[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6308352,"mediaKeyId","2423412-c9e18d42e6874f979708b477a76b8c80","parentId",2423412,"title","Votes at a glance: Washington County Board actions, Feb. 11","audioSeconds",5086,"startMs",121000,"endMs",5207000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2423412-c9e18d42e6874f979708b477a76b8c80&start=121&end=5207","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2423412-c9e18d42e6874f979708b477a76b8c80/thumbnail_121000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6308352/Washington-County/Virginia/Votes-at-a-glance-Washington-County-Board-actions-Feb-11","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6308352-9ab0dfc1fcc19b7eaf12aba749332979/orig.mp4?Expires=1771028522&Signature=ZqY9Tf6d7vmSKiAEl092p-R8dTbCM6U3Pa24D-7cmH9G6HAGLc35A-QDepoSPgNzjFJyVNqTi2vE9KaoSGBNSpf28xSm-DDu7DEr-bz-OgBjyzwx4W9~mSnilR23j9kcDRjr0OaiPugBX~yfiwOWlTxwvF~MaOHE0~Q37Iyx~mS8QRgcebBMatSkSmLq6QW8Z~JFKWTdbgFsH6kTxPb6Fuzq2TUIheg4Ow0fGyG1rNwPL4CB3XIvc9HWbUnOJTAiS1Z42Qte9nD9eKx975re1n99pWJizFp8PJF5wTYVPbg24iW5ajmdJrbqrSE2XWnerUtlu2KbnPyTMCcuk2PHNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington County","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Washington County Board of Supervisors recorded the following formal actions on Feb. 11. All recorded Board votes below were unanimous unless noted.

- Approval of the meeting agenda as amended (move public comment up; move mid-year review to Feb. 25; remove closed session; add Smart Scale and EMS station contract items). Outcome: approved, 7-0.

- Consent agenda (standard consent items as listed in packet). Outcome: approved, 7-0.

- Option and purchase agreement for Lots 1 and 2 at Highlands Business Park (DeLorean Power LLC / Light Shift Energy, energy storage facility). Outcome: approved, 7-0. Staff noted no solar was involved with this particular transaction.

- Transfer from reserve for contingencies to pay for a fire hydrant near Black Hollow Road and Providence Road, not to exceed $3,500. Outcome: approved, 7-0.

- Declaration of surplus for Sheriff's Office military vehicles (10-33 program) and authorization to sell via local auto auction. Outcome: approved, 7-0.

- Cancellation of the March 11 Board meeting for the county Ag appreciation event. Outcome: approved, 7-0.

- Smart Scale Round 6 funding reallocation: motion to delay the Route 75/Green Springs project and pursue reallocation of county and Town of Abingdon Smart Scale funds (and use Bristol District unallocated funds) to complete the Cook Street extension from The Meadows to Frenchmoor Boulevard, subject to town approval and CTB action. Outcome: approved, 7-0.

- Sole-source contract award to The Lane Group for EMS station final design, $294,000, to be paid from VRA financing; authorization for the county administrator to sign the contract. Outcome: approved, 7-0.

