to Louisville, Kentucky, I stayed in an extended stay hotel and then I found that home and I lived there until I met my husband. We got married, we lived there for a year and we moved. And so I was I've been renting it out long term and right now it is a long term rental for 30 days or more. And there are people currently staying there, which is what hindered me from being able to go and take measurements myself of the room. So I used A.I. to see the dimensions of the room based upon old photos that I have and given. relation to other things such as my height, my husband's height, and we're standing next to a door. And what I said was definitely an eight foot ceiling. Of course, that's AI and everybody has different takes on how AI works and everything. I did want to mention that I was there in person two weeks ago, but this week I did not have my husband take off work to watch our two little ones. And they have hand, foot and mouth disease as it so happens. And so I was unable to attend in person this time. So that's why I'm having to attend virtually instead of there in person. So I do apologize for that. I think my only real concern. So it just happened that I ended up getting two sleeper sofas. And that's what's kind of like turning this whole thing from a three bedroom to a four bedroom was because one of the sleeper sofas is out in the sunroom. Currently, it does not have a bed in it. But say somebody books because I can list it on Airbnb. Currently, it is listed on Airbnb for that long term rental process. But say somebody rents it for. you know six or under but then they have more staying there because there is this larger couch out there i guess my question is is like if i guess if it got reported i would get a violation and then how would i take care of that violation how would that be handled if they claimed they weren't going to be that many staying there but then they bring more people in and that's unbeknownst to me because i didn't approve of that or anything and then my other question is just um What would truly be required to convert the room in this case, the sunroom into another bedroom? And I guess that's just like possibly the HVAC or whatever. But I mean, I'm not wanting to necessarily max it out. I'm just trying to have a place for people to be able to not have to pay so much when they go places, you know, and come visit our city here in Louisville. for events and things like that, because if they're able to have, you know, a couple of couples and maybe some kids or something come and stay, then they're able to not have to pay so much because hotels and everything are so expensive. So that's it's just I'm not trying to make a ton of money by having extra bedrooms. I'm actually trying to make it easier for people renting it is all. So I guess that's kind of all I have, if there's any questions.

Okay. Members, any questions for Ms. Adamczyk?

Did you have a neighborhood meeting? I sure did.

Yes, ma'am. How many people came? Me, my friend Sue that is there in person for me, and the mayor of Lynnview, who I also know, and we all just kind of sat there and caught up with one another. Nobody else showed up.

How close do you live to the property?

I live in J-town and this is in Lynnview. If you're not familiar, Lynnview is between Preston and Poplar level off of Gilmore.

So if there were to be an emergency or a need for you to be at the property, it doesn't sound like it would take you that long to get there.

No, 20, 30 minutes.

All right.

Members, any other questions?

And are you personally going to manage this short-term rental? Are you using a management company?

I am managing it myself and that's the plan as of now because I had a management company for long-term rental and they did not take care of my property and I didn't appreciate that at all.

And so that's why I'm trying to convert it to this so I can better take care of it. Okay, I believe that's all the questions. Appreciate it. And I do have there's another speaker card. This David.

Oh, and I thank you for your support and help in this matter.

Okay, name and address.

My name is Susan David. I live at 1302 Pigeon Pass, kind of catty corner to Selma of the property we're talking about.

Okay, if you raise your right hand, I'll swear you in. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth?

Yes.

All right, please proceed. You have three minutes. Okay.

So I'm long term resident of over 20 years. I've known Selma for around at least 10 years, I would say. And this property, you know, would help support her and her husband and her wonderful little family. And, you know, they're both very diligent. and taking care of things when needed and caring people like she addressed about because Louisville does have so many events and trying to get Louisville to grow and to have places. She gives discounts. She's shown her care of community and of her house. and everything for a very long time. Um, at the, I was notified as all the residents of Lynn view are notified of this meeting. There were no concerns, no opposition. The mayor of Lynn view didn't oppose anything or address any concerns. I did not, you know, I think it would be a great thing if, um, you all were to approve this. Um, And her husband is very tall. I did not see any problem whatsoever, you know, with any kind of ceiling thing that you were talking about. You know, Selma has put her heart and soul, money, hard work, and her husband, David, into making this place like a show place. It is beautiful and creative and has plaques of different caring messages throughout the house. And she also has me of being eyes and ears if anything should go wrong. Um, so, I mean, I just, I hope that you, uh, she's made the property very useful, um, and, and it would address any concerns really promptly. Plus I'm there. Um, so that's, uh, pretty much it. Any questions?

I don't think so. Not at this point.

Okay. Thank you all so much.

All right. Those are the speaker cards that I have in support. I have a speaker card in opposition. Ms. Ramzer?

In Ramzer, PO Box 14243, Louisville, Kentucky, 4214. Some case managers put the pictures of the bedrooms up and some don't. Happened today, they didn't. However, when I viewed the pictures of the bedrooms that were a part of the agenda, the windows are too high to be egress accessible. They're supposed to be no higher than four feet. And I can only tell that for sure on one of the bedrooms because on the other two bedrooms, the curtains covered the windows. So, I mean, you all can make your decision on that. If it gets approved today, I will file a 311 and ask to have it inspected. So I just want to let you know that I have that concern. Any questions?

Okay, thank you. So thank you.

All right.

Yeah, Mr. Dam check. You get five minutes for rebuttal. Were you able to hear the testimony from his Ramser?

Yes.

All right. Um, I bought the house like that, and that's how all the houses in the neighborhood have been built. And she's right. The windows are they're smaller, but I bought it and they were considered egress windows when I purchased the house. I don't know what else to say about it.

Honestly. OK, any questions?

But there would be an inspection of that property.

Yeah, that's the question I had. Is that part of the permit, not the CUP?

If there's a concern, I've already spoken with property maintenance about the sunroom. The difference between the sunroom is that clearly wasn't permitted and built as a bedroom. She wants it to become one, and there's certain standards. There's dimensional standards, Anne's correct. There's ingress and egress. There's other lesser standards, like you can't really cross through one bedroom to get to another bedroom. There's distance between electric plugs and things like that. There's a bunch of different stuff. so that one that's why we had a big concern on that one because it clearly wasn't built as a bedroom these other ones well i didn't put them in the presentation they were included and um legistar shows you some of the other spaces and the windows don't appear to comply with current requirements based on my understanding of them, but they were two of these rooms at least were probably clearly built as bedrooms. So they might be nonconforming. So the way chapter one 56 works is if you don't meet requirements, the director of codes can still make a determination that you're kind of grandfathered into those previous requirements. So we can see if they're willing to take a look at it when we go out there for the sunroom, but I was only planning on inspecting that if you approved that extra space. But we can check with them and see if they'll take a look at it. But I suspect with those other bedrooms is they'll determine that they're grandfathered in unless one of those rooms was converted from something else as well.

