Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Mining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southampton supervisors approve Grama Construction sand-extraction permit over residents' objections
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing with dozens of residents raising environmental, traffic and cultural-resource concerns, the Southampton County Board of Supervisors approved a conditional use permit for Grama Construction to operate a borrow (sand) pit on Smiths Ferry Road.
The Southampton County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a conditional use permit for a sand-extraction operation on a 155-acre tract on Smiths Ferry Road, despite extended public opposition about flooding, water quality, air pollution and possible burial sites. The board's motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation carried after debate and a roll-call style tally; the outcome was approval.
The application, filed by Mitchell B. Grama and Alex J. Gray, sought permission to mine roughly 65 acres of the parcel for sand. Planner Jay Randolph told the board the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions on Feb. 13, 2025, by a 4–3 vote and included requirements for a paved, perpendicular commercial entrance, a 100–200-foot vegetated buffer, dust control and a dry-hydrant firefighting water source once a stable pond is formed.
Alex J. Gray, who told the board, “We are a local corporation born and raised in Southampton County,” said the operation supports local jobs and argued the company would follow state and county mining rules. Supporters at the hearing said the company has donated to local causes and can provide training and jobs.
Opponents described potential harms if approval proceeded. Forrest Johnson said residents feared “impacts to property value, water quality, noise pollution, air pollution and traffic” and urged supervisors to prioritize the neighborhood. Multiple speakers described the site’s flood-prone terrain and urged the board to protect wells and surface water. Public commenters also raised cultural-resource concerns: Leroy Hardy Jr. and others said the area is close to known historically important Native American and African American sites; Ray Tucker and others highlighted health risks from silica and other airborne dusts.
Speakers pressed technical questions about water use, site access and buffers. Mitchell Gray told the board the operation would use surface water collected on-site and would not draw from private wells. He said the proposed entrance met VDOT sight-distance criteria and that the company planned a paved, 70-foot minimum entrance and dust-control measures. He also said the firm would install a dry hydrant available to emergency services once a stable pond was achieved and would provide keys or access for first responders.
Several residents asked for archaeological or environmental studies prior to any excavation. Councilmember and county staff discussed that a formal archaeological survey could be conducted; local advocates cited recent state law changes requiring consultation with federally recognized tribes in some permit reviews and urged the board to do additional cultural-resource due diligence. A number of commenters also asked the board to delay action to allow additional study and outreach.
After discussion, a supervisor moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendation and impose the recommended conditions. The motion passed and the conditional use permit was approved; the board directed enforcement of the permit conditions and county inspections to confirm compliance.
The permit includes limits on operating hours, vehicle access and equipment, reforestation commitments for buffer areas and a requirement for annual county inspections. The board did not specify a phased archaeological survey in the approval but discussion during the meeting indicated some supervisors wanted additional study or continued outreach. The county attorney advised on procedural options before the final vote.
