Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables proposed 100‑unit campground on Panhandle Road after extended public hearing
Summary
Applicants seeking a conditional use permit for up to 100 primitive campsites and RV units on roughly 132 acres along the South Fork of the Shenandoah drew hours of public comment; the Board of Supervisors voted to table the request for further review and follow‑up.
The Warren County Board of Supervisors voted to table a conditional use permit application for a campground on multiple parcels along Panhandle Road after a multi‑hour public hearing that drew dozens of speakers for and against the project.
Applicant Carl I (property owner) described plans for a campground and related rural events facility on roughly 132 contiguous acres with approximately 3,000 feet of river frontage. He told the board he initially proposed more sites but reduced the request to 100 camping units because of cost and permitting requirements and said the sites would be “primitive” and clustered with designated parking areas and a gated entrance.
Planning staff told the board the application seeks a campground plus related site improvements and listed a package of conditions recommended by the planning commission and staff, including VDOT entrance approval, approval of water and on‑site sewage system permits from the Virginia Department of Health, conformance with the county floodplain overlay (Warren County Code §180‑16) for any development in mapped flood zones, a maximum 14‑day stay limit, a required fire safety plan and inspections before a certificate of zoning, and site plan requirements for parking, dust‑free surfaces and landscaping.
Numerous nearby property owners and residents objected, citing traffic and safety concerns on the narrow and partly unpaved Panhandle Road, flood risks to campsites placed in FEMA Flood Zone A, insufficient on‑site staffing and security, emergency evacuation and flood response plans, and litter and environmental impacts along the river corridor. Several speakers said they feared the scale of the proposal was equivalent to a 100‑lot subdivision and described existing problems of illegal dumping and seasonal flood impacts.
Others who spoke in favor said the applicant plans to hire local contractors and service providers, that the project would attract tourism and economic activity, and that the applicant had narrowed the initial scope to a phased approach focused on a small initial buildout. The applicant told supervisors he would control access via a gate and cameras and that septic design and parking would be completed as required by the health department and VDOT.
After extended board discussion about road capacity, emergency access, floodplain risk and the project’s scale, a majority motion to table the application and return with more information and a work session passed. The board also directed staff to obtain additional information on traffic impacts, evacuation and flood mitigation plans, and infrastructure feasibility before resuming the public hearing.
The board’s tabling motion was recorded; supervisors signaled mixed support and opposition in roll call before voting to table. No permit was issued at the meeting.
