Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Council warned 7 Mile Ferry Road R3 rezoning would strain roads, floodplain and sewer capacity
Summary
Councilmembers and planning staff recommended disapproval of Infinity Investments’ request to rezone 20.16 acres on 7 Mile Ferry Road to R3, citing steep slopes, floodway constraints, limited access and required sewer and bridge work that could create significant traffic safety and infrastructure costs.
Planning staff presented Infinity Investments LLC’s application Z22026 on April 30, asking to rezone roughly 20.16 acres near 7 Mile Ferry Road from R1 to R3 to add housing density. Planners and the planning commission recommended disapproval, citing documented steep slopes, FEMA floodway and AE-zone exposure, limited access that could require an expensive bridge, off-site sewer lift-station upgrades and poor level-of-service on the southbound approach.
Staff identified historic development estimates near 100 units but said the applicant’s estimate was 74 single-family houses; staff and several council members said topography makes the higher figures unlikely. Planning staff summarized department comments that no gravity sewer exists in the area and that a forced main or lift-station upgrades would likely be required.
Council members focused on traffic and safety concerns. "This would be an absolute disaster, especially in the mornings," Councilman Holloman said, urging members to drive the corridor to see the narrow alignment and limited sightlines. Other members observed the existing 16–19 foot pavement width and noted right-of-way constraints that would make widening expensive and disruptive.
Staff and the planning commission also flagged the potential for increased erosion and higher construction costs on steep slopes, and an independent traffic assessment noted a poor level of service for the southbound approach serving the site. Staff concluded the request was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan’s suburban-neighborhood designation and recommended disapproval; the planning commission concurred.
No final council vote was recorded at the April 30 session. Planning staff noted letters in the council packet opposing the request and said the matter was returned to the council after a prior remand to the planning commission to allow the applicant to work with staff and neighbors.
