- The Independence City Council voted to strike down zoning requests for a large mixed-use development Monday
- The development would have seen the construction of 10 businesses and 336 apartments
- Residents expressed concerns about infrastructure, emergency access traffic and how well the demographics of the city would have been served by such a development
- CORRECTION: The original version of this story misidentified the council members who voted against the zoning denial. The relevant lines have been corrected. We have also added some additional lines for clarity. We apologize for the confusion.–LINK nky editorial, Aug. 4, 2026
Independence is not getting a 336-unit mixed-use development.
The Independence City Council voted to strike down zoning requests for the project in a 4-to-2 vote Monday night. Council Members Greg Waite and Tom Brinker were the only council members to vote against the denial.
“We’re disappointed…,” said Kate Brandy, VP of Leasing & Site Acquisition at Brandicorp, the Bellevue-based company behind the development. “But we still love Independence and think that it’s a great community, and so we respect what their decisions are, and we hope to listen more.”
Brandicorp is also among the companies developing the new Ormsby retirement community in Fort Mitchell.
The area in question was a roughly 40-acre tract of land, located on the east side of KY-17, south of McCullum Pike and north of Centennial Boulevard. The Independence Publix is just to the south. The land itself houses an old family farm and is mostly open space, except for a single building and a pond. It’s currently zoned for residential rural estates. Brandicorp had submitted the zoning requests on behalf of the land’s owners, Mark Smock, Angela Smock and John P. Hanrahan.
The plan was to divide the land into two new parcels: one spanning about 17 acres, designated as a community commercial zone, and another spanning about 23 acres, designated as a planned unit development (PUD) zone.
The development plan went before the Kenton County Planning Commission on June 8. Although some commissioners showed trepidation about the plan, the commission eventually recommended in favor of the zoning changes. The city council performed a first reading for the zoning changes on July 6.
The apartments would have been spread throughout 14 three-story buildings. The plan called for 84 one-bedroom units, 240 two-bedroom units, and 12 three-bedroom units. Rents were expected to range between $1,400 and $1,800 per month, depending on the unit’s size, and the developers touted the apartments as serving an underserved market in the city. The concept plan had room for 669 parking spaces within the PUD zone.
Our region, according to a housing strategies report released in 2025, lacks sufficient housing for young adults forming their first household; for essential workers like nurses, teachers and first responders; and for older adults. A teacher with a median annual income of $43,740, for example, can afford only 26% of the rental and 16% of the for-sale housing in the region, according to the report. For a restaurant server, only 1% of the region’s rental housing is affordable.
An older person relying on Social Security can also afford only 1% of rental housing in the region, according to the report.
The report, called Home for All: Northern Kentucky Housing Strategies, came to be thanks to more than 90 leaders and experts from across NKY who spent hours studying the region and its urgent housing challenge. Their goal was to close the housing gap across income levels and provide a place for everyone.
Click here to learn more about the shortage and how NKY leaders and community members are stepping in to find solutions.
Understanding NKY’s housing shortage
Finally, the proposal called for a large open space with a public park in the southwest corner of the development. The proposal listed overlooks, grilling and fire pit areas, outdoor kitchens and seating areas, as well as numerous walking paths as amenities of the park.
Two residents spoke out against the development before the planning commission, but no one spoke, either in favor or against, before the city council in July. Monday’s hearing, on the other hand, was packed, and people lined up along the council chamber’s walls to add their names to the speaker list.
Council Members Chris Vogelpohl and Carol Franzen had asked for the public hearing, and seven residents expressed concern, if not outright opposition (not everyone who signed up to speak ended up taking the dais). Concerns included the development’s effect on traffic, infrastructure, school population and emergency access. Several residents and council members worried the development would erode Independence’s small town feel.
“It is truly slipping away with every zone change,” said Council Member Greg Steffen. He would eventually be the council member who motioned to deny the zoning changes.
Residents also questioned the development’s purported improvement of the housing market, questioning if apartments would have served the city’s demographics.
“There’s a lot of baby boomers out here right now, and they would want to stay where their children are, so that they can look after them,” said Jane Kramer. “So my opinion is we need a senior living place for that, and that would be a prime place to do that.”
“We get hamstrung sometimes with the ability to make these decisions because of (recommendations) when it gets to the county first,” said Vogelpohl, “because they’ll look at it from a countywide perspective, and it meets countywide need for apartments. Well, it might not be what’s good for Independence. I’m really torn on this.”
Council member Tom Brinker inquired with the developers if there was possibly a way to reduce the density of the development and possibly reach a compromise. This led to a brief discussion, but it had little effect on the final result.
After over two hours of presentations and discussions, Steffen made a motion to deny the ordinance that would have allowed the zoning change (this was a little unusual as motions are usually to approve, for which legislators then vote accordingly). The council finally cast its split vote denying the zoning change.
