Bedford County supervisors deny rezoning for proposed Leeville Road subdivision amid water and zoning concerns

The Bedford County Board of Supervisors voted 7-0 on June 9 to deny rezoning application RZ26-00006, stopping a developer's effort to rezone about 13.34 acres of a 30.07-acre parcel on Leeville Road for a proposed subdivision.

Senior planner Abigail Carrington told the board the applicant, Jamie White of White Engineering (the applicant and project contact), had proposed a concept for up to 26 detached single-family lots, with 12 of those lots located in the portion of the parcel requested for rezoning. Carrington said the Planning Commission recommended approval 4-1 at its May 5 hearing but that the applicant's voluntary proffer (limiting housing type and the number of lots in the rezoned portion) was submitted to staff after the commission meeting.

Resident speakers at the public hearing urged the board to deny the rezoning because of limited groundwater and septic concerns. Rita Hackworth, a District 2 landowner, said her household receives about 1.5 gallons per minute from its well and measured the proposed entrance sight distance herself, disputing a 600-foot figure presented by staff. "If they keep drilling wells over there, I'm sure they're going to tap into our water vein somewhere along the way," Hackworth said, adding that small lots would leave little room to relocate failing drain fields in the future.

Tony Ferguson, whose property borders the site, told supervisors that the nearby public water connection is about 8.6 miles away and said adding dozens of wells "is not if it's going to happen" but will lead to water shortages. "Somebody is going to be without water pretty soon," he said, urging the board to table the application for further study.

The applicant, Jamie White, said frontage lots already have functioning wells and that sight-distance issues were addressed by grading an embankment at the proposed access. He said final lot counts could change depending on drain-field siting and soil testing. "What our ask is, in essence, five extra lots," White said, describing the proposal as an effort to make the split-zone parcel more cohesive with the neighborhood.

During discussion, supervisors cited the intended purpose of the AV (activity village/commercial hub) district, arguing it was not designed to increase residential density in areas without public water. Several supervisors also flagged the potential county cost to extend public water lines and expressed concern that private wells in the area do not reliably produce high flow. One supervisor noted that extending a water line from Little Otter could cost "millions of dollars," a constraint on residential expansion without public infrastructure.

Mr. Tuck moved to disapprove the rezoning; the motion carried on a roll call vote, recorded as unanimous. The denial leaves the parcel in its current split zoning and stops the specific subdivision proposal pending any future application or different infrastructure arrangements.

What happens next: The developer may revise the proposal, pursue only the lots already in review in the AV portion, or return with additional engineering and well/drain-field data. The board did not direct staff to take further action beyond the vote.

Sources: Public staff presentation by Abigail Carrington; applicant comments by Jamie White; comments from residents Rita Hackworth and Tony Ferguson; board roll-call vote recorded at the June 9 meeting.