Sunday, April 18, 1999

Interesting times ahead for Union

---

Town-plan panel to hear debate

BY KAREN SAMPLES
The Cincinnati Enquirer

        UNION — Union's first town plan was so far-fetched that I wondered whether 19th century New Englanders had taken over the government.

        It was a great plan, because it got citizens involved. A few were furious. They blanched at the notion of pre-1940s architectural details for new construction. They questioned the plan's bias against the modern subdivision home, with its vinyl siding, huge garage door and non-existent porch.

        Most important, people started coming to government meetings. Now, 15 property owners are on a committee to propose a new vision for Union — one that most folks can at least accept, if not embrace.

        This is going to be interesting.

        Whatever Union decides will not only shape the town's appearance but also provide a blueprint for other parts of Northern Kentucky. How can growing communities control their destiny without trampling on property rights or excluding certain income groups? Is there a consensus regarding the ideal look for a neighborhood?

        Here's the conflict: Union residents — some of whom live in new subdivisions at the edge of town — want to be surrounded by charm. They want a community with cute little shops, rolling farmland and a “theme.” They don't want something like Florence, which has been homogenized by shopping strips and subdivisions.

        On the other hand, these folks don't own the rolling farmland in Union.

        The farm owners are against restrictions on their property. Some live outside of the city, but they have a financial stake in its future. Someday, they will want to sell their property for a profit. They figure developers

        won't pay as much if there are pages of regulations to follow.

        Two compelling perspectives. The trick will be to find a middle ground between non-regulation — which leads to cheap-looking sprawl — and over-regulation, which leads to Disneyesque conformity. (Not to mention lawsuits from the affected landowners.)

        The committee met for the first time last week. Its members are property owners — not necessarily residents of Union — who attended meetings on the original plan. A list of 35 volunteers was whittled down by City Commissioner Wayne McClellan, County Commissioner Rob Arnold and property owner James Daugherty. Each is on the committee and chose four addi tional members, which guarantees a diversity of opinions.

        Last week's gathering was refreshingly civil. Boone County planners presented background on the original town plan and asked members which issues they wanted to tackle first. The committee's proposal, which it hopes to draft by June, will be forwarded to the Boone County Planning Commission for review.

        The group settled on these topics to be discussed first:

        • Density, meaning the number of houses that should be allowed on each acre. This will include a review of the densities in surrounding neighborhoods, such as Oakbrook and Triple Crown.

        • The state's reconstruction of U.S. 42 through Union, which is supposed to begin in 2003. This was the catalyst for the original town plan.

        • The results of a survey conducted by Union officials and completed by 169 residents. The results showed overwhelming support for a themed community, but some committee members weren't convinced the survey should be given much weight.

        This last question laid bare a fissure in the committee.

        Mr. Daugherty, who owns 125 acres of farmland, suggested that people with small plots may have turned in the most surveys, but they shouldn't control the debate. Of course these folks want to be surrounded by green space, he says. Those who own the larger chunks of property are just as important, if fewer in number.

        Mr. Daugherty said any review of the survey results should take into account the property owned by the participant.

        This got a rise out of Commissioner McClellan, who blurted, “You're talking a feudal system, versus the democracy we have.”

        They're both a little bit right.

        Like I said, this is going to be interesting. I'll keep you posted.

        Karen Samples is the Enquirer's Kentucky columnist. Her column appears on Sundays and Thursdays in The Kentucky Enquirer. She can be reached at 578-5584 or by e-mail at: ksamples@enquirer.com

        Karen Samples is The Enquirer's Kentucky columnist. Her column appears on Sundays and Thursdays in The Kentucky Enquirer. She can be reached at 578-5584 or email her at ksamples@enquirer.com

SAMPLES ARCHIVE