Buckingham appeals panel upholds zoning administrator’s finding that Riverstone Solar permit remains valid

The Buckingham County Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the county zoning administrator’s determination that Special Use Permit 22 SUP 299 for a Riverstone Solar facility remains valid after the board voted to affirm the administrator’s decision.

Nikki Edmonson, the county zoning administrator, told the appeals board she reviewed the SUP, consulted county legal counsel and concluded that the statutory extension under Virginia Code §15.2-2209.1 applied to the permit’s condition four. “It is my determination as zoning administrator that special use permit 22 SUP 299 remains valid,” Edmonson said, noting Riverstone filed a building-permit application on June 26, 2025 that she deemed within the extended deadline.

Appellants and neighbors argued the statute’s plain language limits the automatic extension to approvals that were outstanding as of July 1, 2020 and therefore does not reach permits granted after that date. Appellants’ counsel (transcript: Gford Hampshire) told the board the central question was statutory interpretation: whether the enactment clause alters the statute’s plain text. “The very question before you is whether that code section applies,” Hampshire said, urging the board to find the permit had become null and void when the two-year submission deadline passed.

Riverstone’s attorney, Andrew Bowman, countered that enactment clause 3 must be read with subsection B of the 2023 act and that the legislature intended the extension to apply to approvals granted subsequent to July 1, 2020 that expire before July 1, 2025. “Simply put, the statute extended the deadline set forth in [condition four] … to July 1, 2025,” Bowman told the board, and said Riverstone timely filed its building-permit application.

Neighbors described local impacts if the project moves forward. Colonel Brad Pickkins, who identified his property as adjacent to the planned 2,000-acre site, said the development would bring construction noise, heavy truck traffic and stormwater risks. He cited Riverstone materials estimating roughly 300,000 panels and about 2,700 truckloads of equipment to the site and warned of long construction and decommissioning impacts.

The appeals board heard extensive legal debate over whether the enactment clause can be read to give effect to the statute without rendering key language meaningless or producing an absurd result. The county attorney told the board his memorandum informed Edmonson’s written determination and explained his view that the subsections should be read together.

After questioning from board members, a motion to uphold the zoning administrator’s February 25 determination carried on a voice vote: three in favor, none opposed and one abstention. The board then concluded the hearing and adjourned.

What the decision means next: the appeals board’s action affirms the local administrative determination that the permit remained in effect when the building-permit application was filed; the appellants were previously advised of their right to appeal the zoning administrator’s determination to this board and, depending on local rules and deadlines, may seek further review in court. The panel’s vote is the most recent procedural development on the appeal.