So there would be a person who goes out and takes a look at not only the sunroom, but possibly the other bedrooms takes a look at the windows and helps to determine whether or not there's an egress or ingress issue. And then there would be a follow on step to determine whether or not that that is grandfathered if they if there is a concern related to the windows.

Generally, the chapter 156, which is where a lot of our requirements for bedrooms come from, is administered by codes and regulations. Only they can determine if you're compliant with that section or not. So the best that I could do is ask them to join me on an inspection. They usually don't do proactive inspections, but Ms. Ramsey is right. If she calls in a complaint, then they're going to inspect and in that way, so if they know that they have to go out there anyway, they might join me and we can figure it out. And if a bedroom is non-compliant, they can't use it as a bedroom regardless of what we do here today.

Okay.

All right. Members, any questions for staff? All right.

Thank you.

Okay. We're in deliberations now on 26 CUP 126. It's a short-term rental that's not the primary residence of the owner. We've heard from the owner, we've gotten information on the public meeting, and we've heard the concerns from the opposition. So is there any discussion before we move forward with a motion?

kind of like the idea of having the three bedrooms, have it approved for the three bedrooms and not for the porch. The sun porch, go through all that.

I agree with that. I agree with that. I don't think that the sunroom doesn't seem like a bedroom.

Okay. Would that be pending an inspection of the sunroom area? Would that be pending an inspection of the sunroom area or are you just looking at approval?

Approving 3 bedrooms limiting capacity to 3 bedrooms or.

Yeah, because she made the example of 2 couples and children and I couldn't remember. I know 1. There was a king and a queen, but I couldn't remember what the 3rd bedroom had. But, you know, if you're thinking of children, put 2 bunk beds or something like that in there. Um. I don't know if the sleeper sofa on the front porch. You pull it out and who's going to know?

Okay. All right. I wouldn't do that. Just make it a condition of approval to limit it to. To the 3 bedrooms.

If you thought that the capacity was better served for three bedrooms with a maximum of eight guests, you could modify that condition. And she'd always have the right if and when she turns the sunroom into something that qualifies as a bedroom, she can always come back for a modified CUP to add that bedroom and add the additional two people. But she couldn't do that unless and until that happened. And that's true of anything we approve. If we approve it with X, a maximum number of bedrooms, if they want to make modifications in the future to add bedrooms, then they come back with a modified permit to ask permission to increase the bedrooms.

Yeah, and I could support modifying condition one for three bedrooms rather than four. So any additional discussion?

Or is there a motion I can make a motion this member of those with regard to case number twenty six zero one two six location thirteen oh five pigeon pass road a move that we approve the conditional use permit to allow short term rental of a dwelling unit. That is not the primary residence of the owner. and want to modify the first condition on page nine of nine to read that there will be a maximum of four, three, excuse me. There will be a maximum of three bedrooms with a maximum of 10. Start that over. This shall allow three bedrooms with a maximum of eight guests at one time. Base that on the testimony and staff report.

Is there a second?

Second. Board?

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 CUP 0126. Given the modification to the conditions of approval, to allow up to three bedrooms with a maximum of eight guests. We're ready to vote.

Hardin?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Ozos?

Yes.

Lewis? Yes. Scott?

Yes.

Vaughn?

Yes. The CUP is approved for three bedrooms. All right, next is 26 variance 0091.

Catherine Gomez, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. This is 26 variant 0091 for a front deck variance at 927 Charles Street. The request is a variance from Land Development Code Section 5.4.1.B.B to permit an unenclosed porch to encroach more than 33% of the public realm. The requested encroachment is 47% for a variance of 14%. So this is in the R6 multifamily residential zoning district within the traditional neighborhood form district. The site is approximately 0.8 acres. The applicant is proposing an approximately 160 square foot unenclosed front porch. An unenclosed front porch may encroach up to the front of the property line if the encroachment does not occupy more than 33% of the public realm. The porch does encroach, like I said, 47%. So we are here today for that. This is the site plan provided by the applicant. On the left, you see a dimension. It's kind of hard to tell, but that does say about 13 feet from the sidewalk. The property line is about 13 feet from that sidewalk. And then on the right, you see the front porch right there. And it is existing currently, so you will see it on the aerial. Next slide, please. And this is just a variance exhibit of the public realm area. Like I said, this is within the R6 zoning district. It is close to commercial, but all within R6 and on Charles Street. Next slide, please. This is the aerial that you've seen previously. Next slide. This is the front of the view of the house. Like I said, the porch is existing. This is the front of the property. Next slide. This is adjacent property. This would be across Charles Street. And then this is east of Charles Street. You'll see some more houses with unenclosed and enclosed porches. Next slide, please. And then these are houses west of Charles Street on the other side of the subject property. So the requested variance will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare as the property line of the subject site is set back 13.5 feet from the sidewalk. Uh, the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the general area as residential properties in the vicinity maintain similar and close and unenclosed porches and the strict application of the provision would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land as the porch is only about 160 square feet. Uh, staff finds that the justification for the variance is adequate and recommends that the board approve the request. Your required action for today is to approve or deny the variance to permit the encouragement. Any questions for staff? Yes.

Are there other porches similar to the proposed porch along that side?

It's kind of hard to tell but this one kind of is because of all the vegetation it juts out similar to the one that's being requested but typically the porches are similar to yeah to what is being shown. This is all along Charles Street though.

Okay thank you.

Other questions? Thank you, Catherine. All right, Mr. Nash.

Good afternoon. Name and address, please. I think I put the wrong address on my form. That was the address of the property. I'm 6000 Old LaGrange Road in Crestwood. And the zip code? 40014.

Mr. Nash, do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth? I do. All right. You have 15 minutes for your testimony.

