ON
Chairman Sam Dozier III opened the
meeting at
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Sam Dozier, David Prewitt, Frank Stark, Jennifer Steen, and Tim Turney
CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Paul W. Noel, Jr., Building &
Zoning Inspector.
MINUTES: Mr.
Turney moved, as seconded by Mrs. Steen, to accept the
Mr. Turney suggested that the order of
business be changed to do Item #2 first under New Business. Chairman Dozier and the other members agreed
with that.
PUBLIC
HEARING: DIMENSIONAL
VARIANCE: Azalea Properties, LLC/Don
02-03-2008
Section 504.2 – Applicant is seeking a 16” height variance from
the 42” height requirement, in order to
continue use of a 58”
high fence already installed in the front yard setback.
Chairman Dozier declared the hearing open at
Mr. Rob Bolton stated that he and his partner, Don Dalton,
are partners of Azalea Properties LLC and are the developers of Sugartree. Mr. Bolton apologized that they did not know
that a four board horse fence was not in keeping with the regulations. Mr. Bolton submitted photographs of the fence
as installed on the property along
Chairman Dozier closed the hearing at
Mr. Stark moved, as seconded by
Mr. Prewitt, to approve the dimensional variance for Azalea Properties, LLC – 385 Huntertown Road – Section 504.2 for a 16” height variance from the 42” height requirement, in order
to continue use of a 58” fence already installed in the
front yard setback. The motion carried
5-0.
DECISION: Thomas Post – d/b/a
Chairman Dozier pointed
out that the hearing was closed at the last meeting and there will be no more
testimony taken. Mr. Noel stated that he
has been in communication with several of the members since the last meeting
and any amendments may be brought up by them.
Mr. Turney stated that
he has a proposal for a number of conditions to be set forth from testimony at
last months hearing as well as the proposal from the Agricultural Review
Committee. Mr. Turney handed out his written
conditions and stated that they are pretty much the ones they looked at last
month with some changes and some incorporations from
the Agricultural Review Board. Mr.
Turney stated that on #5 of the conditions he removed the word “age” in regards
to the trees. He felt that was arbitrary
because all trees have age. On #7 he
added the words “Add or retain” at the beginning of the sentence and where it
refers to parking spaces he added “proposed or existing.” On #8 he added the word “minimum” in
reference to the 30 acre parcel. Mr.
Turney stated that he wanted it to be clear that the acreage had to be a
minimum of 30 acres and not exactly 30 acres.
That way if someone had more than 30 acres, they could still have the
bed and breakfast.
Mr. Noel stated that he
wanted to point out that the Zoning Ordinance itself would pretty much take
care of the acreage requirement. If the property were ever sold the conditional
use goes away and if the property were ever rezoned the conditional use would
go away. That is not to say that someone
could not reapply.
Mr. Turney stated that
if someone purchased a 250 acre farm and they sold off all but 50 acres and
wanted to do a bed and breakfast/inn, that would not
be a 30 acre parcel as it now states.
Mr. Turney did not feel it would do any damage to say that it has to be
a minimum of 30 acres. Mr. Noel stated
that he just wanted to make sure they knew it was in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Turney stated that
on #11, the Agricultural Review Board had recommended one event per week and
Mr. Post had requested two per week. Mr.
Turney suggested a compromise of 75 annually with no more than three in any
seven consecutive days. You could not
have a week long party, but you could have a weekend event.
Mrs. Steen stated that
she feels they should stick to what the Agricultural Review Board suggested,
which was 52. That is for 52 outside
events only. That does not limit the
number of events that take place on the inside.
Mrs. Steen stated that she feels that they need to include a maximum number
of people. Mr. Noel stated that the
Zoning Ordinance requires it. Under 507
(D) it says. “Service shall be limited to the rental of nine (9) rooms for
sleeping for overnight guests and for special events. The Board of Adjustment shall specify the size
and number of events permitted.” Mrs.
Steen stated that the inside events would be governed by the Fire Marshall’s
codes. Mr. Noel stated that would fall
under the physical limitations of the structure and the Fire Marshall’s
limitations. Mr. Turney
questioned if the fire codes would be the guiding principal for inside
events? Mrs. Steen stated that is her
understanding and the Board should only be concerned with the maximum for
outside events.