Notes: Where the transcript records a planning commission unanimous vote (4-0) for its agenda approval, those procedural votes are part of the planning commission minutes; the planning commission reached consensus (nonbinding) to keep the existing solar ordinance while convening a workshop to draft revisions. The Board's recorded votes in this chapter were taken by voice and captured as unanimous (7-0) where shown.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Washington County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 2/11/2025 6:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal votes and recorded outcomes from the Feb. 11 Washington County joint meeting and Board of Supervisors session.","taxTitle","Washington County, Virginia","taxId",38197,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6308356,"Board awards sole-source contract to complete EMS station design to protect federal grant funding",313,5976000,6289000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2423412-c9e18d42e6874f979708b477a76b8c80&start=5976&end=6289","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2423412-c9e18d42e6874f979708b477a76b8c80/thumbnail_5976000.jpg","/articles/6308356/Washington-County/Virginia/Board-awards-sole-source-contract-to-complete-EMS-station-design-to-protect-federal-grant-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6308356-5b9084045a2ca00e6ec2f584f04498f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771028522&Signature=XN25o0aiaxV0KddJxArAtsM7UTT-h~CK0WyiJx0-r7RWe430mGKR~OfdYafuqmXgdnr4ADY6AE3IDo5wm-h3WNfvAJ5hzSQOZHgoP-WJeigxZFIj4brMg5K1Gf~WDVQwqVUbg0mDh13v8-O9Mylt6~3PeGAmUJ1zVcEydlczOjH-XIe-t8iAglSGqTohhgTmhearP0sQnoUT2EfcLFu5CPzUlQHAeVmEFrvvlpdSAD0D33N-tXbWLuNkjaS65UjFxVvXNDFmEBCe0CUIbNW1veMSG5Il4lfHwDO7pnynY-CtI0mYgMkD5p37dxNa1tMrQ202EzNad4~ecUAq-HHd2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Washington County supervisors voted unanimously Feb. 11 to award a sole-source contract to The Lane Group for $294,000 to finish design work for a planned county EMS station, authorize the county administrator to sign the contract and charge the cost to VRA financing earmarked for the project.

County staff said the county has approximately $1.7 million in federal funds for the EMS project and that completing design work quickly would reduce the risk of losing that allocation. The Lane Group had previously completed preliminary design and related front-end work, staff said; procurement staff reviewed price reasonableness and recommended a sole-source award to avoid duplication of effort and delay that would increase the county's risk of losing rural development funds.

County attorney Matthew Snodgrass noted a 10% reimbursable-expenses contingency in the AIA contract to avoid future disputes about unanticipated reimbursable costs; staff said reimbursements would be approved by the owner. Finance staff said the $294,000 will be paid from $1.0 million set aside via VRA financing specifically for the project.

The Board authorized the sole-source determination, approved the contract award to The Lane Group, and authorized the county administrator to sign. The motion passed by unanimous vote (7-0).

Board members said the EMS station would improve response times to I-81 and other county areas and noted the county's interest in starting construction as soon as design, permitting and procurement allow. The contract will move the project to final design and enable issuance of an RFP for construction.","The Board of Supervisors approved a sole-source contract with The Lane Group for $294,000 to complete design work on a planned EMS station so the county can move to construction and preserve $1.7 million in federal funding.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6308361,"Board agrees to reallocate Smart Scale funds to extend Cook Street; town of Abingdon to forgo its project",489,5474000,5963000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2423412-c9e18d42e6874f979708b477a76b8c80&start=5474&end=5963","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2423412-c9e18d42e6874f979708b477a76b8c80/thumbnail_5474000.jpg","/articles/6308361/Washington-County/Virginia/Board-agrees-to-reallocate-Smart-Scale-funds-to-extend-Cook-Street-town-of-Abingdon-to-forgo-its-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6308361-b5cc2ca798bd010cb475c51a8ef489ff/orig.mp4?Expires=1771028522&Signature=h1nVQmvT-fduWJ8Wzoa6qTcU646EXUHA8cIZwK7IjmuQOk47~HUQA5cup-6pbo-sDzX56JEBLqcYI1Kdpet~iTG0ebkDyr-GHI1uSt-u~nKUPelHVMVfKfAteg5SybaBCZR0J5ibF0E97wbIlkd7N54BkqCu3ds0pKRvRMG55zKX1bf3kBQJUdC0QwWnKM1esjmdEmfnti8KJYtNDQUso2vf2lPDlL4YxPxCM9su8tN3HLEcxdjPfGUzTNVRHo1vNDAx~Bq9e2bmH6Oj-2AUP~kBaizj03ycbSCbFsZf7FnYj5r26BtDfTy7lqq2lLD1iLbFaBImyFye4dc4E9xOSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Washington County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Feb. 11 to ask VDOT to reallocate Smart Scale Round 6 funding so the Cook Street extension can be completed from The Meadows to Frenchmoor Boulevard.

