ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 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, Frank Stark, Jennifer Steen, and Tim Turney

MEMBERS ABSENT: David Prewitt

CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Paul W. Noel, Jr., Building & Zoning Inspector; and Mary K. Woodrum, Recording Clerk.

CONSULTANTS ABSENT: Tim Butler, Legal Counsel

MINUTES: Mr. Stark moved, as seconded by Mr. Turney, to accept the September 4, 2007 minutes as distributed. Motion carried with all members voting 'aye'.

OLD BUSINESS:

PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE: ALH Holding/Dollar General - 265 Lexington

09-013-2007 Street - B-2 Zoning District - Section 508.2 - Applicant is seeking an 85 foot variance from the required zero front yard setback in a B-2 zone in order to place a 4 foot high by 5 foot wide monument sign(non-internal lighting) in the grass area between the parking lot and the side walk aligned with the front door of the building.

Ms. Steen recused herself as she is on the Board of the Civic Center located next door to this property.

Mr. Noel updated the Board about this request by stating he received a letter from the attorney representing Dollar General Store. Apparently, the attorney had received wrong information about this request in that he thought this Board was trying to control the color of the sign in which Dollar General has a copyright and also the attorney was confused with the location thinking that this request was about the 530 Versailles Shopping Center store. Mr. Noel responded back to the attorney explaining that this Board does not control color and also informed them of the new address for this store. Mr. Noel then stated the only other information received was a copy of the proposed sign with the actual color, which is an eggshell creme color.

Mr. Dozier then informed the audience that this meeting was held open from last month and the people that spoke at that meeting is recorded in the minutes for that meeting so, he felt that those same people should not speak again, unless they have something new to present.

At this point, Mr. Dozier asked the applicant if they would care to speak? Mrs. Brenda Sebastian from Sebastian Signs and Crane Company, came forward and informed the Board that the Dollar General Store lawyers have advised them that they will not accept anything but the color yellow for the sign. She explained that they just found out about this change on this past Friday. At this point, Mrs. Sebastian handed out the revised drawing of the sign (exhibit A) with the correct color (yellow) shown on it. She went on to say that the copies show a bolder yellow than what is actual. She explained that it is the same color as the sign that is on the building now.

Mr. Dozier then asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak? Ms. Joan Crowe came forward and stated she lives at 130 Morgan Street and thanked the Board for holding this hearing open from last month as there was a mix-up of the time of the meeting that was advertised. She went on to say that environmental planners and people who plan for towns, study why certain places have a deep need for the people that live there and why other people are attracted to those places. One of the things , these studies have found, is called a "sense of place". She explained that there are books written on this and articles are written and it is even on the internet. She went on to explain that a town with a "sense of place" has a distinctive and pleasant surrounding that gives identity and character to it. It is not easily mistaken for somewhere else. A visual environment makes a sense of well being and deeply felt by inhabitants and other people. She went on to say that other towns have the same gas stations, chain stores, truck stops, etc. These towns have no "sense of place". Ms. Crowe wanted to address the specifics of the one thing she has heard that is the reason for wanting the sign out front and that is that delivery trucks could not find the place. She stated she had talked with the district manager of Dollar General store and explained to him the way to help the delivery trucks find the store without a sign out front and would explain it to the Board later if they so desire to hear it.

Ms. Crowe felt the important thing is to keep the town the way the inhabitants want it. She felt the "sense of place" is important. She felt that people in the past have developed this somewhat in some parts of Versailles. She felt that when you get to the top of the hill by the old Middle School on Lexington Street, this is the gateway to Versailles as it is residential. She knew some of the places are not zoned residential, but the feel is residential. She stated this gives a "sense of place". She felt this is one of the main entrances to downtown Versailles. Ms. Crowe felt that the additional sign that has been proposed, is visually invasive. She felt it would be a detriment to the character of this street and is inappropriate at that place.

Ms. Crowe then talked about the unique placement of the Dollar General store and how beneficial it is at that location. She stated it is identified as being at the "old post office" and everybody in town knows where that is. Also, she stated it is in the middle of extensive residential areas. She felt like a lot of people can get there just by walking to it. She felt this is a superior location for this store and the people of Versailles, but she felt the company should not spend their time on trying to catch occasional-passing-through customers by putting out a sign. She also felt that the sign will actually block some of the store itself. Ms. Crowe went on to thank the Dollar General for subduing the pink panels and with the lights on the store is a welcoming place.

