Lexington Planning Commission reviews disputed zone change and development plan amid property conflict

The Lexington Planning Commission convened on July 10, 2025, to discuss several subdivision items, with a significant focus on a proposed zone change and development plan that has sparked community debate.

The meeting began with a presentation from the applicant's representative, who emphasized that the development plan aligns with the city's comprehensive plan for infill and reuse in a neighborhood that requires retail support. The representative noted that the proposal does not involve new construction or site modifications but aims to bring a long-standing non-conforming use into compliance. The plan includes existing structures and boundary lines, which have been a point of contention due to a property dispute with a neighboring owner, Samuel Hicks.

Hicks, represented by Jessica Winters, voiced strong objections to the development plan, arguing that it encroaches on his property by extending the proposed boundary line into his fenced yard. Winters detailed that Hicks purchased his property in 2021, which included an existing fence that he believed marked his property line. She expressed concern that the approval of the development plan would grant the applicant rights to a section of land within Hicks' yard, disrupting his access and use of his property.

The discussion highlighted the complexities of property boundaries in the area, with Winters noting that Hicks had previously faced issues regarding property lines and had incurred costs for sidewalk replacements based on city assertions about property ownership. She argued that the development plan's approval would not only undermine Hicks' property rights but also set a precedent for future disputes.

The commission also heard from Robert Hodge, the neighborhood president, who expressed neutrality regarding the plan, stating he could neither support nor oppose it without further information.

Following the presentations, the commission deliberated on the matter. The zoning and subdivision committees had recommended approval of the application, citing that the planning commission is not the appropriate forum to resolve private property disputes. The meeting concluded with the commission considering the implications of the objections raised and the need for further examination of the property boundary issues before making a final decision.

As the commission moves forward, the outcome of this case will likely hinge on the resolution of the property dispute and the community's response to the proposed development plan.