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 made 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 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.

Fortin. Present.

Ford.

Present.

Lewis. Present. Rodriguez.

Present.

Bond.

Present. We have a quorum. Staff, would you stand so that you can be sworn in? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

Yes.

Thank you. First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the August 31st, 2026 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting. Members, have you had an opportunity to review the minutes? Are there any corrections?

Is there a motion regarding the minutes?

Madam chair?

Yes.

Make a motion that we approve the minutes from the August 31st meeting as written.

Second. Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the minutes from the August 31st meeting. Roll call, please.

Horton?

Yes.

Rodriguez?

Abstain.

Lewis? Yes. Ford?

Yes.

Bond?

Yes. The minutes are approved. Next item is in business session, 26 CUP 0099. This case was continued. We're not taking new testimony today, but it was continued to allow a vote by the board on the proposed request. 26 CUP 0099. Yes.

A couple of housekeeping measures. First, we had continued it so that board member Rodriguez would have had a chance to watch the video.

Have you done that? Yes.

And then the other thing is in a perfect world, we'd have all seven of us here. We actually have five, but of the two people who are not here, one had voted yes and one had voted no. So we don't think it would change.

So I think we're okay to go ahead and move with a vote.

You don't want the tie decided because somebody wasn't there who wasn't there the last time. But since we're still at a split of two, two. And also, if you want to change your mind, you can.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Under the assumption that the other four still feel the same way. Confident in their votes and aren't planning to change.

Okay.

All right. We can change.

No, you can. We're just saying.

We're assuming you're not. But where we left off was based on your votes in the last meeting, there was a tie. Right.

Okay, so everybody has a copy. I'm sorry.

That was just going to say, just to be very clear, the vote that was taken last time was a tie, 3-3, right? And we didn't revote because all of the members said that they did not want to change their vote. You are welcome to change your vote if you have thought about it more and you have a different opinion. But if you do want to change your vote, we should continue the case so that all members are here. If you are not planning to change your vote from the last time, then we can proceed with Member Rodriguez as the tiebreaker.

Does that make sense? So we need to re-canvass the board for their vote?

It probably wouldn't hurt just to re-canvass to see if everybody still feels comfortable with where they were last meeting.

Okay.

All right. Do we need to restate the request? Are we good? Everybody has the staff report. Okay.

All right, right. So we can restate the request. So this is a request for a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit in our four zoning with relief from items B and J.

Can I ask a procedural question? I made the motion last time for approval. Member Scott is the one that seconded it and he's not here. It doesn't matter. We're gonna have a new motion. I know, but if no one changes the vote, my procedural question is the other one that voted yes was Chair Vaughn. Can she second? Yeah, Sharon can second, yeah. All right, thank you. So we need to restate the motion. Are you going to canvas first or you want a motion?

I think first we canvas to see if anybody is inclined to change their vote from the last meeting.

Okay, should we do a roll call?

You don't need to get to a formal vote. I mean, just if somebody thinks they're going to change their vote from last time, speak up. Otherwise, we'll assume the answer's no.

I'll say where I was.

Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. okay uh i will make a motion in the case of 26 cup 0 0 9 9 that we approve the request for the uh conditional use permit to allow the accessory dwelling unit a second and it would be including the conditions of approval including a modified condition three and with relief from b and j yes okay and the second's good with that yes okay

Roll call, please. Motion in a second.

Lewis? Yes. Horton?

Didn't sound like me. No.

Ford?

No.

Bond? Yes. Rodriguez? Yes.

The motion succeeds, and the conditional use permit has been approved.

Thank you.

Moving on to item three on the agenda, 26 variance 0104, Ms. Bills.

Good afternoon, Abby Bills, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. This is 26 variance 104 on Clay Avenue. This is a variance from land development code table 5.3.1 to allow two attached carports to encroach into the required minimum side yard setback of six feet and the required total side yard setback of 18 feet. So the requirement is six feet minimum, 18 feet total. The request is for three feet minimum with a total of 14 feet for a variance of three feet and four feet total. The site is approximately half an acre zoned R5 single family in the neighborhood form district. The applicant has constructed two attached carports to the residents. One carport is on either side. The carport on the west has the minimum setback of three feet, and then the east carport has a setback of 11 feet, which gives us the total of 14 feet. This is the site plan submitted by the applicant. The shaded regions titled new addition are both carports.

And then this is just an approximate area of the variance. This is the zoning map of the property. And then this is the aerial view.

And then this is the view of the subject property from Clay Avenue. As you can see, both carports are visible. And then the one on the right side is the larger one with the three foot setback. And the one on the left side is the smaller one with the 11 foot setback. And then these are just some adjacent properties to show neighborhood context along Clay Avenue. Staff finds that the variance will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare as the carports don't interfere with the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The variance will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity as there are other structures in the area that extend into side yard setbacks and strict application of the provision would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant as the carports have already been constructed and have been existing for at least three years. Staff finds that the request is adequately justified for approval and recommends that you approve the variance. And so your required action is to approve or deny the variance to allow both carports to encroach into the setback. Any questions?

Abby, could you tell us a little bit about are there other structures that are encroaching into the setbacks in the area?

Yeah, you can't see from the aerial because it's too zoomed in. But there are other houses that based on what we can see from logic have primary structure, part of the primary structure seemingly in that six and 18 foot total setback. Yeah, there's one right next to it. There's others down Clay Avenue as well.

Okay, thank you. Members, any questions?

I have just a clarifying question. So the setback on either side is supposed to be at least six feet.

The requirement is six feet minimum, 18 feet total. So yes, either side needs to be at least six feet. But if one side is going to be six feet, then the other side would actually need to be 12 feet because it has to add up to 18 feet total. So in this instance, if he's going to have one that's three feet away, the other one would have to be a minimum of 15 feet to make that total requirement. So that's what gets both sides. Yeah. Because the total does not add up to 18 feet. All right. Thank you.

Other questions for Miss bills. Thank you. I have a speaker card for Mr. Baldeon.

Do we need the interpreter for this?

He wants to declare anything good.

All been explained by the young lady.

Okay. All right. Basically, if you have questions.

Any questions for the applicant members?

No further questions. Thank you. All right.

That's the only speaker card that I have for this case. If there are Or is no one else who wishes to speak? I'll close the public hearing. We will move into deliberations on 26 variants 0104.

Any discussion?

If there are no questions on the proposed action is is there a motion?

Madam chair, yes, please motion.

Yeah guarding 26 variance 0, 1, 0, 4, make a motion to approve based on the standards of review and the staff analysis and the testimony that we've heard in today's open hearing.

Is there a second?

Second Rodriguez.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the variance 26 26 variance 0104 roll call please.

Yes, Rodriguez, yes, Ford. Yes, Lewis. Yes, Bond.

Yes, the variance has been approved. Thank you.

Chair Bond, do you want to take 90 seconds, two minutes to collect the translation equipment?

Yes, thank you. Yes, of course. Thank you. We're waiting, Mr. Roger, I guess.

Yeah.

Alright, next is case 26 variance 86 on Mayfair Lane. This is two variance requests. First is a request to allow a proposed addition to encroach in the street side yard setback of 15 feet. The request is for seven feet making a variance of eight feet. The second request is a variance to allow the residents to occupy more than 30% of the required rear yard. The request is for 50% occupation for a variance of 20%. The site is approximately 0.4 acres zoned R5 single family in the neighborhood form district and the applicant is proposing to construct an 880 foot square foot addition to the existing residence and a pool. This is the site plan given by the applicant. You can see highlighted in red that's the area of the new addition. And then this is the area of the variance in yellow is the street side yard setback encroachment. And then in green is the area of the total existing residents that will now be in the rear yard setback. And that total is over 30% of the area. And then these are just some elevations of the addition provided by the applicant. And then this is the zoning map. This is the aerial view. The addition will be on that bottom South corner. This is a view of the subject property from Mayfair Lane on the front yard. And then this is the view of the street side yard on Basswood Lane. The addition will be behind this fence. And then these are just some adjacent properties across Basswood Lane and then properties along Mayfair Lane. Staff finds that neither variance request will adversely affect public health, safety or welfare as the addition will be internal to the site and screened from view. Both variances will maintain the character of the general vicinity and will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the regulation and strict application of both provisions would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land. So staff recommends or yes, staff finds that both requests are adequately justified for approval and recommends that you approve both variances. So your required actions are to approve the variance to allow the addition to encroach in the street side yard setback, and then to allow the very or approve or deny the variance to allow the residents to occupy more than 30% of the rear yard.

And it's at 50%, right? Yes, it's at 50%. Okay. All right.

