Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects Montero variance request for Rosalie Road property
Summary
The board voted to disapprove a requested reduction of the one-mile spacing rule to 450 feet for a Rosalie Road property, after staff cited the ordinance and several board members emphasized consistency with established spacing rules.
The Lexington-Fayette County Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to deny the Montero application (PLNBOA26-3) seeking a variance to reduce the required 1‑mile spacing between unhosted short‑term rentals to roughly 450 feet at 3512 Rosalie Road.
Planning staff presented the case and recommended disapproval, citing Article 7 of the zoning ordinance and KRS 100.243. Staff noted the ordinance’s purpose is to control density of short‑term rentals in agricultural zones and concluded the applicant had not shown the special circumstances needed for a variance.
An applicant spoke in support, arguing the property is bordered on two sides by Keeneland and large horse farms and therefore has a permanent agricultural buffer. The applicant said the intent was a limited, professionally managed use and offered operational safeguards.
Multiple board members questioned whether the application represented a reasonable variance. One board member said the proposed change would amount to a 91% reduction in the spacing requirement and called it “really too close” to another approved short‑term rental. Public commenters, including a nearby host who said she had operated an Airbnb for six years without incident, urged leniency. The board discussed options, considered the need for consistent application of the ordinance and took a brief recess to consult legal counsel.
When business resumed the board moved to disapprove the variance and conditional‑use permit; the motion passed and the application was disapproved.
Legal counsel clarified for residents that deed restrictions are private matters enforceable in court and outside the board’s jurisdiction. The board’s stated reason for denial centered on consistency with the one‑mile spacing rule and insufficient evidence of unique hardship.