Mr. Stark stated that
he agrees with Mrs. Steen regarding 52 events and he would suggest limiting the
size to 250 people. Mr. Noel stated that
the Agricultural Review Board’s wording was for outside events. Mrs. Steen stated that her thought was more
in line with 150 people. For 250 people,
that would be a lot of cars even with parking in the paddock. When you think about how close Glenhaven
Subdivision is, that is a lot of cars, probably a
hundred or more.
Mr. Stark stated that
it is his understanding that the additional parking has to be on the lane
itself that goes through the farm or the adjoining paddocks. He was uncertain if that would be a problem for
Glenhaven. Mr. Noel stated that the cars
won’t be sitting there with the lights on.
Mr. Stark stated that he understands that. Mr. Noel stated that they can park so that
the headlights shine in the other direction.
Mr. Stark stated that either direction they park on the lane will not
affect Glenhaven, but was uncertain about the paddock
parking. Mr. Noel stated that they might
think about a different place to have the parking.
Mrs. Steen stated that
she understands that if any of the neighbors complain about the noise, lights,
parking, etc. that the conditional use can be revoked. Mr. Stark stated that that is has to be proven to be a problem. Chairman Dozier stated that if there were a
wedding, there would probably be more than 150 people. Mr. Noel stated that if there are complaints,
they would be called back before the Board of Adjustment for review.
Mr. Stark stated that
his biggest concern is the noise and he questioned if there is anything
addressing that? Mrs. Steen stated that
it is not specific, other than if there were a complaint it could be revisited
by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Stark
stated that they were specific about the noise and lighting when they put the
conditions on The Castle. Mr. Noel
recalled that on Rose Hill Inn they specified that there could be no amplified
production whether it be music or voice after a
certain time. Mr. Stark felt that they
should have some verbiage that says that in this case. Mr. Stark stated that if he lived in Glenhaven,
he would not appreciate a rock and roll band jamming over there. He did not feel that is their intent, but you
have to consider it. He questioned if
they have the record of what conditions they put on for The Castle? Mr. Noel stated it would be in that
file. Mr. Stark stated that his point is
they need to specify those same kinds of conditions because they will be having
the same kind of outdoor events that The Castle will have.
Mrs. Steen questioned
what the guest limit was at The Castle?
Mr. Stark stated that there was not one.
Parking had to be in a particular area behind the building and you
really could not see that even from
Mr. Noel questioned Mr.
Turney on his proposal of 75 events annually and three in any seven consecutive
days and how that would be figured? Mr.
Turney stated that you would look at the calendar and if you started on Tuesday
you would not be able to have another one until the following Tuesday. Mr. Stark questioned how this would be
monitored? Mr. Noel stated that they
will have to do it themselves because his work day ends at
Mr. Stark stated that
the main thing is the noise. If it were
not a disturbance, he would not care if they had an event every night. Mrs. Steen stated that it appears that they
will just have to wait and see if it is a problem and if so, they will have to
come back to the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Prewitt stated that
he does not recall the specifics of The Castle, but he felt that something
regarding no amplification of noise should be included for this site and there
should be some controlled lighting.
Mr. Noel stated that
there will be amplified sound at times and that is probably not avoidable. If you have one hundred people, even if it is
a prayer meeting, there will probably be the need for amplification. Mrs. Steen questioned why they have to allow
it? They could have, for instance, a
string quartet and not allow amplification.
Mrs. Steen stated that on the Rose Hill issue they did not allow
amplification because that was in town; however, even though this is in an
agricultural district they are only a paddock away from residential. They could not put a restriction on the noise
and just wait to see if they get complaints.
Mr. Stark stated that they could indicate an amount of space for sound,
such as it cannot be closer than a certain amount of feet or yards. Mr. Noel stated that the distance is 800’
now. Mr. Stark questioned where that is
measured from? Mr. Turney stated that it
is 800’ from the paddock, which is for parking.
Mr. Stark stated that the main thing is they need to protect the people
who live in Glenhaven. Mr. Stark stated that they should make the
distance 1000 yards from Glenhaven. Mr.
Noel stated that would put them on
Mr. Turney stated that
he does not believe they put any restrictions on amplification on The Castle,
but they did say that any event had to be within the walls of the castle. That was the difference. They had asked for rooms on the outside and
the Board of Adjustment said everything they did had to be contained within the
walls of The Castle. There were no
restrictions regarding noise or amplification.
