Developer asks Lincoln County to waive required left‑turn lane at Optimist Club Road for Rivercross commercial parcel

Fund 28 Denver LLC asked the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board at a November 2025 joint meeting to amend Plan Development PD2014‑2 (Amendment No. 7) and remove a requirement that it build a northbound left‑turn lane on Triangle Circle at Optimist Club Road for the project’s 29.3‑acre commercial phase.

Planning staff told the boards the Rivercross master plan was approved in February 2015 and that the remaining off‑site roadway improvements are tied to the commercial parcel. Jeremiah, a county planning staff member, said the applicant claims it cannot acquire the necessary right‑of‑way and is therefore seeking relief under Lincoln County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) section 9.8.7, which provides a process when right‑of‑way cannot be obtained.

Brad Bowman, manager of Fund 28 Denver LLC, said the company hired right‑of‑way consultants, negotiated with property owners and paid “above appraised value” for parcels where acquisitions succeeded, but that two property owners refused to sell the small parcels needed for the left‑turn lane. Bowman said his team explored alternatives with traffic and civil engineers and held discussions that included NCDOT; he said the applicant did not find a DOT‑acceptable mitigation that would eliminate the need for the dedicated turn lane.

Jeremiah told boards that NCDOT has discussed the intersection and signalization but has told staff it is not planning to install a signal there in the near term; staff and the applicant said DOT indicated that if the intersection later meets signal warrants, the applicant would be responsible for signal installation.

Residents who spoke during the public hearing urged denial. Patty Korn, speaking for the Denver Beautification Committee, said approving the amendment would set a "bad precedent" and transfer the cost of required road improvements to residents, arguing the level of service at the intersection is already poor. Martin Oakes urged the county to require the developer to put money into a local transportation fund restricted to improvements within a half‑mile, estimating right‑of‑way plus construction could cost “at least $200,000.” George Barr (Elba) also urged denial, saying prior commissions held developers to required roadway work and that denying the amendment would avoid shifting costs to drivers.

Staff noted the applicant provided documentation of outreach and right‑of‑way offers, including appraisal work performed by a professional right‑of‑way firm and parcel offers that staff summarized in the packet (for example, an offered amount of about $3,150 for one parcel and about $8,450 for another). Jeremiah said those appraisal and offer records are included in the application packet.

No final decision was made at the joint hearing. The planning board opened the public hearing, heard testimony from staff, the applicant (Brad Bowman and counsel Matt Dellinger) and several residents, then closed the hearing. The planning board will deliberate in a follow‑up meeting and return a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners at the boards’ next joint meeting on Nov. 17, 2025.

Why it matters: the requested change would allow the commercial phase of Rivercross to proceed without constructing a left‑turn lane that was part of the original approval, shifting potential impacts to nearby traffic patterns and potentially to taxpayers if the developer does not build the improvement. The county’s UDO provides a path for this type of relief when right‑of‑way cannot be reasonably acquired, but residents argued the county should not relax conditions that are intended to mitigate traffic impacts.

What’s next: the planning board will deliberate the case in Room 310 and bring a recommendation back to the Board of Commissioners on Nov. 17, 2025. The transcript and packet include the applicant’s right‑of‑way reports and the county staff’s proposed statement of consistency for that meeting.