I don't have a whole lot to say on the subject. We're trying to reclaim usable space. Sorry, before that deck was built, there was about two and a half feet of usable space before the... the hillside dropped off. We felt it to be more safe for that coming out that door. We actually moved the front door and made that a side door where that deck comes out because it was just two steps down, two feet, and then about 20 feet down the hill. And that hillside is just a very difficult thing to work with.

Okay, at this point, you don't have any plans to enclose that it would still be open construction.

Okay.

All right, members and questions for Mr. Nash.

Thank you.

All right, that's the only speaker card that we have for this case. Doesn't look like anybody's online. So I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations on 26 variance 0091. Which is a variance from land development code to permit an unenclosed porch to encroach more than 33% of the public realm.

Any discussion?

And there was an email in opposition on this case. Did you have an opportunity to see that? That related to a claim of obstruction of the view of the adjacent house, that the porch obstructed the view. Did everybody get an opportunity to see that email?

Yeah, I saw it. Looks to me like from this aerial view that there may be several houses along there and the one next door, including, has a deck. I don't remember the address of the one that sent the opposition letter, if it's the one to the left as you're looking at it.

You're looking at it. I think it was to the right, the property to the right.

It was right next door.

Right.

Okay, well.

So this is an unenclosed porges. In other words.

Well, it's it's more a debt. It looks more like a do we have a picture of that?

One moment. Thank you.

And the email and opposition claimed a lack of privacy as well as.

just blocking the view from the property.

So was it blocking the neighbor's view who was in opposition? Yes.

So it's the house behind the pole then that sent in the opposition? It's 929 Charles Street.

And what's this one, 920? Yeah, the one to the right.

Oh, I guess the one to the left has a deck-like unit that's not raised. Looks like it's more ground level from the air.

It looks like it's pretty much the same thing.

In the summary of the opposition, Rachel, that was correct. It was related to blocking of view as well as lack of privacy.

Yeah. Yeah. um blocking the view like a privacy and then it wasn't it wasn't um super coherent argument um but i think there was some concern about trespassing but i'm not really sure how that relates to the deck frankly it looks like the house on the other side has a somebody has a big hedge that blocks

the view between the White House and the one on the other side. It's higher than the deck.

But there are other porches, enclosed, unenclosed, that extend into the public realm. Is that correct?

If you want to pull up the adjacent property photos, you'll see what I'm talking about. Yeah, so house like that, that's encroaching into the public realm. Obviously, it's not encroaching as much as the one that's being requested today. But this is what you would find similar on the street is some sort of encroachment as a front porch.

And there is a setback of 13 and a half feet from the sidewalk.

So that's the distance between the sidewalk and the front of the property line. And so there is a great distance between where the porch begins and where the public, uh, well, I guess where pedestrians would walk through. And that's just in terms of public safety and concern of things like that. If, if that was of concern to you all, um, that would be a justification for why it wouldn't be too much of a public safety hazard.

So those porches are – they've got a roof over them, but they're not enclosed, right? And this one's just more of an open deck? Right. But they all encroach into the required setback? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, I think the thing to remember here with this regulation is this is a little funky because – It says the regulation is to do with both the setback and the public realm. Because you can encroach as much as you want of the public realm as long as you're not in the setback. But if you're going to go into the setback, then you can't have more than 33% of the public realm covered. Does that make sense?

So it's that percent.

Yeah. So it's the percent plus the setback. So in the cases of these properties right here, depending on what they look like, these porches may not go all the way up to that setback. So then the 33% doesn't even apply. Okay. The 33% only applies when you're encroaching into the front setback.

Can you go back to that picture of this property that we're... Is there a... I mean, it looks like there's a skirting or something on that deck that you can't see under it. Is that true? Is that what I'm seeing in that picture?

I'm not sure on that. The applicant could probably, if you want to take testimony from the applicant, I know you've closed the public hearing, but if you wanted to ask him that question, I think he could probably answer that better than Kathy or I could.

It seemed like I saw a picture in the case file where that wasn't true.

It doesn't appear like there's a skirting, but again, I'm neither 1 of us could answer that confidently Rachel.

I'll reopen the public hearing just to get an answer to that question. Mr Nash, would you approach the podium?

When I mentioned slab here a little while ago, I had slab on my mind because I thought I saw some slabs further down like a concrete slab. But I guess this looks like what we were talking about when we previously approved the deck that is coming down one by one on that side.

Okay. In that picture, there was not skirting, but there is today. And I do have pictures of it on my phone if you wanted to pass it around.

And you said you moved the front door over to the right. It was in the middle of the house?

Yes. That used to be the front door there with the... I mean, you can still use it as a door, but with the gate, gated front, and then off to the right is kind of now the front door. And you can use... There's three doors. One goes out the back, one's on the side, one's in the front. And it was just... We had somebody fall there, which kind of made us, how do we make this a little safer? And public view, instead of putting wood all the way around it, we put wire through it to help not be so bold, I guess, on the street.

And are the stairs was there anything done to the steps that go up from the sidewalkers that existing that's existing. All right, thank you.

So I won't again close the public hearing and we'll move back into deliberations on 26 variance 0, 0, 9, 1.

Any further discussion or is there a motion. Make the motion. Yes, please.

Member Vozos with regard to case number 26 variance 0091 location 927 Charles Street. I move that we approve the variance from the land development code as written to permit an unenclosed porch to encroach more than 33% of the public realm.

Yeah, let's let's get a clarification on this. Staff report page 1 of 5, 26 variance 0091, page 3 of 5, 26 variance 0074. All the rest of the page. Yeah, through page 5 of 5. Is this 91 or 74? Let's see.

It's 91. It was just a misprint in the staff report on the other pages. It should be 26 variance 91. Yeah, not 74. Okay. All right.

Thank you. Would you repeat the motion, please?

Sure. With regard to 26 variance 0091, location 927 Charles Street, a move that we approve the variance from land development code to permit an unenclosed porch to encroach more than 33% of the public realm. Base that on the testimony and staff report.

Is there a second? Second, Horton. Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 variance 0091. Roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. The variance is approved. Thank you. Next is 26 modified CUP 0009.

That's number five on the agenda.

And before we get going, hey, Rachel, did you just pull that up? I fixed the typo after my 1st case. So.

All right wonderful.

Cool.

