The Campbell County Fiscal Court voted Wednesday night to approve a zone change that could make way for a proposed Maronda Homes subdivision in Alexandria.
The approval of the zone change now allows for Maronda Homes to purchase the 47 acres of land from the Burns family, who currently own it, and begin building the 98-home subdivision.
The current zoning for the suggested site is R-1A Residential One-A Zone. The proposed zoning is Residential One C (R-1C) with a Residential Cluster Development (RCD) Overlay. The zone change to a cluster development overlay allows the developer to put more houses on the site than the previous current zone allowed.
“My understanding is that when a request like this is in conformity with the comprehensive plan, we’re pretty much duty-bound to approve it with the recommendation of the planning and zoning body,” Judge/Executive Steve Pendery said.
Pendery motioned to approve the zone change and Commissioner Tom Lampe seconded. Commissioner Besecker voted against the zone change.
Commissioner Brian Painter was not in attendance at the meeting.
Attorney Steve Megerle represents approximately 30 residents of the surrounding area of the development at 10743 S. Licking Pike that are in opposition. At the April 12 meeting, he said if the fiscal court adopts this recommendation, they will consider taking the case to the Campbell County Circuit Court.
He echoed that statement after the fiscal court ruled to adopt the zone change at the June 1 meeting. Megerle said they would be filling a zoning appeal in the Campbell County Circuit Court within the next 30 days. He said that the 98 homes on 18 acres of land violate the zoning code density requirements and the subdivision regulations in the county.
“This is very disappointing. But at the end of the day, a judge will decide whether or not the fiscal court acted arbitrarily,” Megerle said. “And we think they did, and it’s a shame that the fiscal court collectively doesn’t police its own boards and commissions such as the Planning Commission as to whether or not they follow due process.”
Megerle said the Campbell County Planning and Zoning Commission doesn’t allow cross-examination or ask questions like at a trial hearing.
“We will be bringing an action under federal statutes for the procedural due process violations for not allowing for a correct due process hearing,” Megerle said. “Due process matters in government, and that’s something that is guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Megerle said they would seek an injunction in the circuit court to enjoin the developer from doing anything else until the circuit court judges can review the record and make a decision. He predicts this will slow the development down by six months to a year.
“Maronda Homes has not even bought the property yet,” Megerle said. “Under Kentucky law, unfortunately, I have to sue the landowners, so I have to sue the Burns family and their heirs who are trying to sell the property to Maronda Homes. I don’t want to sound like a bully or like we’re threatening; that’s just the way the law is set up. Maronda Homes does not own this land, and I have to sue the property owners.”
The first reading was held at the last fiscal court meeting on May 18, which was held to decide if the fiscal court would rely on the existing record from the planning and zoning commission, which typically happens, or if they would have a public hearing to determine the change. The court, which consisted of Campbell County Judge/Executive Steve Pendery and Commissioners Brian Painter and Geoff Besecker in attendance, voted to rely on the existing record by the planning and zoning commission.
The small lot size is what some residents who live near the proposed development are opposed to.
“The density of the area is not fit for the amount of homes proposed for the acreage,” Alexandria Pike resident Sandra Snell said at the April 12 meeting. “Squeezing a cluster of homes on a hillside above a wetland area is only asking for the devastating results over time for the homebuyers and for our neighborhood. This area does not warrant a zoning change, and I am opposed to it.”
The lot sizes are proposed to be smaller than the current zoning requirements to accommodate the existing wetlands in the area and provide for the conservation of open space for community use.
At the June 1 meeting, Pendery explained that the cluster development is designed to add more green space and available acreage for things like parks and ponds instead of giving each house a bigger lot size. He said not everyone prefers to have a large yard with grass to cut. Pendery noted that this cluster development overlay had been used in other subdivisions in Campbell County like Arcadia.
“I’ve walked door to door in Arcadia a couple of times, and everybody loves it,” Pendery said. “They love the fact that they don’t have as much maintenance to perform on their own grounds.”
Megerle said Pendery comparing Arcadia to the Maronda Homes proposed subdivision was “specious” because Arcadia is in a city and the Maronda Homes development is in the county.
Residents of the surrounding area that oppose the proposed Maronda Homes site have attended meetings since the item was first on the Campbell County Planning and Zoning agenda on March 8. At that meeting, the commission voted to continue the meeting, as requested by the applicant. They did not vote on anything at that meeting, and a second meeting was scheduled for April 12.
The commission approved the zoning change and stage one development to move forward to the Campbell County Fiscal Court at the April 12 meeting.
Before the fiscal court meeting on May 18, protestors showed up at the May 4 court meeting to contest the development, though nothing was on the agenda.
The residents in attendance at the May 18 meeting were unhappy with the court’s decision to rely on the existing record by the planning and zoning commission and audibly laughed when Pendery said the court was following the law. Residents wanted the court to hold a public hearing.
Megerle said his clients want to take the case as far as it needs to go.
“Whether or not this is an issue that ends up at the Kentucky Court of Appeals, or the Kentucky Supreme Court, which could add two or three or four years to this situation,” Megerle said. “My clients are absolutely against this, and they will take it to every possible level in order to prevent the change of their rural lifestyle.”
