Committee debates reserve‑area minimums, cautions on affordability trade‑offs
Members discussed whether the draft's minimum reserve area (at least 50% of primary dispersal area) should be increased to 100%; proponents cited failure risk while opponents warned a higher minimum could reduce lot yield and increase starter‑home prices in Bedford County.
The full story
Committee members questioned whether the draft's requirement for a reserve area equal to at least 50% of the primary dispersal area is sufficient. Sam Coats argued a 100% reserve would provide stronger protection if the primary field failed decades after installation, while others said requiring 100% could substantially increase land needs and raise housing costs for buyers.
Sign up to keep reading.
Your free newsletter brings you what your city council, county, and school board discussed and decided.
Keep reading for free
Create a free account to finish this story and see the video, transcript and key details.
Continue with GoogleContinue with emailAlready have an account? Log in