Planning panel deadlocked over proposed junkyard near Marion State Fish Hatchery

A Smyth County planning commission hearing on March 26, 2026, ended in a 3-3 split on a special-use permit for an automotive salvage yard proposed at 169 Old Prater Road, adjacent to the Marion State Fish Hatchery. The commission’s deadlock means the application will be forwarded to the Smyth County Board of Supervisors for further action.

The permit applicant, identified in the hearing as Zane Kite, told the commission he plans to store and eventually crush vehicles on-site, to drain fluids into a covered shed with three 275-gallon tanks, and to use contract crushers rather than crush all vehicles himself. Planning staff read correspondence from the Department of Environmental Quality saying a permit (VAR052677) had been distributed and outlining monitoring and reporting requirements, including sampling of Outfall No. 1 and benchmark monitoring for metals and suspended solids beginning the monitoring period that starts July 1, 2026.

Opponents said the site’s proximity to Staley’s Creek and the Marion hatchery risks contamination of a state-run fish-production facility. Planning staff read a written opposition noting the hatchery relies on Staley’s Creek and produces approximately 3,000,000 trout eggs annually; the letter warned that trace amounts of copper or zinc from automotive scrap can cause mass mortality of fry and embryos. Local residents and petitioners raised concerns about narrow roads, a one-lane bridge, heavy-haul traffic for crushed-car transport, the visual impact of stacked vehicles, and the effect on property values.

Supporters and some nearby residents argued the operation would bring local jobs and recycling benefits. One proponent presented a petition said to contain 453 signatures in favor of the salvage yard and argued recycling reduces the energy cost of producing new metal. Other speakers noted long-standing salvage operations in adjacent areas and said the yard predated newer housing.

Commissioners questioned details of the applicant’s plans, pressing for larger setbacks from surface water (discussion ranged between 10 and 30 feet), impervious pads and secondary containment for fuel and fluid storage, the siting and containment measures for the crusher, and long-term screening such as masonry walls or tree buffers. Planning staff read DEQ and DWR technical comments recommending drained fluids prior to crushing, secondary containment for tanks, concrete pads for crushers, and routine monitoring and reporting under the DEQ permit.

A motion to recommend approval with conditions failed for lack of a second. A subsequent motion to deny the special-use permit was seconded and produced three votes in favor but left the commission split 3-3 overall; the chair and staff discussed forwarding the unresolved application to the Board of Supervisors or tabling it until a full commission could readdress it. The commission did not enact a final local approval or denial.

The hearing record includes written opposition from Crystal Farley (dated March 5, 2026) and technical comments read from the Department of Wildlife Resources and DEQ. Planning staff also noted the site as tax map 58-8-25 and that the hatchery intake is roughly 300 yards upstream of Outfall No. 1 identified in the permit documents.

Because the commission did not reach a majority decision, the application will be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for their next meeting for further consideration.