Questions for staff? Thank you. I have a speaker card for chip north. Good afternoon.

Hi, I'm Chip North. Good morning. I'm representing Mr. and Mrs. Andy Vine, the homeowners. Okay, your address, please.

Oh, sorry.

My address is 3110 Lexington Road in the rear, and that's Louisville, Kentucky, 40206.

Mr. North, do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

I do. Please proceed. I'm just here to represent the owners. They hired Northwell, my firm, to prepare architectural drawings for a small edition. And I'm just here to answer any questions you may have.

Members, questions for Mr. North. Any questions? Don't believe there are any. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

That is the only speaker card that I have for this case. So at this point, I will close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations on 26 variants 0086.

You can take both variances together in the same motion.

All right. Is there a motion? members or is there a need for additional discussion?

Madam Chair? Yes. Forward. I make the motion that we approve both variances for the 26-variance-0086 based on the testimony we've heard today, the staff report and the staff review.

Is there a second? Second, Horton.

Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve both variances related to 26 variance 0086. Roll call, please. Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Lewis? Yes. Rodriguez?

Yes.

Bond?

Yes, the variances have been approved. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, 26 variance, 0, 100.

Tyler good afternoon. It's the office of planning for for South 5th street for 202. Here talk about 26 variance 100. This is a variance request from the land development code to allow an accessory structure to encroach into the street side yard infill setback. The required infill setback is 48 feet. The requested setback is 16 feet for a variance of 32 feet. This is R4 residential in a bid form. It's approximately a quarter of an acre corner lot. It is proposing to construct a 832 square foot detached garage facing Millvale Road. Uh, as you can see in the top of the screen is the proposed where the detached garage would go and the bottom is where the current houses is the variance is a bit approximately where the variance being requested.

Here's the elevations. The zoning is residential is the aerial.

This is the existing building from Douglas Boulevard. And then this is a view from Millville Road. This is adjacent property where one of the buildings that's setting the infill setback.

And this is across Millville Road.

Uh, the garage will align with the existing primary structure along Millville road, uh, 48 foot infill setback. It limits the garage placement, uh, given the width of the property, the garage will maintain the approximately 16 feet from Millville, uh, real property line and no anticipated site line impacts, uh, to Douglas or mobile. So, I find the request is adequately justified and recommends approval to the variance. It will required action is approve or deny the variance from the development code to allow accessory structure to encroach to the street yard infill setback with setback is 48 feet requested. Setback is 16 feet for 32 feet. We did have 1 neighbor call us with concerns about the driveway. That is. The variance here today is about the garage placement and the transportation public works deals with improvements. Okay. Location and driveways.

Okay. Members, any questions on that? Our focus today.

I have a question. It doesn't appear from this aerial photograph there's sidewalks. Is that? There's no sidewalks. There's no sidewalks. Okay. And can you go back to the, go back a couple more to the renderings? Yeah. Yeah. There. So.

So I'm trying to figure out how it sits on the lot. Where does it dip down?

Is it towards the house or towards the left elevation? Left elevation.

It goes up? Is that where? Yeah, so the dip down would be towards the street, because it's kind of on a hill. The topography is a little bit of a hill. Yeah, it's right there. It kind of goes up. Okay.

All right, and you said transportation had no issues with the placement?

Talking to transportation, they are saying that they're willing to approve the question permit of location where they're proposing.

Okay, thank you.

So it's the 68-foot width along Millvale that limits the available space to construct a garage? Correct.

The lot, if you go back to the zoning, probably, you can see that the infill is set by the lots on the right. So the houses are set back quite a distance compared to Douglas Boulevard.

Okay.

All right. For an order of the garage, you get closer to the property line, it's not feasible.

Okay.

Members questions for staff.

And I think you could if you go back to that picture, that aerial you can see where that house ends at the bottom. Oh, yeah, that's that's where the infill would require you to go. Okay. Okay.

All right. That's helpful. Thank you. I have a speaker card for Kendall Herdland, the applicant. Good afternoon.

Name and address, please.

Kendall Herdland, 2318 Douglas Boulevard, Louisville, Kentucky, 40205.

Mr. Herland, do you swear that the testimony, raise your right hand, please. You swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth.

Yes. You have 15 minutes. I didn't prepare perfectly. I didn't really have anything to add to it. I just filled that out in case I needed to answer back with any questions or anything.

So there's nothing further for the board for consideration. Okay. All right, members, any questions before Mr. Herland takes his seat? Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Herland. I do have two speaker cards for individuals in opposition. So after their testimony, you do have five minutes for rebuttal.

Thank you. All right. I have a speaker card for Axton. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Name and address, please. RT Axton, 2192 Millvale.

Mr. Axton, do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth? Yes. Please proceed.

I hate to say I'm in opposition. I just have questions. And maybe I'm leaning toward opposition. The street is narrow. There are no sidewalks. We currently have a number of properties under construction with traffic construction. It's a very narrow street. this would be out of character i think the garage construction that close to the detached and this close to a neighbor you're you have an elevation check the street goes up significantly i just don't think it works Now I'm all for people improving their homes. You all have a difficult job. You have my sympathy when it comes to these cases at times. I just think this needs a little more time and study and I would suggest that if you want us to present more pictures I didn't really bring anything with me at this point in time, but I think I could bring to your staff at least more pictures of the area that might help understand my concerns. We have utility poles that are right on the street now, and it's probably a road that, like a lot of in Louisville, were meant to be more of alleys or access roads rather than traditional streets. Again, Aesthetically, I don't think it'll work. But having said that, I'm not an architect. So I'm sure I'm just dubious at this stage.

You're also on Milldale.

Yes, ma'am.

Members, any you've heard Mr. Axton's testimony. Any questions? Any clarifications needed for Mr. Axton?

I guess I have one question. Have you read the staff report and the analysis done by the staff?

No, ma'am. Okay. I read whatever was on your website. If that was it, I've read it, but I don't recall it as being a staff report.

Okay.

The staff report should have been posted. Then I've read that. I've misspoken.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr shishmanian very nice pronunciation.

Thank you, sir.

2219 millville road little Kentucky 402. 05.

He's where the testimony about to give today is the truth I do please proceed.

Thanks you have a beautiful picture of my house, I'm literally across the street. So that house that was driveway going straight up that's my house lived there for 20 years now. The reason why I'm concerned is primarily a couple different topics one is it's across the street from my driveway where The drawings have shown he's not putting it next to his house. He's putting it all the way to the end of the property, which puts the driveway directly across my driveway. If you go up Millvale or in that area, driveways are not facing each other. They're staggered, as most developments are, right? It's a safety issue for me. I have a 96-year-old mother who still drives. And so she backs out of the driveway. If that driveway is directly across, it's a big concern for me. Second, the location doesn't make sense to me. Why are we putting it all the way to left property line when that hillside is like this? It's literally being retained by 2 retaining walls. 1 of which is already damaged. So, I'm concerned about when the foundation of this garage goes in how they're going to retain that. It doesn't level off. It continues to go up. In elevation across multiple houses to the left of his property. Uh, so I'm concerned about that. Um, and, you know, I've measured the road across and in some places, uh, I believe that the audience ordinance says 20 feet is wide enough for the road. And in some places, Millville road is not 20 feet. So, I'm concerned about the width of the road and another driveway coming out on that location. So he's gonna have a driveway on the right side of his property and a driveway on the left side of his property. Um. The garage is closer to the street than the original garage of the house was so that's to the to the prior speakers, you know, the neighborhood is, it doesn't fit in to the same style of the neighborhood. Um. The other concern I have is that the, the, they have young children and I love the kids. I just don't want them that close to the street. And there's, there's a, there's a playground that's literally right next to the street on the corner of Millville and Douglas. Which is a very big concern for me, because I think we're talking 6 feet to the street from the playground and that's really close. And so I've mentioned it to the property owner and said, I just think it's really dangerous because people come down into that intersection, including the police at high speeds. The lights blaring, they're turning the corner. They're not stopping at the stop sign, they're on a call, they're going through the- Where's the playground, sir? I shouldn't say it, call it a playground. He put up playground equipment, like slides and toys and stuff like that for the kids. In his yard? Yes, in his yard. But it's in the, I think the setback for anything is supposed to be five feet or even further from Douglas. I thought it was 15 feet from Douglas. This is on the Douglas side and it's six feet from the street. So it's a concern of mine. Um, also the removal of the tree, there was a tree there. What you didn't think it's in the pictures that I saw there was 2 trees 1 on his property. 1 is next door neighbors. Both trees have been taken down the last 30 days. So there's also a massive change to the canopy of the area and also the tree, the trees are gone. So, I also have concerns around the. foliage, tree coverage, shade in the area has completely changed with the removal of both those trees.

