Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Motorsports Cup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge board to reject motorsports park near Appomattox River
Summary
Dozens of Powhatan County residents told the Board of Supervisors they oppose a proposed motorsports park/CUP beside the Appomattox River, citing noise, traffic, environmental runoff and a lack of site‑specific studies; the board listened but did not decide — a CUP hearing is scheduled for July.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Motorsports Cup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dozens of Powhatan County residents used the board's public‑comment period on May 18 to urge supervisors to deny a conditional use permit (CUP) application for a proposed motorsports park beside the Appomattox River.
"I respectfully urge you to deny the approval of the proposed motorsports park beside the Appomattox River," said Matt Fisher (River Estates Court), who told the board that hundreds of motorcycles on multiple tracks would be incompatible with the area's "quiet rural agriculture and residential character" and would produce long‑distance noise, dust and lighting impacts.
Speakers described a range of impacts they want the county to evaluate before any approval. Nancy Wise (River Estates Court) said residents had gathered 239 signatures opposing the site and that an informational meeting held the prior night drew 88 neighbors who voted unanimously against locating the facility in that place. "We believe this project would be devastating to our quiet rural and residential area," she said.
Other speakers raised traffic and emergency‑access concerns for a site served by single‑lane private roads; Matthew Stevens (Timber Trace Court) warned that local bridges and narrow roads could hinder rescue vehicles. Several residents said they heard only limited demonstrations from the applicant at a recent community meeting and that the project lacks site‑specific engineering: "No formal traffic study, noise analysis, environmental impact assessment, long‑term scaling plan or property impact assessment have been conducted or presented," said Richard Broomfield (Sparrows Lane), and he asked the board to require those analyses before any approval.
Peter Shriver (Rocky Ford Road) told the board he had asked the applicants whether they would limit noise at the property line and received no commitments. "There's no proposal that way," he said, noting the applicant's stated plan for a 300‑foot buffer would not, by itself, prevent high decibel levels at neighboring properties.
Other speakers framed the issue as one of compatibility with Powhatan's stated priorities. Chris Fisher cited the county strategic plan's goals on economic prosperity and rural heritage and urged the board not to prioritize one at the expense of the other. Several speakers said property values, environmental runoff into the Appomattox River watershed and wildlife impacts were also unstudied. "These are not minor operational details," Broomfield told the board. "They're essential to determining whether the site can safely and sustainably support the proposed business model."
Developers and applicants made limited remarks during the public comment block; residents said questions at a separate Q&A session remained unanswered. Donald May, who attended the community presentation, described it as lacking substantive responses: "There were no answers. It was sold as a Q&A. The answers are from them. No answers."
Theresa Kelly (River Estates Court) told the board she and neighbors are not opposed to motorsports in principle but said the Shady Grove site is inappropriate; she reminded supervisors that the formal CUP review is scheduled for July. "Consider our concerns when you do hear this, because we plan to be here," she said.
What the board did: supervisors accepted public comment during the meeting but did not vote on the CUP; the transcript shows a number of residents requesting that the board require the applicants to produce site‑specific traffic, noise and environmental studies before any approval is considered.
Next steps: speakers noted the CUP remains pending for a later hearing (the transcript references a July hearing), and several residents said they plan to return to testify again. The board did not take formal action on the CUP at the May 18 session.