Ms. Crowe concluded by stating the two signs would be an aesthetic conflict with each other. She felt it is overkill and aesthetically undesirable and intrusive. She also felt there were traffic safety questions that she has not addressed and for all the reasons she discussed she asked the Board to deny this application.

Ms. Joan Bauer of 305 Lexington Street came forward and stated the Dollar General store has already been denied a frontage sign and she wanted to know what the company doesn't understand about the word denied. She felt as long as a store has quality you don't have to have a frontage sign, the people will come.

Ms. Mary Ann McCauley came forward and stated she lives on the south end of the county, but she has an interest on Morgan Street. She stated you hear all about new urbanism which is about the gentle meshing of business and residential and she felt this is what Versailles has, especially on this street. Also, because this sign is so much bigger and bolder than the other ones on that street, she felt this could cause a war-fare among the businesses as they might feel this sign is intrusive to their signs, etc. She concluded by saying this is just a different aspect on Lexington Street. It's not like going out into a shopping center.

Mr. Carl Ellis came forward and stated he felt this sign does not have to be as big as they are proposing. He also explained that he was in Montgomery, Ohio a while back and he saw a Dollar General store sign that was a nice wooden sign sitting out next to the street. So, he explained that he knows the store has different kinds of signs they use. He stated he has no qualms about the color, but he felt the sign is just more obtrusive than need be. Mr. Dozier stated this sign is 4 foot by 5 foot for Mr. Ellis's information. He didn't know what size the one was in Ohio. Mr. Ellis stated his answer to that is a question which was "does it take a sign that big to identify a place of business?

Ms. Toss Chandler came forward and stated she felt changing the sign to something the community would like, gives Dollar General a wonderful opportunity to elevate their character. She felt it would be a positive for the company and for the community. She felt it would add a lot to the image of Dollar General.

Mr. Rocky Sebastian came forward and stated the truck drivers have to get into the turning lane in order to turn into this property. He felt this sign will help them to get prepared ahead of time. Otherwise, it could be a safety hazard with them coming upon it suddenly because you cannot see the building until you come in front of it.

Ms. Jean Shaw came forward and stated the truckers should get directions before they come just like she gives directions to people that come to her house. She felt this would solve that problem. She also had issues with lights shining on the sign and the brick base. She concluded by stating she would certainly like to not see the sign put there.

Ms. Joan Crowe came forward and explained how exact simple directions should solve any safety problem turning into the store. She then gave her directions to the store. Mr. Stark responded saying he works at Woodford Hills Country Club part time and he gets calls constantly from people coming from out of town wanting to get directions to the club. He stated even giving them exact specific directions, they still get lost. So, he explained that in the real world what she was saying doesn't really work.

Mr. Bobby Tincher, local manager for General Dollar, came forward and stated the part about needing the signs for trucks is minimal. He felt they needed the sign for everyone that comes over the hill to see instead of getting half-way by the store and trying to turn in and causing accidents. He explained a business needs a sign and he felt they have gone out of the way to have a nice sign. It it is not going to be an eye-sore in his opinion. He felt that a sign is 99 percent about the customer and 1 percent about trucks. He explained he can get a truck there. He noted in the past month he has had what felt like 2000 people ask where they are moving to. When he explained it will be at the old post office, 75 percent knew where that was, but the other 25 percent had no clue where it was. Mr. Tincher explained that the lights by the sign will be on a timer and will go off around 30 to 60 minutes after they close. He concluded by reiterating that this sign is not as much for the truck drivers as compared for the customers. Mr. Turney wanted to know what time the store will be closing? Mr. Tincher stated 8:00 p.m.

Ms. Elise Buckley Snoddy, owner of Story Book Inn, came forward and stated that the majority of her guests that come to the Inn, do not see her signs and pass by it. She felt like most people do not see her signs. She felt to make an exception for one particular business that decides they want to have a brick sign out front is not fair to the other businesses that might also want a brick sign out front. She knew that was not logical because you would have a whole street of large signs. She didn't think she had heard a good enough reason for this exception. She concluded by saying her signs are un-obtrusive and she tried to make them very un-obtrusive and she feels this sign should be just as un-obtrusive on Lexington Street. Mr. Stark asked Ms. Snoddy what she thought of Bel Air Florist's sign on Lexington Street? She thought it was pretty small and did not feel it was obtrusive.