And those trees are on the applicant's property?

I believe that both of them are on your one of them was on your property. One was next door. Okay. 1 was right on the property line next door and 1 was on his property. Where the garage is proposed to go is where the tree was. So, I think that's what he was taking it out for and for preparation of the, but I don't see anything on the plans or in the documents or on the website that indicates are going to be putting back trees or putting back shrubbery or anything like that. I know when I did my variance on my property, I had to put, I had to guarantee that those trees would be maintained. I had to put new shrubbery in place to maintain the look and feel. I expanded my house on the Douglas side of the street, and I had a variance for, I think, two feet. And so I had to make sure that those tree lines did not change and that the property was, you know, from people driving down the street wouldn't have noticed at all. Okay.

Okay. And I did ask Mr. Budinsky at the beginning of his presentation to clarify for us. Department of Transportation will look at this. I'm speaking specifically about the driveways and the location of the driveway across the street. And if there is an issue, They will require that that be addressed. Is that correct?

Correct. So that obviously doesn't stop here. The variance is for the garage and then the encroachment permit. I'm not in that office, but they still have to go through department transportation and get that approved.

So, I just think it's a real safety issue to have 2 driveways coming together opposite each other. It's just and my. My, I had the conversation with the owner and I said, if you put the, the, the garage next to your building. Right so actually be closer for you to walk to in the snow and in the winter and rain and all that the drive, we would then be offset. It wouldn't be directly across from my driveway, but that's not what he's proposing here. So.

Want to make those okay. Okay. All right. All right. Members any questions based on testimony.

Did we have a site plan in that presentation? Could you just put it back up there while we're discussing this?

Yeah.

Can you make that any bigger? At least the area where the garage is. If you have to hone in on something.

Because I can pull it up.

I think, yeah, I think that's okay. Yes, so it lines up.

With the house was that a requirement I was looking through the staff analysis to.

No, it's not a requirement that it lines up with the house. That's their own choice.

So the street yard setback is 15 feet. However, for garages facing the street, it's 25 feet. So they would regardless have to come here for the garage anyways for 25 feet. If the infill didn't apply. But if it was just a normal building, they would have met the setback.

but it's not in line with the house. It's in line with the addition on the front of the house. If you see that porch addition there.

Yeah, but that's still, that's still part of the house or the principal structure.

Okay. My other question is, and this then show it and Tyler, I don't know if you know this, but I'm hearing folks talk about the width of the road. What's the width of the right away. Do we know that?

50 feet is the width of the right-of-way.

Okay.

But I don't know if that's pavement width, but that's the right-of-way.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I'm sure it's not pavement width, but there is a 50-foot right-of-way there.

Yes.

And that measurement of 16 feet is from the right-of-way. It would have been from the right-of-way line, yeah. All right, thank you. If you'd just leave that up there.

I'd appreciate it.

Is that driveway going to be straight.

That setback is from the property line.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Okay. All right members, any other questions? And we'll call the applicant back up.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Herdland, you've heard the opposition testimony.

You have five minutes for a rebuttal. All right. Explanation.

To answer their questions first and then Ural's questions, if you haven't. For look and feel, if that is the major concern, the garage will be built as best can matching brick to the house. and the the way the uh sunroom also uh is formed it has a uh hardy board with a diamond on the top just to add to that it kind of shows it in your uh the elevation photo it shows that it'll match uh the front facade brick all the way around um for the second uh opposition the i'll cover tree first tree was coming down uh A big storm knocked the tree down already. We were skeptical and we bought the house. It was leaning looked like a healthy tree, but leaning nonetheless towards our kids bedroom. So we decided to take it down would have come down regardless of how this turned out. I'm aware that oftentimes we have to replant a tree when it's in that right of way area. Planning to do that, um, the retaining wall situation from the garage, uh, since we pushed it this far back, um, there's a fence line. Where you see the build line, uh, and going back there is a retaining wall that is already leaning maybe due to when that tree fell prior to us, uh, buying it. So we will be, there'll be, I think they're called stem walls or leaf walls coming off the garage to replace the rear retaining wall and replace the retaining wall in the front where there currently is 1. so as they remove it to build it, we will make sure that the land can't move towards the house towards our garage to preserve. That area. safety concern wise, talking with Beth Stuber, we had unofficial approval for the cutout. We are going through those formal application as now she comes back today.

I'm sorry, Ms. Stuber with Public Works, just clarify.

Sorry, yes. So she is, I think she comes back to work today. in talking to her and through email um that is kind of where she has could you repeat where she is i'm sorry i was out of office for two weeks right i understand that but her position was approval but you've not seen anything it's just based on your discussion with her yes ma'am yes um that comes from there are a lot of houses in the area that have semicircle drives if we were to do that we would cut through the front of our yard maybe disturbing the way the house is um set up so we'd have to build retaining wall um so that is why i think she was allowing for the secondary drive to be cut out over there as far as the driveway angle goes um I don't think it can goes straight. I'm not entirely sure what happens when it enters the right away. Uh, or if it has to maintain the angle of the property line. Um, but we will abide by whatever that rule is. Um. uh ford's position for that side as well this is what we found to be the best preserve as much of the land as possible as well to have 20 feet from our neighbor behind us and in between the house preserve grass if we push it up against us we create this awkward green space where there is kind of a retaining wall useless kind of space various it creates maybe a 10-foot grass strip area over there that then has to become bigger because we still have to readdress the retaining wall situation. So that would be all.

So where will your drive entrance match up with the gentleman that lives across from you? Is it dead center to the right or to the left, or do you know?

I'd say 80% to 90% of an overlap of... up and down and it would it would depend on if the driveway has to come off at an angle or go straight if it goes straight it will be barely maybe two to three feet difference between um overlap but if it does go at an angle that would increase as it i don't know what the math would be but it would definitely change that overlap area

Is the highway department or anybody talk to you about that?

No, I called up Public Works when we started this and when I talked to the counterpart there, she just gave it, she said she'll take it under consideration and then when we were emailing back and forth, when we submitted our first application for this, she emailed me to just officially send in the application for the cutout. So, That's my only contact there.

Subject to transportation review and approval.

I just wanted to, yeah, that has not occurred, has it?

No. Not to this point. Not been finalized.

Application is submitted. That's all I got. Okay. Thank you. Of course.

I don't think driveways across from each other are unusual, though, especially with a 50-foot right-of-way.

i don't know about you know direct overlaps there are a lot of driveways on millvale that do overlap i don't know if a percentage matters or what that percentage would be if you were to break it down that way but

I have a question for Tyler Tyler is the driveway issue. Is that part of the building permit or is that a separate permit through transportation as a separate permit to transportation okay, and he's applied for it. But yes, okay, all right and depend on whether that's approved or not. You'll have to deal with it correct correct okay, thank you.

Anything else Mister her then.

Thank you. I believe that's it. All right. We've heard from everyone who submitted a speaker's card. At this point, I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations by the board on 26 variants 0100. Members, you've heard the proposed action and the testimony related to that. Is there additional discussion?

Any clarifications needed on the proposal?

Anyone ready to make a motion? I don't make motion. Yes, please.

I move to approve case number 26 fairings 01 00 based on the staff report and testimony from the applicant for today.

Thank you. Is there a second second forward? It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 variants 0-100. Roll call, please.

Horton?

Yes.

Rodriguez?

Yes.

Ford?

Yes.

Lewis? Yes. Bond?

Yes. The variance has been approved. Next item on the agenda is 26 variants 0-1-0-1, Sydney.

Sidney Fawcett, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, 40202. This is 26 variant 0101. Other request today is a variance from LDC section 5.4 to reduce the private yard area to zero square feet. The requirement is 300 square feet. Again, request is zero square feet for a variance of 300 square feet. The site is about 0.11 acres zoned R6 multifamily residential in the traditional neighborhood form. The site is currently developed with a single family residence with a detached garage in the rear but the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to connect those two structures. The site is also within the butcher town historic preservation district and the applicant has obtained a certificate of appropriateness for this proposed work. This is the site plan. And then highlighted in green is where that private yard area is supposed to go. This is a zoning map, again, R6. This is an aerial view of the subject site. This is from Franklin Street. And this is some adjacent property across Franklin Street. The request of variance is adequately justified based on the analysis contained in the standard of review. The proposed addition is compatible with development in the surrounding area. And as I stated previously, they have already obtained a COA for the proposed construction. Staff finds the justification is adequate and recommends that the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the request. And then your required action today is to approve or deny the variance. Any questions? Sydney, is the private yard area currently less than what is required? I believe so. I don't have like an exact measurement. If it's not below, it's probably right at 300 square feet. It's not a lot of distance between those two structures.

