A nonprofit publication of the Kentucky Center for Public Service Journalism

Casualties of Sanctuary Village project in Villa Hills – Mayor Callery, incumbents who voted to support it


By Kevin Eigelbach
NKyTribune reporter

In his re-election campaign this fall, Villa Hills Mayor Irvin “Butch” Callery pointed to some concrete accomplishments in his first term, chief among them getting $3 million worth of sidewalk and road improvements done.

Callery

In October 2017, the Kentucky League of Cities selected Callery as its Elected City Official of the Year.

None of those issues mattered to voters, however, as much as Callery’s support of the proposed Sanctuary Village development.

That issue carried the election for challenger Heather Jansen by a landslide, 2,384 votes to 1,167.

“I can’t vote on zoning issues, but I still got blamed for everything,” Callery said after the election. “Even though I said that about 20 times in (public) meetings.”

It wasn’t just Callery, five incumbent city council members were voted out of office. Only Scott Ringo, who voted against Sanctuary Village, will return to the council next year.

The outgoing council members had accomplished some good things in the past four years, Ringo said, but that didn’t matter when it came to the Sanctuary project and Defend Villa Hills, a group organized by residents to oppose the project.

All five candidates endorsed by Defend Villa Hills won: Jansen, Cathy Stover, Rod Baehner, Seth Thompson and Sue Wadsworth.

“The Defend Villa Hills group was better at communicating with the residents than the council was at listening to the residents,” Ringo said.

Rendering of proposed development.

The plan to develop the St. Walburg Monastery property calls for Edgewood-based Ashley Commercial Group to create a mixed-use, planned community with nearly 200 single-family homes, up to 74 senior cottages, 35 townhouses 17 acres of greenspace and a four-story apartment building.

According to Callery, the project would add nearly $150 million to the city’s tax base and bring in an estimated $700,000 in taxes once built.

The proposed apartment building, which would be one of the taller buildings in Villa Hills, became a lightning rod for criticism of the project. It would include a “humongous” parking lot only “40 feet from a very quiet neighborhood,” Stover said.

Opponents worried about the traffic problems putting so many new residences in Villa Hills might cause, concerns that the council tried to address by proposed road improvements to be funded by property tax from the new homes.

Hearings about Sanctuary Village created such interest that city council held them at a larger venue, River Ridge Elementary School, where residents packed the cafeteria.
Some of them had never before involved themselves in local politics.

That included Stover, who retired in July after 27 years as an educator. She organized walkers who collected more than 2,000 signatures on a petition against the development. When council disregarded that petition, she said, she decided to run herself.

“I thought maybe it was time for new people to come in who knew what it meant to be a representative of the people,” she said.

Those who support the project maintain the city council was representing the best interests of the people.

Stover

Early in 2016, the City conducted a Villa Hills Area Study as part of the Kenton County Direction 2030 plan. The St. Walburg Monastery property was the focus of the study.

The findings of the Villa Hills Area Study were incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan in March of last year.

The Kenton County Planning Commission, as the planning agent for the City of Villa Hills, reviewed the requested amendment in January and recommended approval by a vote of 17-1, with one abstention.

That approval required the city council to identify findings of fact that were independent from those of the Planning Commission and based upon substantial evidence found in the administrative record.

A petition signed by more than 2,000 Villa Hills residents was presented at a February 21, City Council public meeting. Since it was submitted after the Planning Commission vote, however, it wasn’t part of the administrative record and could not be considered by council members.

Council members at time indicated that if they voted against the Planning Commission recommendation, the City would have been subject to costly litigation that would have been difficult, if not impossible, to defend.

Councilman Gregory Kilburn, who voted in favor of the project in March, said then that he took an oath to follow the laws of the Commonwealth. His explanation was met with jeers from this in attendance.

“I would ask only for the right to say my piece, if you don’t like it, you’ll get your chance in November, and I’m sure you’ll use it,” Kilburn said.

Those words proved prophetic.

The political neophytes elected in November also included Henry Mitchell, one of the founders of Defend Villa Hills, who said the city’s roads are already being pushed to the limit, without the new traffic Sanctuary Village would bring.