Hi, Jude Mattingly, office of planning staff, 4, 4, 4, South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4, 0, 2, 0, 2, before use 26. if you go to the next slide, please. This is a modified conditional use permit request to allow for an athletic facility in M2 and RR zoning with relief from item D in the standard of review. Next slide please. So, again, the property is dual zone, I believe. the bounds of where like the actual athletic facility is entirely encompassed in the M2, but there is RR zoning on the property as well. Falls within a neighborhood form district and the property contains 27.05 acres. The modified conditional use permit is being requested to allow a gymnastics day camp to continue to operate as previously approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment under 25 MCUP0001. There's no new construction associated with this request. and the relief from item d is required because in the standard review it says that if there's any structures that are within 30 feet of a common property line zone for residential use you need you know relief from id but this is this has previously been uh granted by the board under two different um conditional use permit request and uh We'll go to the next slide all untangled case history here toward the end, but this is the site plan. It's pretty zoomed in again. We're dealing only with existing structures. For this request, if you go to the next slide. Yeah, we can see the zoning as I mentioned split zone between M2, which is industrial and our, our residential to go to the next slide. aerial with the containment of the CUP mostly taking place up in the top right-hand corner. Next slide, please. You know, this image is a bit older from Google, but this is, you know, existing site conditions as we understand. Next slide, please. And then this is just some context. I mean, this area, South English Station Road, you know, it's very large properties. So, yeah, pretty rural in nature. Next slide, please. All right, so let's kind of, like I said, untangle some of this case history. So an athletic facility was initially approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment under 22 CUP 0365. This was a much larger and intensity proposal. It included construction of an actual like indoor athletic facility, some outdoor fields, and massive increases for impervious surface area to install a considerable amount of parking. This was approved in July of 2024. Later on down the line, the applicant, before, you know, constructing any that had previously been approved, the way I understand it, wanted to operate a gymnastics day camp, I'm presuming during the summer. So they filed a modified conditional use permit. This was 25 MCUP 0001. that would only keep the existing structures on site and conduct the day camp in one of the existing structures. And if you go, well, I guess, here, let me clean this up here. So they're proposing this modified conditional use permit because the conditions that were approved under 25 MCUP 0001, they just want to retain that instead of building the large facility that was approved under 22 CUP 0365. The reason they need this modified conditional use permit is the 25 M cup number that was approved had a condition of approval. sorry had a condition of approval that said that actually on august 31st 2026 which is today they would submit permits for the building of what was initially approved it's my understanding they're abandoning that and they just want to operate out of the existing structures but again this new modified conditional use permit is required so staff findings i mean the modified cup just like the 2025 one that was proposed He's meeting the standard of review except for item D, which again is about the 30 feet away from any property line for residential use. Just something to note, you know, this runs along the Floyd's Fork overlay district. A letter of support was actually submitted by Lucas Frazier, who is associated as the executive director of Louisville Keep Your Fork. I provided that as the documents uploaded. And the current proposal, it just allows what was already approved under 25 MCUP 0001 to continue as previously approved. So, I mean, we find the justification for the request is adequate and we would recommend the board approve the modified CUP with relief from item D. And I can't imagine there's questions about this one.

Okay, so the applicant, previously requested and received a CUP for construction of 52,260 square feet of indoor athletic facility.

Yes, that's correct, Chair Bond.

Okay. And now is, is that reduced? Is it still 52,000? No.

So, so my understanding is they're abandoning that, that, that is not going to be constructed any longer. Um, the 2025 modified conditional use permit allowed them just to use existing structures that existed even at the time of the 2022 CUP's approval. Um, which you can see here, Rachel's brought back up on the screen. Um, all these buildings are existing. They are no longer going to be building this large indoor athletic facility to my understanding.

And I think if it helps, Chair, if you go to page seven, really the only thing that's changing is they want to delete the existing condition of approval number four.

Okay.

And then it gets replaced with the new condition of approval number four, which just says a change in use permit is required by the Department of Codes and Regulations shall be issued. Oh, if required, if it was correct. Prior to the use of it. So it's just got a change in use permit if required shall be issued. Okay, so it's really that's the only changes from consistent condition for to new condition number for everything else is similar to what was approved. Back in 25, that's helpful. Thank you.

And like I said, you can see above that, that just what Laura just said, you know, that condition of approval referred to today as the day that they would have had to submit billing permits for that original proposal. So this is convenient that this is happening today.

Okay. All right. Questions for Jude? Thank you, Jude.

Thank you. All right. Mr. Ashburner.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Name and address, please.

Sure. It's Cliff Ashburner with Dinsmore and Scholl, 101 South 5th Street, Suite 2500, Louisville 40202.

All right. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

I do. All right. I'm here today on behalf of Serendipity Kentucky LLC, which was the entity that initially filed this application. You can see there are three case numbers there. I think Jude actually did a pretty good job of explaining from 22 to 25 to today how we got here. But I'd like to just give you a little bit more context without taking up too much time. If you'll go ahead and advance the slide, please. So in 2022, Shannon Wickle, who is the force behind Kentucky Gymnastics Academy, she's here as well if we have any questions. She located this property and thought, I want to go out there and build a new gymnastics academy. And that was the conditional use permit that we saw in 2022. It had a large building on it, multi-sport, large parking area, the fields as well. So it would have been a more kind of formal, a continuation, if you will, of the existing gymnastics academy, which is in Middletown now. As you all know, and I'm sure you've heard at this board and at the Planning Commission, or you may have just experienced on your own, the cost to build things between 2022, 3, 4 really exploded. And so it was impossible, it became impossible to build that large facility. And Ms. Wickle tried a variety of different things in order to really exercise that conditional use permit. But being as adaptable and positive as she is, she looked at the property and said, well, what else can we do here that is still family oriented, that is still youth activity oriented? and how can we use this property and she came up with the idea for the day camp and the day camp initially was thought to be sort of a bridge between the existing property and the ability to build the much more you know the larger facility you know with the full kind of indoor gymnastics facilities but after going through the process of getting the camp ready um getting different sort of certificates that she needed from the state from the health department in order to make all that work she determined that you know the camp is actually a really good use for the property and while we appeared before you last year and asked for the temporary modification we're appearing for you today before you today to ask that the property just be Allowed to continue as the day camp. So this is a snip from their website. If you go ahead and advance the slide. Subject property you've seen this before you can see the existing buildings there up in the upper, right? This is just 1 other bit of context here. This is a. sort of an oddity in this part of the county where you have a kind of a small but established assemblage of industrial properties. Most of the property that's around here is either parklands, so it's either dedicated park property, Or it's large lot residential. But this area on the kind of south end of South English Station Road has a concentration of industrial properties. That's why part of this property is already zoned M2 industrial. If you'll go to the next slide, please. So this was the CUP that was approved in 22. Jude walked through that. You know, again, the large building up front, the recreation fields in the back, but a fair amount of work to be done on the property in order to make all of that come to life. If you'll go to the next slide. The 2025, the modified CUP, and then you can go to the next slide. This is what the property looks like. These are the existing buildings and grounds. If you'll go ahead and advance. And then this is the proposed plan. Really, the only difference between twenty five and now is we've shifted a little bit of the parking on the site still complies with the Floyd's fork zoning overlay still have the buffers that are there. And as you all saw in Jude's presentation, we did get a letter of support from Mr Frazier at Louisville. Keep your fork. So it's going to allow us to use the property permanently as the day gymnastics camp. And we are asking for that relief to allow the existing structure that's there to remain. So I'm happy to take any questions. I like the new podium. It's nice, roomy.

