Residents accuse Riverstone Solar of permit violations; Buckingham supervisors order investigation and schedule reconvened meeting

Following a lengthy public-comment period dominated by concerns over a large solar project in District 6, the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 8 voted to recess and reconvene for focused review after residents alleged multiple violations of the Riverstone Solar special-use permit.

Speakers from District 6 and elsewhere described repeated incursions into mandated buffers, heavy construction traffic on roads subject to restrictions, and what several speakers said were misleading claims by the developer about permit deadlines. "If Apex could not follow the rules before a building permit has even been issued, how can they be trusted with a project of this scale?" asked a resident objecting to the project.

Multiple speakers identified specific permit conditions they said were violated: condition 13, which requires a 50-foot vegetative buffer along property lines and sensitive areas; condition 28, which restricts construction traffic on portions of Pains Pond Road; and condition 4, which the public said set deadlines for filing a building permit. Resident Chad Oba urged the board to direct the county attorney to issue a written legal review of the developer’s reading of state law (he referenced state statute 15.2-2209.1) and to halt activity pending clarification. "That claim is simply not true," Oba said of the developer’s assertion that a 2023 amendment automatically extended the building-permit deadline.

Speakers also asked why the county’s zoning administrator had not more actively enforced permit conditions. Several said they had reported alleged violations and received little or no follow-up. Brad Pickens and others described cleared buffers, cut-and-fill operations and sediment moving toward streams. A number of speakers warned that the county’s failure to enforce permit conditions could expose it to litigation.

County staff told the board they had engaged an erosion- and sediment-control inspector who conducted an initial inspection on Aug. 20 and would continue inspections every 14 days. Staff reported the first inspection found no significant erosion-control deficiencies related to the items that inspector covered.

After discussion, a supervisor moved that staff — including the county administrator, zoning administrator and county attorney — investigate allegations presented at the meeting and report back to the board. The motion included three elements: (1) investigate Riverstone-related allegations in District 6, (2) review an individual request related to temporary RV residency while building a home, and (3) investigate alleged inoperable-vehicle violations raised during public comment. The board added a condition to the motion that if staff findings show noncompliance, the board will pursue a stop-work order until the developer comes into compliance.

The board set a reconvened meeting to receive staff findings; meeting scheduling in public remarks settled on Oct. 29 at 6 p.m. The motion carried in the meeting record (vote recorded in the minutes as in favor). The board did not yet issue a stop-work order at the Sept. 8 session; supervisors said staff work and the legal review must come first.

What residents asked for: immediate enforcement (stop-work orders), remediation plans for cleared buffer areas, and review or revocation of the special-use permit if legal review finds the permit has expired or been materially breached. Board members asked staff to expedite investigations and report back to the full board for possible action at the reconvened meeting.