The document summarizes minutes from a Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting regarding an appeal of a determination concerning non-conforming rights for a structure located at 224 East Oak Street in Louisville, Kentucky. Witnesses provided testimony both opposing and supporting the appeal, including the previous owner, current owner, neighbors, and officials from Louisville Metro codes and regulations and utilities departments. The board members considered testimony regarding the property's occupancy history, maintenance issues, tax status, and whether the prior owner abandoned the non-conforming use rights as a 5-unit property under the zoning code.

1. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
Appellant: Steve Zocklein
223 E. Oak Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40203
Owner: DF Investment Group, LLC
1473 S. 4th Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40208
Subject: An Appeal of a determination by the Department of
Codes and Regulations concerning non-conforming rights for a structure.
Premises affected: On property knows as 224 East Oak Street and being
in Louisville Metro.
COUNCIL DISTRICT 6—David James
Staff Case Manager: Steve Hendrix, Planning Supervisor
(CONTINUED FROM MARCH 21, 2011)
Administrative Officials:
Paul Nicholson, Information Systems Supervisor, Louisville Metro Department of
Codes & Regulations, 444 S. 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40222.
Steve Hendrix, Planning & Design Services, 444 S. 5th Street, Louisville,
Kentucky 40202.
April Robbins, Louisville Metro Department of Codes and Regulations, 444 South
5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky.
Subpoenaed Witnesses:
Dale Bielefeld, Manager Field Services Operations, LG&E and KU Energy, LLC,
220 West Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202.
Edward Alan Bottom, Team Leader Revenue Collection, LG&E and KU Energy,
LLC, 220 West Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202.

2. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
Appearances Opposing the Appeal:
Deborah Bilitski, Attorney, 500 West Jefferson Street, Ste. 2800, Louisville,
Kentucky 40202; who submitted information/letters into the record.
Brandon Denton (current owner of 224 East Oak), DF Investment Group, LLC,
1473 S. 4th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40208.
Previous owner of the property:
Ted Bishop (previous owner of 224 East Oak), BISCO Properties, 1152 S. 6th
Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40203.
Appearances Interested Party:
No one.
Appearances in Support of the Appeal:
Leah Stewart, 1386 S. 6th Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40208.
Christopher White, 119 W. Ormsby Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky 40203.
Paul Mastrolia, Department for Housing & Family Services, 745 W. Main Street,
Louisville, Kentucky 40202.
Charles Cash, 500 Upland Road, Louisville, Kentucky 40206.
Steve Zocklein, 223 E. Oak Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40203.
An audio/visual recording of the Board of Zoning Adjustment hearing related to
this case is available in the office of Planning & Design Services, located at 444
South Fifth Street, Louisville, Kentucky.
A letter from the Department of Codes and Regulations was sent to Ronnie J.
Harris of King Southern Bank on December 7, 2010, which stated that non-
conforming use rights had been established for the property known as 224 East
Oak Street for five apartments. The appellant, which in this case is a neighbor, is

3. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
claiming that since the structure was vacant for more than a year and that the
property owner did not pursue reinstatement of the non-conforming use by such
acts would be pursed by a reasonable person with the intent to reinstate said
non-conforming use, that the non-conforming use was abandoned and the
property reverts to the Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District of single and
two-family residential.
On February 1, 2011, the appellant filed an appeal of this action.
On March 21, 2011, this case was continued by the Board.
On April 18, 2011, at a meeting of the Board, a hearing was held on the case. A
drawing showing the premises affected and the existing and/or proposed
construction was presented to each Board member.
In accordance with the Board Bylaws, the staff report prepared for this case was
incorporated into the record. The Board members had received this report in
advance of the hearing and it was available to any interested party prior to the
public hearing. See Addendum for staff report in full.
The recording of this hearing will be found on the DVD of the April 18, 2011
proceedings.
SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS:
8:46:19 Paul Nicholson, Information Systems Supervisor, Louisville Metro
Department of Codes & Regulations, said he runs the abandoned property
reports for the city. He said if violations are sent to the property owner and they
get no response after a year, the information is sent to the Housing Department,
who then determines the property abandoned. Member Wagaman asked what a
“Court Abandoned” property is. Mr. Nicholson said the property is in court for
some reason. He said if the taxes haven’t been paid in 3 years, the property
goes on another list. He said the property can be considered vacant even if the
property owner is maintaining the building, grass, etc.
9:00:02 Deborah Bilitski, Attorney for the property owner, asked Mr.
Nicholson if he knows of any specific information about the subject property. Mr.

4. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
Nicholson said he knows there’s a case, but has no idea what’s included in the
file.
9:00:43 Leah Stewart, representing the appellant, showed Mr. Nicholson an
IPL print out showing the property as a “Court Vacant Structure” and if this is
typical. Mr. Nicholson said yes. Mr. Nicholson said he writes the code that
produces these reports; and does not review them. Ms. Stewart asked him if he
is a computer programmer. Mr. Nicholson said yes.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF SUBPOENAED WITNESSES:
9:02:06 Dale Bielefeld, Manager Field Services Operations, LG&E and KU
Energy, LLC, said he’s in charge of meter removals and installation,
disconnection and reconnection of services. Member Proffitt said the only
reason they would remove a meter is if a property owner said they are converting
from 5 units to a single family home. Mr. Bielefeld said generally yes, and also if
they receive a wrecking permit or if there is theft of service. He said they also
disconnect power if a unit is not rented, but can be easily restored. He said the
records for this property indicate that they have 5 individual meters and one
house meter for common areas (e.g. hallways/laundry room).
9:10:00 Ms. Stewart asked Mr. Bielefeld if one or more of the meters were
removed. He said he doesn’t have that information, but believes there was no
usage for awhile for units 2, 4 and 5.
9:11:21 Edward Alan Bottom, Team Leader Revenue Collection, LG&E and
KU Energy, said no meters were removed from this property. He said the house
meter was installed in January of 2010. He said he researched the records for
this property back to 2005 and two of the units have been active since then. He
said if the meters are inactive for a year or more, would have to be inspected
before the service is turned back on. He said all five meters are active now for
this property.
9:19:10 Ms. Stewart asked if the two meters that were active were showing
normal or minimal usage. Mr. Bottom said it was minimal, just to keep the lights
on.

5. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
9:20:10 Christopher White said the electrical permit from July of 2009,
where the service was reactivated said he was told by the contractor that there
were only three meters (the house meter and units 4 and 5). Mr. Bottom said
they have meter readers that go by every month; and are getting readings on 5
meters and a house meter. Mr. Bottom said if there’s no meter, it would show up
as a meter route, and that this did not show up in his records.
9:24:00 Ms. Stewart said that for about 14 months there was very little
usage and the bill was not being paid. Mr. Bottom said yes.
PREVIOUS OWNER’S SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY—OPPOSED TO APPEAL:
9:26:38 Ted Bishop said some of the units sat vacant at various times while
he and his partners owned it, but said that he always cut the grass. He said at
one point he had to evict everyone because of various issues; and didn’t put up
for rent signs because of possible theft. He said he never abandoned the
property and tried to actively rent the apartments through ads in the Courier
Journal newspaper. He said he finally sold the property because one of his
partners became seriously ill and the other lost his job.
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
9:40:54 Ms. Stewart asked Mr. Bishop about the amount of time the
building sat vacant. Mr. Bishop said he does not know the exact amount of time,
but that it did sit vacant for awhile. Ms. Stewart asked him if he had any of the
ads from the Courier Journal she could see. Mr. Bishop said no. Ms. Stewart
said there were several maintenance violations and that he went to court 15
times. Mr. Bishop said yes, but that he corrected all the problems. Ms. Stewart
said the water was turned off for three years. Mr. Bishop said the water was shut
off because of frozen pipes.
9:45:09 Mr. White asked Mr. Bishop why he had trouble renting out the
units. Mr. Bishop said they were small units far from U of L. He said he also had
bad tenants that drove away the good tenants.
9:46:21 Ms. Bilitski asked Mr. Bishop if he ever intended not to rent the
units out. Mr. Bishop said no. She asked him if he intended to keep the property
as a 5-plex. He said yes; and tried to work with King Southern Bank to try and
keep it.

6. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
CURRENT OWNER’S SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY – OPPOSED TO APPEAL:
9:48:12 Brandon Denton with DF Investment Group, LLC, said they bought
the property December 29, 2010; and the 5 units were easily distinguishable. He
said they spent $100,000.00 to fix it up which was mostly cosmetic work; and that
all the units are currently leased. Mr. Denton said they are a property
management company, so they advertised the units on their website. He said
they do thorough background checks (criminal/credit) and have good tenants in
their building.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF APPELLANTS:
10:01:32 Leah Stewart presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Board
said there is some confusion over how the properties got on the Abandon
Properties List and that Mr. White would discuss this.
10:02:23 Mr. White said he understands that Codes and Regulations refers
distressed properties to Metro Housing and Community Development and that a
representative would discuss this. He asked Mr. Mastriola with the Department
of Housing and Family Services to testify.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND FAMILY SERVICES SUMMARY OF
TESTIMONY:
10:05:52 Paul Mastrolia with the Department of Housing and Family
Services, said the Abandoned Urban Properties List (AUP) is what generates a
tax classification. He said the property must be vacant an entire year and have
recorded violations to be on this list. Mr. White said the subject property was on
the list in 2005 and at that time was an appeals process, but no appeal was filed.
Member Proffitt asked who determines a property is vacant. Mr. Mastrolia said
Codes and Regulations. Member Proffitt said the list would not indicate if the
property owner is trying to rent the units because they’re just relying on what
Codes and Regulations tells them. Member Grisanti questioned the tax rate
change. Mr. Mastrolia said the tax rate triples on properties that are on this list
because properties are not being maintained. Member Proffitt asked if this
property is still on this list. Mr. Mastrolia said he doesn’t think so.

7. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
CROSS EXAMINATION:
10:11:38 Ms. Bilitski asked Mr. Mastrolia who asked him to be here to testify
today. He said his supervisor. She asked him who asked his supervisor. He
said Mr. White. Ms. Bilitski asked if the county attorney’s office contacted him to
testify. He said they did not talk to him and is unaware if they talked to his
supervisor or anyone else.
10:12:24 Mr. White said at the last hearing they asked if they could
subpoena someone from Housing and Family Services, but it didn’t make it into
the motion. Mr. White said he spoke with Maria Timberlake with Housing and
Family Services, who said the property didn’t show up on the AUP list in 2009
because it shows up a year later; and that this list was suspended later by Tony
Lindauer for various reasons.
10:14:38 Ms. Stewart said the previous owner plead guilty to several
maintenance violations. She said she spoke with April Robbins with Codes and
Regulations, asking her what a Court Vacant Structure meant. She said she was
told that the structure was vacant from March 2008 to August 2009 and going
through the court system and added that no order to vacate was issued. Ms.
Stewart asked Ms. Robbins to verify this.
10:15:30 April Robbins, Codes and Regulations, was swore in and said yes.
Member Proffitt asked her if she ever felt the property was abandoned. Ms.
Robbins said no; and that she and Mr. Hendrix determined that it was a 5-plex.
10:19:28 Mr. White said he spoke with an LG&E employee who turned the
power back on for 3 meters, and told him there were no other meters present,
except the house meter. Member Grisanti asked him if there was wiring. Mr.
White said he did not ask that question.
10:22:30 Ms. Stewart then discussed similar case law which supported their
beliefs with regards to losing non-conforming rights status. She said the TNZD
should protect neighborhoods from undesirable development and preserve the
historic character; and that the Board needs to determine this, not staff.
SUMMARY- SUPPORTING APPEAL:

8. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
10:34:17 Charles Cash said he and his wife lived next door to the subject
property and had a hard time selling once potential buyers found out the property
was abandoned. He said it took them over a year to sell it, and they had to take
$10-15,000.00 less than what they wanted.
10:36:17 Steve Zocklein, the appellant and adjacent neighbor, said he has
lived at his home since 2002 and has watched the property deteriorate. He said
tenants were selling drugs and noticed prostitutes in the area. He said this is the
only 5-plex in the area and is lowering their property values.
10:39:01 Member Proffitt left the meeting.
10:40:38 Leah Stewart said her findings of fact are on the last two pages of
her booklet is a typo on the fourth finding and that the finding should read:
WHEREAS, there was no assurance that any would-be purchaser would
continue the non-conforming use as evidenced by . . . Ms. Stewart said they do
not have a problem with the current owner, but feel the previous owner
abandoned the property and thereby loses the non-conforming rights status for a
5-plex.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF OPPONENTS/REBUTTAL:
10:42:00 Deborah Bilitski, attorney for the owner of the subject property, said
this property may have been vacant for over a year, but doesn’t mean the non-
conforming rights have been abandoned. She said she has submitted affidavits
from previous owners of the property and all said they intended to keep it a
5-plex; and that even staff agreed that non-conforming rights exist for 5 units.
She said the previous owners tried to rent the units and kept the grass cut, but
fell on very hard financial times. She said King Southern Bank asked for a staff
determination before selling the property; and that the new owner invested
$100,000.00 into the property and has all the apartments rented. She said non-
conforming rights cases are fact specific and the Board must rely on the
testimony and evidence submitted to make a determination; and that this
evidence should speak for itself.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED PARTIES:
No one spoke as an interested party.

9. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
BUSINESS SESSION:
11:05:51 Member Grisanti said it appears to him that there was never an
intent to abandon the non-conforming use for 5 units because the number of
units were never modified. Member Jarboe said she feels they should look at the
actions of the owner such as not paying taxes and that the building was not
habitable. Member Grisanti said they heard testimony from the owners’ that they
never intended to change the use. Theresa Senninger, the Board’s legal
counsel, said to look at the information collectively to make a decision.
NON-CONFORMIG RIGHTS:
11:37:37 After the public hearing in open business session, on a motion by
Member Grisanti, seconded by Member Liggin, the following resolution was
adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board finds from the file of this case, the staff report, the
PowerPoint presentation(s) and the evidence and testimony presented at the
public hearing that this appeal concerns a staff determination that acknowledges
a five unit apartment structure; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that by the affidavits submitted by current and
previous owners of the property located at 224 E. Oak Street from 1984 through
2010, and the statement non-conforming use issued by the Louisville Metro
Department of Codes and Regulations in December of 2010, that the property
has contained five (5) apartment units since prior to November 12, 2002, when
the property was rezoned from R-7 Multi-Family Residential to TNZD, and that
the use of these apartments was not abandoned following the rezoning of the
property to TNZD; and
Because the subject property that there was never any intent to abandon the
non-conforming rights for a five unit apartment building; nor was the building
altered to reduce the number of units at anytime; and
WHEREAS, the Board further finds that the sworn affidavits were submitted by
the owners of the property from 1984 through 2010 which provide that the
property at 224 E. Oak Street contained five (5) apartment units at all times since
at least 2000; and

10. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
WHEREAS, the Board further finds that the Louisville Metro Department of
Codes and Regulations issued a statement of non-conforming use rights in
December of 2010 confirming its position that the property has non-conforming
rights for five apartment units; and
WHEREAS, the Board further finds that although there was a period of time that
the property at 224 E. Oak Street was unoccupied, such was the result of
economic hardship of the owner at the time, Bisco Properties; one of the owners
of Bisco Properties testified he did not intend to abandon the use of the building
as a five-plex, and he took action to repair as he was financially able and kept the
units available for rent at all times, which demonstrates there was no intention to
abandon the non-conforming use rights; also when the property was taken back
by deed in lieu of foreclosure, King Southern Bank, applied for and obtained
administrative approval of non-conforming rights for five apartment units, which
evidences a clear intent not to abandon non-conforming rights; and the current
owner, DF Investment Group, renovated and fully leased the five apartments,
also evidencing a clear intent to maintain the use of the property as a five-plex;
and because at all times since at least November of 2002, five separate
apartment units were maintained in the building and no actions were taken by the
owners to combine the units into any lesser number of units, which further
evidences that non-conforming rights for five units were maintained and not
abandoned;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board does hereby
ACKNOWLEDGE that non-conforming rights exist for a five unit apartment
structure on property located at 224 East Oak Street.
The vote was as follows:
YES: Members Wagaman, Liggin, Grisanti and Fishman.
NO: Member Jarboe.
NOT PRESENT FOR THIS CASE AND NOT VOTING: Member Allendorf
Proffitt.
ABSTAINING: No one.

11. MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. B-15416-11
11:43:09 Upon conclusion in open business session, on a motion by Member
Grisanti, seconded by Member Liggin, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the action of the administrative official was
proper;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the letter from the Louisville Metro
Department of Codes and Regulations was proper.
The vote was as follows:
YES: Members Wagaman, Liggin, Grisanti, Fishman and Jarboe.
NO: No one.
NOT PRESENT FOR THIS CASE AND NOT VOTING: Members
Allendorf and Proffitt.
ABSTAINING: No one.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board does hereby
DENY the Appeal.