Members, questions?

So this operated during the summer as a day camp. Is it going to operate year round as a day camp?

There will be different activities. It's still 27 acres of agricultural land. Part of the day camp is there are some animals on the property, so there'll be people on the property obviously taking care of them. And I think there are some one-off kind of fall play days, things like that that will occur over the course of the year. I would say the primary time of activity for the camp is, you know, it's the 10 weeks in the summer.

Thank you.

Anything else? Do you have a question? Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. I have no other speaker cards related to this case, so I'll close the public hearing. And we'll move into deliberations on 26 modified cp 0, 0, 0, 9. Any discussion any questions on the use of the property.

Motion when you're ready madam chair ready for motion. Regarding case 26 M C U P 0, 0, 0, 9, move to approve, um, based on the staff report and the findings and recommendations through the standard review and, uh, this approval along with the. seven conditions of approval on page seven of seven, including the relief of item D, LDC.

Okay. The conditions of approval number four under item three, existing conditions of approval, is deleted. I think it's just four conditions of approval. Yes, just four under existing conditions of approval, item four. We have four conditions of approval.

The original four is crossed out and there are what, seven remaining? No, these are repeat of these.

They're mislabeled in the staff report, which is leading to the confusion. One of them should probably be named proposed conditions of approval. They're both identified as existing.

And we're ending up with 4 existing conditions of approval correct? Yeah. Yes.

For proposed conditions of approval wrote this. All right, that's efficient. Thank you.

I'll give a all right.

Is there a 2nd 2nd on that? Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded. to approve 26 modified CUP 0009 with the revisions as noted to the conditions of approval.

Roll call, please. Perkins? Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Ozos?

Yes.

Louise? Yes. Scott?

Yes.

Bond?

Yes. The modified CUP has been approved. Thank you. Next on the agenda is number 626 appeal 0005, which is an administrative appeal of a short term rental revocation.

Be done like this. All right ready ready.

Good afternoon again, Joe Abraman office of planning. So this is an administrative appeal of a decision by the planning director related to a short term rental revocation at 1305 East Washington street and go to the next slide. So, this appeal is a little different than some other appeals that come before the board and I just want to point that out. Um. Typically, anyone can appeal any zoning decision of an administrative official when it comes to the board. There's some exceptions, but most come to the board. And those are guided by KRS-100 and some provisions in our land development code. What's unique about this one is this decision wasn't just a zoning decision. It was also made in accordance with Louisville Metro Code of Ordinances, Chapter 115. And normally appeals of things in Metro Code do not come before the Board of Zoning Adjustment. They'll go before other agencies, typically the Code Enforcement Board, but there are some other agencies. But counsel on this particular issue empowered the board to act on appeals related to revocation decisions and 115 so that's what's different here other decisions don't have some added elements of being guided by metro code go to the next slide so the site is developed with the single family residence it's zoned r6 the annual registration And it's subject to a conditional use permit for short-term rental. I should note that first. And it was granted an annual registration. The annual registration was revoked because it had two substantiated complaints within one year. We loosely call that the two-strike rule. So the way Metro Code reads, this is in Metro Code Chapter 115, is upon discovery of two substantiated complaints, the planning director shall revoke a registration. So I'll get into that in a little bit more detail of what those substantiated complaints were, but that is why the planning director made his decision. I'll go on.

As you go forward, it might be helpful to talk about substantiated and what that means.

