- Union City Commission approved the 135-unit Drees Homes development by a 3-1 vote, with one commissioner recusing herself due to an unresolved personal matter involving the developer.
- The project will include 29 townhomes and 106 condominiums on a 22-acre site off Hathaway Road near Old Union Road, targeting empty nesters and young professionals.
- Commissioners added development conditions related to snow removal, density, fencing and a walking path, but removed a proposed 10% cap on rental units after debate over property rights and enforcement.
The City of Union approved a zone change this week for a proposal from Fort Mitchell-based Drees Homes that will result in the development of 135 residential units off Hathaway Road near Old Union Road.
The commission voted 3-1 in favor of the proposal at Monday’s meeting, with Mayor Larry Solomon and Commissioners John Mefford and George Eldridge voting yes, and Commissioner Doug Bine voting no. Commissioner Kimberly Tuyn recused herself from the vote due to an unresolved personal issue involving Drees Homes.
The ordinance officially changes the zoning designation of the 22-acre property from a combination mix of rural and estate residential classifications to suburban residential, clearing the way for the planned development.
The complex, which Drees will develop in conjunction with Arlinghaus Builders, will feature 29 townhouse units and 106 condo units, with the condos in two-story buildings, each with one unit above another. Both products will include garages. Matt Mains, a development manager at Drees, previously said the units would be marketed toward empty nesters and young professionals.
The proposal was introduced during a commission meeting in early June, before being revisited during a meeting on July 20. Before the proposal was presented to the Union City Commission, the Boone County Planning Commission recommended approval of the zone change amendment on May 6.
Several conditions were attached to the proposal beyond the planning commission’s initial requirements. These included requiring Drees Homes or the future homeowners association to handle all snow and ice removal, preserving and repairing the existing fence along the property’s western boundary, limiting the development to six dwelling units per acre, and constructing and maintaining a walking path shown on the approved site plan.
During the meeting, a debate arose over a condition that would limit rental units or non-owner-occupied homes to no more than 10% of the development. Solomon and Eldridge supported the provision, arguing it could help preserve property values. Eldridge also added that even if the condition merely served as a deterrent, he believed it was worthwhile.
“The point is that it does help to keep the values of those properties up, and I think that is a good idea,” Solomon said. “That’s my opinion. I’m not going to fall on the sword through.”
Conversely, Bine questioned the condition’s practicality and legality, arguing that the city lacked a clear mechanism to enforce the restriction. He also expressed concern that the provision could unnecessarily limit property rights.
“Then it creates another monster for us and for staff, according to council, we need to create more bureaucracy about rental licensing for the city, and then we’re telling people what they can and can’t do with their property on top of the things they can and can’t do,” Bine said.
Ultimately, the condition was removed in order for the commission to reach a consensus.