Ms. Joan Crowe then explained that the part of this sign that is most obtrusive to her is the brick. She stated it is not in keeping with the houses on that street. She felt they could even have a larger sign if it was made out of wood and was painted to go with the building.

Mr. Stark then stated there has been quite a bit of testimony here tonight as to what the community thinks looks best for the Dollar General and the community. He acknowledged that he knows Dollar General store will be at this location, but there is an issue with the sign. He recalled last month asking the applicant and the concerned people to get together and come up with something that would be acceptable to everybody. He stated he did not know if that had occurred, but nothing seems to have changed from the last meeting. He felt like a lot of the testimony was very helpful and with a sign done right, can satisfy both the community and Dollar General. He explained that would make him more comfortable, personally, in moving forward to approve the sign. He explained that he is not comfortable right now in approving the sign as is. He asked if Dollar General would be willing to compromise to get their sign installed? Mr. Tincher responded that he tried to get the company to change both the signs to cream color, but the wall sign was already made and he felt that if they tried changing the color now, it would cost a lot more money. Mr. Stark felt the only sign they needed to talk about was the monument sign. He felt they could make a wooden sign as economically as the one they are proposing. He noted that he was not asking them to make it any smaller. Mr. Stark reiterated that they deserve a sign, but his opinion is the sign needs to be changed as to what it looks like. Mr. Tincher stated he is all ears as to what the Board thinks they should do. Mr. Tincher stated they would be willing to remove the brick base if it would help, although they added the brick thinking that would add to the looks of the sign. Mr. Stark noted that the neighborhood is mainly all wood siding houses and that the brick is out of character on that end of the street.

At this point Mr. Turney asked for Mr. Dozier to call for the question. He felt the Board was discussing things that might happen later on and we need to be discussing what is presented before the Board on this application. Mr. Dozier stated there are still some people that want to speak. Mr. Ellis came forward and wanted to clarify his earlier statements. He explained that the sign he saw in Ohio was a yellow sign, but it was a wooden sign like Bel Air Florist has with wooden posts on each end. Mr. Stark explained that we are not looking at the color. He noted that this Board has no control over color. There was more discussion over the material used for the sign. Ms. Toss Chandler stated there are a lot of creative people in this town and asked if Mr. Tincher would work with some of them to come up with a design? Mr. Tincher stated it is not up to him, it is not his store. He stated the decisions are made way above him. Ms. Joan Bauer felt that a wooden sign would also be better for this area.

Mr. Turney then asked Mr. Noel exactly what would the variance be if granted tonight? Mr. Noel responded it would be as advertised which is a 60 foot variance from the required 77.21 foot setback. He explained that the zone allows only wall signs. Mr. Dozier asked if there were any other questions or comments. With none, he closed the hearing and asked for a motion?

Mr. Turney moved to deny the request based on the Zoning Ordinance as it is not in keeping with the lay of the land (architecture design). There was no second and Mr. Dozier asked for another motion?

Mr. Stark moved to grant the request. He stated this motion is to approve the variance as to where it is located, not the sign itself. He wanted to see at some point and time another presentation of the sign in a different format than it is now.

There was more discussion between the members as to exactly what the motion should be able to include. It was decided that the motion can include the sign itself, but the variance was the basis for the request. Mr. Dozier then stated conditions could be placed in the motion for the sign. Mr. Stark felt he did not know what those conditions should actually be, so he felt that the best thing that can happen is that Dollar General come back with a new request for another sign. He asked Mr. Noel if they can do that? Mr. Noel stated they can. Mr. Stark then withdrew his motion.

At this point, Mr. Turney re-entered his earlier motion, as seconded by Mr. Stark, to deny the request based on the Zoning Ordinance as it is not in keeping with the lay of the land (architecture design). Motion carried 3-0 in favor.

Mr. Turney then suggested that if the applicants want to come back with another request, they should come into the office and talk about the sign so that when it does come back the Board can put the conditions in the motion to describe what the sign is going to be. Otherwise, he stated the sign will be left strictly up to the applicant as long as they meet our regulations.

NEW BUSINESS:

PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE: Edward A. & Phyllis L. Mattingly - 221 Aberdeen

10-016-2007 Road - R-1B Zoning District - Section 706.6 - Applicant is seeking a 10 foot variance from the 35 foot rear yard setback requirement in order to enclose the existing deck as a screened-in porch. No expansion of the existing pad on which the deck is presently located is planned.

