Planning board continues review of proposed CarMax distribution campus after neighbors raise environmental and lighting concerns

The Antioch Planning & Zoning Board voted to continue consideration of PCB 24-10, a site-plan and final‑plat application for a proposed CarMax distribution and auction campus at 2101 East Route 173, after residents and commissioners asked for more detailed lighting, landscaping and stormwater information.

Staff told the board the project would subdivide the site into two lots (about 58 and 27 acres) and place two buildings on the primary lot — a roughly 38,000‑square‑foot reconditioning facility and an approximately 11,000‑square‑foot auction building — plus a large paved storage area of about 16 acres. Staff noted the applicant’s initial traffic analysis indicated no new full access onto Route 173 would be required and that most traffic could be routed via Gregory Drive.

The nut of the board’s concern was neighborhood effects. Longtime resident Chuck Asdale said the development would cause “intense light pollution,” harm views and could lower property values; he also challenged staff’s earlier suggestion that oils would “settle in the pond,” arguing that oil floats on water and poses a risk to wells serving nearby homes. In response, staff and the applicant described a treatment‑train BMP approach — including bio‑swales and filtering systems ahead of retention ponds — and said compensatory storage would be provided where work touches flood‑plain areas. “BMPs help filter all that out before it reaches the creek,” staff said when explaining how stormwater would be treated.

Applicant representatives said they submitted a revised photometric plan that reduces lumens by roughly 30% in customer/employee parking areas and shows zero foot‑candles at the property perimeter in several locations. Paul Tom, identified as CarMax’s real estate acquisition manager, described the auction component as primarily virtual with in‑person events “once or twice a week” during business hours if needed.

Board members also sought additional detail on planting sizes, berm heights and the precise bioswale designs. Staff said a one‑page planting/species list exists but that commissioners had not all received it in their packet; staff recommended working with the applicant to finalize planting sizes and potential additional berming where flood‑plain constraints permit. Given those outstanding exhibits and the public concerns, a commissioner moved to continue the matter to the board’s next meeting. The motion passed; the item will return for review on Dec. 4 with revised photometrics, bio‑swale engineering and planting/species details for the commissioners and staff to review.

The continuation means no site‑plan approval or formal plat decision was made tonight; applicants must supply the requested technical exhibits before the board takes a final vote.