Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Smithfield council recommends denial of rezoning for 50.8‑acre Buffalo Road parcel after residents object
Summary
Council voted 5–1 to recommend denial of a request to rezone about 50.8 acres at 2614 Buffalo Road from R‑20A to Light Industrial after extensive public comment raising traffic, buffering and land‑use concerns; planning staff had recommended approval but the planning board was split 4–3.
The Town of Smithfield council voted to recommend denial of a rezoning application for roughly 50.8 acres at 2614 Buffalo Road after a lengthy legislative public hearing and council deliberation.
Planning staff presented the request from property owner Donna Barber Odom to rezone the parcel from R‑20A (residential/agriculture) to LI (light industrial). Staff said the site is within the town’s future land‑use guidance for industry, is near town utilities and could be annexed, and that required buffers and WS‑IVPA watershed protections would apply if rezoned.
Multiple nearby residents spoke against the change, citing neighborhood character, traffic impacts, and uncertainty about what “light industrial” could allow. John Waldrich (speaker 17) told the council, “This gentleman keeps saying ‘in the public interest’ — it’s not my interest. My house is right across the road from it,” and urged council to preserve the property as residential or agricultural. Several speakers warned that by‑right industrial uses could include high‑impact options such as truck terminals or data centers.
Perry Harris (speaker 7), the listing realtor for the property, said the county would support site certification and identified potential market interest. Harris described prospective development opportunities and said a buyer had expressed interest in major retail and distribution projects that could bring jobs and tax base — comments the council weighed against neighbors’ concerns.
Council discussion addressed options including conditional rezoning (to attach binding conditions), buffers, riparian protections on intermittent streams through the site, and the practical limits of a 50‑acre tract for some industrial uses. Councilmembers noted that a conditional rezoning or a site plan submittal could provide more specific, enforceable protections, but those options would require a new application.
After debate, a motion to deny the rezoning application as presented passed; the recommendation to deny the application to the town council was recorded as a 5–1 vote.
Councilmembers emphasized that denial was of the present application as submitted and that property owners retain the right to reapply, including under conditional zoning if they choose.
