Stocked shelves: Food City opens new store in Marion
Marion's new Food City was set to open its doors in Marion Wednesday morning.
After years of planning and just 13 months after breaking ground, Marion’s new Food City opened this morning at 8 a.m.
The 56,700-square-foot store is opening across Main Street from its longtime location. According to a Food City news release, the project created 50 new area jobs.
At the 2025 groundbreaking, officials estimated 120 positions would also be maintained and that the project would put $14.2 million in new capital investment into the community.
The new store features an in‑store bakery and deli with a hot food bar, a fresh food bar with soups, salads, and fruit, a hickory wood smoker, fresh sushi, and in-store catering services.
A large café area features a fireplace.
The press release said that customers will also find full‑service meat and seafood departments with in‑house butchers to hand cut steaks and provide fresh meat to order.
The Floral Boutique, the release said, will be staffed by a designer seven days a week and offer fresh‑cut arrangements, bouquets, gift items, and more.
The store also maintained its pharmacy.
Curbside pickup and home delivery are available for online shoppers.
“We are excited to be opening a new state-of-the-art Food City to better meet the needs of the residents of Marion and Smyth County. Our company has been serving this community for almost 50 years through our former Piggly Wiggly location and now our Food City store. Our customers will find the same smiling faces, top quality products, exceptional customer service, and competitive pricing they have come to expect from Food City, along with some exciting new services and conveniences,” said Steven C. Smith, Food City president and chief executive officer.
The store also incorporates several award‑winning energy‑saving features, including energy‑efficient glass-cooler doors, 100% LED lighting, motion sensors, upgraded refrigeration systems, and efficient parking lot lighting.
“We are excited to welcome our customers to our new store. We sincerely appreciate their patience during the construction process. We believe they will find it was well worth the wait,” said Lori Baxley, long-time Food City Store Manager.
The project was facilitated by the Smyth County Board of Supervisors, the Smyth County Economic Development Authority, and the Marion Town Council.
The local governments played key roles and offered incentives to help the former site occupant, Marion Automotive, move to property near Interstate 81’s Exit 45.
In early 2024, Marion Automotive indicated that it would invest between $5 and $6 million to modernize its operation. It opened in the new location earlier this year.
News
Centerpiece Top Story
A look at Smyth board's OK of data center zoning regs
Assistant County Administrator Clegg Williams and members of the Board of Supervisors listen as a citizen questions actions.
If they did nothing, Board of Supervisors Chair Charlie Atkins said, county leaders feared that a data center could come in and little protection would exist. However, the zoning regulations specifically governing data centers adopted last Thursday evening, he said, give leaders some control over what can be done.
Smyth County, Atkins said, is trying to learn from mistakes made in other localities and avoid them.
Atkins offered those words at the end of the board meeting’s public session, which included moments of tension and controversy over two supervisors participating electronically.
The proposed ordinance was back before the supervisors after months of review and rewriting portions of it, which resulted in a stricter set of zoning regulations regarding data centers than had first been released in June. Many of the changes emerged from input from citizens and leaders.
Assistant County Administrator Clegg Williams reviewed changes to the ordinance that now features a greater setback requirement, limits building height, and the height of rooftop accessories.
One question was about enforcement.
Williams reminded supervisors that a Certificate of Occupancy isn’t signed and awarded until a prospective business or industry complies with the Zoning Ordinance and every other regulatory agency requirement.
If the company later fails to abide by the ordinance, he said it will be notified of its violation and the process will proceed from there.
One question was about the vegetative buffer. Williams noted it must be 3’ tall when planted and grow to 8’ within three years.
Supervisor Roscoe Call asked about noise.
The ordinance limits the level of noise and requires regular checks to ensure compliance. It also limits the non-emergency running of generators to daytime hours.
Supervisor Rick Blevins said those he heard on county officials’ visits to Mecklenburg and Loudon counties sounded like a box fan running.
Beauty of a Special Use Permit
Blevins asked about building visibility.
If the site topography still allows people to be able to see the building despite the setback and buffer, County Administrator Shawn Utt said that it could be addressed in conditions placed on the business’ Special Use Permit should it be awarded.
“That’s the beauty of a special use permit,” he said.
Under the ordinance adopted last Thursday, any data center that wants to come into the community must apply for a Special Use Permit. Extra restrictions can be placed on those permits. In the case of visibility, Utt said additional requirements regarding setback and barriers could be added.
Blevins observed that the ordinance sets out the minimum requirements. He also reflected, “If we don’t want them here, we can restrict them to death where they don’t want to be here.”
An Objection
As the supervisors prepared to vote on the ordinance, Charles Wassum, a Marion resident who regularly attends the board meetings and addresses the body during Citizens Time, objected.
Wassum contended that citizens’ comments should come first. “I’m here. I’m ready to talk,” he said.
The supervisors have heard from Wassum previously on the matter. He is opposed to allowing any data center to locate in the county.
