Reidsville council approves revised curb-and-gutter rules after heated debate over developer costs and stormwater responsibility

Reidsville — The Reidsville Regional City Council on Jan. 13 approved a text amendment to the city’s subdivision regulations that narrows the instances when developers must install traditional curb and gutter and creates exemptions tied to development density and watershed protections.

Planning and community development director Drew Bigelow outlined the measure as a way to “encourage development and increase our local housing stock” while protecting environmental goals. Under staff recommendations approved by the council, single‑family subdivisions at densities below 6 units per acre would be exempt from curb and gutter; townhomes and multifamily projects would need curb and gutter only above an 8‑unit‑per‑acre threshold. Projects inside the Troublesome Creek watershed may use vegetated ditches and culverts instead of traditional curb and gutter to reduce impervious‑surface impacts, provided a licensed engineer submits a stormwater plan and the Technical Review Committee approves it, Bigelow said.

The amendment also says where curb and gutter already exists, new phases must tie in to that infrastructure unless one of the stated exemptions applies. Planning staff told council the proposal mirrors standards adopted in several comparable municipalities and was recommended by the planning board on a 4‑2 vote.

Developers’ attorney Joseph Shuford told the council he represented several local builders and urged caution with the watershed exemption. “This ordinance would require installation of infrastructure for the benefit of the public within a public right‑of‑way and then require the private homeowner to maintain it without any compensation at all,” Shuford said, arguing the city cannot lawfully shift public‑right‑of‑way maintenance to private owners.

The public hearing produced split views. Some residents asked the council to follow state design standards and ensure the city will not be left to remedy failing privately‑maintained ditches; others said reducing curb-and-gutter costs could help small, local developers compete against large tract builders.

The meeting also included a procedural flashpoint: Councilman Martin, who has an announced interest in a nearby development, had recused himself from earlier discussions and, after legal advice, initially declined to recuse for this vote. Members moved for his recusal during tonight’s hearing and the motion passed; the council then proceeded with debate and the final vote without Martin participating.

Council members who supported the amendment said it offers flexible, engineering‑backed alternatives to curb and gutter while protecting watersheds and existing infrastructure. Opponents warned it leaves unanswered questions about long‑term maintenance and legal exposure. In response, staff said the Technical Review Committee will require sealed, engineer‑prepared plans and that the city has retained the right to require tie‑ins and to deny exemptions where public health or safety would be affected.

Next steps: the council instructed staff to draft final ordinance language reflecting the council’s amendment (including a requirement to tie new phases to existing infrastructure in more cases) and circulate any substantive revisions to the planning board as needed before formal adoption.

Who said what: Drew Bigelow, planning and community development director, presented the amendment; Joseph Shuford, attorney for local developers, spoke against the watershed exemption and maintenance shift; multiple council members and residents spoke for and against the changes during the public hearing.

What’s next: Council directed staff to finalize ordinance text and advised that, if the council’s modification is judged substantial, it may be returned to the planning board for further review before final adoption.