When The Castle was approved they fell under the old regulations and
this application falls under the regulations that exist now. This is the first one, with the exception of
Rose Hill Inn, that they have looked at under the new regulations.
Mrs. Steen stated that
the regulations are going to vary depending on the location of the
property. This is probably closer than
most would be to a residential area.
Perhaps they should limit it to 150 people.
Mr. Turney stated that
across from this property the Board of Adjustment also looked at the
winery. They asked for outside events
and they discussed putting restrictions on them because they were
wanting a small amphitheater, but action was never taken on that.
Mr. Stark stated that
the problem is, if you are not specific about the
condition, you will have problems. If
you say you don’t want noise at all and a neighbor hears one, there is
justification for a complaint. If you allow
amplification, then you could consider the decibel level, but it would have to
be taken at that time and proven. The
point is, you could have up to 500 people at an event and not allow amplified
noise and that might be the answer.
Mr. Prewitt stated if
they should have outside weddings, most have amplified music. Mr. Stark stated that if that is the case
they will have to have the music inside.
Mrs. Steen agreed that if someone wanted amplified music, they would
have follow what the conditions are. They might have to choose to have the event
somewhere else. Mr. Stark stated that he
is just concerned with there being outside events with music, amplified or
not. They need to be considerate of the
neighbors when it comes to noise.
Mr. Turney stated that
under the first ten conditions, they seemed to agree. On #11, it seems they need to resolve the
number of people both inside and outside.
Mrs. Steen stated that they cannot regulate the number of people inside
because that is governed by the Fire Marshall.
Mr. Turney stated that the other issue is whether or not to allow sound
amplification. Mr. Turney stated that
the lighting is already addressed. Mr.
Turney stated that he has no big concern regarding restricting the number of
people. Chairman Dozier stated that they
could compromise on 200.
Mrs. Steen stated that
she has been in
Mr. Prewitt stated that
they could allow interior amplification, but not exterior. Mr. Stark and Mrs. Steen agreed.
Mr. Turney went back to
the number of people. Chairman Dozier
stated that they got down to 200 people.
He questioned if the others agree?
Mr. Stark stated that is not really a big issue with him, but he would
agree to that. If this goes for a long
period of time and all goes well, they could come back and ask the Board of
Adjustment to revisit that condition to allow more.
Mr. Noel stated that they
should probably look at the list that Mr. Butler suggested they
incorporate. Mr. Turney stated that
those have all been included.
Mr. Stark referred back
to what Mrs. Steen stated regarding the income to sustain the bed and breakfast
establishments. More than likely the
people who are staying there are the ones who are going to have the events and
it should not be discouraged. That is
why he is rethinking the number of events.
Mrs. Steen stated that number is only for outside events and they can have
as many inside as they want. Mr. Prewitt
stated that during the three months of winter they will probably have no
outside events at all.
Mr. Turney questioned
if they need to address inside events at all?
Mr. Noel stated that the Zoning Ordinance and the Fire Marshall govern
that.
Chairman Dozier questioned
if they agree on the 52 events? Mr.
Stark stated that he does, but he does not think they need to put anything
about spacing them any number of consecutive days. It is just 52 annual outside events.
Mr. Stark questioned if
they could get this all typed up and emailed to them for their approval? Mr. Noel stated that they would have to come
back in March for approval. Mr. Turney
did not want to do that.
Mr. Prewitt stated that
he has a comment on #7 regarding the trees and fencing. He questioned if they should put a time frame
of 90 days on that? Mr. Noel stated that
he can add a sentence to incorporate that.
Mr. Stark agreed that should be plenty of time and this is the right
time of year to do that.
Mrs. Steen stated that
she has no problem extending this until next month if Mr. Stark would feel
better about it. Mr. Stark stated that
they will just read through them all and take action tonight.
Mrs. Steen questioned
if they have addressed all the proposals by the Agricultural Review Board? Mr. Noel stated that the only stickler was
the number of events per year.
Mr. Noel read the
entire motion with Findings of Fact and conditions into the record to make sure
all understood and that all changes were made as desired.
This motion is based upon the
following findings:
1. The Applicant, Thomas R. Post, owns
approximately 207 acres located at the intersection of
2. There are two residences located upon the
property. One residence faces
3. On
4. The
Applicant now proposes to operate the main residence as a Bed &
Breakfast/Inn. The structure has a
basement, a main floor and a second floor.
