Danville planning commission reopens, then tables JLS Investments rezoning amid flooding, traffic, density concerns

The Danville City Planning & Zoning Commission reopened a public hearing on a proposed R1C rezoning for a 29.9-acre tract owned by JLS Investments, heard technical responses from the applicant’s engineering team and sustained lengthy public opposition over traffic, stormwater and potential density, then voted to table the item until the property owner or his counsel can appear.

The applicant was represented at the meeting by engineers from AGE Engineering. Dale Shepperson said the owner was out of the country and that AGE was coordinating a traffic study with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. “We have been working with Robert Baker from the state of Kentucky as far as traffic studies, flows,” Shepperson said, and added the team is awaiting further direction from state traffic staff on specific lane or deceleration requirements. AGE’s civil engineer, Douglas Gooch, described the stormwater approach and said detention basins would be designed to “dewater over a period of 6 to 10 hours” so the development would not increase downstream flood depths.

Opposing counsel Melanie Thornberry, speaking for multiple nearby residents, argued the rezoning request conflicted with Danville’s comprehensive plan and future land‑use map and said the applicant had not shown the existing zoning was inappropriate or that a major change in the area justified a higher density. Thornberry cited her calculations of theoretical maximum density under R1C zoning and said that, mathematically, R1C could allow considerably more units than the “low‑density residential” classification on the comp plan’s future land‑use map. “The potential max density for R1C of 8.712 per acre is well outside of what our comprehensive plan defines as low density residential,” she said.

Residents told the commission the neighborhood already sees frequent flooding at Spring Hill Road and nearby properties and expressed concern that additional runoff from new development would worsen existing conditions. Several speakers asked whether detention basins, pipe extensions or other improvements would protect existing properties and whether deed restrictions or covenants could ensure only single‑family detached homes are built if the commission approves rezoning. AGE engineers said FEMA floodplain limits and city stormwater review would control buildable areas and that wetland mitigation or non‑buildable green space may be required where soils or sinkholes make construction impractical.

Commissioners discussed process issues before allowing the applicant’s representatives to speak. Staff and commissioners noted the planning regulations expect a property owner or an attorney to appear at a rezoning public hearing to accept binding conditions; the owner, Jeremy Sheppard, was not present. The commission reopened the public hearing earlier in the meeting to permit applicant responses to previously raised concerns, then concluded the owner’s absence and the volume of public input warranted a continuation. A motion to table the rezoning and reopen the hearing at a future meeting when the owner or counsel can attend carried unanimously.

Why it matters: The rezoning would change the permitted uses and potential density of a large tract adjacent to established low‑density neighborhoods; neighbors argued the change could intensify traffic on Shakertown/Middlebrook/Spring Hill corridors and increase flood risk unless binding limitations are required and enforced.

Next steps: The commission will hold the item open and require the property owner or his authorized attorney to appear at the next available meeting; public comment will again be allowed when the matter returns to the agenda.