I'll get into that on a few slides. Thank you. But I will note this property is also subject to a conditional use permit. Today's hearing is only about the registration because they filed the appeal. So we held acting on the conditional use permit. If you decide to uphold the planning director's decision and revoke this registration, then we will initiate proceedings to revoke the conditional use permits, which is done in accordance with KRS-100 in a different um set of circumstances so we didn't want to kind of blend those two things we wanted to handle them in steps so just know that today you're not acting on the conditional use permit that will go through a revocation hearing process not through an appeal process you can go to next slide So here is the property. This is just for context. The zoning really doesn't matter too much for this decision, but just in case you're curious of the location and how it's zoned, you can see the area is kind of a mixed use area and has mixed zoning to reflect that. Next slide. Here is an aerial that just kind of shows you where the property is. Next slide. Here is an image of the property. This street is pretty treed, so it's kind of difficult to see back there, but it's shotgun style house. Butchertown next slide. So, from a technical perspective, as I mentioned, as required, it is a shall and Metro code when we discovered the 2 substantiated complaints, the planning director revoked. the registration for the property on June 29th, 2026. The letter cited two issues. The first was a party and a shooting that happened at that party that was being investigated by LMPD. That happened on June 22nd. And then there was a secondary complaint filed over trash issues on May 11th, 2026. Go to the next slide. So those are kind of undisputed facts, like there was a complaint filed over each of those issues. Well, not a complaint necessarily for the shooting. Somebody called in the police. But the staff findings, first is the planning director, as I mentioned, was required to revoke. The second is that the two complaints that I mentioned were within a 12-month period. The 1st complaint was criminal in nature. The 2nd was civil in nature. We just kind of have to differentiate those a little bit, but. The civil complaint, because there's an add on a civil complaint has to relate to the issues that are noted on the slide there and we found that they were related. to property maintenance or it was related to property maintenance so just in case you can't read that if it's a civil complaint it has to be related to building safety property maintenance nuisance health and sanitation fire electric plumbing and or mechanical code and then i'll just note that the appellant can clarify but i don't think they're necessarily disputing the incidents i think they have other arguments um but I don't think they're saying that the party and the shooting didn't happen at this property and that the photo and the staff report showing the trash container wasn't the property, but they can correct me if I'm wrong and go to the next slide. So I just will highlight a few things that are in the basis of appeal. I can clarify anything. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail, but these are things that I think might come up. So I just wanted to kind of get ahead of these and just get them onto the record. when we crafted the short-term rental ordinance they carefully chose the term substantiated complaint it wasn't just something that was put together very quickly we had meetings on what we tried what we wanted to do with the with the two strike rule and the term substantiated complaint was developed with the attorney's office it is not the same as a notice of violation or citation it can be those are confirmed complaints but substantiated was just there was enough evidence to cite it doesn't necessarily require the officer to have cited because officers have a lot of discretion when they go out to a site they don't always cite every time they see a violation. A lot of times they give time for people to come into compliance because that's their goal is to get compliance. So they might not feel it's necessary to issue that NOV or notice a violation or issue a citation. And then I'll just note just from a technical standpoint, why the board might have more latitude to determine if the penalty is appropriate in this case. planning director and the office of planning do not so a lot of the information in the appeal i think that you can consider but we couldn't consider it internally we looked at it were there two substantiated complaints did they happen within that 12-month period we had to revoke that's what the ordinance tells us to do and if they want to appeal they come before the board and i think they can make a broader case that the penalty isn't appropriate in that particular circumstance go to the next slide So just in regards to some of their findings about the trash complaint, that was not issued a notice of violation. So what happened there was the complaint came in. In that case, the person that filed the complaint provided a photo that showed a violation. Just due to the nature of that complaint, the officer didn't get out there right away. They got there a few days later and it was resolved. but the photo showed the complaint and the officer, according to the records, didn't leave a door hanger warning them that you shouldn't have overflowing trash bins on the street, but they decided not to issue a notice of violation, presumably because they didn't see the violation themselves and it had been corrected by the time they got out there. So they didn't feel it was necessary, but the photo substantiated the complaint. And again, a complaint does not necessarily have to be um subject to a notice of violation and a finding by the officer and again i mentioned on the penalty you can decide if the penalty is appropriate in this case and i would rely on laura because the ordinance is somewhat silent on that regard but the planning director it's clear did not have any authority to say that the two strikes weren't severe enough to have this hearing and i think that's it on this slide you can go to next so this always gets a little bit confusing the staff decision was to revoke the standing annual registration for short-term rental the appellant has appealed that decision so your decision is to affirm the staff's decision which is effectively denying the short-term rental use of the property, or you can overturn the staff decision, which would allow us to reinstate the short-term rental registration that they have on file. Be happy to answer any questions.

So it seems to be clear from your presentation that if a code enforcement officer receives a complaint, goes out, inspects the property, conducts an investigation, there is no requirement for them to leave. You mentioned a door hanger or any notification like that. In this case, they did have a photograph that could be considered substantiating the complaint. Is that correct?

Yes, when council put the ordinance together, they could have just said subject to a notice of violation or citation or enforcement action, formal enforcement action, but they chose the term substantiated complaint. So that means that they didn't necessarily have to take action on the violation. They just had to find that they could have taken action or that there was evidence to have taken action. And a better, although this one relates to a property maintenance solid waste issue, a better example where this could come into play is a noise complaint. Those are regularly filed LMPD, not code enforcement, respond to that. And they often, if the noise, if they turn the noise down and stop with the violation, they don't issue a ticket or whatever. It's still a substantiated complaint. The officer just chose not to take action.

And in this case, when the officer went out to inspect, there was no issue related. It had been cleaned up.

Based on the notes. I did not talk to the officer that inspected, but based on the notes and Excel, that would be what I would assume had happened.

All right. Members, any questions for staff?

Question? Then for clarification of the appeal here, This is not a permanent revocation. Is that correct? It's for either a period of time to be determined or a period of time of one year.

So I'll just premise this on the fact that we also got the conditional use issue, which comes into play, but a revocation is not permanent under the ordinance. It is effectively a one year ban. Um, if we follow up with the conditional use and revoke that they'd have to go back through that process again. And I don't know if you know what had happened there previously would influence the board's decision, but it would not be a permanent ban under the ordinance.

And again, the director is required to revoke the registration as soon as he or she

gets the information about the complaints and they're substantiated is that correct yeah and i'll just note that used to say may the initial short-term rental ordinance i believe said director may council updated that to shall because they didn't feel that administratively we should have that discretion and they wanted these appeals to come before the Board of Zoning adjustment instead of administratively to staff. I think that change occurred in 2023 if I'm mistaken, but it is a shall and that's an intentional use.

Thank you. Other questions?

This violation that occurred in May, the staff report says this is a weekly problem. So was this I mean, we've got a date of May 11th. Is that the only date it was substantiated? Because that reads to me like the trash has just been a continuing problem.

So the complaint in that final column is verbatim as it came in through 311 on that case. So I don't know. if it was um investigated anymore it wasn't and i only could go off what was in excela which is the permanent software they use to track property maintenance complaints. And I didn't see anything else in there related to any more inspections. Yeah, I would argue. And what made this one different, the May 11th one, was the inclusion of the photo, which allowed us to substantiate it.

Yeah.

I did not see any other photos.

Right. Saying it's a weekly problem unless you have that substantiated. It was substantiated on this one day, but as far as we have, we don't have anything else in the file that shows that it was substantiated on any other day.

And are there, there's city garbage pickup at this location. Is that right?

I believe so. Yes.

Do we know what day? I mean, was this put out the day before the garbage truck came or has this been sitting there for a week? And. The complaint said it occurs weekly. I mean, there's trash cans sitting there at the curb. Yes, they're overflowing, but...

I don't have an answer for that. The property owner may... The appellant's attorney believes that she can address that issue.

Okay.

