Danville Board of Adjustments tables conditional-use request for in‑home daycare at 1068 Argyle Drive

The Boyle County Board of Adjustments tabled a conditional‑use permit request from Christie Kerr to operate an in‑home daycare at 1068 Argyle Drive after neighbors raised deed‑restriction and notice concerns and legal counsel warned the board an approval could prompt litigation. The board voted to table the item until next month to allow the applicant and the homeowners association to address outstanding issues.

Hannah Gray, planning staff, told the board the property is a 0.34‑acre lot in an R‑1A single‑family zoning district and that an in‑home childcare use is conditionally permitted only if it meets specific standards. Gray said the application references the ordinance’s specific use standards and that the applicant would need to satisfy the requirements under section 5.2.0.2.b to operate.

Applicant Christie Kerr said she has more than 20 years in early childhood education and has operated in‑home daycares in other states. She told the board she has been told there is a local need for childcare and that state approval would allow her to care for up to six children who are not related to her; she said she expected to enroll roughly four children most days. "Being state approved allows me to go from 3 students Children in my home to 6," Kerr said. She gave her planned hours as roughly 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and said state licensing requires additional insurance.

Several neighbors spoke against the permit. Rick Rudd, who lives next door at 1064 Argyle Drive, spoke in favor of Kerr. Others, including John Dalton identifying himself as the HOA president, and adjacent owner Bill Singler, opposed the permit on the basis of deed restrictions that they said reserve Argyle Subdivision lots "solely and exclusively for single family residential purposes." Singler presented a packet of exhibits that included the subdivision deed restrictions, alleged failures in mailed notice to two adjacent property owners, and a claim that some required application materials were missing from the planning file.

Other neighbors raised safety, parking and traffic concerns and urged enforcement of the subdivision's covenants. Scott Russell, Diedra Van Paul, Bernard Montgomery and several other residents said they purchased or remain in the neighborhood in part because of the subdivision’s residential restrictions and expressed concern that allowing the daycare could set a precedent. Van Paul cited a prior injunction against a home business in the 1970s as local precedent.

Legal advisor Henry Toole Pine advised the board that deed restrictions are private covenants that can be enforced by private parties and that the board could face a legal challenge if it approved a use that appears to conflict with recorded restrictions. "I think the board should not endeavor to decide upon those questions of interpretation," he said, recommending that the board permit the HOA to consider the matter first and noting the HOA’s annual meeting was scheduled for the coming Sunday.

The applicant said she had asked the HOA secretary in August whether anything in the bylaws prevented an in‑home daycare of the size she proposed and had been told she did not see anything preventing it. HOA representatives and multiple residents said no formal HOA vote or approval had been passed and that the board’s current stance was opposition.

Following discussion, a motion to table the conditional‑use permit until the board’s next meeting carried. Board members said tabling would allow the applicant and the HOA to pursue a resolution at the HOA level and, if necessary, return with a clarified HOA position or court disposition. The board did not adopt conditions or make a final decision; the formal item remains pending.

Votes at the meeting: a motion to table the conditional‑use permit was moved and seconded; the board recorded the motion as carried (tally not specified on the record).