The applicant proposes to create nine (9) bedrooms for rental by
tourists at the existing residence. The
residence also has a living room and a dining room available for use by the
guests who would be accommodated overnight for a fee. At least 1 parking space per bedroom is
proposed.
5. The proposed use satisfies the definition
of a “Bed and Breakfast/Inn Establishment” which is an
establishment in a dwelling or structure located on land which is occupied and
operated by the owner, lessee or owner’s agent, that
supplies temporary accommodations to overnight guests for a fee.
6. The applicant provided
testimony that a majority of the structure will retain its residential use with
the rooms available for rent accounting for less than one half of the total
square footage of the structure. The
only testimony contradictory to this assertion was an undocumented assertion
and was unpersuasive. Based on this
testimony it is specifically found that the bed and breakfast use is incidental
to the residential use of the building.
7. Pursuant to Section 701.4(K) of the zoning
Ordinance, the Applicant’s proposal to operate a Bed & Breakfast/Inn
has been reviewed by the Agricultural Review Committee which has recommended
approval of the application subject to the conditions set forth in its
8. The impact upon traffic of this
application should be minimal and not adversely affecting the public health,
safety or welfare. The Transportation
Study performed by Wilbur Smith Associates identifies
9. Any traffic concerns related to the
proposed conditional use will be mitigated through the proposed use of the
existing Shannon Run Road entrance to the site which will enable guests to have
access to US 60 via the existing stoplight at the intersection of US 60 and
Shannon Run Road.
10. The parking demand of the proposed use is
adequately accommodated and is adequately buffered from the public roadways on
the site plan submitted by the applicant.
11. The conditional use permit requested by the
applicant would help promote tourism in
12. The proposed use allows for the continued
use of the balance of the
subject property for
agricultural purposes and blends well with the adjacent or nearby uses,
including church, radio station, castle, etc.
Approval of this application is subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Require the Applicant to comply with all
other applicable state statutes and regulations dealing with bed &
breakfast/Inn type accommodations, including health department regulations
relating to on-site sewage disposal requirements and building codes.
2. The number of rooms available for rent on
the property is limited to nine (9), to be included within the footprint of the
existing building.
3. Access
to and from the Bed & Breakfast/
4. Limitation
of the conditional use permit to the current applicant, a corporation or
limited liability company of which the applicant is the majority owner or to
members of his immediate family;
5. Existing trees on property must remain,
except for trees which must be removed for agricultural purposes due to damage,
parking as proposed on site plan and to accommodate facade enhancement. Any trees removed from property will be
replaced with a tree of similar species.
7. Retain
existing evergreen trees along the west and south edges of the parking spaces
so that vehicles will be visually buffered from the adjoining properties in
Glenhaven. Add additional trees or
privacy fencing to fill presently existing gaps in screening until existing
trees mature. Needed privacy fencing
shall be installed within 90 days of Conditional issuance.
8. If the parent tract is divided in the
future, the Bed & Breakfast/Inn must be located on a minimum of a 30 acre
parcel.
9. Only
food preparation for overnight guests and for otherwise permitted special
events shall be conducted on the site.
10. Permanent lighting is limited to that
necessary for safety and shall be full cutoff lighting.
11. The number of outside
special events hosted at the site shall be limited to 52 events per year. No such event shall be conducted in a manner
to create noise, light or traffic conditions detrimental to the neighboring
residents. All parking for such events
shall take place on-site with no on street parking permitted. Any overflow parking from special events
shall be along the paved interior farm road or in adjoining pasture to the Bed
& Breakfast/Inn. No parking on
12. No rooms available for
rent shall have as its sole means of access a door to
the exterior of the
structure thus causing the structure to retain its residential
character.
13. There shall be at all
times during the bed and breakfast operation a full time
resident operator
living on premises.
14. There shall be a maximum
of 200 guests at any outside event.
15. There shall
be no exterior amplified sound.
Mr. Turney moved, as seconded
by Mr. Prewitt, that the evidence provided to the Board of Adjustment at the
January 7, 2008 meeting along with the testimony given and the discussion by
the Board members that the Conditional Use Permit for Thomas Post – d/b/a Kentucky Mansion located at 105 Shannon Run road in
the A-1 Zoning District to allow a Bed and Breakfast/Inn in the residence be
approved based on the Findings of Fact and the Conditions:
Findings of Fact:
1. The Applicant,
Thomas R. Post, owns approximately 207 acres located at the intersection of
2.
