Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Campgrounds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to Hathcock Lane campground; commission forwards 4‑site SUP to supervisors
Summary
The Planning Commission forwarded special‑use permit 25SUP357 — a request by Philip Sandrich and David Weimer for a four‑unit campground on Hathcock Lane — to the Board of Supervisors after substantial public opposition citing tree removal, floodplain and sewage concerns; the commission discussed legal restrictions and possible deed conditions.
The Buckingham County Planning Commission voted to forward special‑use permit case 25SUP357, a request by Philip Sandrich and David Weimer to operate a four‑unit campground on Hathcock Lane (tax map 22 Parcel 1 Lot 30), to the Board of Supervisors after a lengthy public hearing in which several nearby residents opposed the proposal.
Neighbors filed written opposition and several spoke in person at the meeting. Scott Anderson and Rebecca Jones submitted an email opposing the permit that flagged tree removal along the riverbank, disruption of riparian buffers and concerns about campfires, traffic and onsite sewage disposal. Helen Robertson and Betty Hathcock Pugh said they opposed a public campground in what they described as a long‑standing private residential community; Pugh said the applicants had “destroyed a wetland” and removed trees she said previously protected the riverbank.
Joe Phillips and other neighbors urged the commission to deny the SUP, saying the property owners could enjoy the river under existing A‑1 rules and that a permitted campground could later be used commercially by future owners. Phillips told commissioners the application “creates a precedent” and questioned where any required dump station or septic infrastructure would be placed in the flood plain.
Applicants Philip Sandrich and David Weimer said they purchased and cleared the land for family use, described the four campers on site as family‑owned and said they had no plans to rent spots commercially. Weimer said: “We have 4 campers. They're family campers. We have no hint of renting campers out.” Sandrich and Weimer said they removed temporary sanitation features after a notice of violation and said they would install a septic system if the SUP were approved and health‑department requirements followed.
Commissioners discussed whether the county could write enforceable conditions to limit future commercial use (for example, recording a deed restriction or other recorded agreement). Staff advised that any novel termination or reversion condition would require legal counsel review and likely a recorded instrument to ensure enforceability. Several commissioners recommended tabling the request for a legal opinion; another commissioner moved to forward the case with a recommendation of approval. The motion to forward with a recommendation of yes passed; the chair said the case will proceed to the Board of Supervisors for final action.
The planning record notes that the campground request is limited to four units, that health‑department approval for sanitation would be required before the site could lawfully operate, and that the SUP, if granted, would run with the land unless constrained by a separately recorded agreement.
