Oldham County board declines to revoke backyard basketball facility permit after HOA dispute

The Oldham County Board of Adjustments and Appeals on March 19 voted not to revoke a previously issued conditional‑use permit for an accessory structure at the Gonzalezes’ property, after hearing conflicting testimony from the Gan Hills Homeowners Association and the homeowners who built the structure.

Ryan Fischer, director of Oldham County Planning, told the board the permit and a companion maximum‑square‑footage variance were approved Oct. 16, 2025; a building permit issued Nov. 10, 2025; and a footer inspection passed Nov. 21. A stop‑work order was issued Dec. 1 following an inquiry from the HOA, Fischer said.

The HOA, represented by attorney Sean Paris and its president, Mr. Madison, told the board they never provided written approval and that the homeowner misrepresented his conversations with the HOA when applying for the permit. "He lied to this board under oath," Mr. Madison said, urging the board to overturn its October decision and require the property be restored if the structure is removed.

The homeowners, represented by attorney Rich Horning, said they believed they had verbal approval from the HOA president when they pursued the conditional‑use permit and variance. Homeowner Kilo Gonzalez testified they were told verbal authorization was sufficient and that they did not receive the HOA covenants until after construction started; the respondent said they stopped work immediately when told to do so and offered to make changes, such as insulating the structure, to address neighbors’ concerns. "We weren't intentionally trying to be sneaky or anything," Kilo Gonzalez told the board.

Neighbors also weighed in. A next‑door resident, Bob G., said he and his wife had no objection and had submitted a letter supporting the project.

In deliberations, board members framed the legal question narrowly: whether testimony at the October hearing included a material misrepresentation that the board relied on in granting the permit. Several members said the record did not show a provable, material misrepresentation as the board understood the facts at the time. One motion "not to revoke" carried on a voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally.

What happens next: the board left enforcement of the HOA covenants to the association and suggested that remedies regarding covenant interpretation or alleged arbitrary enforcement are matters for civil court. The transcript records HOA requests that the Gonzalez family restore disturbed ground and any concrete removed if the matter is resolved that way; no board order requiring restoration was announced in the hearing record.

The board’s decision preserves the county permit; the HOA indicated it may pursue legal enforcement of neighborhood covenants if it chooses.