Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buckingham supervisors deny special‑use permit for Indigo Acres retreat after neighbor opposition
Summary
The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on March 9 to deny Case 25‑SUP363 (Indigo Acres LLC), an A‑1 special‑use permit for a retreat and event center, after neighbors raised traffic, sanitation, cemetery and quality‑of‑life concerns during the public hearing.
The Buckingham County Board of Supervisors unanimously denied a special‑use permit for Indigo Acres LLC (Case 25‑SUP363) following a public hearing on March 9. Zoning Administrator Cheryl T. “Nicci” Edmondston identified the applicant’s three parcels near 1048 Rock Island Road in the Slate River magisterial district and summarized the Planning Commission’s conditions, which had allowed up to 18 small events (≤250 attendees), temporary campsites (up to 100), and up to six large events (≤500 attendees).
Applicant representative Mr. Smariga described revisions requested during the planning process and said the proposal matched county special‑use guidelines for private recreation and event facilities. “My family and I would love to do something beautiful for this community,” he told the board.
Neighbors and other speakers opposed the permit. Concerns included traffic and emergency‑service access, sanitation and waste management, potential damage to rural roads, and the impacts of gatherings near known gravesites. Board members cited significant local opposition in committee and at public meetings. Chairman Joe N. Chambers said constituent feedback in his district led him to oppose the permit.
After public testimony, Supervisor Dennis H. Davis moved to deny the application; Vice Chairman L. Cameron Gilliam seconded. The motion carried unanimously (six yes; one supervisor absent). The board’s action formally rejects the Indigo Acres special‑use permit application; the applicant may pursue administrative or legislative remedies outside the board’s decision where allowed by county code and state law.
What happened procedurally: Edmondston introduced the case; Smariga made a short statement of intent and said over 50 supporting emails and 11 supporters had been submitted to the Planning Commission. Multiple adjacent landowners testified against the project during the hearing. The Board voted to deny on the record at the March 9 meeting.
Next steps: The denial closes this request at the Board level; the applicant may consider revisions or appeals under the county’s zoning and appeals procedures.