Mr. Dozier asked Mr. Noel to brief the Board about this request? Mr. Noel stated this residence is located in the Colony Subdivision. He explained that this lot is in a court, which is relatively pie-shaped. He explained that there is very little frontage on the street, but it pies out and there is a tremendous amount of distance toward the rear. Mr. Noel stated each member should have a copy of the plat which includes this lot and is highlighted in yellow. At this point, Mrs. Mattingly came forward and stated when she filed this drawing, she neglected to attach the actual subdivision plat. So at that point, Mrs. Mattingly tendered a copy of the subdivision plat (exhibit A) to each of the Board members. Mr. Noel went on to say that the deck is located on the shorter side of the lot. He explained that the distance from the house to the rear yard property line on that side is 41 feet. He went on to say at the time the house was built the deck did not factor into the rear setback because there was no roof on it. Now, the Mattinglys are wanting to enclose this deck. Mr. Noel stated this is a total residential area and a lot of the houses in that area have screened-in porches and sun rooms so it is not unusual.

Mr. Noel stated there have been 11 letters submitted from this neighborhood that have no objection to this request. At that point, Mrs. Mattingly came forward and submitted a set of these letters (exhibit B) to each of the Board members. She explained that because of the nature of their lot, they have a lot of neighbors that are contiguous to them and she wanted to get their approval before the meeting.

Mr. Noel asked the members to look at the aerial map of this property that shows the house and the deck attached in the rear. He explained that the screened-in porch will not be any larger than the existing deck.

At this point, Mr. Dozier asked Mrs. Mattingly if she had anything else to say? Mrs. Mattingly stated they did realize that when they started thinking about enclosing the deck as a screened-in porch, that because of the way the lot is situated, they probably would need a variance. So, she closed by stating they are simply seeking that variance.

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

Mrs. Steen moved, as seconded by Mr. Turney, to grant Edward A. & Phyllis L. Mattingly of 221 Aberdeen Road , a 10 foot variance from the 35 foot rear yard setback requirement in order to enclose the existing deck as a screened-in porch with no expansion of the existing pad on which the deck is presently located. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.

PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE : Andy & Beulah Devers - 216 East Higgins Street - 10-017-2007 R-2 Zoning District - Section 708.6 - Applicant is seeking an 18 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback requirement in order to construct a single family dwelling 7 feet from edge of right-of-way in line with neighboring homes.

Mr. Dozier asked Mr. Noel to inform the Board of this request. Mr. Noel stated this is an old neighborhood on Higgins Street. Most of the houses are closer to the street, particularly on that side of the street, than current zoning laws allow. He explained that the applicants would like to build this house at the same distance as the other homes so it will be in line with the others. Mr. Noel went on to say the applicants were not aware of the 66 foot right-of-way and thought the house could start even with existing houses and be ok with Planning and Zoning. The applicants actually thought it would be more in keeping with the character of the vicinity by building it in the same location as the other houses.

Mr. Stark asked if the front of the proposed house was going to be in line with the existing house next door? Mr. Noel stated it is. Mr. Stark's observation was that the next door house actually sits a little bit farther back than some of the other houses on that street. Mr. Noel agreed.

Mr. Ova Caudill from Lexington, came forward and stated he sold the log home package to the Devers and told them he would help oversee this project. He felt the biggest problem is the 66 foot right-of-way. He explained that nobody was aware that it was that wide. Mr. Caudill noted that that would of course cause the house to sit way back off the road and would not look like the rest of the neighborhood.

Mr. Dozier asked if there had been any comments from any neighbors? Mr. Noel stated no. Mr. Dozier asked if there were any other comments? With none, Mr. Dozier asked for a motion?

Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Mr. Stark, to grant Andy & Beulah Devers of 216 East Higgins Street, an 18 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback requirement in order to construct a single family dwelling 7 feet from edge of right-of-way in line with neighboring homes. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.

PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE : Aaron Jones - 800 Jones Lane- RR Zoning District - 10-018-2007 Section 703.7 & 703.10E - Applicant is seeking a 125 foot variance from the required 150 foot requirement in any case where any Rural Residential lot adjoins a property owner other than the applicant whose land is zoned either A-1, A-2, CO-1 or Rural Residential/Residual Farmland. Applicant's intent is to possibly remove existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling.