Okay.

I thought I read where it was below, but I just wanted to make sure.

I just wanted to make certain. Additionally, the site does not provide the 300 square feet of private yard.

Yeah, you're looking, Chair Bond, you were looking at page two, which said, additionally, the subject site currently does not provide the 300 square feet of private yard area.

Thank you.

That's where you saw that.

Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Any questions for staff?

Is this a multifamily structure or is it just multifamily zoning?

It's multifamily zoning as far as I believe it is just a single family structure.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you.

I don't have any speaker cards related to this case is the applicant in the courtroom or their representative and do you wish to speak?

I don't believe we have a speaker card for you.

So we'll need 1 before you leave. Sure. All right. Name and address, please.

My name is Brad Titzer, 930 Franklin Street, 40206 in Butchertown, just down the street from here, representing architectural artisans. In the pictures that you have. You swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth. I do.

And you represent the architect, is that correct? Correct. Okay, yeah, please proceed.

Okay, so there is a little bit of room between the building currently and the garage. It's about 196 square feet, so it doesn't really show that on the plans. There's a lot of room in the front of the house, on the side of the house, and there still will be room between the proposed addition that's on the side. And the garage itself, which comes out, it comes out to almost 200 square feet also. And there's room right just beside the garage as well. So I just want to make sure that that was actually clear on there. So it's not zero. It's not zero square feet that will be there. There is still some.

Yeah. What he means is there's green space, but it's not in the places where it's counted towards the calculator.

Except for the nearly 200 square feet that will be in between the, in between the sunroom and the garage. according to who I spoke to at planning.

But there's not 200 feet that will be remaining for private yard area, correct?

Again, like Laura said, not for how it's calculated, because usually private yard area is a space in between a principal structure and accessory. So now since they're proposing to connect them, there's not what we would consider private yard area. There may still be yard space, but it would not count towards that private yard area requirement. Okay, okay.

regardless it wouldn't be enough anyway we still write this right yeah yeah good point thank you okay members any questions or the architect is this a single-family home it is other questions all right I believe that's all the questions thank you thank you all right members I'll close the public hearing at this point. And we'll move into deliberations on 26 variance 0101 911 Franklin Street. And the focus is the reduction in private yard area, proposed private yard area of zero square feet. This is considering the private the area that we can consider from a variance of 300 square feet. Is there any discussion?

based on the staff report based on the testimony. Is there a motion?

I will make a motion that we approve variance 26 variance 01-01 based on the staff report analysis and testimony we've heard today.

Is there a second? Second, Ford. Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 variance 0101. Roll call, please.

Horton.

Yes.

Lewis. Yes. Ford.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bond.

Yes. The variance has been approved. Thank you. Next is 26 variance 0106.

Hello, all. I'm Drake Watson, Office of Planning Staff, 4444. One moment, please.

Yep, absolutely.

All right, Drake, please continue.

Sorry, um, uh, Derek Watson office of planning staff for for for South Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. um, my applicant has requested that this case be continued until October 5th, 2026 based on public comment they've received. They would like to obtain their own structural engineer report for this. wall they have in their yard um the there is representative of the applicant that is here today to answering questions if you all would wish and there's also individuals who would like to speak on this case's public comment as well

So what we can do is if you would like to grant the continuance, we can offer the option to hear public testimony today from those that are in attendance. That way they don't have to necessarily return on October 5th if they don't want to.

Right. And if they, you know, it would be ideal if they don't think they will be able to attend on the 5th to speak today, because if they speak today and then they see the updated report, they may want to speak again. So, yes, correct. They're going to if they think they're going to speak on the 5th, they should hold off till then. But if they think they can't. We should take their testimony.

Okay. All right. So we need to hear from, um. From the opposition then about whether you choose to. to offer your testimony today, which means you may be offering it two times because yeah, because if the case is continued, if you hear additional testimony, which prompts you to want to add to your testimony, then that could could require you to be here for for two sessions. So all right, so we leave that to you.

What What do you prefer?

I would like to testify today.

Okay. All right.

Yes, that's fine. That's perfectly fine. Thank you. Are you both going to speak?

Yes, separately, but he's.

Okay, so you have 15 minutes for your presentation.

Well, actually, we have a representative, I believe on the phone, and I don't know if she wants to speak.

1st, do you know what the individual's name is?

Yeah.

Hello, can you hear me?

Just one moment, please, ma'am. So we have 15 minutes for the individual speaking in opposition and then three minutes for any addition.

It seems like they're all together. So let's see how we do with 15 minutes for the collective. And if we need to add a little more time at the end, we can.

Okay, all right. All right, who wishes to speak first?

Hi, there's Nadia Fakhar on the line. Can you hear me?

I can barely hear you. Could you speak up a little bit, please?

Yes. How about now?

Now is better. You're able to turn your camera on.

I would like to. I do not see an option to do so, though.

Okay.

There should be a button at the bottom of the screen that says start video.

Okay. I'm trying to do that.

There we go.

amazing thank you can you see me all perfect we can thank you very much all right and would you give me your name and address again yes yes I can give it to you now okay Nadia Fakar I'm an attorney at the law firm Vaughn and Smith I'm actually with the two members that just stood up and our address is 201 Thierman Lane Louisville 40207 for the record thank you would you raise your right hand do you do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth I do

Please.

So, we were not aware, obviously, that this was going to be stayed, but I think our points will remain in spite of that. And we would like to speak again if we're all available. But I think the main issue is that the mandatory findings under can't be made. I'm not, you know, obviously the staff report might change or will change most likely based on the changes that are going to occur before now on October 3rd or 4th or whatever it was. But I think there's some fundamental findings under that statute that just aren't going to be able to be made regardless. So we'll reiterate if we have to at the future hearing. But the staff report, as I read it previously, did not take into consideration or didn't have the benefit of some documents that were necessary. One moment. Can everybody hear?

No, it's kind of it's a little bit difficult to hear. Maybe not. Don't talk quite so fast. Yeah.

Okay.

We don't we don't want to miss anything you're saying.

Okay. Is the volume an issue though?

It may be a volume.

If you could turn up the volume a little bit, that would probably help.

okay and yeah about now and there's 13 minutes and 54 seconds left for opposition testimony please proceed right okay so just to give the board a bit of a background um there was a coa issued for this wall as a four foot stone base and a three foot wooden topper the total was supposed to be seven feet it was not characterized as a retaining wall in any of that documentation and any permitting um move forward to july the city inspected and issued two stop work orders Those were July 13th and July 21st. And the city cited that it needed overlay approval and that the height exceeded the COA that it was approved for. Keep in mind that was July. And since then, the applicants have clearly continued work. So in light of that, my clients who are present became personally involved. That's also where I become involved. And are we still getting on my volume?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

