Prince Edward planners recommend rezoning, approve mini‑storage permit in Rice Village with VDOT review requested

PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, Va. — The Prince Edward County Planning Commission on Feb. 18 recommended that the Board of Supervisors rezone a 6.82‑acre parcel in the Rice area from A‑1 Agricultural Conservation to C‑1 General Commercial and approved a special‑use permit to allow a mini‑warehouse (self‑storage) project by Anthony and Tracy Ellington.

Robbie Love, county planning staff, told the commission the parcel (Tax Parcel 040‑A‑23) is located on the south side of U.S. Route 460 at its intersection with Pisgah Church Road and that VDOT had completed an entrance review included in the packet. Love also noted the parcel lies within the county's Economic Development enterprise zone and is shown in the county's 2014 comprehensive plan as part of the Rice development area.

The commission's recommendation to rezone (from A‑1 to C‑1) passed on a roll‑call vote with all members present voting yes. The later special‑use permit that would allow the mini‑warehouse development on the newly rezoned site also passed, with conditions addressing buffering, lighting and other development standards; commissioners added a request that staff and VDOT revisit the proposed access design.

Why it matters: The site sits opposite an already permitted commercial parcel and adjoins the High Bridge Trail, a regional recreational corridor. Neighbors said they fear increased noise, lighting and traffic and that a commercial rezoning could accelerate further commercialization of the village of Rice. Commissioners expressed safety concerns about vehicle access from 460 and asked staff to ask the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to reconsider ingress/egress options before the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors.

What staff, the applicant and public said Robbie Love summarized technical reviews and draft conditions, noting that the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) responded to the application and "supports the use of native species for screening purposes such as eastern red cedar or American holly." Love also reviewed existing county code development standards that would apply to a storage facility, including minimum lot size, lighting limits and prohibitions on onsite auctions and hazardous materials storage.

A public commenter identified in the record as a resident opposed the project. The resident said, "my wife and I are opposed to a proposal. We believe that this addition to rights would further industrialize the community and degrade the quality of life," and raised concerns about lighting, fencing and 24‑hour access near homes and the trail.

Applicant Anthony ("Andy") Ellington described two site concepts prepared by Maxey Associates: one with four smaller buildings and one with three larger buildings that use the same disturbed footprint. Ellington said he prefers the three‑building design for cost reasons and intends to build in phases, "start with 1 building. Once that becomes almost 80 full, go to the next 1 and then the third 1." He said surfacing would use millings and that perimeter fencing would be inside the landscape buffer; he also said he planned low, side‑mounted lighting rather than pole lights and would install gate controls and cameras.

Traffic and access Commissioners and staff repeatedly raised safety questions about the planned right‑in access from eastbound U.S. 460 and a left‑out restriction for exiting the site. VDOT's site review in the packet shows VDOT approved a configuration with a right‑in on 460 and a separate access arrangement onto Pisgah Church Road; VDOT's assistant resident engineer (Brian Locker) was referenced by staff as the agency reviewer who inspected the site.

Commissioners said sight distance and traffic speeds on that stretch of 460 create safety concerns, with multiple members urging VDOT to reconsider allowing entrance and exit via Pisgah Church Road instead of the configured right‑in/left‑out from 460. The commission did not substitute a final access design; instead it approved the special‑use permit with conditions and asked staff to contact VDOT and relay the commission's concerns before the application reaches the Board of Supervisors.

Votes at a glance - Recommendation to rezone Tax Parcel 040‑A‑23 from A‑1 to C‑1 (for development of a mini‑warehouse site): passed; roll call — Mr. Hogan: yes; Mr. Hart: yes; Mr. Gilliam: yes; Mr. Weiss: yes; Mr. Perry: yes; Mr. Fuller: yes; Mr. Page (chair): yes; Mr. Pringaman: yes. (Mover/second not specified in the transcript.)

- Special‑use permit to construct and operate a mini‑warehouse on Tax Parcel 040‑A‑23 (conditions on buffering, lighting, screening, and standards in county code): passed; roll call — Mr. Hart: yes; Mr. Hogan: yes; Mr. Gilliam: yes; Mr. Weiss: yes; Mr. Perry: yes; Mr. Fuller: yes; Mr. Page: yes; Mr. Pringaman: yes. Motion included direction that staff coordinate with VDOT about ingress/egress prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing.

Next steps and implementation The planning commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors; staff said the item has been rescheduled for the board's April public hearing (April 8). Staff also said it will contact VDOT to discuss possible alternate access configurations and will re‑advertise for the board hearing as required. Any final site plan will be subject to stormwater, building and site‑plan reviews and to VDOT approval for access.

Context and constraints Love reminded the commission that rezoning the parcel to C‑1 would open the site to a range of by‑right and special‑use commercial activities under county code (roughly 60 by‑right uses and some 35 special‑use categories were cited). Commissioners noted that rezoning is broader than approval of this single use; the special‑use permit imposes use‑specific conditions but does not itself change the zoning district.

The DCR letter attached to the application did not oppose the mini‑warehouse but recommended specific native species for buffering along the High Bridge Trail. Planning staff pointed commissioners to existing county code standards for mini‑warehouses, which include a minimum lot size (one acre), front yard setback and screening requirements.

Ending The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hold the public hearing on the rezoning and special‑use permit April 8. Planning staff will contact VDOT to request reconsideration of the access design and will relay the commission's safety concerns at that time.