[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6173075,"mediaKeyId","5383812-c3a2fe05f88bb8e30b1a1d1a5f08c117","parentId",5383812,"title","Board OKs $299,992 architectural contract for new animal control facility","audioSeconds",837,"startMs",4294000,"endMs",5131000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5383812-c3a2fe05f88bb8e30b1a1d1a5f08c117&start=4294&end=5131","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5383812-c3a2fe05f88bb8e30b1a1d1a5f08c117/thumbnail_4294000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6173075/Buckingham-County/Virginia/Board-OKs-299992-architectural-contract-for-new-animal-control-facility","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173075-202e80b289eb281ffec33ce60a7b0ef5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166010&Signature=GtKEU1oXVe97jWwq-PLbSDmoRTkbLhwN5FP31KuIvlUQdvlRk1Syq0xz9Mkqx8Vy~2Ek4RNtqPjnI1toL~Xf~Y1hZcyWBDsuoqQevp6EFQTHnnwXJME~fO1cCwz8nhJhPk5ZfhZJaTPAaZccm~dqhaA~uU6QHrnT5evm0QmI6syXcfOpoa4gLIIp0iXBHSn7KvQK0ZqjLk~fQwqLwyXXIE7F1E9jyOJmiYXZpM6bIzN7SqDzd-s~fuIB3Fw8lNJexp1blCo5dykdgax1Q1UDigeCr6ScyFxF~wmymQpUA9u2niksjdyWJ3qndOzsRFkvkXpdH9MfVsK2aqGb6o7-8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Buckingham County, VA","date","2025-07-15T12:08:01Z","article","Buckingham County supervisors approved a $299,992 architectural and engineering contract with Dominion 7 Architect of Lynchburg to design a proposed new animal control facility.

County staff said the animal control facility committee issued a request for qualifications, interviewed four firms and unanimously selected Dominion 7 based on experience designing animal shelters. \"The committee unanimously chose Dominion 7 Architect from Lynchburg, who has a ton of experience in building animal control shelters or facilities,\" a county staff member told the board.

The contract will be paid from the county's animal control reserve, the staff member said. The board voted unanimously to authorize the county to contract with Dominion 7 for design services so the project can move from conceptual discussion into preliminary design. \"I'm asking the county tonight to allow the county to contract with Dominion 7 for architectural engineering services for design and build on a new animal control facility,\" the staff member said.

Staff emphasized the project is in the early stages and no final building design has been chosen. The firm will work with county staff to develop options and refined cost estimates; further board approvals will be required before construction funding is authorized.

The motion to enter the contract passed 7‑0. County staff said the design contract will allow the committee and staff to produce designs and cost estimates necessary for future budget requests.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Buckingham County Board of Supervisors 07/14/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a $299,992 contract with Dominion 7 Architect to design a potential new animal control facility, funded from the county's animal control reserve.","taxTitle","Buckingham County, Virginia","taxId",43171,"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},6173081,"Supervisors table Hathcock Lane special‑use permit after heated public hearing over floodplain and private camping",1416,1270000,2686000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5383812-c3a2fe05f88bb8e30b1a1d1a5f08c117&start=1270&end=2686","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5383812-c3a2fe05f88bb8e30b1a1d1a5f08c117/thumbnail_1270000.jpg","/articles/6173081/Buckingham-County/Virginia/Supervisors-table-Hathcock-Lane-specialuse-permit-after-heated-public-hearing-over-floodplain-and-private-camping","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173081-f221ffbbeed9bed7205e1aa16108164c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166010&Signature=kyDr-2K6A9kqMk08p~bIkAwThU5ZjB0hmkKb0czFD8A6egHJfyFnPEnLwcCPE-Jd~7ZtJvRyMpjlFD7fhDn9d495TJp-c6RcfWR-Mc7E3xSbJvre5cwejLsycH-2-bDiPvC4tPy6Hz0kD~6NDy9w0peuGuSbo-JmzPQtAkpBkA3pSCmCpdac1BK9QB5F5WrBYCWlFQSj4xxigXM3M5kXEUbN7JP04BaBijZtc9I~wYeaRsBz7Xt784LUzbuDCLFu5U5maFM3dkTkxSPEEuqmYT9rSawFHFGFKBfoeX8CTm8zqjwBF3ztvJCswLcBzVN27-sW~1WFef9uzZO6-roeqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Buckingham County Board of Supervisors voted to table action on a special‑use permit application that would allow campground use at a private property on Hathcock Lane after more than a dozen residents testified for and against the request.

The applicant, Philip Sandridge (co‑owner) and David Wymer (co‑owner), asked for a permit they described as a private, family campground to allow several RVs on their riverfront property. Philip Sandridge told the board he believed the use was exempt from campground permitting under state law when the owners camp privately and manage their own sanitation. \"This is not a campground, not by your own zoning ordinance and not under the state law,\" Sandridge said.

Opponents argued the permit language authorizes a \"campground\" and does not prohibit commercial use, raising fears the site could later be operated commercially. \"This permit has been presented by the applicants as family camping, but the SUP itself is not a permit for family camping, but a permit to operate a campground,\" said Joe Phillips, who lives on Hathcock Lane. Phillips and other neighbors also raised floodplain and septic concerns: they said the RVs appeared to be in the flood plain, some units stayed in place year‑round and sewage piping in the flood plain could pose contamination risks.

Betty Hathcock Pugh said an illness had previously been linked to river contamination and urged the board to reject the permit. Several residents referenced Code of Virginia §10.1‑43 and the James River's designation as a state scenic river, urging protection of the watershed.