My client's had an engineer come out to inspect the wall. He has a report, which I've submitted and I think has prompted needing the additional structural engineer. But long story short, that report's been attached. He's found risk of collapse onto the client's property and their persons due to the build of it. And he cited those concerns as well as code concerns that it's not compliant with. Since then, we've had a court issue a restraining order to restrain any further work on this wall. That order is in effect as of today. And as of last week, the city's construction review has also again halted work and has put caution tape now on the wall as well. Just so I just give you a little bit of the background of the wall not being built to any standard that it was supposed to be. Safety standard, it has numerous defects and it was continued to be built in spite of the city stop work orders. So, in so many words, I want to express to you that the height variance that they're asking for has been there in place for, you know, a matter of months as of from the date of this hearing. And then just to touch on the KRS 100.243 requisite findings, I think subsection two requires denial because that's the language that says the board shall deny a variance arising from circumstances that are the result of willful violations. I think that's exactly the case. The staff report notes that this is an after the fact wall. Beyond that, the applicant has obviously continued work beyond the city stop work. orders and has cited expressly that the height was an issue on that. And despite that, the work continued. And I think the legislative intent in saying shall of subsection two appears to prevent the whole concept of, you know, just do it and ask for permission later. And I think that's exactly what's happened. So I'd ask the board to consider that language. And as for the other findings, you know, safety, character, unnecessary hardship, In the staff report, this was treated as a retaining wall. Again, I'm not aware that this was permitted as one or whether the applicant held it out to be one. If I'm mistaken, it is actually a retaining wall. I think that changes the landscape of this conversation entirely. Because it is over four feet, residential code would kick in. Kentucky Residential Code R404.4 would require this to have... permitted plans that are signed by an engineer and sealed or signed by an engineer. It does not have that as of today. So I think this whole conversation is premature, obviously, until that engineer comes into play. And it would also create an issue of a wall being built after the fact that would need those plans. Another comment that the staff report made was that there was no public safety issue because of the distance of the wall from the street, saying that it was about 100 feet from the street. Again, I don't think the staff had the benefit of that engineering report at that time, which calls it a collapse hazard. And I also want to note for the board's consideration that the way this wall is constructed, it is right next to a pathway on my client's yard, which is the rear access. The mailbox is there, so the mail carrier is using that six days a week, landscapers, guests, my clients themselves. So that wall is being directly walked next to, you know, on a daily, if not weekly, on a weekly, if not daily basis. So I think there is a very real safety issue currently. Another comment that the staff report as well as the applicant's justification letter makes is the nearby retaining walls. I just want to note to the board that all of those walls are in the report themselves cited as five feet. So I think that justification falls short of explaining to the board why a variance of nine and a half feet is needed apart from the self-created circumstance of creating a nine and a half feet wall. I think the applicant cites a harm to children if they were to climb it. That seems very improbable to me, but I would note that for decades this was a five foot chain link fence before it was constructed into its current condition and climbing has never been an issue and my clients can testify to that further. Another comment that the staff report makes is that hardship was necessary due to the grade or undue hardship would be caused due to the grade of this land. Again, there was a chain link fence there for decades. So I think if the applicants in doing their construction work have altered the grade of this land to make a nine and a half foot wall necessary, that would be a self-made hardship and not something that would be necessarily unique or unique to the character of the land. So and one other comment the staff makes is that height variance is not the same as a building permit and that in granting the height variance it would not be granting the wall, the building of the wall itself. But these types of walls, especially at scale, are not built in vacuums. And I think the height directly, you know, there's structural considerations that are in play there. I'm not an engineer, but I think that that height and that plan, the planning that is taking place by the builder of this wall, an engineer that would need to look at this wall, they have to consider the height. So again, it's just These things kind of go in tandem, and they can't be looked at in a vacuum. And if the board approves this additional height, which already exists after the stop work order during an active restraining order, I think it will really run the risk that their variance will just be used as a blessing to finish this wall. And that's all.

Thank you. All right, Ms. Esposito. Name and address, please.

Lori Esposito, 1416 Cherokee Road, Louisville, 40204.

Ms. Esposito, do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

I do.

Please proceed.

1, 1 moment, we're fine with the presentation just move it closer to there because that'll catch it on our camera. No, no, no, you're fine. Just right by the podium. No, you're good. Just right by the podiums. Yes.

So I sent the file to Mr Watson. You should receive that. Thank you.

Some of this, I may need to swear.

Yes, wear them both in. Yeah.

All right, sir name and address please.

Joseph.

You swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth. All right, please proceed. Thank you.

Hi, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Lori Esposito. I live at 1416 Cherokee Road with my husband, Joseph DePete. We've been a part of the Cherokee Triangle community for 26 years and have owned our home for 20 years. Our house in 1418 Cherokee Road, our sister home, was built in 1928. When we purchased our home in 2006, we undertook a 2 year restoration and renovation to preserve its original architecture and historic character. We've made a significant investment in our home and in preserving the character of our historic neighborhood. We have followed the rules that protect the Cherokee triangle and those rules should. Same rules should apply here. I understand today's meeting concerns a variance, but I can't separate that request from the structure that was already constructed and exists today. We're dealing with a wall approximately nine and a half feet high and 87 feet long with its closest point just over four feet from our house. This is not a minor landscape feature. It is an imposing non-engineered structure that fundamentally changes the character of our historic property and has no historic significance. Its height, size and appearance are inconsistent with the established character of the Cherokee triangle and significantly changes the character and look of our property. When I sent a friend a picture of me standing in front of this massive wall, he wrote back and said, isn't it customary to blindfold you and put a cigarette in your mouth prior to your execution? This is an observation and it's not complimentary. I don't understand how anybody can look at these pictures and with a straight face say that this does not alter the essential character of the general vicinity. This project has been ongoing since January and has taken a significant toll personally on both my husband and me. I travel extensively for work and instead of looking forward to coming home, I dread it. I no longer enjoy being at my home, a place that was once a source of pride and comfort now feels completely different. I literally feel like I've been imprisoned. The wall is constantly visible from our home and has completely changed the way we experience and enjoy our property. We also believe it has negatively impacted our property's value. The reaction from virtually everyone who sees the wall for the first time is immediate. Oh my God, I can't believe how big this is. No one person has told me this structure enhances our home or the neighborhood. The reaction has been exactly the opposite. This is not a simple disagreement over a fence, its color, or its style. It's about an intrusive structure imposed on us that fundamentally altered our property, our quality of life, and our safety. A licensed professional engineer determined the wall is unsafe and unsalvageable and recommends its removal. Please do not reward construction that occurred outside the approved process by granting approval after the fact. And we respectfully ask that the board denies the variance. And we understand we'll be back in October. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Those are all the speaker cards I have for this.

I should have one. I have a separate one. Okay.

Oh, I do have it. I do have it. Yes. Thank you. All right. So the action before us is it?

Well, we wanted to see if he had anything to add.

Sorry, Mr. DePete, please continue your testimony.

Yes. Do you need me to swear it again?

Yes. Okay. I do. And I will. You swear the testimony.

He was already sworn in. He could just go.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Joseph DePete. You just heard from my wife, Lori. has been ongoing for nine long months and has had a significant impact on our home, our property, and our daily lives. We respectfully ask to deny this variance. I want to focus primarily on one issue, public health, safety, and welfare. The staff report concludes that this variance will not adversely affect public safety because the wall is behind the primary structure and approximately 100 feet from public right of way. Yet it overlaps ours, as you saw in the picture. But that does not address the actual safety issue. Due to visible construction deficiencies, we retained an independent, licensed professional engineer to inspect this as-built wall. His conclusion is that the wall presents an immediate safety concern and should be braced and removed. It cannot simply be corrected through ordinary repair. That danger is not theoretical. The wall borders a narrow passageway on our property used daily by our mail carrier, our landscapers, and by us. On September the 3rd, Judge Gibson issued a temporary restraining order because of these safety concerns. On September 11th, the city itself placed a red danger tape around the wall. Staff originally recommended approval based on the information available when the report was prepared. However, the board now has additional material safety information before it, including the independent engineer's findings, the temporary restraining order, and the city's own placement of danger tape around the walls. That evidence directly bears on the required finding that this variance will not a 1st of adversely affect public health safety or welfare. But it does whatever the basis for the earlier staff recommendation. The record before this board today is different. We respectfully ask the board to consider that evidence and decline to adopt the staff recommendation. which should not be ignored. Three stop work orders were issued July 13th, July 21st, July 27th, and construction nevertheless continued. Granting a variance after this type of evasive behavior would send a terrible message to those of us who abide and seek to preserve the historical character of our district. We are not opposed to the neighbors having reasonable privacy. We're asking that the same preservation, construction and safety standards that applies to everyone else in the Cherokee Triangle Preservation District be applied here. This board is being asked to decide one issue. whether the variance should be granted. We recognize that the serious construction, preservation, enforcement, and legal issues surrounding this mall must be addressed through appropriate processes. But granting a variance cannot be used to legitimize an after-the-fact structure while those serious issues, most importantly documented safety concerns, remain unresolved. We respectfully submit that the applicant has not met the burden for this variance, and we ask that it be denied. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right. So we've had an opportunity to hear from the opposition testimony with the understanding that you may return on the 5th when this case, if this case is continued.

So the action before the board is... Can I just make a clarifying statement on that? Just to note that if you do choose to return on the 5th Any additional testimony will need to be about new evidence. Essentially, you do not need to repeat yourself from what you've already discussed today. Any additional testimony will be any new evidence that you have gathered or in response to any additional testimony by the applicant.

Okay, thank you. That's an important clarification. Thank you. All right. So the action before the board is related to continuing the case. And of course, the continuance is requested by the applicant to get additional information from his engineer, his or her engineer. So the proposal is to continue to the October 5 2026 Board of zoning adjustment meeting. Is there a discussion or a motion on continuance?

I have a question for staff. As I read the staff report, this case is simply based on the height, not the location. It's firmly on the applicant's property. Is that correct?

Yeah, it's on the property line.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Do you need a motion to continue this? Yes. And I ask a question or I'll make a motion that we continue case 26 variance 0106 until our October 5th 2026 meeting and at that time the the applicant can give testimony and we'll continue the case.

Sarah second. Second, Horton. Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to continue 26 variants. Case number 26 variants 0106 to the October 5th, 2026 Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting. Roll call, please.