“It’s been good to see people come together for something they believe in,” he said.

For him, it’s all about protecting the character of Villa Hills, which he called a bedroom community where kids can ride bicycles and pedestrians walk on almost every street.

The fight against Sanctuary Village continues in Kenton Circuit Court, where a lawsuit challenging the city council’s decision to approve the project is pending. Stover, for one, said she’d probably be OK with the plan if it didn’t include the apartment building.

She’d like to see something worked out, she said, between the residents and the Benedictine Sisters of the St. Walburg Monastery, who are selling the property to fund their retirement.

Contact the Northern Kentucky Tribune at news@nkytrib.com


Related Posts

3 Comments

  1. Sarah Fedlin says:

    This is troubling. There isn’t anywhere else to live except for neighborhoods 30 minutes outside of cincinnati being built on farms. Why would the residents want to forego millions in tax revenue? there roads already are falling apart and look terrible. The bi-levels and old,small houses that comprise 90% of the city are already un-maintained and trashy people are starting to move in. Starting to look like covington. And because of regulation and the hardness of development due to the defend city people like this housing costs are already too high, that’s why there building apartments. Who cares about the apartments? There probably going to charge $2000 minimum per apartments like literally any new built apartments in town (look them up). Not going to be section 8 housing. And the apartments will only affect aesthetically the new home being built there, so its those new home owners choice. Theres like 5 houses out of the 50,000 houses in the city that might be able to see part of the apartments thru trees in there back yards.. tough luck… And traffic increases no matter what haha, show me one place in the country besides detroit where traffic gets less over time regardless of development. what happens when they build apartments down by the river at the bottom of amsterdam and a million cars shoot through villa hills to get to the retail in crescent springs?

    Ultimately this is selfish and hypocritical of the defend the city people. What was in place of there houses before they lived in them? A farm. How much traffic was on the roads before they built there house and moved in the city? etc. etc. etc. These people are crazy and seem to have lost there minds. Gee wiz, let people build and live in any community they want to and are able to (i.e. dozens of acres of vacant land ripe for tax dollars and the well being of the community fabric).

    #stopbeinghypocrits #yourargumentsmakenosense #thetrafficisgoingtoincreaseinthecommingyearsregardlessofthisdevelopment #villahillsisstartingtolooklikecovingtonyouneedmoretaxrevenue

  2. Chip Westlund says:

    So many things wrong with the previous comment. Sometimes tax dollars aren’t the most important thing in the world. Many things are more important, not the least of which is quality of life, and keeping the character of the city. Traffic is a main issue. This development would create a traffic nightmare and the idea that it’s no big deal because traffic problems just ‘happen’ in other places is just ridiculous. There’s no reason to subject residents to that kind of congestion. No, it won’t get less but it’s nuts to think it’s not worth trying to stop the problem before it happens or willingly subject yourself to it. Also, I’m at a loss to understand the comments that try to make the infrastructure and homes in Villa Hills look like a wasteland. I’m almost convinced the writer was confused and in another city. I have not seen any of that. Like anyplace, I have seen one or two homes that were not ‘beautiful’ but that’s definitely an exception. It’s like a fabricated justification to support increased tax revenue for the sake of inceased tax revenue. Very weak argument. It also seems as if the point is being made that it’s up to the residents of VH to provide more housing for the region. That’s just plain ridiculous. In the end, the people of Villa Hills decided that this development was not in their best interest (yes, it’s perfectly justified to look out for themselves) and that it was not their responsibility to provide housing nor revenue for the developer. And the end result was that the city council ignored the opinion of the majority of residents, for what reasons one can only guess, and ended up paying the price for doing so.

  3. D. Anthony BRINKER says:

    I wonder if the new counsel members realize that they must follow Kentucky law, as written, and don’t have absolute discretion to do whatever they please.
    My guess is that ALL new members will find that their efforts were for naught as Kentucky Law will say that the development is fine.
    Villa Hills counsel members, just like the POTUS, are not above the law.

Leave a Comment