Residents press county over alleged permit violations at Riverstone Solar and nearby logging sites

Residents near two large energy and timber sites told the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors that ongoing work appears to violate special-use permit conditions and state environmental permitting requirements.

Laura Keaton, a resident of Arvonia (District 6), told the board the developer’s submitted building permit is based on incomplete, conceptual plans and “includes significant changes to where the project components will be built.” Keaton said those changes do not match the approved land‑disturbance permit and that, to her knowledge, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has not received revised plans for stormwater and erosion control review. “These conditions are not suggestions. They are binding requirements agreed to by the developer and approved by this board,” Keaton said.

Why it matters: DEQ approval of updated stormwater and erosion plans is required to protect waterways during construction. Citizens argued that approving a building permit based on an incomplete or revised plan would short‑circuit the permitting sequence and reduce regulatory oversight.

Several other neighbors echoed concerns about timber clear‑cutting and land disturbance at Mountain Pine 1 and 2, which they said continued even though the zoning for the parcels had changed. Laura Linewski, who owns property adjacent to the Mountain Pine sites, asked why clearing and apparent logging activity were allowed without the requisite environmental approvals and why the county appeared not to be enforcing its own zoning decisions.

County staff and supervisors responded that the county has been investigating. A county inspector, Lynn Hill, has visited the site “on a very regular every‑couple‑of‑day basis,” according to one staff speaker. County staff confirmed Riverstone submitted a building permit application on June 26, 2025; the building plans remain under review by the county building inspector and the application has not been approved.

Staff also said the developer is operating under the terms of a land‑disturbance permit. As described at the meeting, the land‑disturbance permit allows certain preliminary on‑site work but requires points of stabilization and compliance with the special‑use permit (SUP) conditions before full construction may proceed. The board discussed that any substantive changes to the approved plans would need to come back before the board for review.

Board direction and next steps: Supervisors said the county has hired a third‑party inspector, and staff reported that third‑party inspections should begin “pretty soon.” County staff also said they will keep citizens informed of inspection results and that any plan changes must be approved by the county and, where applicable, submitted to DEQ for stormwater/erosion review.

What was not decided: The board did not vote to revoke permits or halt work; staff said the building permit remains under review and that stabilization requirements tied to the land‑disturbance permit limit construction until plans and approvals are in order.

Residents asked the board to reject any building permit application that is not based on a finalized plan matching the SUP and land‑disturbance approvals, and asked the county to ensure DEQ has the revised stormwater plans. County staff said inspectors have visited and a third‑party inspector will report back to the board.

Ending: Neighbors said they will continue to press the board for enforcement and clearer documentation that any plan revisions have been submitted to DEQ and approved before construction advances.