Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and developer clash as commission considers PUD amendment and rezoning at 9101 Amish Road
Summary
The commission considered amendments to conditions and a PUD amendment for property at 9101 Amish Road that would add a 10‑foot right‑of‑way dedication to Amos Road, adjust unit mixes and retain a three‑story limit; residents raised concerns about density, floodplain placement and a claimed 50‑foot height, while the developer said the building is three stories and staff recommended approving condition 1 but denying amending condition 4. The matter was deferred to next week; no vote recorded in transcript.
The Hamilton County Commission spent substantial time on zoning and a planned unit development affecting property at 9101 Amish Road, where staff, the developer and multiple residents debated amended conditions, unit mixes and building height.
Madam clerk read Resolution 8 25‑29, which seeks to amend condition numbers 1 and 4 for a prior county resolution related to the site. Staff explained condition 1 would add a 10‑foot right‑of‑way dedication along Snow Hill Road and Amos Road, and condition 4 would restate that two proposed buildings for memory care, assisted living and active adult uses be located in an R‑3 district and not exceed three stories. Staff told the commission that planning staff and the planning commission supported amending condition 1 but did not support amending condition 4.
Developer Mike Price of MAP Engineers said the requested changes align the record with approvals previously granted by the Board of Zoning/Construction Appeals and reflect tweaks to the PUD plan made after the original rezoning. He told the commission that one of the three‑story buildings had been eliminated in the revised plan and that the applicant had agreed to add Amos Road to the 10‑foot dedication and to a land swap with WWTA so the utility could site a storage tank.
Opponents from the neighborhood raised several concerns. Resident Kim Pelt said she had not received answers to all questions about height and asserted that the R‑3 zone density exceeded permitted density and that stormwater ponds and open space lie within the floodplain. Pelt and other opponents argued that the appeals board’s assumptions about building height should be limited to 42 feet rather than 50 feet to avoid a structure that would “tower” over the high school and adjacent properties.
Mike Price rebutted that the building remains three stories and said statements that it would “tower” are exaggerated; staff clarified that the three‑story/height condition remains and that the appeals board had already issued a special permit on height, so the commission’s action should be limited to amending condition 1 (adding Amos Road) and denying the amendment to condition 4. The chair said the commission would take the matter up next week. The transcript does not include a recorded vote.
The exchange included technical details from staff about acreage, unit counts and density: staff said the development acreage would drop from 81 to 77 acres while the total unit count remains 447, raising density from 5.48 to 5.78 units per acre; single‑family detached units increase while some active‑adult units decrease and assisted‑living units rise.