Electronic Participation & The Vote
Two supervisors, Jason Parris and Mike Sturgill, were joining the meeting through electronic means.
Only Supervisor Kris Ratliff was absent.
As the vote was being taken, Blevins said he didn’t feel right about voting without the other supervisors being there in person. The supervisors, he said, should be seen and heard on votes of such magnitude. He chose to abstain.
Parris also chose to abstain, saying he couldn’t hear the exchange with Wassum well.
Ultimately, the vote was four supervisors in favor of adopting the ordinance with no one opposed and two abstentions.
Atkins said he believes every vote the supervisors take is important. The board, he said, may need to look at its policy allowing remote participation. “I’m not a firm believer,” he said.
It was noted that one of the supervisors participating remotely was doing so because of an emergency.
Not Set in Stone
During the adoption process, in response to a question from Supervisor Roscoe Call, Utt confirmed that the ordinance can be changed. Previously, officials have described such ordinances as living documents.
Atkins said the board needed to act for the good of the county, noting that many citizens fear a data center could be located in their backyard.
Odin is a 2-year-old Shepherd mix who weighs in at around 60 pounds.
Odin is a 2-year-old Shepherd mix who weighs in at around 60 pounds.
News
Top Story
Despite opposition, concerns about rights, Marion council adopts loitering ordinance
Monday evening was peaceful along the Riverwalk in Marion. The surroundings told of summer slowly giving away to fall along the Holston River. Last week, a Marion Town Council member said that some citizens won't visit this area because of encounters with individuals who are homeless and argued in support of a loitering ordinance.
Marion Mayor Avery Cornett described a proposed loitering ordinance as vague in places. He also cautioned members of the Town Council that he believed it “criminalizes normal behavior”.
His messages echoed many of the opinions expressed by citizens during a public hearing on the proposed ordinance held last December.
In response, Councilmember Larry Carter said, “We’ve got a problem.”
Councilmember Trish Spencer also pointed out complaints the council has received from a business owner who believed that young women on her staff needed a protective escort to their cars after dark.
The loitering ordinance was proposed to help regulate Marion’s population of homeless individuals, some of whom suffer from mental illness.
Without naming it, Spencer also spoke of a business that was forced to move because of loitering.
Councilmember Todd May said the town has an obligation to protect businesses.
Councilmember Debra Hayes defended the homeless, saying they have no place to go, no place to live. “They’re here. They’re our people,” she said.
When the idea that sitting on a bench could be loitering, Spencer contended there’s a difference between sitting and reading on a bench versus living on a bench.
Cornett said he doesn’t want Marion to be a town that discourages people from walking up and down streets.
Carter said the courts will decide any cases that are brought. The town has to start somewhere, he said.
Cornett said, “We should protect citizens’ rights.”
During the discussion, Police Chief Kevin Testerman said the department’s officers interview people everyday and learn their circumstances. They’ll do what needs to be done, he said.
The loitering ordinance begins by saying, “It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to stand, gather, or loiter on any sidewalk, street, public ground, or public way in the Town of Marion in a manner that obstructs, hinders, or impedes free passage or access to or from any place of business, institution, public building, or property. No person or persons gathered shall refuse or neglect to move, depart, or allow free passage after being asked to do so by the owner, lessee, tenant, manager, or occupant of the premises obstructed as described or upon the order of any Town police officer.”
It also addresses loitering near housing “with the unlawful intent to secretly observe the occupants” as well as “in or about any public restroom for the purpose of engaging in or soliciting any lewd, lascivious, or unlawful act.”
The draft ordinance also says it will be unlawful to stay in any building without the owner’s permission. Additionally, it would prohibit sleeping in a public park, on public benches or sidewalks.
Under the proposal, individuals convicted of violating it would be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
The Virginia Code does allow localities to prohibit loitering.
Loitering ordinances, however, have come under fire in some localities. The ACLU has fought such ordinances on the grounds of being unconstitutional or a pretext for discrimination.
In 2009, the ACLU of Virginia represented four Latino men in Prince William County who were arrested for loitering while standing on a public sidewalk near their apartment complex. The county’s commonwealth’s attorney ultimately dropped the charges against the men after the ACLU argued the loitering ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.
"People of all races and nationalities should be able to stand on the sidewalk minding their own business without fear of harassment or arrest. That is precisely what the First Amendment's right to assemble and the Fourteenth Amendment's right to equal protection stand for,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis at the time.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Chicago ordinance that prohibited loitering in public places. That law was designed to address violent crimes stemming from gangs’ street activities, which were also said to intimidate citizens.
The state supreme court had ruled that the vagueness of the ordinance gave police officers unlimited discretion to define the nature of the loitering.
Following the strong opposition to the ordinance in December, the council sent the ordinance to committee.
Last month, Spencer asked that it come back before the council.
Last week, the council adopted the ordinance by 5-2 vote with Cornett and Hayes voting against it.
