Planning commission upholds BOAR approval for 115 Penmoken Park addition, denies neighbor appeal 6-1

The Lexington‑Fayette Urban County Planning Commission denied a neighbor’s appeal of a Board of Architectural Review certificate of appropriateness for a rear addition at 115 Penmoken Park, upholding the BOAR decision by a 6‑1 vote July 24.

Planning staffer Daniel Crone told the commission the matter before them was “an appeal to the decision of the B.O.A.R. regarding the property at 115 Penmoken Park,” and that the commission’s role was to review whether the BOAR erred in applying the local historic preservation guidelines. The addition at issue was built without permits around the winter holidays and later submitted to BOAR; BOAR approved the modified design at its April hearing by a 3‑1 vote.

Why it matters: the property sits inside the Pensacola Park H1 historic overlay; the case tested how strictly the commission and BOAR must enforce guideline language that uses “should” (advisory) rather than “shall” (mandatory). Preservation staff argued the addition still failed key guidance (notably a 12‑inch recommended step‑back and roofline separation) but BOAR members found conditions and design changes sufficient to differentiate old from new.

Most important facts - The addition was constructed without building permits; historic‑overlay rules require a certificate of appropriateness (COA) for exterior changes. Planning staff said enforcement and building‑permit questions would be handled separately at the building permit stage. - Planning staff recommended the commission disallow the appeal and uphold BOAR’s COA. Historic preservation staff’s position to the BOAR had been to recommend denial, though they supplied findings for approval should the BOAR choose to approve. - BOAR approved the COA at its April hearing, 3‑1. The commission received an appeal filed May 14 from the adjoining property owner. - Conditions BOAR attached and shown in the record included changing siding orientation/materials (to a cementitious vertical siding), replacing proposed vinyl windows with wood‑compliant windows, a reduced roof pitch/break to delineate addition from original house, pilasters at corners and insertion of bay windows to break the long wall face, and a rear stoop/exit.

Key testimony - Bruce Simpson, attorney representing the adjoining owner (identified in the record as Libby Rockway), urged reversal. Simpson summarized record facts and argued BOAR lacked evidence to find the revised design met guidelines: “there was no evidence for that board to make a decision that it comported with the guidelines,” and he warned against creating a precedent that would reward construction done without permits. He also described the addition as a near‑continuous 44‑foot wall visible from the neighbor’s yard. - Historic preservation staff testified in detail about guideline 2.4.2 (additions), emphasizing the guideline language that exterior walls “should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches” and that rooflines should be stepped down so the original roof remains evident. Staff recommended denial to the BOAR but provided conditions that could have supported approval. - Diane Lowe, owner of 115 Penmoken Park and the property’s applicant, addressed the commission and said she did not realize the house was in a historic district when she bought it and apologized that her contractor did not obtain permits. She said she was not planning to rent the house to students and said she would work with neighbors on window choices.

Commission deliberations and ruling Commissioners debated whether BOAR properly exercised its discretion under guidelines that use “should.” Some commissioners emphasized the sympathetic facts and the proposed design changes, and others raised concern about precedent and fairness when applicants previously complied with guidelines at considerable expense. After discussion, Commissioner Nicholl moved to deny the third‑party appeal and uphold BOAR’s COA; Commissioner Barksdale seconded. The motion passed 6‑1 (tally: yes 6, no 1).

Clarifying details from the record - Addition dimensions cited by staff: approximately 24 feet deep by 11 feet wide; staff described the combined existing house plus addition as an overall length of about 60 feet in context with neighboring properties. - Construction without permits occurred around Christmas; complaints and the BOAR/permit review process unfolded from January through April. - BOAR vote on April 16 to approve the COA: 3‑1 (noted in staff materials and corrected from an earlier misidentified 4‑0 in initial draft). - Appeal received by planning staff on May 14.

Ending The commission’s decision upholds BOAR’s conditional approval, but planning and building permit requirements remain for the applicant to obtain before finalizing construction. The record shows the staff and BOAR reached different recommendations at points in the process; the commission’s role was to determine whether BOAR’s decision was supportable under the guidelines and the evidence presented.