Supervisors postpone decision on Lexington Golf & Country Club expansion after water, noise and traffic concerns

LEXINGTON, Va. — Rockbridge County supervisors on Tuesday postponed a decision on a special‑exception application from Lexington Golf and Country Club that would allow substantial renovation and expansion of the club’s course and facilities after hours of public comment and technical discussion.

The board delayed final action to its June 9 meeting to allow staff and the applicant to refine conditions addressing water testing, chemical handling, noise mitigation and traffic/parking, after the planning commission recommended approval with multiple conditions and monitoring requirements.

The planning commission’s recommendation included 11 numbered conditions and one explanatory statement covering: adherence to submitted schematic plans; hours for recreational amenities; compliance with the county’s lighting rules; prohibitions on parking in VDOT rights‑of‑way; indoor chemical storage; acoustic fencing for pickleball/tennis courts; pre‑ and post‑construction water and sediment testing at two ponds using specified EPA methods; well testing for nearby private wells; timelines for implementation and substantial completion; a statement that the existing county noise ordinance would apply; and a requirement that the facility operate as a membership organization. The planning commission also endorsed adherence to applicable VDOT, DEQ and state permitting requirements.

Russ Orson, the project’s lead engineer, described the plan as a phased redevelopment centered on a redesigned golf course, new clubhouse and an event pavilion. He told supervisors the project team expects to install a “state‑of‑the‑art” irrigation system and to update a required water‑withdrawal permit with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

“We are going to be fully permitted by DEQ for the amount of water we can get during drought periods,” Orson said.

Residents and technical commenters urged stricter safeguards. Anna Lisa Fitzgerald, a Lexington city resident, said she was “very concerned” about the plan to remove existing turf and the proposed use of glyphosate, citing potential long‑term effects on soils and waterways. Toxicologist Joe DiNardo told the board regulators and toxicologists differ on acceptable levels for compounds such as PFAS and other chemicals and urged clear benchmarks and testing protocols. He said, “there is no safe level of exposure” for some PFAS compounds, and outlined how regulatory and toxicology thresholds can differ.

Several neighbors said amplified music at events and regular use of outdoor pickleball courts could create persistent noise problems. Larry Hammer, a Buffalo District resident, said the club’s previous ownership held only a few events per year that rarely ran past 10 p.m.; he said earlier project statements suggested some events could run until midnight and expressed concern about a higher volume of events. Jochen Arndt, another nearby resident, said the site’s topography amplifies sound and urged restrictions aligned with past practice: “In other words, 10:00,” he said, referring to an evening cutoff.

The planning commission condition for acoustic attenuation calls for a minimum 8‑foot fence on three sides of the pickleball/tennis courts fitted with weather‑resistant acoustic panels rated to reduce noise by 20 decibels; the planning commission record notes higher‑rated panels exist but are substantially more expensive and require ongoing maintenance.

County staff and the applicant described a water‑quality monitoring regime in the recommended conditions. Key clarifying details in the planning commission package specify: pre‑ and post‑application water and sediment testing for glyphosate (EPA method 547), PFAS (EPA method 1633), and other analytes (including chromium, lead, mercury, nitrate/nitrite) at two mapped locations (Pond A and Pond 1); pretesting must occur before any glyphosate application to “kill” grass as part of construction and post‑testing 3–7 days after each application; annual testing is required once during June, July or August for five years after reconstruction; and the applicant bears testing costs. The packet also requires well testing for on‑site wells and for neighboring wells within a specified buffer if the well owner requests testing in writing and grants right‑of‑entry; the applicant must notify those neighbors by certified mail.

On stormwater and water‑quality mitigation, the applicant said the design now requires performing 75% of phosphorus removal on‑site and allows purchase of credits only for up to 25% of required removal, a change made after the plan was treated as a single plan of common development. The project team told supervisors maintenance facilities and proposed BMPs will be sized to meet the 75% on‑site requirement.

Traffic and access questions centered on Country Club Drive and New Cameron Drive; resident Jeff Thompson asked the board to require a traffic study for the intersection and to ensure heavy construction traffic would not create hazards on narrow roads. The planning commission conditions also prohibit parking in the VDOT rights‑of‑way.

After public comment and back‑and‑forth with staff and the applicant, the board voted to postpone final action to the June 9 meeting to allow staff time to refine permit language and for the applicant to provide additional documentation. Supervisors Lyons and Day voted in favor of the postponement; the board acknowledged it lacked two members at the table that evening and wanted staff time to finalize wording and any follow‑up technical material.

The planning commission and staff noted that the zoning administrator had formally determined that “special events” for nonmembers require a separate process: the applicant intends to pursue a later zoning text amendment and a subsequent special exception for nonmember special events. The board said it expected to review the golf course renovation and come back later for any special‑events approval.

What’s next: the board will revisit the special‑exception application on June 9; if approved, the conditions approved by the planning commission would govern construction, monitoring and operations and the county would continue to coordinate with state agencies (DEQ, VDOT) on permits and inspections.