Horton.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Lewis. Yes. Ford.

Yes.

Bond.

Yes. Continuing the case has been approved.

Thank you. Next is 26 modified to you P 0, 0, 0, 8.

Thank you. Zach Jones for for for South history look ducky for 0, 2, 0, 2, we have 26 MCP 0, 0, 0, 8, pioneer acres mobile home park at 1 trappers trail and 1 wagon trail. We have three requests before you today, two variances and a modified conditional use permit. Each of the variances is for setbacks related to the property boundary from the required 10-foot setback on the southern property boundary and then 25-foot rear setback along the rear property boundary, which you'll see more clearly in the exhibits. Take all of them down to three feet uniform across the site one exception that i'll talk about in a moment and then a modified conditional use permit for the mobile home park in the r6 zoning district with relief from items b c and e next slide So what we have is an existing roughly 10-acre mobile home park. It's Pioneer Acres, again, zoned R6, suburban marketplace corridor form. There was a CUP done as well as a DDP back in the 1980s to a mobile home park that existed then. under B7686 and then 97086. What we've got here is these two variances and items with relief, not for anything new, but to legalize what's already there on site at the applicant's request. Next slide. So we have a site plan here. If you just want to go straight to the next one. I don't want to make it too busy so that yellow lines kind of faint, but that's where all of the areas of the variants are. Um, that's again, taking all of those setbacks down to 3 feet for the entirety of the site. The only exception is on the Southwestern side, uh, kind of around the railroad line. That's what runs in the middle there. That setback would go to 0 feet. Um. The applicants are requesting well, they've already obtained preliminary approval for a licensing agreement with public works to have some of the structures go into that right of way. So, the consequently that setback would be 0 feet for them to use that right away. Next slide so here we have a overview of the property. You can kind of see where that we get into Farnsley road on the, the southern side where it makes that kind of funky shape. Um. Next slide. And then here's an aerial view of the property. Next slide. Here's a view of the property along Cane Run Road. So this is looking down the entrance. You can kind of see the first units at the back of the screen. There's the Thorntons along Cane Run Road there at the front of the page. Next slide. And this is a view of it from Farnsley Road. that runs to, again, that southern side. The area where it's going to a zero foot setback is even further down. Google Street View wasn't able to go all the way down there. Next slide. This is another view back along Cane Run Road. You can actually see that Thornton's again far off in the distance there, some of the existing commercial structures that are along Cane Run. Next slide. And this is a view back on Farnsley Road looking towards the existing residential subdivision. You can see the fence that we were looking at a moment ago on the left side of the picture. Next slide. So, for technical review, we'll go over a few things real quick again. That licensing agreement is in place with public works for the use of Farnsley road. They have had no concerns with that. It's been approved by and then this would have a revised detailed district development plan and waivers going before. On Wednesday in conjunction to kind of marry all these together and, um. get them improving in concert. So for the staff findings, the variances for the property setbacks are adequately justified and meet standards of review. The MCUP is consistent with Plan 2040, and the proposal is compliant with the standards except where relief is from BC&E, and I should have gone over that too. Those standards are from the conditional use permit standards for lot width. Lot width, I say. 15 feet, is that correct? between between the structures so there's another one for a lot width that it references in ours so it's two parent parcels but inside that there's these mobile home lease areas the minimum built in the current built environment is 31 feet instead of 32 so it's off by a foot so they have to get relief from that standard 15 feet in between the units is being requested and then there's another standard related to setback. So it has to be approved in again in concert with the variances. I will note too that while they are getting relief from these standards, KR, the Kentucky administrative regulations regulate this specifically as well. It does meet those standards. So while it's getting relief from ours still meets the state standards. Next slide. Staff recommendation here is that we find the MCUP is in keeping with Plan 2040 and recommend the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the modified conditional use permit with proposed conditions and that staff finds the justification for the variances are adequate and recommends that the Board of Zoning Adjustment approve the requests. Next slide. Required actions here is the full text of the variance again into the required 10 foot setback on the southern property boundaries, zero feet along Farnsley Road, three feet on all others. And then you'll see similar here for the rear yard setback, 25 feet, variance of 22 feet, and then 30, again, taking all of this down to three feet. And then approve or deny the modified conditional use permit to allow for the mobile home park and R6 zoning district with relief from those lettered items. And then there's a variety of conditions stricken, which you've also seen in the staff report. Some of them are redundant. Staff did see one that was worth keeping about maintaining a crossover access easement for the benefit of the property that's on the northwest side of the railroad track. So that way they have continued access to Cane Run Road through the rest of the parent site. Other than that, we've just brought them in.

I don't actually think that you kept that condition.

It's in there. It's renumbered.

On the back page, page 10, proposed conditions of approval.

You only have two. Sorry, that's with the DDP. Okay. I'm getting the two confused. Sounds good. That's with the DDP. Thank you, Rachel.

That works.

Yep. Apologies about that. So removing these four conditions and bringing them in with our modernized standard two conditions that we go with. None of these are staff didn't find necessary. So that's all I have for the staff report, but happy to answer any questions.

So basically what this does in summary is it brings the site into compliance with Plan 2040, adjusts the setbacks,

Yeah, so basically what they had was they, to the best of my understanding, they tried to bring the property in compliance in the 80s. I don't know that it ever really met those standards for what was already existing there. So at this point, the applicants are, they have, I think they have a new buyer. I'll let them speak more to that. But they just want to bring all of this into compliance and make it very clear, not leave it up to nonconformities and just have it before this board so everything's straightforward.

um well understood and agreed on and to this point there's no plan to expand no i think if anything they might be removing some units but i'll let them speak to their plans okay members questions for staff so it looks like from aerial photograph all these mobile homes are there yes and so these conditions speak to what's already there exactly okay thank you okay thank you of course

I have two speaker cards, one for Mr. Ashburner and one for Ms. Mazzocco. And I'll swear you both in if you both are going to speak. All right. Name and address, please. Well, let me swear you in. You swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth.

I do.

Thank you. Do you want to start, Mr. Ashburner?

Sure.

Sure.

Name and address. It's Cliff Ashburner with Dinsmore and Scholl, 101 South 5th Street, Suite 2500, Louisville 40202. We're here today that CP Pioneer pad owner is the entity that owns the park. It's Castle Park Investments. And when they acquired the property, just to kind of touch on some of the comments from you, Madam Chairman, When they acquired the property, we reviewed, they looked at the property, looked at some of the issues that were presented by what was on the ground compared to the 1986 approvals. And it is their desire to make sure that all of the needed approvals to allow what is there to remain are granted. So that's what we're doing today. One other thing that we're trying to do, and you'll see in the photos in just a moment, This park has, to the best of our knowledge, been in existence since the 1950s, maybe 1960s. It operated for a while without a conditional use permit. In the 1980s it was brought into 1980s standards. At the time they were doing an expansion. It's important for our client to be able to replace homes as they either reach the end of their useful life or the owner of the home decides to move and take the home with them. So that's really what we're trying to do today is make sure that the normal functioning, even though the site really is somewhat nonconforming with the variances, assuming we're successful today, they'll be able to move new homes into the property and kind of operate without being concerned about nonconformity. So if you'll go ahead and advance the slide. I'm going to go through this kind of quickly. You can see the subject property, Cane Run Road. You can go in advance. The zoning, Zach's already covered. You can go to the next slide. We've already seen this, as a matter of fact. That's the entrance off. One thing I'll just point out here, you can see in there, if you'll go back that one slide, the home that's directly in front of you, you can see it's got a new deck on it. Back up. There we go. Right in front of you with the silver car. You can see it's got a new deck on it. That's one of the newer homes. The home just to the left of it is one of the older homes. And I've got a photo that's a little bit better. I'll show you in just a moment. If you can go ahead and advance. So, this is Farnsley, you can see where Farnsley hits the railroad beyond that. Farnsley is not dedicated the fence area. This is where we are asking for the relief to 0. and I did just get an email from Beth Stuber while she's not in the office is checking her email. confirming that we have the license agreement in place. If you go to the next slide. So this is the mix of new and old homes. So the one on the left is not a brand new home, but it's a relatively new home. You can see the one on the right there is smaller aluminum siding. I don't know exactly the age of that one, but that is one of the older homes that we would anticipate. Like I said, if it reaches the end of its useful life or if its owner decides to move out, we'd like to be able to come back with a newer home and put it on that lot. If you go to the next slide. This is the site plan. Those that are shown there, those are lease areas. If you go to the next slide. This is what the lease area, about the size of the lease area. Chair Bond, you mentioned the 15 foot separation. In 1986, when this was approved, the CUP was initially approved, there was a 20 foot separation requirement. KAR now is 15 feet. And so you can go ahead and advance. I think I've got that in here. Manufactured mobile homes should be separated from each other By at least 15 feet, which is why we're asking for that separation requirement. I'm sorry separation relief to go to the next slide. And these, these are the request we do have the 2 variances in the modified, but again, those are all really about. Acknowledging what's on the ground now and allowing. mobile homes to be moved out and moved in when they get to that point where they need to move so um i'm happy to take any questions sophia uh with milestone is here if you have questions of her members questions yes yes uh when do these folks purchase the property the current owners i want to say it was prior to us filing the application but it would be within the last 10 months The last 10 months. Yeah. Okay. Very new.

