[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6280845,"mediaKeyId","2610167-360126a7c8e81f8dfdbfc12827201e60","parentId",2610167,"title","Detention center director apologizes after March escape; county says three of four recaptured","audioSeconds",182,"startMs",768000,"endMs",950000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2610167-360126a7c8e81f8dfdbfc12827201e60&start=768&end=950","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2610167-360126a7c8e81f8dfdbfc12827201e60/thumbnail_768000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6280845/Prince-Edward-County/Virginia/Detention-center-director-apologizes-after-March-escape-county-says-three-of-four-recaptured","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280845-f8c0a169b2df02b8d1d2769d244331e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770738380&Signature=Xxnu03~kgElytciCALzZmNDNw6pPb4BCQibkmMYbykQC9SpEuCtaE9XO4LsDH5rp~Lm4wbPKx~wb6vlgPoLzfLlAhZRpAQiSenPxDyG0iuz4~zWg4ggNSFrrdATy20Td82JMD8a5CzUlZQ3YmaEYHQO9KkjfaM-oEmIU-z74ueDkXnynlN88RE8Xwkular8LuiwnHePRVtGlskFcbkhvEgJTGjSxyfYVZb6HQOjUe4iu7NDz7byavx5iLp1s370fYxFa8CIHdFwQHfKwt9RtS36S9xyAwk8LutkZdgacGwQO2z650XGRAWAkXa3FCNzWGsQZ9sxl7YkNW6UvlJo-WA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince Edward County, VA","date","2025-03-12T03:47:45Z","article","At the March 11 meeting of the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors, Jeff Crawford, director of the Farmville Detention Center, briefed the board about an escape from the facility that occurred on Sunday, March 2.

Crawford said four individuals left custody without authorization. He apologized to the board and the community and said the escape resulted from a combination of a staff member failing to perform assigned duties and vulnerabilities in physical security that together created an opportunity that should not have existed. He said three of the four were apprehended within 36 hours and turned over to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service; prosecutors had referred those cases for federal prosecution for escape. Crawford said the fourth individual remained at large and that federal partners (the U.S. Marshals Service and ICE special agents) were pursuing that person.

Actions taken: Crawford said the facility conducted a full internal review and had retrained 100% of its personnel focusing on policies and procedures and the consequences of lapses in vigilance. He said the center would bring in independent consultants to evaluate physical security measures, and that staff are coordinating with local law enforcement throughout the response and review.

Why it matters: The escape prompted public concern about facility security and interagency coordination. Crawford told the board that, because the center houses federal detainees, federal authorities take the lead on searches and prosecution; he said state and local law enforcement may have limitations when the escape itself is a federal offense.

Follow‑up and oversight: Supervisors thanked facility staff and local law enforcement for their work and asked about next steps. The director said the county will accept outside reviews of physical security and that staff will report back on corrective actions.

Ending: Board members expressed appreciation for the facility’s transparency and said they expected updates on security improvements and on any policy changes that result from the review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","March 11, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Jeff Crawford, director of the Farmville Detention Center, told Prince Edward supervisors on March 11 that four people left the facility without authorization on March 2; three were recaptured and turned over to the U.S. Marshals and the U.S. Marshals and ICE are pursuing the fourth.","taxTitle","Prince Edward County, Virginia","taxId",37855,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6280849,"Supervisors approve ordinance change allowing commercial kennels in college‑residential district and grant special‑use permit",1020,2700000,3720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2610167-360126a7c8e81f8dfdbfc12827201e60&start=2700&end=3720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2610167-360126a7c8e81f8dfdbfc12827201e60/thumbnail_2700000.jpg","/articles/6280849/Prince-Edward-County/Virginia/Supervisors-approve-ordinance-change-allowing-commercial-kennels-in-collegeresidential-district-and-grant-specialuse-permit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280849-f194d87c61161ffb557becbf75b9744b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770738380&Signature=GmDWIqnidCOlBhOi6s-WAnGjXbeVS9TFY0yN61LiwnVwAmXZY01iXODVUBR26TjjZrHCEGSOmtyO3OT9lBLtZcl4y7lh7UqfjKWiMH~0B1A74xJOmuLdb62Z6bt4mcHbWWQLWbAYcrwGZS2L5cfQW6GS7AHgrvNTFi0m6y8oJ-CwYZQz7~3eo-DpfxmorJMD7BHof7pCjggDYbLN48RvwSqcu1fsZQPPt0N-NvS0TQ4QazRzOJu-fa6z8mXM4CEnn4eh5vlW8e~1qdFSNgpy4hpVvO2UoK83LOewryDelr-0Gd-AtKZGJzVbF-I1rAJwdP5pyEtmcPGgORdIy9m0eQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Prince Edward County supervisors on March 11 amended Appendix B of the county zoning ordinance to allow commercial kennels in the College Residential (CR) zoning district by special‑use permit, then approved a specific special‑use permit to permit Lindsey Mulvey to operate a small kennel on Oliver Lane under a set of conditions the planning commission recommended.

