Opponents Of Proposed Love's Truck Stop Seek Independent Review

ABINGDON, Va. – In light of the release of an environmental report on the Love’s truck stop proposed for Exit 24, project opponents voiced a new list of objections Tuesday.

They said the study is not a real study – and called for the Washington County Board of Supervisors to commission an independent review before voting on the project. The board is scheduled to vote on the issue next month.

“This is not an independent study or analysis,” Jennifer Wagner, of Meadowview, said of the environmental report provided by Love’s at the request of the board. “I ask you to press for an independent environmental impact study which addresses the concerns of air quality and … delay your vote to rezone.”

Wagner was among six people who addressed the board Tuesday, four of them expressing opposition to the proposed truck stop.

The reasons for their opposition focused on the proposed site’s proximity to Meadowview Elementary School, which sits beside the interstate less than half a mile from Exit 24.

“Nothing else matters if our children aren’t safe,” said Buckey Boone, a school board member who said he was speaking only for himself Tuesday. He cited the danger of a toxic spill, dangerous people coming from the interstate and an increase in respiratory problems from diesel exhaust.

Todd Clark, whose children will attend the school, said based on petitions – one circulated for months by the opposition and another more recently by those in favor of the project – show more opposition than support for the project.

Larry Harley, of Abingdon, suggested offering a financial incentive to help Love’s locate at Exit 22 instead of Exit 24, while Cheri Wagner, of Meadowview, asked for a presentation by the Virginia Department of Transportation on the projected cost of future improvements to Exit 24.

One person also spoke during public comment in favor of approving the project, noting that Love’s has spent more than three years trying to comply with regulations for the site.

“What the planning commission has done is they have allowed the period of time and expenditures of a company to come in and try to meet the special exception rules,” said Bill Roop, a businessman who lives in Glade Spring. “To go and ask them now for further delays to meet the objections of people that are just now coming forth is, in my opinion, a diversion to have Love’s go elsewhere. But I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

Project opponents previously objected to an effort by Love’s to avoid having the study distributed publicly. County Administrator Mark Reeter said there is no exception to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act that would justify keeping it secret.

Rick Shuffield, of Love’s, said the request was made to keep it private because it is proprietary information on which the company spent “tremendous amounts of money” – not because of any information in the report.

“It pretty much says there’s no negative impact,” Shuffield said, adding that there’s no way to study the impact the project would have on air quality.

Additionally, according to the documents, no air quality study was required under highway regulations.

While Supervisor Tom Taylor brought up concerns about items not included in the study, Supervisor Jack McCrady, who also is opposed to the project, directed criticism at opponents – not for their opposition, but for their method of expressing it.

“We all got tons of e-mails, tons of letters, we got tons of phone calls … we were all inundated,” McCrady said, noting that 164 calls were made to the county administrator’s office in one day, “which in essence shut down the operation of this county.”

“I think this kind of went over the boundaries,” McCrady said. “I think that wasn’t a good move to have everyone call the county administrator’s office because there was other business that was being carried out at the same time.”

Reeter said if that type of phone lobbying happens again, county staff will not accept the calls.

“I think it’s important to realize that a zoning decision is not to be made on a popular vote,” said County Attorney Lucy Phillips. “It’s factual elements that should persuade the members of the board as you make your decision. And people are always invited to send in comments in writing to present the reasons why they are for or against.”

Supervisor Odell Owens said he knew even before the study was released that it would come under attack – and he’s hopeful the board can make its decision as scheduled July 14.

dmccown@bristolnews.com | (276) 791-0701