Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors deny special-use permit for 21-townhouse Carriage Square proposal
Summary
The Bedford County Board of Supervisors denied a special-use permit that would have allowed 21 townhouses on an 8.89-acre parcel after concerns about stormwater, sewer access and farmland impacts were raised by neighbors and supervisors.
The Bedford County Board of Supervisors voted Feb. 10 to deny a special-use permit (SUP) sought by Carriage Square LTD to build 21 townhouse units on an 8.89-acre parcel at 16380 Forest Road.
George Mitchell, community development director, summarized the request as an SUP because townhouse use is allowed only by special permit in the site’s Planned Commercial Development/PCD zoning. The application proposed 21 townhouses that would constitute the 30% residential allocation allowed in that PCD.
Neighbors and supervisors raised concerns about stormwater, erosion and sewer access during the continued hearing. A neighboring farmer had testified in December that prior nearby development caused soil loss and drainage problems; supervisors said they wanted assurances the project would not increase runoff onto adjacent farmland. Mitchell explained the site-plan process requires post-construction runoff rates to be no greater than current conditions, but added that silt or temporary erosion during construction remained a practical risk.
Supervisors also discussed sewer access. Mitchell said the applicant had identified a sewer line on an adjacent property but the neighbor was unwilling to grant an easement. Board members discussed alternatives, including drilling across the road or linking to other infrastructure, and one supervisor proposed placing a condition on any approval to prohibit forced access or future eminent-domain-style acquisition for private sewer access.
Supervisor Sharp made a motion to deny the SUP; Supervisor Davis seconded. The motion carried on a roll-call vote recorded in the meeting transcript. Several supervisors voiced opposition to developing farmland adjacent to agricultural operations and said they preferred single-family housing if development occurs. One supervisor also cited concerns about traffic and emergency access with multifamily development.
Why it matters: The decision preserves current farmland protections in the immediate area and signals the board’s sensitivity to farm operations and drainage impacts when weighing residential infill or higher-density residential projects.
No appeal, permit modification, or new site plan was presented at the meeting. The transcript does not record a subsequent formal appeal or revised plan; the applicant or staff did not state whether a new application would be submitted.
