Currituck commissioners deny Barco Reserve preliminary plat, citing stormwater and service concerns

The Currituck County Board of Commissioners voted to deny a preliminary plat and special-use permit for Barco Reserve, a proposed 45‑lot subdivision off Shortcut Road near Barco, during its Feb. 17 meeting.

The denial followed a quasi‑judicial public hearing in which the applicant, Seaboard Development Alliance LLC, presented engineered plans and expert testimony, and multiple nearby residents said existing drainage problems would be worsened. Johnny Hallow, attorney for the applicant, introduced witnesses including civil engineer Mark Bissell and appraiser Kim Tate, who testified the project met Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) standards and should not depress neighboring property values. The planning staff report and the applicant’s witnesses said the development proposes two stormwater wet ponds, sidewalks, street trees and buffers, and that the 45 lots would connect to county water with individual septic systems.

But residents who live along Swain’s Lane and adjacent properties told the commissioners the area is saturated year‑round and that runoff already ponds in yards. Robert Swain, who said he has lived on Swain’s Lane for 46 years, told the board the drainage channel the applicant proposes to use “peters out” and does not carry stormwater to the sound as the applicant’s engineer described. Valerie Ashbury, another adjacent property owner, said her yard is under water now and asked the board to view the site before approving development.

Planning staffer Jenny Turner reviewed the application and said the proposal splits the parcel along existing MXR (mixed residential) and AG (agriculture) zoning; the MXR portion was reviewed as a traditional subdivision and the AG portion as a conservation subdivision. Turner said the Transportation Review Committee and other review bodies recommended conditions the board may attach, and that the county schools had provided updated committed‑capacity numbers used in the staff report.

Engineer Mark Bissell testified the design included stormwater controls sized to meet the UDO’s 10‑year standard and said the applicant would model for a 100‑year storm during final design. Bissell said the proposed wet ponds would detain and slowly release runoff, and that the health department found proposed lots suitable for septic. Appraiser Kim Tate testified, based on local sales comparisons, that the development would not reduce nearby property values.

Commissioners weighed that technical testimony against extensive testimony from Swain’s Lane residents about persistent flooding, the historical presence of beaver dams and localized constraints in existing drainage infrastructure. Several commissioners said the written record and the hearing did not satisfactorily demonstrate that post‑development stormwater flows would not harm adjacent properties or that school capacity impacts would be controlled by phasing or other guarantees. After discussion, a motion to deny the preliminary plat and special‑use permit passed.

The motion to deny cited several findings including: the applicant had not demonstrated the project met the UDO review standard that a special‑use development not endanger public health or safety (with particular emphasis on stormwater); that the proposal could injure the value of adjoining lands; and that it was not in conformity with cited Imagine Currituck 2040 policies on community character, preservation of farmland and open space, and assurance of adequate public facilities (schools and infrastructure).

The denial is an initial land‑use decision; the applicant may pursue remedies available under the county’s land‑use procedures, including resubmission with revised plans, engineering studies or conditions addressing drainage and school impacts.

Residents urged follow‑up work on watershed drainage beyond the site boundary. Planning staff and the applicant said final grading, hydrologic modeling and a stormwater design by a licensed stormwater engineer will be required before any future approvals; those technical reports will be subject to county review if the applicant files again.