Who can build what, and where? This Central KY town battles land disputes in court
Malinda Abbott planned to spend the rest of her life in a home on her 17-acre farm on Bethany Road in Jessamine County.
She bought the land in 2021, and construction on the home began two years later.
But just a few weeks after builders broke ground, on Jan. 8, 2024, a cease-and-desist letter was posted on the door of a second, smaller home on the property, where Abbott was staying while the new home was under construction.
Abbott didn’t have the proper permits, laid out in the county ordinance, to build a second home on that parcel of land. Construction had to stop until she did.
But Abbott argued that state authorities had cleared her to build the second home without obtaining permits from the county. Because her property is more than 10 acres, she said, she does not need the permits.
The 13 months since then have been filled with lawsuits, court hearings and more residents complaining of similar experiences.
“No one has taken it this far,” Abbott told the Herald-Leader. “They give up and get tired and run out of money and (the planning and zoning board) wears you down. I am not doing it just for me. I have heard too many stories from older people and family farms.”
The fight over her homestead has turned into a much larger question in Kentucky: Where does local authority end, and state authority begin?
County claims to be urban government
The cease-and-desist was nailed to Abbott’s door by John Goldey, a member of the Jessamine County Planning and Zoning Board, citing a lack of road frontage to build a second residential structure.
Planning and zoning director Jeremy Young filed a civil action against Abbott in March 2024.
Abbott was violating permit requirements, the action claimed, and she was subject to hefty fines if she continued to build.
Abbott kept building anyway.
The county sued, asking a judge to grant the county permission to “deconstruct” the second property. The county claimed Abbott was causing “grievous and irreparable harm” to the planning commission and its officers by “destroying its legislatively created powers and duties.”
Abbott and other Jessamine County residents claim the county zoning commission believes their requirements for building permits are mandated as part of a Kentucky statute that places them in an “urban government” classification, similar to Lexington and Louisville. An urban government combines city and county services all into one.
Under those local zoning ordinances, there cannot be two residential sites on one parcel of land. To build her new home, Abbott would need to tear down the existing one.
Abbott — and the Kentucky Protection Cabinet, a state organization that aims to protect the rights of citizens — argue the county, with 53,000 residents southeast of Lexington, does not meet the standard for an urban government designation.
Despite their position, the Kentucky Protection Cabinet has not participated in any of Abbott’s legal fights.
Before she began building, Abbott researched requirements for permits and sought guidance through the state, who said she did not require any special permits to build because her land was agricultural and outside the urban boundaries.
Director Young counters that the county isn’t operating under the assumption they are an urban government. But some of the requirements of an urban government do apply to Jessamine County, he said.
In addition to siding with Abbott, the state accused Young of misinterpreting and misapplying Kentucky laws and building codes, primarily by enforcing building permit requirements on structures exempt under state codes, failing to publicize farm exemption processes, and issuing improper cease-and-desist orders.
“It appears (the county) is not enforcing zoning laws correctly as indicated by the response from the attorney general’s office,” the document reads. “Based on the information gathered Jessamine County Planning and Zoning is misinterpreting the intent of (state statutes).”
When Abbott took the state’s ruling to the county zoning commission, though, they replied: “Frankfort is wrong. You are not exempt,” according to court documents.
A court battle followed. Abbott filed a counter-complaint in April 2024 alleging abuse of process by the county.
“My position won’t change, and theirs won’t change,” she said.
In an order that month, Jessamine Circuit Judge Hunter Daughterty sided with the county. He ordered Abbott to halt construction, and he said zoning statutes and ordinances were clear: Building permits are required for a residence, and primary second homes are prohibited on a single parcel of land.
“The court finds that this noncompliance represents damage to the effectiveness of the zoning ordinance, which is self-perpetuating, encouraging more violations,” Daughterty wrote.
Other complaints about planning and zoning
Abbott’s legal fight unearthed complaints from several other Jessamine County residents who were cited for trying to build a second home on their property. Some were cited for living in an RV while building the home.
Most were resolved after they got a permit.
Roger Fields, a realtor in Nicholasville, said cases like Abbott’s happen every day. Fields said he often has to tell potential clients about complicated rules enforced by the county if the clients indicate they want to build a second property on their land.
“The Jessamine County Planning and Zoning — backed by fiscal court — is ignoring state law to make money and have control,” he said.
Director Young said the planning and zoning department is not asserting they are an urban government, but that the statute, which has multiple sections, is being misinterpreted by the public.
The confusion is something that Young said his team deals with on a weekly basis.
“The problem is we have got people who don’t think the government has authority over private property,” Young told the Herald-Leader. “They don’t think that applies, rumors are spread, and once you hear this enough it becomes fact. We deal with it all the time. ...That is what we do and that is our job.”
A status hearing is scheduled Thursday to finalize the findings of Judge Daugherty, who sided with the county.
Depending on that outcome, Abbobtt could take her case to the Court of Appeals.
This story was originally published February 12, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