How many? Oh, sorry. 11 months. 12 months. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Are we looking at the fact that practically every ordinance that we have that has to do with placement of these and distances, they don't qualify for any of them because you want relief. and even from the size of some of the units don't qualify. So there's really no protection for the people that are living in this place. Is that essentially what we're looking at, trying to retroactively make this work?

No, I don't agree with the framing of that. I think that... What our client is trying to do is they've acquired a park. And I think there are two choices that are, I look at it as two paths that this park can go down. One is it's non-conforming. It cannot expand. And there is some uncertainty about whether replacing homes is continuing or expanding a non-conforming use. The other is we get the relief that we're seeking and we know that there are this many units and we know going in that replacing individual mobile homes is allowed and we know exactly what the yard requirements need to be. So what our client's trying to do, I guess they could have decided we'll take the risk and we'll just As we move one out, we'll move one back and we won't have to deal with any of these setbacks or maybe we'll have to deal with them at some point if somebody recognizes it. they've chosen what I think is a more conservative approach, which is we have this asset. We know that some of the homes that are here are eventually going to move or need to be demolished in some way. And so we want to make sure that when we come back with a new home, that we have our ducks in a row.

For the entirety of the site.

For the entirety of the site, yes. So that's really... I've driven through the site. It is as neat as a pin. I think it is being managed well. I don't think this is a situation where you're putting people who are in homes there at risk. I think if anything, you're just acknowledging what's there and allowing the new owner to continue to invest in the property.

How about the occupancy? Is it full or 80% or 30%?

I don't have that answer for you right now. I think it is very full. I'll ask if she goes in. Okay. This is the site manager, and I apologize.

And I'll name and address and swear.

My name is April Saab. I live at 31 Davie Crockett Trail, Louisville, Kentucky, 40216.

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

I do.

Okay, and we'll get a speaker's form from you before you leave.

Okay. So we have 180 lots on the property, and we have 143 filled. right now could you say that again a little louder please so we have 180 lots total on the property and we have 143 filled occupant occupied would you say most of them are families or do you have anything that you can guess at that We have a lot of them that are family homes and then we have couples a lot of elderly people that have been there for over 20 years. They've been living on the properties forever. So, okay.

Okay, thank you.

Do they all own their own mobile home or are some of those rented?

Some of them are rented. We're weeding out the renters. We're trying to convert them into buying their own homes and owning them. And just leasing the lot itself? Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

So I think we have a total of 16 homes that are rented and the rest are people-owned.

Okay, so did those 16 come with the property when you purchased it?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, we kind of inherited those runners.

Okay.

Okay, any other questions?

I have a question. If you could back up on the presentation, there was a gate across a road. Could you tell me where that is? is in relation to this, showing the gate. And now go back to the site plan and tell me where that's at on the site plan. It is.

It's in the back.

Yeah, it's right there where the loop is.

And that's usually where the firemen come in if there's an emergency. The fireman has a gate key.

Okay. But everybody else comes in the main entrance up there regardless of where?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you.

Just one other thing I did want to mention. We provided mail notice of this hearing and the DRC meeting to everybody in the park.

Okay.

Yes. That's not part of the normal requirement, but we went ahead and did that.

Okay. Any concerns or issues raised? No.

Not that we've heard.

Okay. All right.

Thank you all.

Thank you. I don't have anyone signed up to speak in opposition. So at this point, I'll close the public hearing. We'll move into deliberations on 26 modified CUP 0008. We have two variances to act on and can they be taken together?

Yes.

All right. And the modified CUP will need approval.

Yeah, and that one will need relief from items B, C, and E, which is justified based on the staff report. And then also there's, I believe, two conditions of approval on page 10.

So there are two conditions of approval.

Right. The discussion we had was the other conditions are incorporated into the revised development plan that will be heard on Wednesday.

Okay.

All right.

So number three on the staff report. I think that's a typo.

BC&E and then down here it says D. I think it's meant to be BC&E because it's BC&E everywhere else.

So there's no problem with the sign?

No.

Okay. Okay, is anyone ready to make a motion? And again, the variances can be taken together.

I make a motion yes move that we approve 26 fair in 0, 0, 9, 8, and 26 friends 0, 0, 9, 9, based on the stop report and testimony that we've heard today.

Second, thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the 2 variances is presented in the staff report roll call please. Yes, yes, yes. Yes. Yes, yes, the variances have been approved. Is there a motion on the modified and. The relief from items, um.

Move to approve 26 0, 0, 0, 8, um. would really fall to BC and E and 2 conditions of a pro one page 10 based on the staff report and the staff report. Yeah, and testimony I've heard today.

Yeah, just to clarify, it was items B, C, and D. D, sorry. Yeah, no, it's okay. It was incorrect in the staff report there. So, B, C, and D. All right.

I thought it was E. B, C, and E. Yeah, D is the sign. That's why I was confused. We're good. Okay. Second.

All right. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the modified CUP as stated. Roll call, please.

Ford?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Horton?

Yes.

Rodriguez?

Yes.

Bond?

Yes. The actions have been approved. We'll take a 10-minute recess. Okay, we're resuming the meeting, beginning with number nine on the agenda, 26 modified CUP0016.

Shiloh Popesinski, Office of Planning, 444 South 5th Street, 4202, here to talk about 26 MCUP16. This is a modified conditional use permit to allow short-term rental of a dwelling unit that's not the primary residence of the owner. This is a modifying existing CUP for 19 CUP 28. The existing CUP applies for Unit 2 of this duplex. So the modification is to also include Unit 1. It's an R7 residential and traditional neighborhood. The unit... Too fast. I don't know. There you go. Unit 2 is 2 bedrooms, 6 guests maximum. The one that's already been approved, Unit 1 is 3 bedrooms, 8 guests. And there's off-street parking provided, existing driveway through an alley. Here's the zoning. The R1 to the north is a cemetery. Here's the aerial.

The alley leads to the driveway in the rear. This is the existing building.

This is the property adjacent to it. And then across the alley is the additional adjacent property. There's no exterior modifications to the property being proposed. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property includes on-site parking to accommodate the use. They have little parking spaces in the rear. And it meets the standards of the CUP. So that finds the request in keeping with Plan 2040 and recommends the Board of zoning adjustment to approve the requested modified conditional use permit. The required actions are approved or deny the modified conditional use permit to allow a short term rental of a dwelling unit that is not the primary residence of the owner.

Could you go back to the photograph of the property in question? I want to make sure I understand where unit one and unit two are located.

That'd be a good question for the applicant.

OK. All right. Any questions for staff? Thank you, Tyler. Barbara Jones? Good afternoon. Hi.

Name and address, please.

Barbara Jones, 2427 Boulevard Napoleon, Louisville, Kentucky, 40205.

Ms. Jones, do you swear the testimony you're about to give today is the truth?

I do.

Thank you. Please proceed.

So the property has two units. It has a ground floor unit. It has access, two access from the back door and also the sunroom side door. And then the front door actually goes, the stairs stayed in its original form, goes up to the second floor. And there's additional access of stairs that go up to the second unit. So they were on top of each other. And unit one is the lower? Unit one is the lower one. Okay. And was originally used as a owner occupant.

Okay. All right. And was one of those a long term rental at one point?

No, it was owner occupant at the bottom. Okay. And then it was always, and the second floor was always just used as a CUP.

Okay. All right. Is this your first short term rental?

No, it's been my 2nd.

Okay.

All right. Um, but we don't currently use the 1st, 1 as a conditional use permit is we had a renter and he was supposed to be there for 3 months. He's been there 4 and a half years.

Is there a neighborhood meeting? No, no neighborhood meeting required. No. All right. Anything else you'd like the board to know about your application?

