Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Singh property zoning map amendment over neighborhood objections, 7–1
Summary
The council approved a zoning map amendment for the Singh property after a final reading vote of 7–1; nearby residents said outreach and notice requirements were not fulfilled and argued the change conflicts with the comprehensive plan and prior PUD conditions.
Brighton City Council on May 6 approved a zoning map amendment for a roughly 10.59‑acre parcel (the Singh property) after a final reading, despite public speakers who said notification and process requirements were not followed.
City staff said this was a final reading and no additional presentation was planned. Councilmember Green moved to approve the zoning amendment; Councilmember Taddeo seconded and the motion carried 7–1.
Two residents spoke during public comment opposing the rezoning. Art Labanque said the council had previously stated that a 20‑year promise carried weight and argued the city should not allow commercial zoning adjacent to low‑density residential estate property. He asked why other nearby areas receive a buffer zoning district while his neighborhood was not afforded the same protection.
Natalia Finley said neighborhood meeting notifications were inadequate; staff had acknowledged in the hearing that mailed notices for the neighborhood meeting went to the wrong ZIP code and at least one required sign was left down for approximately a week. Finley said the applicant changed the application from mixed‑use residential and commercial to commercial (C2) after the initial neighborhood meeting and that a second neighborhood meeting should have been required. She also referenced what she described as a failure to provide statutorily required agency notices under Colorado Revised Statutes (cited in oral comment as “CRS 30‑123‑2 to 5”).
Finley and Labanque said the change did not align with the comprehensive plan’s future land use designation for the parcel and argued buffers intended to protect residential estate parcels were not provided. They asked council to reconsider. Council members acknowledged the concerns but proceeded to vote; the measure passed 7–1.
The record shows the Planning Commission previously reviewed the matter; planning staff and legal requirements were discussed in public comment but council’s final reading outcome stands. The transcript does not record any motions to delay or remand the item; council moved forward with the approval vote on the final reading.
