Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Business Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves backyard market‑garden permit but denies larger accessory‑building variance for Ruby microgreens
Summary
The Board granted Kim and Michael Ruby a conditional use permit for a market garden at their Sheridan Drive home but denied a variance to increase accessory building area beyond the zoning cap; staff said the variance would convert the property’s primary use away from single‑family residence.
The Lexington City Board of Adjustment approved a conditional use permit allowing Kim and Michael Ruby to operate a market garden and indoor microgreens operation at 693 Sheridan Drive, but denied the Ruby family’s request for a variance to expand accessory building area beyond the zoning limit.
Planning staff told the board the home-based market garden met the ordinance criteria for a conditional use in the R‑1C zone and recommended approval subject to standard conditions, including limits on on‑site sales hours and a requirement for a zoning compliance permit and certificate of occupancy. Staff recommended disapproval of the varianceto increase accessory‑building area from the ordinance’s 625 square‑foot threshold (or 50% of the house, whichever is greater) to 1,216 square feet, saying the applicant had not shown the necessary findings for a dimensional variance and cautioning that accessory buildings exceeding the primary residence’s footprint can change the property’s primary use.
Kim Ruby said the microgreens business has operated for five years and that the existing garage and canopy are already used for growing; she told the board a new enclosed, climate‑controlled greenhouse is needed for humidity control, food‑safety cleaning (washable walls/floor drains) and to preserve the family operation: “This is our livelihood,” she said.
Board members noted their sympathy for small‑scale urban agriculture but also cited the ordinance language limiting accessory‑building size and the risk that a very large accessory structure would make the secondary use primary. After discussion, the board approved the conditional use permit with four conditions recommended by staff — hours/onsite‑sales limits, lighting control, required permits, and residency requirement — and voted to deny the variance request.
Why it matters: The action allows a small‑scale agricultural business to continue in a residential neighborhood while enforcing the code’s accessory‑structure limits. The split decision highlights the board balancing resident economic activity with limits intended to preserve residential character.
