Planning commission tables Pine Lane ATV permit after neighbors cite noise, trespass and road concerns

The Pittsylvania County Planning Commission on July 7, 2026 voted 5–0 to table a recommendation on a special‑use permit for Pine Lane ATV Trails so the applicant and county staff can tighten conditions related to hours, noise, buffers and enforcement.

Staff presented the application for Pine Lane — described in the packet as 283.9 acres on Old Richmond Road with ATV trails, primitive camping and temporary events — and told commissioners that 16 items in the staff report remain unresolved and should be clarified before the Board of Zoning Appeals reviews the petition. Miss Smith, the staff presenter, said the planning commission could continue the hearing to allow submission of an updated conceptual site plan addressing internal circulation, access and event details.

Supporters characterized Pine Lane as a long‑running, family‑oriented facility that brings visitors to the county. "Reopening Pine Lane isn't just about riding ATVs. It's about preserving a place that has strengthened families," said Kelsey Little, a Campbell County resident who described charity rides and multi‑generational use. Several other speakers, including Crystal Barker and Brian Payne, told the commission the park is safe and community‑minded.

Opponents urged strict conditions and questioned enforceability. James Milam, a former adjacent landowner, said the operation has repeatedly damaged his land, vandalized buildings and reduced property enjoyment. "The roads were torn up. The trees were annihilated," Milam said, urging denial. David Rink, current owner of one affected parcel, told the commission he has had gates cut, cameras stolen and that prior cease‑and‑desist orders had little effect. Multiple neighbors described late‑night music, exhaust noise and trespass that they say interrupted sleep and diminished property value.

The applicant, George Ingram, acknowledged a prior permit lapsed and said the new concept plan was revised to avoid crossing other landowners' parcels; he described steps taken to block problematic access points and agreed to add signage and revise trail maps. Ingram said security and EMT are typically present during operations and that the park attracts weekend riders whose presence benefits local businesses.

Commissioners debated the site's long history (several speakers said the facility has operated for decades) and the practical challenges of on‑site enforcement. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to both the park's economic and cultural role and to neighbors' concerns. Given outstanding technical items and the staff recommendation to tighten conditions — on hours, noise monitoring, buffer planting, event limits and evidence of enforceable management plans — Commissioner Barks moved to put the case on hold for one month so the applicant and staff could resolve the 16 recommended items. The motion passed unanimously.

Next steps: The applicant has until the next planning commission meeting to provide a revised site plan and to work with staff on specific conditions. The commission will reconsider the case after staff and the applicant respond to the outstanding recommendations; if the commission then forwards the petition, the Board of Zoning Appeals will make the final decision on the special‑use permit.