Commissioners probe Whitewater Bike Ranch compliance, cite communication gaps in county review

Planning commissioners used a large portion of the April 28 meeting to review compliance and process issues surrounding the Whitewater Bike Ranch project, where county staff and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality identified significant unpermitted land disturbance.

County staff recounted the timeline and said the applicant provided Mr. Richardson a written timeline of events. Staff described a breakdown in internal communications: the project had been handled primarily through the stormwater reviewer and had not been circulated across zoning, building and other departments early in the review process. "Because of the nature of what it is being a bike park and the county is not to my knowledge ever had something like this before, it stayed in the stormwater realm and never really went too far among the staff," a county official said.

Staff reported DEQ inspectors identified approximately nine acres of disturbed land tied to trail construction, while the applicant had a permit for less-than-one-acre erosion-and-sediment-control work. County staff said that on their February site visit they found structures and grading that had not been permitted and that building and zoning had not always been aware of the work. The transcript records staff explaining that a previously built barn had not been permitted and that the building department learned of it only after the February site visit.

County administration said it has taken immediate steps to address the problem: the county contracted Hurt & Proffitt of Blacksburg to administer the local stormwater program for two to three months while staff work to close DEQ-identified deficiencies and determine permanent staffing. Staff also said they had met with the applicant and suggested obtaining formal plans, securing the required VDOT entrance permit, and completing other necessary permits.

County counsel and staff told the meeting they had presented three options to the applicant's counsel: submit required application materials and return to the planning commission with supporting documentation; work with the building official to resolve the status of existing structures; or remove unpermitted structures (tear down the building). Commissioners stressed the importance of timely, written notifications when applications are withdrawn or when project status changes and urged staff to make sure that external agencies such as VDOT are receiving formal filings.

Commissioners discussed road- and neighborhood-level impacts, noting that increased traffic on private or substandard roads (e.g., Berry Creek/Regal Drive alignment issues) could present safety problems and that prior agreements had shown some access points were intended to be private and gated. Several commissioners said the Whitewater project demonstrated the need for closer interdepartmental coordination; one commissioner suggested forming a small planning-commission review or oversight committee to work off-line on complex or evolving projects before they arrive at a public meeting.

No formal enforcement action (for example a final permit denial or a demolition order) was decided at the planning commission meeting; staff reported ongoing conversations with the applicant and counsel and said enforcement discussions were in process. Planning commissioners asked staff to notify the commission and the board in writing of major status changes and to allow relevant department experts to appear at meetings when compliance questions are unresolved.