What the change does: The ordinance amendment adds commercial kennel as a special‑use category in the CR district; that change does not authorize a specific business but allows the county to accept and consider permit applications in that district. Planning staff said the amendment followed standard public notice and a unanimous planning commission recommendation in January.

Special‑use permit details: Mulvey told the board she plans a small operation limited to a maximum of six customer dogs at a time (plus her own) with limited drop‑off and pick‑up windows, indoor overnight housing, a single outdoor exercise area supervised by staff, vaccination and licensing requirements and a six‑foot privacy fence. Planning staff included 13 recommended conditions; the applicant agreed to those conditions on the record.

Why it matters: The change creates a pathway for small, regulated pet‑care businesses near Hampden‑Sydney where the college and nearby residences coexist. Neighbors raised private‑covenant and compatibility concerns at the hearing, and a number of college and neighborhood stakeholders spoke in favor of having faculty‑friendly housing and services on or near campus.

Board action and vote: The board approved the ordinance amendment and, separately, the special‑use permit application. Both actions passed on roll‑call votes; one member abstained from the ordinance vote on land‑use taxation earlier in the meeting and another abstained on the kennel item as recorded in the minutes.

Conditions and next steps: The special‑use permit includes the planning commission’s specified conditions concerning hours, fencing, maximum dogs, vaccination/licensing and noise mitigation. The county will issue the permit once required inspections and permits are satisfied; county staff said it will monitor compliance and apply permit conditions through the zoning enforcement process.

Ending: The pair of votes allows a tightly restricted commercial kennel in the CR district by case‑by‑case permit, and provides a pathway for Mulvey to proceed with her planned small‑scale operation under the board’s adopted conditions.

","The board amended the zoning code to allow commercial kennels in the College Residential (CR) district by special‑use permit, and approved a special‑use permit for Lindsey Mulvey to open a small commercial kennel on Oliver Lane with conditions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6280853,"Prince Edward supervisors raise tire disposal fee, add late‑payment rule and end out‑of‑county VDOT waiver",450,1800000,2250000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2610167-360126a7c8e81f8dfdbfc12827201e60&start=1800&end=2250","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2610167-360126a7c8e81f8dfdbfc12827201e60/thumbnail_1800000.jpg","/articles/6280853/Prince-Edward-County/Virginia/Prince-Edward-supervisors-raise-tire-disposal-fee-add-latepayment-rule-and-end-outofcounty-VDOT-waiver","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280853-0a557a1c0dfdea7688bd2fcd94a5920e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770738380&Signature=HiDDuDuXaN4BWKovclXUR9RltD~PT19s10aexYz2GAIFvOoOQos0ghXF-u-etQTDbnFgqpzDq6Fd1bPcAUdJ7lzHD3blokAPL~BP0jyf43Yf8zIta5YtHc4KI9YoYlWhaQcwA-D23JyudeXDe5XPepQ00cWqrH1c85MQx7NlGpkTou90NeDysfRvk0ZZV2ScCCE5-COt0dF-UeltkBE3FA1bbOmKilXeYQsl6-GRinMcyXdkOGm~z3cRUj0ij4xXg4t8FMpCLrtX6cSD5XrD6R5O1If4X5i0xcCRZbQLQ5RvCTKalzCzp-p9uod8z~at0aaf0MAkILoHClNiD5oiHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Prince Edward County supervisors approved changes to the county landfill fee schedule on March 11, including raising the commercial tire disposal rate, adding a late‑payment policy and clarifying tipping‑fee treatment for Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) material.

The board approved three changes brought forward by solid‑waste staff: increase the per‑ton commercial tire disposal fee from $150 to $175 to match the county’s disposal cost; adopt a late‑payment policy that adds a 10% penalty to delinquent accounts and a 10% APR service charge for accounts 60 days past due and to suspend landfill privileges until accounts are made current; and begin charging VDOT the out‑of‑county tipping fee for waste VDOT brings to the county landfill that originated outside Prince Edward (while continuing to waive in‑county VDOT debris).

Why it mattered: County staff said the changes will reduce net county subsidy of disposal costs, help improve collections and ensure the county is not subsidizing out‑of‑county debris removed by VDOT in neighboring jurisdictions. The board’s action updates fees that staff said had left the county paying more than its cost for some services.

Details and vote: The motion to adopt the amendments carried on a roll‑call vote. Board members who took part recorded their votes in the meeting minutes. The vote also included authorization of the late‑payment process and direction that staff notify VDOT of the change.

What comes next: Staff will update the landfill fee schedule documents, notify customers and adjust invoicing. The county plans to implement the late‑payment policy and begin assessing delinquency penalties and service charges after notification and a transition period.

Ending: The change reflects an administrative effort by Prince Edward officials to align fees with disposal costs and reduce the county’s exposure to unpaid tipping and collection issues.