Supporters of the applicants said the use was private family camping rather than a commercial campground, that past tree‑clearing issues had been resolved and that enforcement had already addressed prior sanitation concerns. Mary Ann Wilburn, whose property is next door, said the applicants \"are quiet as mice\" and urged approval for family use.

Board members expressed concern about conflicting information in the application materials and whether the county had the authority under state law to regulate private family camping. One supervisor said several permit fields appeared incomplete in the packet. After discussion, the board voted to table the request to allow staff to obtain clarifying information about (1) whether the proposed use meets the county definition of a campground, (2) any outstanding health department requirements for sewage/septic and (3) whether the application form and fee were properly completed.

The board's motion to table was seconded and passed; staff and supervisors told the applicants they should provide additional documentation, and one supervisor asked the applicants to supply dates for a site visit. The board did not make a decision on whether to approve or deny the SUP at this meeting.","A request to allow up to four RVs at a private Hathcock Lane property led to a lengthy public hearing; neighbors cited floodplain, sewage and precedent concerns and the board voted to table the special‑use permit for further clarification.",{"_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},6173086,"Buckingham supervisors approve independent inspections after public alleges Riverstone solar violations",4744,280000,5024000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5383812-c3a2fe05f88bb8e30b1a1d1a5f08c117&start=280&end=5024","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5383812-c3a2fe05f88bb8e30b1a1d1a5f08c117/thumbnail_280000.jpg","/articles/6173086/Buckingham-County/Virginia/Buckingham-supervisors-approve-independent-inspections-after-public-alleges-Riverstone-solar-violations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173086-0ec8d086545cb4a238955dda41790bbd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166010&Signature=N4KUc7Nqe1jEUyTzNMvsDY~ewtBVYEn~eb7BKrEFZzpkvncdUi1mDZve2js9fbDWCBK-cYSdnMrjl7DgwuwuC3S2sKvHc22KIY4OoqK6g~FL1fVGq2ZyXyggc-qYJz2PGcTdRcv7MdVZ6U-CVvF-Id0Q6vc~dMW-1O1W2~QHEfTC6rjPIPwc8EuAUgWuLsluG7tQ4WFPJuErP3GMJwJPJ3YfW~KWYz874yIjPUycqs09gmsy6WPQBu5geAYLQBbUa8dZp-PYT902gvhS6tV6MYoK2mrNm0uH6PgMlMXrJGOBgntpv~YhrV0n-SIqFJz0vIoSZxmE0Sx4Qudm6QNo7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Buckingham County supervisors voted to hire an independent firm to carry out erosion‑and‑sediment (E&S) inspections at the Riverstone solar project after several residents told the board the developer had failed to keep environmental commitments. The board also approved the same inspection arrangement for the Blue Rock solar project.

The board approved a contract to hire a third‑party inspection firm to work for the county on Riverstone, with the county to pay invoices and the developer to reimburse the county, a county staff member told the board. \"They will report back to the county, not to Riverstone,\" the staff member said. The motion passed unanimously.

Residents who spoke during public comment alleged the Riverstone developer reversed earlier plans, cleared trees within buffers, and pursued stream crossings after telling state agencies there would be none. \"They committed to a minimum 50‑foot buffer from all streams, the creek, and wetlands,\" said Chad Obaugh (District 6). \"Those buffers were just weren't just a suggestion\" when the developer approved plans, he added.

Marie Flowers (District 3) said she saw tree removal and asked who would enforce regulations and inspect the site. \"Who's going to inspect? Who's going to enforce?\" she asked the board. Kendah Hahnemann (District 5) raised questions about panel lifespan and disposal, and Brad Pickens (District 6) pointed to specific plan elements he said violated buffer and runoff requirements and said he had not received timely responses from the developer or Apex. \"If their building permit is up for review, I say that gets held in advance until these things can be resolved,\" Pickens said.

County staff described why the county sought an outside firm: a single county inspector could not reasonably cover a project of Riverstone's size and frequency of post‑rain inspections. \"A project with that much acreage ... our one inspector would be out there constantly,\" a staff member said. The county has contracted with a firm identified in the staff report (listed as Herd and Prophet/Hirt & Prophet in meeting materials) to serve as the independent inspector; the firm will report findings to the county, which can require remedial action or, in extreme cases if state or federal law is violated and problems cannot be remedied, pursue permit suspension or revocation.

Supervisors asked how county enforcement would proceed if inspectors find permit violations. A staff member said the county could act on violations of the county's permit conditions in addition to any state or federal requirements and that the county would notify the relevant state agencies where appropriate.

The board approved entering the inspection contracts and noted complaints raised during public comment will be added to the enforcement followup. The contracts are payable by the county up front and will be reimbursed by the developers, staff said.

The action follows sustained resident concern voiced at the meeting that the developer had told state agencies it would avoid stream crossings and protect 50‑foot buffers, then changed plans and cleared vegetation. The independent inspections are intended to give the county ongoing, documented information about compliance with erosion control plans and permit conditions. The county did not provide an estimated total cost for the inspection contracts during the meeting.","After multiple public complaints that the Riverstone solar developer broke commitments on stream crossings and buffers, the Board of Supervisors approved county‑hired third‑party erosion and sediment inspections that developers will reimburse.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board OKs $299,992 architectural contract for new animal control facility

Supervisors table Hathcock Lane special‑use permit after heated public hearing over floodplain and private camping

Buckingham supervisors approve independent inspections after public alleges Riverstone solar violations