Residents urge Big Bend to slow rezoning for proposed BREC sports complex

Dozens of residents told the Village of Big Bend on Jan. 29 that a developer request to rezone roughly 42 acres for a proposed regional BREC (Bridal/REC) sports complex should be slowed or rejected.

At the public hearing, Justin Hurd, who said he lives on Big Bend Drive, told the board the parcel now zoned R-2 low-density residential should not be transformed into a ‘mega sports complex,’ saying it would conflict with the village zoning code’s special-exception standards and ‘‘not be compatible with the surrounding land.’’ Hurd said the project would eliminate quiet summer evenings for nearby families.

Several speakers focused on traffic and emergency access. A presenter for the proposal cited annual visitation estimates in the hundreds of thousands and projected roughly 1,300 additional vehicle trips per event, warning that two-lane roads such as Big Bend Road, Skyline Avenue and National Avenue ‘‘would be overwhelmed.’’ Neighbors, including former and long-term residents, said peak tournament traffic and overlapping events would create sustained congestion that ordinary traffic studies could understate.

Buyers and nearby homeowners described quality-of-life and property-value concerns. Jason Egan, who said he recently purchased Lot 2 on Big Bend Drive to build a home for his family, said he would not have bought the lot if he had known about the sports complex plan and asked the board to reject or at least table the rezoning so impacts on noise, light and traffic could be ‘‘thoroughly worked through.’’

Public-safety capacity was another recurring worry. Jim Spica, who described response volumes at comparable complexes and recent police call figures, asked who would pay for additional full-time police, fire and EMS staffing, equipment and potentially a new station. Multiple speakers said the village could face millions in infrastructure and service costs.

Residents also raised environmental and drainage concerns. One attendee highlighted research linking artificial turf and large parking areas to stormwater-borne pollutants and asked for stronger buffers and treatment systems. Jason Dearing, a nearby property owner, estimated that, without adequate retention, runoff from the site could amount to ‘‘3 to 4 million gallons’’ during heavy rainfall and asked why the village would not use a tax-increment financing (TID) mechanism if developers were offering $15 million for water and sewer extensions.

At the hearing Deanne Sudinga cited Wisconsin statute 66.1105 and asked the board to provide itemized, detailed TID and bond projections, guaranteed maximum price clauses and a full accounting of who would bear infrastructure costs before approving any rezoning or PUD. Sudinga specifically urged tabling the vote until those disclosures are provided.

Several speakers pointed to historical or cultural-site concerns. Multiple commenters referenced an on-site cemetery or burial area and said archeological or historical reviews should be part of the vetting process before approvals proceed.

Representatives from neighboring Vernon also spoke. Jeff Millis, identified as president of the Village of Vernon, said Vernon’s board is not in favor of the development and warned approving a large PUD that departs from existing zoning could set an undesirable precedent for future projects.

Village staff and the planning commission repeatedly told attendees that reports and meeting minutes, including DOT notes, are available or have been requested and can be provided to officials and neighboring jurisdictions. Multiple residents nonetheless asked the board to delay action and commission independent third-party studies covering traffic, stormwater, public-safety costs and fiscal impacts.

No formal vote or board action was recorded in the hearing transcript portion provided. The meeting concluded with continued public frustration and repeated requests that the village include Vernon officials in further review and provide full, itemized infrastructure cost disclosures before any zoning approval.

The village board did not take final action at the hearing; residents asked that staff and the planning commission provide the requested reports and that the board consider tabling the rezoning until the studies and disclosures are complete.