Thank you. And the other substantiated complaint is because of the shooting, the criminal...

activity that I've heard and we don't have a lot of details on that because it's been investigated by LMPD but that was widely reported in the media it's very clear that that happened at this address and that would be a clear issue in addition to that immediately after that somebody did file a complaint through 311 although they did not need to I'm asking about how that affects the short-term rental approval okay

All right. Any other questions for staff? Thank you.

Chair Bond, appeals are a little bit different in the process. So we do have someone online who would like to speak in support of staff's position. So they should be heard next in the order before the appellant.

You have the speaker card for that person.

I don't know if we have a speaker card. Kyle, John, do you have a speaker card? We will.

He submitted online, so he wouldn't have a speaker card. All right. Sounds good.

Mr. John? Yes. Thank you. Name and address, please.

1301 East Washington.

Zip code?

40206.

Thank you. Would you raise your right hand? I'll swear you in. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

Yes.

Please proceed.

So I wanted to both bring our concerns and the Butchertown Neighborhood Association's former concerns. In the past, when they were applying for a conditional use permit at this address, we met and sent a letter to that case that as a majority, we were against this becoming a, um, what do you call it? Temporary, uh, rental proper property because we have one directly across the street from us at 1300 Washington street. And the character of these properties so close together is degrading the, the community of the neighborhood. Um, but despite that, it still became a short-term rental property. And then, um, pretty much persistently the trash has been full in front of that house. Um, it gets picked up, but it's constantly full and overflowing, uh, was one big issue we've had. And then beyond that, the night of the shooting, um, There was a party and I woke to gunshots and people spilling into our backyard, screaming for fear, panic, and running for their safety. They had to use our grills to jump over fences. And we just do not see the value of this property being a short-term rental. It should be long-term rental or something that helps build the community of Butchertown, you know, a very classically historic neighborhood that has a strong community of residents rather than intermittent people renting for very short amounts of time and leaving debris all over the property.

Do you have any questions?

I don't think there are any, well, any questions. You're speaking, you are not speaking in support of the appeal, correct?

No. That's why we took him right after Joe, is he speaking in support of the decision that was made by the director. Okay. All right.

I have a question since he lives so close. Did you say that the overflowing trash is a constant problem?

Yes, so the recycle and trash bins are picked up by the city, but they're left out, you know, seven days a week some weeks by the curb.

You mean after the trash is picked up, the cans are left by the curb?

Correct.

So is this short-term rental used almost weekly?

Depends. Usually we'll see the, that was another issue that was brought up as the parking. So we'll have, you know, three or four vehicles parked in front of our, our houses for whoever's in town for their rental period. I'm not familiar with how long they stay, but it seems either very short to maybe a few weeks tops.

All right. Thank you.

Absolutely.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. John.

All right.

Ms. Wade.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Name and address, please.

Emily Wade, Dinsbourne Stroll, 101 South 5th Street, 2500 Louisville, Kentucky, 40202.

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

Yes.

All right, you have 15 minutes for your presentation.

I have a presentation on there.

I'll just start on early.

