Reidsville City Council voted Jan. 13 to adopt a revised curb‑and‑gutter policy that creates density and watershed exemptions but requires tie‑ins to existing stormwater infrastructure when developments expand.

Council held a public hearing on a staff‑proposed text amendment that would exempt low‑density single‑family developments (fewer than 6 units per acre) and specified low‑density multifamily/townhome thresholds (8 units per acre) from mandatory curb and gutter. The proposal also allows developments in the Troublesome Creek watershed to use vegetated ditches and culverts in lieu of curb and gutter, provided a licensed engineer’s stormwater plan is approved by the city’s Technical Review Committee (TRC). In those cases staff recommended that property owners or homeowners associations maintain the ditches unless the city takes responsibility.

The amendment drew legal concern from attorney Joseph Shuford, who said the proposed rule could require private property owners to maintain stormwater infrastructure within the public right‑of‑way. “This is on land controlled by the city,” Shuford told council, arguing the municipality ordinarily maintains right‑of‑way infrastructure and should not transfer that duty without compensation or clear authority. Resident Frank Verdi urged council to follow state engineering and environmental standards.

The discussion turned into a procedural dispute when Councilman (last name Martin) was asked to recuse himself for potential conflict of interest. Martin, who said he owns property and has pending development interests in the city, had previously recused and then sought guidance from legal counsel. After a motion and second the council voted to require Martin’s recusal for this item. Martin left the dais for the discussion and vote.

Council debated whether the change that members proposed at the dais required sending the amendment back to the planning board. City counsel advised that substantial changes generally should return to the planning board but that minor clarifications need not. Members ultimately approved a motion to adopt the amendment with a modification: tie‑in to existing curb/gutter or storm conveyance infrastructure must be required even where an exemption applies.

Drew Bigelow, the city planning director, told the council the TRC will review submitted stormwater plans prepared and sealed by a licensed engineer, and that the proposal aimed to encourage development while preserving environmental protections. The planning board had recommended approval of the amendment 4–2.

Council members who supported the change said it balances development needs and stormwater protection; others urged caution and more legal and technical clarity on long‑term maintenance obligations. City counsel indicated the modification could be interpreted as significant and, in some circumstances, might be returned to the planning board for review.

The council’s action updates subdivision standards and directs staff to finalize ordinance language with the adopted modification. The council held no additional public vote that night on returning the text to the planning board and approved the amended policy as amended.