The Billings City Council accepted a request from the applicant to withdraw annexation 2506 and zone change 1074 for the Barber Farm tract after an extended public hearing that drew dozens of neighbors from adjacent subdivisions.

Staff presentation and phasing: City staff described the proposal as a two-phase annexation and a planned-neighborhood development (PND) that would bring a mix of residential zones (N2 and NX1), corridor mixed use (CMU1/2), parks and public-rights-of-way to a roughly 55.5-acre parcel north of Central Avenue between 44th and 48th Street West. Staff noted mechanical corrections to the annexation and zoning documents and said phase 2 could have an effective date as late as Dec. 31, 2031 unless requested sooner by the applicant.

Project and developer rationale: Taylor Kasparick, the developer’s agent with Performance Engineering, and owners Jesse and Grant Skelsey described the project as a community-oriented PND anchored by an upscale recreational use (Patty Shack), with a mix of housing types and neighborhood services designed to reduce travel for nearby residents and to match the city’s 2016 growth policy. Kasparick said the proposed gross density would be approximately 6.7 dwelling units per acre and that the developer generally intends to build duplex and single-story residential units.

Resident opposition and key concerns: More than two dozen residents from Cloverleaf Meadows, Sundance, Aldinger Acres and other adjacent neighborhoods testified in opposition. The principal themes were:

- Traffic and access: speakers said central arterials and collector streets (Central, Broadwater, 44th, 46th and Bluegrass/Grand) lack funding and are not scheduled in the five-year CIP; residents worried a phased annexation that delivers only half-streets would produce cut-through traffic and safety hazards.

- Density and compatibility: neighbors said the proposed average density (6.7 units/acre) and allowance for multiunit buildings (fourplexes) is out of scale with adjacent low-density subdivisions (reported by residents as roughly 0.8–2 units/acre) and would reduce property values and neighborhood character.

- Schools and services: several speakers said Meadowlark Elementary and other nearby schools are already at or near capacity and asked where additional students would go.

- Water and aquifer concerns: councilors and speakers asked for the latest analyses by the Bureau of Mines and DEQ about aquifer recharge and nitrate impacts; staff said the city is sharing development information with the Bureau of Mines and expected some modeling results in early 2026.

Developer response and procedural options: Kasparick answered questions about phasing, road half-streets, and the developer’s intent to build much of the residential portion. He acknowledged neighbors’ concerns and said the proposed density aligns with the city’s growth policy and state law that allows duplexes in residential zones. During council deliberations the developer indicated he would prefer to withdraw the applications rather than have them referred back to the zoning commission (a referral would require a 60% council vote and renotice).

Council decision and vote: Councilmember Abouya moved to accept the developer’s request to withdraw the annexation and zoning applications; the motion was seconded, discussed, and carried unanimously. The withdrawal removes the applications from the council’s agenda but allows the applicant to revise the proposal and, if desired, refile or return via referral with updated materials.

Why it matters: The withdrawal follows sustained, organized opposition from nearby homeowners concerned about traffic, infrastructure funding/timing, school capacity and aquifer impacts. The decision preserves the developer’s ability to redesign the proposal and to return with revised mitigation, transition zones or infrastructure commitments, while giving the council and public time to review further technical studies (traffic, school impacts, hydrogeology) that councilors requested if the proposal returns.

Next steps: The applicant said it will retool the application and engage more with neighbors; staff and councilors asked that, when the matter returns, the record include detailed traffic studies, clearer documentation of which road segments will be required and funded, school-district input, and any updated Bureau of Mines/DEQ modeling on groundwater impacts. If the applicant refiles, it will follow the city’s application and notice requirements, with either a new zone-change application or a referral back to the zoning commission depending on the chosen path.