Buckingham supervisors approve independent inspections after public alleges Riverstone solar violations

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.