ON MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2007, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HELD A MEETING IN THE 2ND FLOOR COURTROOM OF THE WOODFORD COUNTY COURTHOUSE TO HEAR THE FOLLOWING APPEALS:

Chairman Sam Dozier III opened the meeting at 6:00 P.M. with those being in attendance as follows:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Dozier, David Prewitt, Frank Stark, Jennifer Steen, and Tim Turney

CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Paul W. Noel, Jr., Building & Zoning Inspector;

CONSULTANTS ABSENT: Tim Butler, Legal Counsel and Mary K. Woodrum, Recording Clerk.

MINUTES: Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Mr. Prewitt, to accept the July 2,2007 minutes as distributed. Motion carried with all members voting 'aye'.

OLD BUSINESS:

Court of Appeals Decision of Case #2006-CA-000603-MR - Tom Post

Mr. Noel informed the board he received a communication from the Board’s attorney, Tim Butler, that the Court of Appeals has decided in favor with the Board of Adjustment’s decision.

NEW BUSINESS:

PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE : Town & Country Bank - 460

08-11-2007 Lexington Road - B-4 Zoning District - Section 508 - Applicant is

seeking a 20 foot setback from Lexington Road and a 22 foot

setback from Wilson Avenue from the required 30 foot front yard

setback in order to improve an existing pole sign more than 50%.

Mr. Noel stated that this pole sign has been in this place for a number of years. He stated that it is in line with most of the pole signs in that area. Mr. Noel then explained that if the strict application was adhered to it would place the sign out of view of traffic and neighboring buildings would also block their view. Mr. Noel asked Mr. Andy Monroe of Smithers Sign Company if the height was going to change? Mr. Monroe stated right now the pole is 30 feet high without a sign on it. He explained that they are proposing a total of 20 feet for the pole and the sign. At this point Mr. Monroe turned in a picture of what the proposed sign and pole would look like along with the existing pole to show the difference in height (exhibit A).

Mr. Dozier asked the Board members and the audience if they had any questions or concerns? With none, he closed the hearing and asked for a motion?

Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Mr. Stark, to grant Town & Country Bank of 460 Lexington Road a 20 foot setback from Lexington Road and a 22 foot setback from Wilson Avenue from the required 30 foot front yard setback in order to improve an existing pole sign more than 50%. Motion carried 5-0 in favor.

PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE : Rob McGoodwin - Lot 6, Unit

08-012-2007 #1, Huntertown Glen North - R-1B Zoning District - Section 504.2

- Applicant is seeking a 29 foot variance from the required 30 foot

front yard setback in order to allow a 6 foot privacy fence in the

front yard.

Mr. Noel wanted to clarify this request because this house is an existing house that fronts on Huntertown Road. With the development of this new subdivision, Huntertown Glen North, this property now has two front yards. The rear of this property faces Will Parkway and this is the section that needs the requested variance in order to allow a 6 foot privacy fence to remain in the front yard setback area of Will Parkway.

Mr. Noel explained that the strict application of the regulations would deprive this applicant of an ability to convey said property for use and have privacy in the backyard of the house. Not permitting the privacy fence to exist around the backyard of the house, though the house was constructed prior to the development at issue, would create a hardship for whomever lives in this house in not being able to enjoy any privacy or enjoy the back yard of their own house. Mr. Noel went on to read the criteria that was attached to the application which in part stated that the development was approved by the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning & Zoning Commission, thus a street was created which ran along the back of this house which in turn created the need for this variance.

Mr. Noel then stated the rear of this property sits in an elbow turn on Will Parkway. He asked the Board members to look at the copy of the pictures that were in their packet. Mr. Stark asked if there were any complaints or calls from any adjoining neighbors? Mr. Noel stated there was one call from a neighbor that misunderstood where the fence would be. He clarified if for her explaining that the fence would be on the Will Parkway side, not Huntertown Road.

Mr. Dozier then asked the applicant if he would like to address the Board? Mr. Rob Roark came forward and stated he is representing Mr. McGoodwin. He stated he did not have anything more to add from what they had already prepared and turned in to the Board, but he would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Dozier asked if the Board members had any questions or concerns? Mr. Prewitt stated his only concern is the two adjoining properties that have not been built on yet. He had questions about driveways and backing out onto the street. He noted there seemed to be a utility easement on the right side of this property, but the left side was the one in question. After further discussion of the shape of the adjacent lot, it was felt that backing out of a driveway in this area should not be a problem.

Mr. Dozier asked if there were any other questions from anyone else? At this point, Ms. Margie Evans came forward and stated she is a resident of Versailles and she is puzzled at why, with an existing house already there, a subdivision was allowed around this lot, in this manner? She wanted to know if this rear yard is going to be facing any other lot? She felt this was a very weird request. Mr. Noel stated this lot and two other existing lots were incorporated into this new development. After further explanation of how the lots were laid out, Ms. Evans stated she could not imagine buying a house adjacent to this property and having a privacy fence in her front yard to look at. She felt this was a very bad precedent to set. Mr. Roark then explained that the way the adjacent lots are laid out and the shape of this lot, the fence would be minuscule because of the way it cuts in. Mr. Stark asked Ms. Evans if she lives in this subdivision? She stated no. Mr. Stark wanted to know what her concern was? Ms. Evans stated it is the precedent that it sets. She does not want her next door neighbor to come to this Board and ask to put a six foot privacy fence up in their front yard. Mr. Stark informed Ms. Evans that privacy fences are in a lot of front yards in Versailles. Ms. Steen explained that this is really the back yard to this property, but when you sit on a corner lot you have two front yards, the real front yard and then the side or rear that fronts on another street. She went on to explain that a lot of people want a privacy fence in their rear yards and they have to come to the Board to obtain a variance in order to install a six foot privacy fence in the “front yard” setback. Ms. Evans stated she has never seen a privacy fence in the front yard of anyone’s house. Mr. Noel then explained that it is usually always from the front wall of a house and over toward the other side street that the fence is requested which is considered the other “front yard”. He would not encourage anyone to ask for a privacy fence to be built in front of the house. Mr. Noel noted that this is a very unique situation. Ms. Evans agreed, but felt that once this is agreed to then other people will want to come with unique situations.

Mr. Dozier then asked Mr. Roark about the privacy fence as shown in the pictures. He asked if this is all there will be of it? Mr. Roark stated some of the fencing was removed for grading and that section will be reinstalled, but no additional fencing will be installed. Mr. Dozier asked if there was anyone else with any concerns? With none, Mr. Dozier closed the hearing and asked for a motion?

Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Mr. Stark, to grant Rob McGoodwin of Lot 6, Unit#1, Huntertown Glen North, a 29 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback in order to allow a 6 foot privacy fence in the front yard due to the pre-existence of the house before the development. Motion carried 5-0 in favor.

Mr. Dozier then asked for a motion to adjourn?

Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Mr. Prewitt, to adjourn at 6:25 p.m. Motion carried 5-0 in favor.

Sam Dozier, III, Chairman