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

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.