There are two residences located
upon the property. One residence faces
3.
On
4. The
Applicant now proposes to operate the main residence as a Bed &
Breakfast/Inn. The structure has a
basement, a main floor and a second floor.
The applicant proposes to create nine (9) bedrooms for rental by
tourists at the existing residence. The
residence also has a living room and a dining room available for use by the
guests who would be accommodated overnight for a fee. At least 1 parking space per bedroom is proposed.
5.
The proposed use satisfies the
definition of a “Bed and Breakfast/Inn Establishment” which is an establishment in a dwelling or structure located on land
which is occupied and operated by the owner, lessee or owner’s agent, that supplies temporary accommodations to overnight guests for
a fee.
6. The
applicant provided testimony that a majority of the structure will retain its
residential use with the rooms available for rent accounting for less than one
half of the total square footage of the structure. The only testimony contradictory to this
assertion was an undocumented assertion and was unpersuasive. Based on this testimony it is specifically
found that the bed and breakfast use is incidental to the residential use of
the building.
7. Pursuant to Section 701.4(K) of the zoning
Ordinance, the Applicant’s proposal to operate a Bed &
Breakfast/Inn has been reviewed by the Agricultural Review Committee which has
recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions set forth in
its November 14, 2007 minutes.
8. The impact upon traffic of this application should be
minimal and not adversely affecting the public health, safety or welfare. The Transportation Study performed by Wilbur
Smith Associates identifies
9. Any
traffic concerns related to the proposed conditional use will be mitigated
through the proposed use of the existing Shannon Run Road entrance to the site
which will enable guests to have access to US 60 via the existing stoplight at
the intersection of US 60 and Shannon Run Road.
10. The
parking demand of the proposed use is adequately accommodated and is adequately
buffered from the public roadways on the site plan submitted by the applicant.
11. The conditional use permit requested
by the applicant would help promote tourism in Woodford County, which is one of
the stated goals of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update and community
priority. The location of the use at the
intersection of US 60 and
12.
The proposed use allows for the continued use of the balance of the
subject property for agricultural purposes and blends well with the adjacent or
nearby uses, including church, radio station, castle, etc.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Require
the Applicant to comply with all other applicable state statutes and
regulations dealing with bed & breakfast/Inn type accommodations, including
health department regulations relating to on-site sewage disposal requirements
and building codes.
2. The
number of rooms available for rent on the property is limited to nine (9), to
be included within the footprint of the existing building.
3. Access
to and from the Bed & Breakfast/
4. Limitation of the conditional use permit to
the current applicant, a corporation or limited liability company of which the
applicant is the majority owner or to members of his immediate family;
5. Existing trees on property must remain,
except for trees which must be removed for agricultural purposes due to damage,
parking as proposed on site plan and to accommodate facade enhancement. Any
trees removed from property will be replaced with a tree of similar species.
7. Retain existing evergreen trees along the
west and south edges of the parking spaces so that vehicles will be visually
buffered from the adjoining properties in Glenhaven. Add additional trees or privacy fencing to
fill presently existing gaps in screening until existing trees mature. Needed privacy fencing shall be installed
within 90 days of Conditional issuance.
8. If
the parent tract is divided in the future, the Bed & Breakfast/Inn must be
located on a minimum of a 30 acre parcel.
9. Only food preparation for overnight guests
and for otherwise permitted special events shall be conducted on the site.
10. Permanent
lighting is limited to that necessary for safety and shall be full cutoff
lighting.
11. The
number of outside special events hosted at the site shall be limited to 52
events per year. No such event shall be
conducted in a manner to create noise, light or traffic conditions detrimental to
the neighboring residents. All parking
for such events shall take place on-site with no on street parking
permitted. Any overflow parking from
special events shall be along the paved interior farm road or in adjoining
pasture to the Bed & Breakfast/Inn.
No parking on
12. No
rooms available for rent shall have as its sole means of access a door to the
exterior of the structure thus causing the structure to retain its residential character.
13. There
shall be at all times during the bed and breakfast operation a full time resident
operator living on premises.
14. There
shall be a maximum of 200 guests at any outside event.
15. There shall be no exterior amplified sound.
The motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Stark moved, as seconded by Mr. Prewitt to
adjourn the meeting at
____________________________
Sam
Dozier, Chairman
SD:pc