Washington County supervisors postpone decision on proposed 85-acre industrial rezoning at I‑81 Exit 22
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The board delayed action on a request to rezone roughly 85 acres near Interstate 81 Exit 22 from agricultural to industrial after residents raised water, traffic and cost concerns and the board said it wanted planning commission input and to await the General Assembly; the item was tabled to the July 14 meeting.
The Washington County Board of Supervisors on a split night of public testimony postponed consideration of a rezoning that would allow an industrial park to be developed on about 85 acres near Interstate 81 Exit 22.
Mr. Richardson, presenting the request on behalf of Clifton Stewart/Clifton Sewer LLC, said the parcel was identified in the county’s 2015 comprehensive plan for commercial development and that engineering and feasibility studies requested by the planning commission were included in the board packet. “It has good access to Exit 22,” Richardson said, arguing the site is consistent with adjacent land uses and the county’s long-range plan.
Speakers were sharply divided. Jimmy Stewart, who spoke for the applicant, clarified infrastructure points and cautioned residents that permitted industrial uses vary: “Whatever goes there… if it’s gonna be the asphalt plant or rock quarry, you don’t have to have special use permit anyway,” he told the board. Sean McMurray, executive director of the Wellspring Foundation of Southwest Virginia, said supporting responsible development could generate tax revenue and jobs and urged the board to attach reasonable conditions to any approval.
Multiple nearby property owners urged denial or further study. Sam Rayburn, whose family farm adjoins the proposed entrance, warned grading and retention ponds could "destroy" springs used to water livestock and estimated overall development costs “somewhere in the neighborhood of $12,000,000.” Libby Owens and Wayne Thomas described frequent crashes on Enterprise Road and said additional traffic and stormwater runoff would harm residents and farming operations.
Board members said they wanted the planning commission’s formal recommendation and to see whether pending General Assembly actions on related industrial-park issues affect the county’s options. A motion to postpone the decision until the board’s first July meeting (July 14) carried; the board cited outstanding questions about sewer capacity, traffic improvements and the financial feasibility of road and site work.
The board’s stated next step is to receive the planning commission recommendation and to reconvene discussion at the July meeting. No rezoning was approved; the item remains on the board’s future agenda.