Powhatan supervisors deny School Board27s demolition request for Pocahontas Landmark Center after large public outcry

Powhatan County27s Board of Supervisors on Sept. 5 voted unanimously to deny a School Board request to demolish roughly 39,275 square feet of buildings at the Pocahontas Landmark Center, following a multi-hour public hearing in which residents, the local NAACP chapter and preservationists urged the county to preserve and repurpose the complex.

Planning Director Ligon Webb explained that the School Board submitted a demolition permit on July 21, 2025, proposing removal of multiple mid‑20th‑century wings while leaving administrative offices, the museum and the gymnasium in place. Webb told the board that the planning commission recommended approval by a 3–2 vote but that the property is not listed on the Virginia Department of Historic Resources register and that the county27s comprehensive plan references the site as a historic resource.

Speakers representing community groups, longtime residents and the Powhatan branch of the NAACP urged denial or at least a pause for feasibility studies and grant-seeking. "This property is part of our shared history," said a resident who identified herself as Tammy C., calling the complex "a piece of who we are as a community." Andrew Sneed, speaking for the Powhatan NAACP, asked supervisors to "delay this process" to pursue reuse that would provide community space and protect the building27s historical significance.

Several speakers cited potential grant programs and feasibility work. Carl Schwendeman said federal and state grant cycles could provide funds to rehabilitate the buildings; Danielle Lipscomb, president of the Powhatan African American Cultural Arts Museum, said structural professionals told her the complex is restorable and warned that demolition would erase a culturally significant county asset. Opponents emphasized both the sentimental value and potential cost‑effectiveness of rehabilitation compared with new construction.

Board members debated options to approve, deny or defer the permit. Supporters of denial pointed to strong public sentiment, reports that Dewberry (an engineering consultant) offered preliminary findings that rehabilitation may be feasible, and the risk that further delay could simply accelerate deterioration. One supervisor said the county had given the school board repeated opportunities and that denial would preserve flexibility for county-led studies and grant applications.

District 5 Supervisor moved to deny the School Board27s demolition resolution (identified in the meeting record as R2025-64); the motion was seconded and the board approved the denial on a roll-call vote, 5–0. The board urged staff to pursue feasible preservation paths and noted that any rehabilitation of school‑owned property would still require coordination with and approval by the School Board.

The denial does not automatically transfer control of the property to the county. The board discussed the need for a feasibility study and for grant-seeking to quantify costs and next steps. The meeting record shows the board then convened a closed session to consult with counsel about pending or probable litigation.

The board27s action leaves the School Board27s demolition permit denied and sets an expectation that the county will pursue analysis and funding options before the issue returns to a public decision point.