Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning PL 25 204 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose B & M Trucking rezoning; supervisors deny industrial-heavy rezone 4–3
Summary
After hours of public testimony about noise, dust, lighting and safety, the board denied a request to rezone Cruise Shop Road property to industrial heavy for tractor-trailer storage (PL-25-204), citing insufficient proffers and strong neighborhood opposition.
The Board of Supervisors denied a rezoning and concurrent special-use permit request (PL-25-204) from B & M Trucking that would have rezoned a Cruise Shop Road parcel to industrial heavy to allow expanded trailer storage and tractor-trailer parking. Neighbors packed the hearing and urged denial, citing dust, noise, added truck traffic, lighting and worry about future industrial uses under industrial-heavy zoning.
Ross Hawkins, an adjacent property owner, told the board that industrial-heavy zoning is the least-restrictive district in the county and that unrestricted rezoning could permit uses far beyond a parking lot: “Industrial heavy zoning is the least restrictive zoning in Campbell County, which means going forward, any sort of structure or business could exist on that property,” he said, urging proffers limiting the lot to trailer storage, no lighting and a 200-foot buffer.
Applicant Todd Moore and engineers described the request as primarily a storage area for trailers and said they intended to minimize lighting and heavy daily traffic. Moore said the plan showed buffering and that, in practice, the area would see intermittent storage rather than constant heavy movement. County staff and the applicant’s consultant provided a revised site plan and emphasized required screening; the planning commission had recommended approval with proffers.
Multiple neighbors described health and safety concerns: gravel dust, nighttime lighting, and two recent fatal crashes at a nearby intersection were cited as reasons the area should remain agricultural/residential. Several residents also said they were told by the seller at time of home purchase that the parcel would remain undeveloped.
Supervisor Klein moved to deny the rezoning; the motion carried on a 4–3 vote. Board members who opposed denial said they wanted to support local business growth and believed conditions and buffering could be negotiated; members voting for denial said the application lacked binding proffers to protect adjacent homeowners. Staff noted that any future, more-limited site plan proposals or negotiated proffers could be considered by the board and planning commission.
