Search

Letters to the Editor: An Alternative Location

The following letter was sent by a reader with an possible alternative location.

Several folks have mentioned a piece of property at the corner of Creighton Road and I-295. I visited the site and I really believe this would be a better location for Wegmans.


I looked up the property today on https://www.hanovercountygis.org/parcelviewer/  and identified the following information- there is also a 6th property – that is owned by LSR Group LLC – but that appears to be a conservation area.





Parcel Information

Parcel Id: 8714-60-4110

Owner: LSR CREIGHTON L L C

Acreage: 86.25

Current Land Value: $1,765,500


Parcel Id: 8713-78-0812

Owner: LSR CREIGHTON L L C

Acreage: 41.82

Current Land Value: 638,400


Parcel Id: 8713-89-3544

Owner: BRUCE, MARY FRANCES

Acreage: 8.26

Current Land Value: 129,400


Parcel Id: 8713-88-8990

Owner: BRUCE, MARY FRANCES

Acreage: 27.73

Current Land Value: 754,500


Parcel Id: 8713-87-3895

Owner: BRUCE, MARY FRANCES

Acreage: 49.1

Current Land Value: 859,200


Total Acreage: 213.16

Total Current Land Value: 4,147,000


Do you know if this property was considered by Wegman’s? The price for the property is more than the current tract, but I’m sure that can be negotiated- especially if they were to purchase all of the lots as one  – and it appears that the wetlands issues could be less of an impact and that could present a substantial cost savings.


It sounds like Road Frontage is not something they are particularly looking for – and this property would allow them cover or allow visibility if that position were to change.


This property is literally the first turn off of 295 and would offer exceptional convenience for heading North, South, East or West from RVA- their anticipated growth is more south – and this location means their trucks don’t have to deal with 95 North of the city at all if they are driving to NC and points south.


It allows optional routes using 301  to bypass I-95 traffic  and 60 to bypass I-64 at times that traffic might be an issue – it would have neighbors only on one side of the property and a battleground and a land conservation area would be the other neighbors.


Lastly,  I actually think the location could provide a better employee pool.


Sincerely,

Page B.

Thank you for the letter. We don't know if this is one of the sites that Wegmans looked at. You make a lot of well reasoned points. The property borders FAR fewer residential properties, it is already next to a highway meaning noise impacts would not be a factor, and due to the shape of the property, Wegmans could add much better features to reduce whatever impact they would have. For example, buffers could be wider, the shape of the building wouldn't need to direct sound towards homes, trucks wouldn't need to obstruct the travel of cars, and much more.


There is still time for people to do the right thing. Wegmans has plenty of time to choose a better location. The board can vote to uphold the promise made by the county in 1995.


Recall petitions haven't been filed yet. None of the inevitable lawsuits have been files. The PR impact could still be positive. Imagine if Wegmans demonstrated their commitment to their motto "Always help others." It would be something they could hang their hat on for years! This is a solid proposal that our readers could probably provide some insight on. Is this a better location than the proposal at Sliding Hill? What other locations would be better? Please comment on our facebook link or send your own emailat ProtectHanover@gmail.com .


101 views

©2020 by Protect Hanover. The views and opinions expressed at on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ProtectHanover.com. Any content provided by our bloggers or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.  Individual contributors shall maintain copyright over their original work.