Mr. Dozier asked Mr. Noel for his comments? Mr. Noel stated this lot was part of a larger farm which was divided in 1973. The original farm house sits on this lot which is 40 feet from the property line that divides the farm. At that time there was no Rural Residential zones, so there were no 150 foot setback requirements, as there is today. The house is fine where it exists, but if the house comes down, then it would take a variance in order to build one back. He noted that it would not be intrusive into the surrounding ag land. He also informed the Board that there have been no comments from adjoining neighbors or anyone else.

Mr. Dozier asked if a new home is built will it be built in the same spot? Mr. Noel stated basically, yes.

Mr. Dozier asked if the applicant would like to speak? Mr. Aaron Jones stated he really didn't have anything to add, but would answer any questions if there are any. Mr. Turney stated the way the request reads, it states "possibly remove existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling". He wanted to know if Mr. Jones had plans to tear down the existing house? Mr. Jones stated they do not have plans at this time. He explained that it will probably be torn down by whoever buys this land. He went on to say that he probably will be selling this lot. He stated most of the offers he has had have been from farmers, but it is for economic interest mainly. Mr. Turney's concern was that the request is not specific in that it says "in the vicinity". He wanted to know how big is the vicinity? Is it anywhere on the property? Mr. Noel stated they would not be allowed to encroach on the variance that is granted. There was discussion about distinction between the farm and the lot and the present zones. It was determined that the farm has been changed to Rural Residential and is in process of being developed, including this lot as one of the development rights.

Mr. Dozier asked if there were any other questions or comments? With none, he closed the hearing and asked for a motion?

Ms. Steen moved, as seconded by Mr. Turney, to grant Aaron Jones of 800 Jones Lane, a 125 foot variance from the required 150 foot requirement in any case where any Rural Residential lot adjoins a property owner other than the applicant whose land is zoned either A-1, A-2, CO-1 or Rural Residential/Residual Farmland. Applicant's intent is to possibly remove existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.

PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE : Gene Hornback - 205-209 Frankfort Street (fka 199),

10-019-2007 B-4 Zoning District - Section 716.6 - Applicant is seeking a 28.5 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement in a B-4 zone to allow an existing building to set 1.5 feet from the new rear property line created by a subdivision of the property to create three lots, one being the detention basin to the rear of aforementioned building.

Mr. Dozier asked Mr. Noel to brief the Board on this request? Mr. Noel asked the Board to look at their copy of the site plan. He explained that what they are looking at was originally one lot. When they built the existing building they put their detention basin in the right rear corner. Then they subdivided the lot to where Mr. Hornback could sell one or both of the properties if he so desired. The zoning regulations require that the detention shall not be on the created lot. John Hunt, from J.E. Black, helped explain by stating once you create more than one lot, you have to create a third lot for detention. Mr. Noel went on to say, the applicant had to request a variance because that puts this lot 28 ½ feet into the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement. He went on to explain that there is a drainage basin there now that was engineered for both structures originally in anticipation and is no hindrance to the existing building.

Mr. Stark recalled when this area was approved initially, the drawings actually showed the building where it is now and another building on the other side and the parking was going to be in the center. Mr. Noel stated the plans are still the same. Mr. Noel went on to say that there have been no objections from anyone.

Mr. Dozier asked the applicant if he would like to address the Board. Mr. John Black of J.E. Black who is the engineer for this application and representing Mr. Hornback came forward and explained that nothing will really change other than needing the variance because of the newly created lot for the detention basin. He went on to say that Mr. Hornback wants to have the freedom of selling individual lots if he so desires.

Mr. Dozier wanted to make the comment that they are only granting a variance. He stated this has nothing to do with the detention or the parking. Mr. Noel agreed.

Mr. Dozier asked if there were any other comments or concerns? With none, Mr. Dozier closed the hearing and asked for a motion?

Mr. Turney moved, as seconded by Ms. Steen, to grant Gene Hornback of 205-209 Frankfort Street (fka 199) a 28.5 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement in a B-4 zone to allow an existing building to set 1.5 feet from the new rear property line created by a subdivision of the property to create three lots, one being the detention basin to the rear of aforementioned building. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.

Mr. Dozier then asked for a motion to adjourn?

Mr. Stark moved, as seconded by Ms. Steen, to adjourn at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried 4-0 in favor.

Sam Dozier, III, Chairman