","The board voted to amend the landfill fee schedule to increase the commercial tire disposal rate to $175 per ton, adopt a late-payment penalty and to charge VDOT the out‑of‑county tipping fee for non‑county waste.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6280858,"Prince Edward supervisors reject 1,200-acre Gabriel Energy solar and battery plan after lengthy public hearing",3660,4920000,8580000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2610167-360126a7c8e81f8dfdbfc12827201e60&start=4920&end=8580","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2610167-360126a7c8e81f8dfdbfc12827201e60/thumbnail_4920000.jpg","/articles/6280858/Prince-Edward-County/Virginia/Prince-Edward-supervisors-reject-1200-acre-Gabriel-Energy-solar-and-battery-plan-after-lengthy-public-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280858-1434e5789b19b4bf21d6ee428b87be0a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770738380&Signature=oyW7I4slr1nSdG19wU-fKEwsgE8Vb3JOLhfVH60ldE~JDoPIqlapPyPUp4IfvTNjEYFZE6kWqC4bLvHpcofdVfdj6qlwNWTaPDMpLlhjdA2WJhqRV5VpJKV136T8BFtpz~24WIurEtbOyHwllztuP3jDy5OkEODOguFmN0RXQw0Ior3QN7bRr8ZH43ZXHZ0F991eTn9VagW7MYgQTlF8HafRn1WxRXCwK1-V9wwjXa3RBgRVGEiZ9YsDX9UWVHc~dMTWFkM7inO53Fl0ABbxNeCPc4l4bP~tVcqzuryFKEnO9m1C1wHRSs2~XVbmDUc~1XOkDHLzs12JcNSImdvvLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Prince Edward County supervisors voted on March 11 to deny a special-use permit for Gabriel Energy’s proposed utility-scale solar project, a plan that would have placed solar arrays and a battery energy storage system across roughly 1,200 acres in the Lee District.

The application drew hours of public testimony from more than 70 people who signed up to speak—neighbors who opposed the project and landowners who supported it. Energix (developer) representatives presented technical, economic and safety information and said the project would include pollinator plantings, sheep grazing (agrivoltaics), and US-made panels with a decommissioning bond. First Solar described its thin-film cadmium-telluride panels and recycling program. Developers and engineers also described stormwater controls, wildlife corridors and a battery energy storage system (BESS) sited at the on-site substation.

The meeting’s mood shifted as dozens of residents described viewshed, environmental, noise and water-quality concerns. Several speakers said they had not been adequately notified, and others cited past enforcement actions taken against Energix projects elsewhere in Virginia and ongoing litigation they said raised questions about compliance and enforcement.

Why it mattered: The proposed solar project was the largest land-use item on the meeting agenda and highlighted tensions between local landowners seeking new revenue streams and neighbors who said the scale and siting would change the character of a largely agricultural area. The project also raised questions about how local governments balance economic benefit with land-use, environmental protection and emergency planning when utility-scale projects are proposed.

Details and developer case: Gabriel Energy and project partners said the installation would produce 80 megawatts of solar capacity with approximately 30 MW / 120 MWh of battery capacity (figures were presented by the developer), create construction jobs and pay local taxes over a multi-decade operating life. Developers said less than half of the total acreage would be covered by panels, and they pledged extensive vegetative buffering and agrivoltaic practices (sheep grazing and pollinator plantings) intended to preserve soil and habitat.

Concerns raised by neighbors and experts: Speakers opposing the project cited loss of forest and habitat, potential impacts on waterways and wetlands, property-value impacts for adjacent parcels, noise from inverters and uncertainty about long-term decommissioning and recycling. Multiple residents pointed to reports and enforcement actions involving other Energix projects and asked the board to require stronger, verifiable protections or to deny the permit. Several speakers asked for testing of soils and water before any action and requested strict local enforcement conditions if approval were considered.

Board action: After public comment closed, a motion to reject the special-use permit passed on a roll-call vote. Several supervisors told the public they had wrestled with the competing interests—revenue, energy needs and property-owner rights versus the expressed concerns of neighbors—but concluded denial was the appropriate action for this application at this time.

Where it goes from here: The applicants may seek to revise the proposal or pursue remedies available under local ordinance and state law; the board’s decision was final for this meeting but does not by itself prohibit future filings on the same land. The developer repeatedly said it would continue local outreach and that elements of the design (agrivoltaics, decommissioning bonding, US-made panels) were intended to address many of the concerns raised.

Ending: The vote capped a multi-hour hearing with unusually high turnout and sustained public comment; board members urged continued dialogue about how the county pursues economic development while protecting long-term land, water and community character.

","After hours of public comment and presentations from the developer and technical experts, the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors voted to deny a special-use application for the proposed Gabriel Energy 80 MW solar farm and accompanying battery storage system.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Detention center director apologizes after March escape; county says three of four recaptured

Supervisors approve ordinance change allowing commercial kennels in college‑residential district and grant special‑use permit

Prince Edward supervisors raise tire disposal fee, add late‑payment rule and end out‑of‑county VDOT waiver

Prince Edward supervisors reject 1,200-acre Gabriel Energy solar and battery plan after lengthy public hearing