Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies waterfront apartment rezoning after residents raise traffic and parking concerns
Summary
The board voted 4–3 to deny RZ26‑0001, a request to rezone a planned commercial parcel near Smith Mountain Lake to R‑4 for about 100 apartments. Residents objected to traffic, safety of a right‑in/right‑out entrance, limited parking and impacts to the area’s rural character.
The Bedford County Board of Supervisors voted on July 28 to deny rezoning application RZ26‑0001 (Westbridge Holdings LLC), which proposed converting a PCD parcel near Smith Mountain Lake into a waterfront apartment community of about 100 units.
Jordan Mitchell, the county’s community development director, presented the application, which included a traffic analysis estimating 431 daily trips and 39 trips during the PM peak hour and proffers limiting the development to 100 units, imposing a six‑month minimum initial lease and prohibiting condominium conversion. Applicant Garrett Zechman and consultant Chris Burns described the site’s constraints for commercial use, the proposed building design and efforts to secure a left‑out movement from VDOT during final design.
Local residents raised multiple objections during public comment. Dennis Huber, who lives on Azalea Drive adjacent to the site, told the board the project’s steep slope requires substantial excavation and that the site lacks adequate dock, beach or boat parking. "Parking will be an issue on this semi rural part of the county," Huber said, later noting the plan shows about 184 spaces for 100 units.
Heather Slusser expressed similar concerns about traffic, short‑term rentals and light and noise impacts. Other residents urged extending the center turn lane on Route 122 to improve safety.
Supervisor Johnson moved to deny the rezoning; the motion carried on a roll call vote, 4–3. After the denial, the board removed the related special‑use permit item from the agenda as moot (motion to remove passed 6–1).
Why it matters: the vote blocks a high‑density residential conversion of a lakefront parcel that applicants said was not viable for commercial development; opponents cited traffic safety, parking and character impacts, while supporters argued residential use is less intrusive than many commercial alternatives.
What’s next: the denial ends this rezoning application as presented; applicants may revise plans or pursue other sites or uses in accordance with county rules.
