Neighbors press commissioners over canopy trees, sidewalks and flooding at contentious Zipporah/Bus Barn rezoning hearings
Loading...
Summary
Two connected rezoning/site‑plan proposals — a 122‑lot 'Bus Barn' subdivision and a 167‑lot Zipporah Road development — drew hours of public comment on canopy‑road preservation, stormwater, emergency access and school‑bus safety; applicants pledged NOAA Atlas‑14 modeling, 50% runoff reduction and coordinated infrastructure via a joint planning agreement.
Two interrelated land‑use applications — often described in testimony as "Bus Barn" (PDR rezone and 122 single‑family lots) and "Zipporah Road" (PDR rezone and 167 single‑family lots) — generated intense public comment on Jan. 28 as residents pressed the Board of County Commissioners to deny or defer approvals until several technical and safety issues are resolved.
What applicants proposed: The developers presented a joint planning agreement to share access, a lift station and amenities. They said both projects will use NOAA Atlas‑14 rainfall data, meet the Mill Creek Watershed Management Plan requirements and design on‑site ponds that reduce the pre‑development discharge rate by 50%. Traffic consultants said the combined PM peak‑hour trip addition would be about 281 net PM trips (roughly 120 for Bus Barn and 161 for Zipporah) and that the projects could operate within adopted level‑of‑service standards when combined with previously planned/constructed road improvements in the Northeast Quadrant.
Main concerns raised by residents: Neighbors concentrated on four issues: - Canopy trees and Zipporah Road: Many witnesses said the narrow, tree‑lined Zipporah canopy is a defining local feature and that widening or installing utilities and sidewalks will sever roots and kill mature live oaks. Certified arborists retained by the applicants said a 20‑foot travelway with careful grading would allow preservation of most trees; residents disputed that conclusion and urged avoidance of road work that would damage root systems. - Stormwater and flooding: Residents downstream said recent development has already increased flood frequency; several speakers urged commissioners not to authorize further upstream development unless drainage, ponding and cross‑section analyses show no net harm. Applicants said modeling (NOAA Atlas‑14 and watershed modeling) showed post‑development water levels could be improved where on‑site storage and flow control are used and that required floodplain compensation would be provided. - Emergency access and traffic safety: Several speakers and one resident‑submitted analysis documented slow travel speeds, long queues and extended emergency response times on parts of SR‑64 and local corridors. Some commissioners and applicants argued background traffic is mitigated by prior road improvements in the Northeast Quadrant and that planned roundabouts and connections will reduce the projected impacts; opponents said existing queuing and response delays warrant denial or further study. - School‑bus and pedestrian safety: School staff and parents noted school‑bus routing and asked how children would safely reach bus stops; residents said sidewalks are proposed only immediately adjacent to the developments and urged continuous pedestrian facilities to SR‑64 or bus stops.
Board and staff response: Staff recommended that both rezoning requests can be consistent with the comp plan if required stipulations and further analyses are met; the staff report required NOAA Atlas‑14 runoff modeling, Mill Creek watershed compliance, floodplain compensation, and an operational traffic analysis at PSP/FSP. Staff also included stipulations limiting build‑out if a second access is not fully operational at certificate of occupancy (e.g., approval limited to 99 or 100 units until required access is available).
Where things stand: At the close of the hearing public comment continued and commissioners took time to deliberate; the Jan. 28 meeting recorded extensive public testimony but concluded before final votes for these two items. Staff and applicants will continue required modeling and detail work at the preliminary‑ and final‑site plan stages.
What residents can do: Submit written evidence or stormwater/traffic data to staff during the PSP/FSP review periods and watch for the follow‑up hearings that will consider operational traffic and drainage analyses.
