Historic Commission weighs neighbor's objections to unpermitted home addition in McLeansville

On April 16, 2025, the Lexington Board of Architectural Review convened to address a contentious construction issue involving a property owner and her newly built addition, which has raised significant concerns among neighbors and board members alike. The meeting highlighted the complexities of navigating historic preservation guidelines and the challenges faced by homeowners in historic districts.

The primary focus of the discussion centered on a recent construction project that was undertaken without the necessary permits. The property owner, who was not present at the meeting due to health issues, had believed she only needed a planning permit to proceed with her project. However, it was revealed that no permits were obtained, leading to a situation where the addition was built during a holiday break, raising suspicions about the timing of the construction.

A letter from a neighbor, Libby Rockaway, was presented, expressing objections to the use of vinyl windows and the overall length of the new structure, which is reportedly 64 feet long and situated just six feet from her property line. Rockaway's concerns reflect a broader sentiment among residents about maintaining the historic character of the neighborhood. Her father, John Rockaway, attended the meeting to advocate for her position, emphasizing the negative impact the new construction has had on the feel of the backyard and the neighborhood as a whole.

The board members acknowledged the challenges faced by the property owner, who had initially intended to make minor renovations but ended up undertaking a more extensive project due to the requirements of the historic commission. The discussions revealed a tension between the need for adherence to historic guidelines and the realities of home renovation, particularly during the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response to the concerns raised, board members suggested potential solutions, including the possibility of landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of the new construction on neighboring properties. However, the feasibility of such measures remains uncertain given the limited space available between the two buildings.

The meeting concluded without a definitive resolution, leaving open the possibility for further discussions and potential adjustments to the project. The board's deliberations underscore the ongoing challenges faced by homeowners in historic districts, where the balance between modernization and preservation continues to be a contentious issue. As the board prepares for future meetings, the community will be watching closely to see how this situation unfolds and what implications it may have for similar projects in the area.