Residents urge pause and stronger oversight of Riverstone Solar construction near Bridgeport Road
Loading...
Summary
Two residents told the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors they fear construction at the Riverstone Solar site is harming streams and downstream properties, citing multiple Virginia DEQ findings and inconsistent third‑party inspection reports; the board said the county attorney advised no board action was required.
Johnny Doria, a District 6 resident, urged the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors to explain why Riverstone Solar’s special-use permit extension request (referred to in public comment as SUP299) had not been acknowledged while other solar applicants received extensions. "You never granted it. You didn't even acknowledge it," Doria said, arguing that without a board extension Condition 4 could render the SUP null and void and expose taxpayers to cleanup risk. He referenced a Nov. 4 letter from Jimmy Merrick to "Mr. Carter" asking again for an extension and asked the board for a public answer.
An official identified in the meeting as speaker 7 told the board that the county attorney had advised the board it did not need to take action under statute, explaining why the board had not taken formal action on Riverstone’s request. Doria told the board that the attorney's advice "was not put on record" and said he would continue pressing the issue.
Ruth Olinger Aldridge, who lives near 652 Bridgeport Road, told the board the Riverstone site has cleared about 85 acres and that Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) inspected the site three times this year, each time documenting findings that required corrective action. "DEQ documented silt fence undermining and lack of adequate stabilization," Aldridge said, and she urged the board to "pause on this and hold them accountable." Aldridge said an independent third‑party inspector, added by the county after DEQ’s second inspection, reached different conclusions and did not require corrective action, raising questions about the effectiveness of the additional oversight.
A member of the public who visited the site (identified by the meeting as Fulton construction) said he saw reseeding and other remediation work and reported that the contractor had submitted a bid to complete the project, saying it appeared ‘‘drastically different’’ from prior visits.
Board members did not take immediate policy action during the meeting on Riverstone; one board speaker cited legal advice from the county attorney that no action was required. The board did not announce a specific follow-up at the meeting. Advocates asked the board to consider the DEQ findings and the newly published Virginia Tech research on large utility‑scale solar projects and stormwater runoff when determining oversight or enforcement steps.
