Planning board denies special‑use permit for Stokes Road hauling and landscaping operation
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up FreeSummary
After extensive neighbor testimony about safety, noise and road damage, the Rockingham County Board of Adjustment denied a special‑use permit for a nursery/landscaping/hauling business at 458 Stokes Road (case 2025‑11), finding the application failed to meet UDO evidentiary criteria.
The Rockingham County Board of Adjustment on Nov. 10 denied a special‑use permit for a proposed nursery/landscaping business at 458 Stokes Road in Reidsville, finding the application did not satisfy the Unified Development Ordinance's evidentiary standards.
Planning staff introduced case 2025‑11 and told the board the property came to staff attention through a code complaint. Applicant Lisa Orrell told the board she purchased the parcels in 2020 and said equipment and dump trucks were kept on site beginning in early 2021. "I was just following the leader. Right? And shame on me," Orrell said, apologizing for operating without a permit and describing plans to add screening and plantings.
Neighbors testified at length that large dump trucks were using narrow, partly unpaved segments of Stokes Road, creating ruts, dust and occasional oil on the roadway and raising safety concerns on blind curves. "When you have a dump truck and a car, you can't meet — you can't do it," said Paul Smith, who said he has lived on Stokes Road for 48 years. Mary Ann Swift, who lives at 550 Stokes Road, presented deed restrictions she says envision residential uses only and said heavy equipment has damaged the road edge.
Board members questioned whether the applicant’s described hauling and truck‑storage activity fit any defined RA‑district use in the county UDO. One member said, "I don't see how this is permitted with our current code," and several members cited safety and environmental protection gaps, including proximity to an on‑site creek noted as part of the Hall River watershed.
After discussion, a board member moved to deny the permit, finding the application failed to meet the required evidentiary determinations. The motion carried by voice vote, 4 ayes to 2 nays; the permit was not granted.
The denial is final from the Board of Adjustment; the applicant may pursue other administrative or private remedies if available. The board also suggested residents concerned about the road surface consult N.C. Department of Transportation about paving petitions.
