Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison Oaks planned development fails after residents cite flooding and tree loss
Summary
A proposed 32‑unit Madison Oaks planned development drew strong neighborhood opposition over flooding and removal of historic oaks. Developers said revised designs will capture more on‑site stormwater and commit to 74% pervious open space and a binding 55% reduction in 100‑year discharge, but the commission denied the ordinance on second reading by a 6‑1 vote.
The commission considered a second‑reading ordinance to rezone roughly 4.98 acres for a 32‑unit Madison Oaks townhouse development. Applicant representatives said the revised plan reduced unit count, preserved 11 historic trees, and increased on‑site stormwater capacity, committing by PD agreement to capture significantly more runoff than code requires: a 66% reduction for a 25‑year design storm and roughly a 55% reduction for the 100‑year, 24‑hour event relative to predevelopment discharge. The developers also proposed 74% pervious open space, mitigation plantings and a cul‑de‑sac access to limit cut‑through traffic.
Neighbors and several commissioners nonetheless raised substantial concerns: the site sits in a low (‘bowl’) area with frequent flooding; residents presented photos and accounts of repeated inundation; and several commissioners urged saving existing mature oak trees that residents said provide significant stormwater uptake. One resident said 3–4 oak trees on the site account for large daily water uptake and argued removal would worsen neighborhood flooding.
The developer's engineers said stormwater ponds built on site would provide vertical storage and reduce discharge immediately once constructed. Staff noted the PD mechanism allows enforceable commitments beyond baseline zoning requirements, but commissioners weighed the trade-offs and potential downstream impacts on Nova Road and regional ponds.
On roll call, the motion to approve the ordinance failed 6–1; Commissioner Strickland voted yes and the other six voted no. The PD application therefore did not advance.
