Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Anderson Highway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends approval for Anderson Highway rezoning to allow self‑storage and light industrial uses
Summary
The commission voted to recommend rezoning roughly 7.19 acres of a 9.97‑acre Anderson Highway property from Commerce Center/Commercial to Light Industrial (I‑1) with proffers limiting Parcel 2 to self‑storage and other conditions including right‑of‑way dedication and a pedestrian easement.
The Powhatan Planning Commission voted Jan. 6 to recommend approval of Case 25‑20 REZC, a request to rezone approximately 7.19 acres of a 9.97‑acre property at 1375–1377 Anderson Highway from Commerce Center/Commercial to Light Industrial (I‑1) subject to proffered site conditions.
Lincoln Webb, Powhatan County planning director, told the commission the applicant proposes to reconfigure the site into three lots and limit uses on Parcel 2 to a self‑storage facility and on Parcel 3 to a defined set of light industrial and service uses. Webb said the applicant submitted seven proffers, including a requirement that development conform to the conceptual layout plan; a required boundary‑line adjustment prior to site‑plan approval; demolition of existing buildings after land‑disturbance permits; access only through the adjacent Classic Granite parcel; dedication of right‑of‑way along Anderson Highway as required by the county thoroughfare plan; an eight‑foot public access easement in the front setback for a future pedestrian/bicycle pathway; and screening of exterior loading and service areas.
William Phelps, civil engineer with LandTech Resources, said elevations had been submitted to align new buildings with the nearby granite and warehouse architecture. Tony Kellogg, president of Classic Granite and Marble, supported the redevelopment, saying it would replace dilapidated structures at the county gateway.
During public comment, resident Carl Schwendeman asked the commission to require a sidewalk or multi‑use trail along Route 60 to avoid costly retrofits later and asked whether an on‑site house noted in GIS as dating to “1776” was historically significant. Planning staff said GIS sometimes uses placeholder dates and that the property is not on the county comprehensive plan as historic; staff said they would double‑check tax records and historic designation as needed.
Staff recommended approval, noting the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land‑use designation of gateway business. Commissioners questioned parcel boundaries and how a boundary‑line adjustment would interact with zoning; staff reiterated that the proffered site plan and subsequent site‑plan review would determine buffering, circulation and compliance with VDOT and other agency requirements.
An unidentified commissioner moved to recommend approval of the resolution for Case 25‑20 REZC; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll‑call vote with Commissioners Hall, Bolen, Winnall and Hatcher recorded as voting aye. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final action on Jan. 26.
Next steps: an applicant‑proffered site plan and any required VDOT or agency approvals will be reviewed during site‑plan process; code enforcement and site inspections will be used to verify required buffers and mitigation when the site plan is submitted.
