Village of Waukesha board to send representative and draft letter opposing proposed Big Bend sports complex

Village of Waukesha Board · January 26, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extensive public comment and trustee discussion, the Village of Waukesha board agreed to draft a letter opposing a proposed indoor/outdoor sports complex in nearby Big Bend and to send a designated village representative to the Big Bend joint public hearing; concerns centered on zoning, traffic, lighting, noise, stormwater and service impacts.

The Village of Waukesha board on Jan. 29 voted to draft a letter opposing a proposed indoor/outdoor sports complex in neighboring Big Bend and to designate a village representative to speak at the Big Bend joint public hearing.

Resident testimony and several trustees outlined objections to the project’s scale and location, including concerns about noise, permanent lighting, traffic and parking pressures, potential impacts on property values and the burden on local public-safety services. The board president read an excerpt of a written comment from resident David Feldman arguing the project conflicts with existing R-2 residential zoning and that commercial district classifications would be an improper fit.

Trustees also raised technical concerns. One trustee asked whether the developer’s stormwater approach — including permeable asphalt rather than a detention pond — would prevent additional runoff to neighboring properties. An attorney present explained the governing standard under state law: developers may not change where water leaves a property without easements and may need to control the rate of discharge; adding impervious surfaces typically increases total runoff, which must be managed under stormwater requirements.

Board members discussed possible actions the village can take — the board cannot block a neighboring community’s project but can send a representative to the hearing, submit a written stance, or pursue legal options if downstream infrastructure or water rights are affected. After debate, the board directed the village president to draft a letter reflecting the community’s concerns and approved sending a representative (identified in the meeting as Bob, a resident directly affected by the proposal) to the Big Bend hearing. The president said the letter will highlight noise, lighting, traffic, potential service impacts and concerns about zoning compatibility and property values.

What’s next: the board will finalize the draft letter for the Big Bend meeting and the designated representative will read the village’s comments at the joint public hearing. The hearing date referenced in discussions was Jan. 29; the village president said she would clear her schedule and prepare the written comments to be read at that meeting.