Yeah, we're just going to continue with the original property manager that's doing Unit 2. He's got a five-star rating. He's been doing it for four years, and we're just going to allow him to do the whole property. We have a... cameras in the parking area and obviously I'm within the just you know I'm in the next zip code and we'll make sure that when we have people stay that they allocated to the parking spaces that they don't park in anybody else's spaces and the cameras will allow us to to check that and also be in the vicinity if anything does happen where they they park somewhere else so there's no on-street parking There's no on street parking. No, it's great. It's not really needed anyway, but we have 8 parking spaces and we're going to designate 2 of those for unit 1. okay.

All right members any questions for Miss Jones.

So, there's 8 parking spaces behind correct? Right there together. Correct.

Any other questions don't think there are any. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, all right.

And there may have been, okay, all right. So at this point, we'll close the public hearing and move into deliberations on 26 modified CUP-0016. Again, be reminded that there are two, this is a duplex, two units, one ground floor unit, that the original CUP applied to. And then there was a second story unit, which is the focus of the modification to the CUP.

So is this essentially, A modification to the existing CU P or is there going to be to see you peas on to you. It's one CU P for the property, but now it covers 2 units on the property okay. So that's why the numbers 19. Existing that we're modifying it by this number. You ready for a ready for a motion. All right, I'll make a motion that in case 26 MC up 0, 0, 16 that we approve the request for that modified see you P based on this staff report analysis and testimony we heard. And and then he has looking for those they're not on the back. Yeah, the proposed to propose conditions of approval on page 7 of 7.

Sarah second second Horton. Thank you. It's been properly moved and seconded to approve 26 modified CUP. We're ready to vote.

Forward.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Horton.

Yes.

Lewis. Yes. Bond.

Yes. The modified CUP has been approved. Thank you.

Next on the agenda is

Number 1026, modified CUP 0018.

Yes, good afternoon. Everyone mark Pinto office of planning staff, 4, 4, 4, South 5th street, Louisville, Kentucky, 4, 0202. this is 26 modified conditional use permit 18 for 6014 Robin hood lane, which was previously approved as transitional housing in the R4 zoning district. So, again, this is a modified conditional use permit to allow transitional housing in the R4 zoning district. It's within the neighborhood form and the property is currently developed within existing 1 story home. The original application. Alleged the home had 3 bedrooms, um, the requests initially, and currently still is for 6 residents. The previously approved conditional use permit was under case number 26, and that was approved June 1st of this year, relatively recently. And there is a condition of approval written on that conditional use permit. that stated that it required the applicant to initiate the licensing process within 30 days of the conditional use permit being approved. So in other words, they had until July 1st to submit the licensing application, not complete the entire process, but submit the licensing application with codes and regulations. Specifically construction review, which is under codes and regulations. Uh, next slide. So, um, this modify conditional use permit. Um, is only modifying that condition of approval that gave them the 30 days to say that they now have 30 additional days from the date of. This modified conditional use permit if it's approved today, because the applicant did not submit the licensing application with codes and regulations. I checked this morning in a seller and it had not been submitted. So they need the modified conditional use permit to extend that 30 days again 30 days from what date? so originally the conditional use permit when it was approved said that they had to submit the license application within 30 days of that cup being approved which would have been july 1st would have been that last day and they didn't submit it so let's say a hypothetical situation arose and they submitted the licensing application And our office did a review of that transitional housing license as we are 1 of the offices that inspect the application to see if it meets the zoning. The reviewer would have saw that they had a condition of approval that stated that. They had to apply within 30 days and they didn't so our office wouldn't be able to consent to that license. So that's the reason for the modified conditional use permit is to. allow them to have 30 additional days from the date of the approved modified conditional use permit if it's approved?

So the short version is once they didn't file by July 1st, staff couldn't accept it because it's out of compliance with the condition. So if it's sort of a little chicken egg. So they need this approval with an additional 30 days. And so they would have 30 days from today to submit the license. They could have come in yesterday and they wouldn't be allowed because they're out of compliance with the condition. So if they have the license, but you all may want to think about asking what is their likelihood of getting it done in the 30 days? Because we had a big discussion back in June because they're operating. There's people they're operating right now. And that was part of the concern of the 30 days was the conditional use permit gets you part of the way, but you need that license. And so there was concern because I played back the video from June was to get the licensing started as quickly as possible so that they get fully in compliance. Because to operate without that license, they could have an enforcement officer go out tomorrow and cite them because they don't have the they have the condition while they have the conditional use permit. They do not have the licensing approval.

So if this is approved today for the 30 days and that does not occur, the license application is not submitted within 30 days, then what's the next step?

Then the next step is one of two things. Either they ask for another modification for you all to consider, or in the absence of them asking, staff could bring it back because then it's out of compliance and ask for you all to take a review about is it null and void, should it be revoked. Okay.

All right. Other questions for staff? Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. We can just quickly go through these slides, Rachel, since there's not much to it. Here's the zoning and aerial subject property from Robin Hood staff funds that, you know, the modified specifically transitional housing is consistent with plan 2040 and staff funds or staff recommends that the board may approve the modified conditional use permit. On condition again that the licensing process is initiated within 30 days, and that's the new condition of approval on page 7 of the staff report. Well, 7 has the existing page 8 of the staff report for proposed conditions of approval. It states that the applicant shall initiate the licensing process as required by chapter 115 and submit the required application with the Department of codes and regulations within 30 days of approval of the modified conditional use part by the board of zoning adjustment. And therefore, your required actions are to approve or deny the modified conditional use permit. I believe the applicant or operator someone is signed up to speak. So. Do any of the other board members have any questions for staff?

Doesn't look like it. Thank you, Mark. Thank you all.

All right. I have, yeah, three speaker cards, two of which are both for Jeffrey Angel, but two different addresses.

108-03 is the correct. Okay. Okay. All right.

So Mr. Angel and Mr. Massa quiet. Do you both plan to speak today?

Okay. All right. If you who's going to speak? Sir, would you approach the podium?

Name and address, please.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Lawrence Massacre, 135 Shadow Ride Court, Shepherdsville, Kentucky, 40165.

Thank you. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give today is the truth? Yes. All right. Please proceed.

I'm one of the district managers of the company, our house of favor. And I'm just here to see how best I can help you guys understand what we do and if you have questions. And then I can.

Oh, go ahead, please.

Yeah, we operate a civil living home. Similar story when we came here first. The same thing we said, nothing has changed with regards to the structure and who we helped and how we intend to run the agency.

Okay. I am interested in understanding why the license application wasn't submitted in the original 30 days.

So what I was told is that the property manager or management was not in time to get all the information that was requested by the council. uh we were able to submit all we had or that was required of us but it was up to them to provide it uh to my understanding they have all those information now to your understanding all the information has been submitted now they have it it's been submitted it's just pending pending your approval then we can proceed with the rest

I think he's saying that the property management for this entity now has all the information to submit the application, not that it's been submitted to Metro. It's been to the group that needs to submit it to Metro, if I understood that correctly.

Correct, yep. Thank you.

All right. Anything further? Because we may have a couple of questions.

No, that's it for now.

All right. Members, any questions?

Yes, I would like to know specifically who's responsible for submitting for the license, given that you're operating without one currently. Who has responsibility to do that? Is it you or is it someone else?

Oh, we selected someone to help in the process.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand.

We selected someone to help in the process.

You selected someone to help?

Yeah, we're working with a lady. She's the one now helping us in the process.

And what's her name?

It should be on the paperwork.

Do you have a mic please?

No, it's not on there.

I'll take the mic just 1 second. Sorry.

So, on the application, the applicant was, uh, say, but. But I'm not sure if she's the 1 that's going to be submitting the license application, but she's who we have as the applicant and the rep in the staff report, which reflect the, um. The modified conditional use permit application, and that's also the signatory of the. letter of explanation in the record which doesn't really say it just says they couldn't submit it within the original 30 days but there's really nothing about are they ready if this is approved to get it done within 30 days yeah and again i just want to reiterate and you know an additional time that staff is not asking for the license process to be completed in 30 days the letter I believe uses the term completed, or 1 might gather from reading the letter that it sounds like they were under the impression they had to complete it. We're just asking that the, that the license application is submitted to construction review within 30 days.

Okay, but it has not been submitted correct this morning.

I checked a seller or Louisville Metro business as well.

Yeah, I've got another question for you, Mark. So did they try to submit it late or did you notice that it had never been submitted? What brought on this modified conditional use permit? I understand why, but what brought that on?

So we were informed by a concerned citizen that the license application had not been submitted yet. And we went onto the business portal and verified that it hadn't been submitted.

Is property still under enforcement as well?

And it's also still under enforcement as Rachel.

Okay. So then you had to contact them to submit for a modified conditional use permit. Or enforcement did?

I don't know if Mark did, but enforcement probably did. I mean, Mark, did you reach out to them?