Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 400 Chestnut Zone Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves zone change and variance for 400 Chestnut after neighbor property-line dispute; neighbors press for buffer and hours limits
Summary
Commission approved a zone change to B1, a variance to omit a zone-to-zone landscape buffer, and the accompanying development plan for 400 Chestnut (On the Block LLC). Neighbors objected, saying a fence and use of a 9.5-by-24-foot strip of land behind their house are disputed; commission approved the applications and staff conditions unanimously.
The Lexington Planning Commission recommended approval of a zone change to B1 (PLN MAR 25-009), approved a variance to the zone-to-zone screening requirements and accepted the submitted development plan for 400 Chestnut Street (PLN MJDP 25-28) on July 10.
James Mills of planning staff told the commission the property has been used commercially for decades but remained zoned R3. The owner’s application seeks to regularize and continue neighborhood-serving commercial uses without new on-site parking; staff recommended approval and proposed conditional zoning restrictions to prohibit uses the neighborhood identified as undesirable, including package liquor sales and nightclubs.
The hearing produced a focused dispute about an existing privacy fence and a narrow strip of land behind the proposed commercial building. Neighbor Samuel Hicks’s attorney, Jessica Winters, said the plan’s property boundary as shown extends nine-and-a-half feet into Hicks’s fenced yard and that approving the development plan would effectively allow the applicant to develop that portion of Hicks’s property. “If you approve the development plan, you will be saying that the applicant has the right to develop a 9 and a half foot by 24 foot section of Mister Hicks' property and that is inside his existing fence line,” Winters said. The neighbor also said he had paid to replace sidewalk sections after the city treated the fence line as the property limit on an earlier action.
Applicant representative Andrew Mueller said the owners did outreach and had plumbing and electrical permits in place; he said a prior owner and listing materials misrepresented the property boundary and that the new owner has sought to resolve the title issue. Engineer Kyle Hogue said survey evidence and aerial images show the legal boundary in a different location than a recently built privacy fence; the applicant requested the variance so they would not be forced to remove a portion of the existing structure to install a buffer required by ordinance.
Planning commissioners approved the zone change, the variance and the development plan; the motions and the variance carried unanimously. Staff required a set of plan-cleanup conditions and proposed conditional-use prohibitions (for example, certain liquor/package sales, bars, clubs and parking structures) to protect the neighborhood. The commission approval allows the owner to proceed to technical permitting, although the private-property boundary dispute remains a civil issue to be resolved between property owners, counsel and recording documents.