Thank you. So I'm here on behalf of living new properties concerning the revocation of the short term rental registration at 1305 East Washington Street. We are requesting that the board reverse the revocation and reinstate the registration. This appeal involves an experienced short term rental operator with long history of successful short term rental management who experienced an isolated and unforeseeable incident caused by an unauthorized third party. Emily Musick is here with me today. She's with Live in Blue Properties and she has operated short-term rentals in Louisville since 2021. During that time, she's maintained Airbnb super host status, hosted thousands of guest stays, and she's always maintained written rules prohibiting parties, unauthorized guests, and disruptive conduct. Prior to June 2026, neither the property nor any of her other short-term rentals experienced a similar incident involving unauthorized gatherings or significant law enforcement involvement. This is just an aerial of the property. You can see it's in Butchertown. It's located near a lot of commercial areas that, you know, people who stay at the Airbnb would most likely walk to and visit while they're in Louisville. Next slide. And this is the Airbnb listing of the properties. You can see the interior of the site. The property consistently receives positive reviews and has no repeated violations or complaints suggesting irresponsible operation. And Miss Music takes compliance and neighborhood impact seriously and routinely declines or cancels reservations that present signs of unauthorized gathering or potential rule violations. The 2 complaints referenced in the letter of notice of replication include the unauthorized guest day that occurred on June 22nd and the waste management issue. We do not believe that either of these complaints should be considered as substantiated or as a result of improper management by miss music. And those are the house rules that are as part of the Airbnb listing. So the. Regulation as Mr. Haberman states provides that subject to 2 or more substantiated civil and or criminal complaints, the within a 12 month period, the registration will be revoked. I think that. I did not find a definition of substantiated complaints within the ordinances. So I think that the broad definition. That is included in the staff report raises serious due process concerns as we've noted with the waste management issues with those violations. We did not receive proper notice to comply or, um. Respond to those complaints once we did receive the door hanger notice for the overflowing trash, which I'll show you later in the slides. Emily music immediately corrected that issue. She now has 3 city issue trash cans at the site to deal with their trash problem. But it did take her 3 months to get those trash cans from the city. So she was dealing with. You know, working with the city to request those trash cans and receive them while also having her trash picked up and. Receiving these complaints, which she did not receive notice of the definition included in the staff report of the substantiated. Complaint is very is a very broad interpretation. and stating that in general terms, a substantiating complaint is a complaint supported by proof or evidence showing that a violation occurred and that not a formal enforcement action is required. Basically, any complaint could be interpreted as a substantiated complaint. So that really opens the gates to having Anyone file some sort of complaint and then registration being revoked without the due process of the applicant or of the owner of the short term rental having a chance to either address the violation that they're getting that they're being accused of. Or responding to that violation, we think that this interpretation should be rejected because. It effectively permits mandatory revocation of a registration to be triggered with allegations that have never been subjected to an adjudicatory process. It's been this, as we say, in the beginning, this is an administrative action and administrative appeal of the planning director's decision. And it's been recognized that administrative actions affecting a protected interest here would be the ability to. Operate a short term rental must provide procedural due process and that due process means a meaningful opportunity to be heard in the case of. the substantiated complaints listed in the letter of revocation, we did not receive notice and we were not given a chance to object to those complaints. The ordinance, as Mr. Haberman pointed out, says substantiated complaints. It doesn't say allegations or reports or calls or complaints to staff that the staff believes are credible and require revocation. I think that distinction is significant. If every complaint supported by evidence available to staff automatically qualifies without any formal determination of whether a violation actually can be occurred the word substantiated provides little meaningful protection to the operator of a short-term rental um So, the 2 of the yes, this, if you go back or this is the 1st 1. yeah. So this is the property maintenance notice that we received on May 18th. The letter of application is dated for May 11th, which again, we did not receive any notice of such complaint and we were not aware that it could be later relied upon for grounds of revocation of a short term rental registration. This is the complaint that was dated for May 18th of the overflowing trash and the use of a non metro issued container. Um, and to miss Lewis's points, both the 511 and 518 complaints were the day before trash pickup. So they were putting the, um. Trash containers out there the day before pickup with the intent of them being removed the next day. and they have a handyman that comes and takes that trash out and then also removes the containers from the street after the trash has been collected. The door hanger that was provided as notice for this violation didn't include any of the requirements for a citation that typically a code enforcement officer would include. It only includes the date of the violation and a general summary of the facts Surrounding the violation, but it doesn't offer any site to the ordinance that was violated the name and the address of the person who decided the physical address for the purpose premises of where the violation occurred. Like, I said, the section or code of the ordinance that was violated. So, we really other than the store hanger had no notice that the. Complaint related to the trash would be considered substantiated. Next slide again, this is the picture that we have from that May team state of the trash that was at issue. The second basis for the revocation was the June 22nd incident. In the course of Ms. Musick hosting thousands of stays, she's never experienced an incident comparable to this unauthorized stay. This is an isolated event, an extreme departure from her operating history. Unfortunately, the guest did not use the property as represented, and at 1.30 a.m., while the unauthorized individuals remained in the property, the guest canceled the reservation through the Airbnb platform, and thereafter, a large number of unauthorized individuals gathered at the property. This resulted in a police response to injuries from a non-fatal shooting. Again, Ms. Music did not authorize the gathering and did not know it was occurring and was not aware of the situation until law enforcement contacted her at 4.30 in the morning. She had no knowledge that this incident was going to occur and nothing in the reservation process or guest communications indicated to her that this would be used for an unlawful or unauthorized process. The reservation was accepted using the same screening practices that had been successfully utilized for thousands of prior guest days without incident. And importantly, the guest decision to cancel the reservation during the overnight hours while unauthorized individuals remained on the property further demonstrates the activity occurred outside of Ms. Music's knowledge and they were concealed from her rather than facilitated by her. Following the event, Miss Music fully cooperated with law enforcement and through the investigations, Airbnb also conducted their own investigation and removed the person that reserved the property for the stay from the platform. The investigation still remains ongoing. After the incident, she engaged with the neighbors community stakeholders, including Councilman can hurt in and to better understand the concerns and safety measures. She could implement to prevent similar occurrences in the future. And since it had since implemented those additional safeguards, including installations of a noise monitoring system and enhanced review of guests reservations. She also has implemented a policy of no one night stays in the current the properties currently operated or occupied by a long term rental arrangement. We definitely acknowledge that the June 22 incident was serious, but we asked the board to focus on whether this music operated the property responsibly. The evidence shows that she maintained rules prohibiting parties and use reasonable screening methods and cooperated fully after the incident and took steps to prevent the conduct in the future. Because the investigation remains ongoing and any criminal charges have not been yet resolved. We do not believe the incident can be fairly considered. Substantiated criminal complaint at this time, the instant reflects the actions of the unauthorized 3rd parties and not of this music. I believe the intent of the ordinance is to promote the responsible operation of the short term property owner and protect the surrounding neighborhoods. And when you look at the full record that has been provided here, we have a manager who has had a successful operation for almost 5 years. thousands of guest days with positive reviews, no histories of major incidents and an isolated incident that was caused by unauthorized third parties and an isolated trash maintenance issue that was immediately corrected once Miss Music became aware. And then The record shows that this was not a result of irresponsible operation by Ms. Music. It was a result of unauthorized individuals engaging in conducts that violated the owner's own rules and Airbnb's policies. She could not have reasonably anticipated that this would happen based on years of successful operation, and she's demonstrated a longstanding commitment to compliance and neighborhood safety and responsible management. For those reasons, we respectfully ask that the board reverse the revocation and reinstate the short-term rental registration. Alternatively, if the board believes that the conditions, additional conditions are appropriate, we would ask the board to consider a temporary suspension rather than a permanent revocation As Mr Haberman point out, if you all do revoke the registration, then we are barred from applying for a new registration for a year and then the conditional use permit will expire and we'll have to be requested. So there's no guarantee that she would be granted that conditional use permit and no guarantee that she would get a short term rental registration after that. So we don't feel that the permanent revocation of the registration that would lead to all those following events would be justified. under the responsible ownership Ms. Music has demonstrated. Again, with the substantiated complaint, I don't see a definition there that would clearly define what substantiated is. And by broadly considering any complaints submitted to this planning office as substantiated, that interpretation, I feel like violates due process that Ms. Music should be allowed to address and answer any violation that is considered substantiated against her property.

I thought I heard you say, but I might be wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, that there was no knowledge of the requirement or the possibility of revoking the registration if there were two substantiated complaints. Ms. Music was not aware of that?

No. I mean, obviously, we can all read the ordinances, but I feel like the... The vagueness of what a substantiated complaint is, and the fact that they're not required to give notice to the property owner, they don't have an opportunity to address the complaint and justify if it's substantiated or not. And as a staff report found after that 511 complaint, they went out and check the property, the, you know, they're basing it off a picture that somebody submitted. So there was no, there was also no further notice to me to miss music other than that door hanger on 518. That would Give Miss music an opportunity to address that violation and since that 518. Notification she has addressed that issue by ordering additional trash cans and then. Part of preparing for this appeal, I didn't open records request to try to understand the additional violations surrounding this property and the. Picture that was included in the staff report was not provided to me and, you know, I. She doesn't have any other notice of violations that were included with her file. So other than that door hanger, she had no reason to believe that she had any substantiated complaints against her property until she received that notice of revocation letter.

Does she claim this property between guests or does she have someone else do that? She hires that out. Go ahead.

Okay, I'll need to swear you in. Name and address, please.

Emily Music, 4005 Fox Meadow Way.