Staff presented a funding scenario that would combine the county's potential $11.4 million allocation for the Route 75/Green Springs Church Road project with the Town of Abingdon's approximately $10.4 million allocation and a share of unallocated Bristol District funds to reach the estimated $28.5 million needed to finish the Cook Street extension. VDOT had about $9.8 million unallocated in the Bristol District; staff said CTB member Tom Folkes could recommend the reallocation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

The board approved a motion to delay the county's Route 75 Green Springs project and pursue the reallocation in partnership with the Town of Abingdon, subject to the town's approval. County staff said the Cook Street extension would create an additional arterial connection between Exits 17 and 19 along U.S. 58 and could relieve congestion on existing corridors. VDOT staff had previously redesigned a bridge crossing for the extension, lowering certain costs in the current estimate.

Board members and staff said right-of-way acquisition and surveying work had begun for parts of the corridor; staff pledged to provide a map and to follow up with details on right-of-way and design steps. Officials said that if the reallocation is approved by the CTB, project scheduling would likely place construction within a multi-year window but could accelerate the timeline compared with waiting for a later funding round.

The motion passed unanimously by recorded voice vote (7-0). The board directed staff to coordinate with Abingdon and VDOT on formal requests to the CTB and to follow up with project maps and right-of-way information for supervisors.

The vote does not itself change local land use or require construction; it authorizes staff to pursue funding reallocation steps and to return with additional details for final authorizations.","Washington County supervisors voted to delay a Route 75/Green Springs project and partner with the Town of Abingdon and VDOT to use Smart Scale funds to complete Cook Street from The Meadows to Frenchmoor Boulevard.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6308365,"Residents, planners urge retaining special-exception review as county revisits solar ordinance",4516,186000,4702000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2423412-c9e18d42e6874f979708b477a76b8c80&start=186&end=4702","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2423412-c9e18d42e6874f979708b477a76b8c80/thumbnail_186000.jpg","/articles/6308365/Washington-County/Virginia/Residents-planners-urge-retaining-special-exception-review-as-county-revisits-solar-ordinance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6308365-07d37bd4b48ac4661ae5fb42dcd8fb73/orig.mp4?Expires=1771028522&Signature=cW5SUSBYQ0EO9Y0tHt2h--eyuvF6nVcIwm10t2YzCIpind93zwzFkTmkaw2KV~JA-KiPjvMsg1FOz6frxAT5JiZ~uelerRp7hoYLi1pvmSYjiugiyoSzPf33kzOKqyHPjdeGT1de-vSkH2uDlqZQIil85dpih-CYMsPyx2ytvKbugromCfKid1TPeahNG1o~J3MG3pqzx0ry-9Ui8ciQOiLVGdaQ9gxW4OHvxqWMsJWnUUi3hc3zp6cIBsS5gNSMnnYmCWZQGFKYSr30fhBKR8CWtfQPXXhd60fbLvDVTM97RU1Ow1gRhpoS94sm3OYTwPmIVPhpkH-qHUtwg4hfuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A broad group of residents, technical experts and planning commissioners urged Washington County officials on Feb. 11 to retain protections in the county's solar ordinance, including a special-exception (special use) review, slope restrictions, decommissioning surety bonds and setbacks, saying recent proposed edits would weaken local oversight.

Speakers at the meeting's public-comment period included residents who said they oppose large-scale solar installations in agricultural and residential areas, and technical experts who urged the county to preserve engineering and viewshed safeguards. Planning Commission members and several supervisors discussed those concerns and agreed the commission should hold a workshop and recommend revisions before the Board of Supervisors takes action.

The most substantive public comments came from William Bish of Windale Road, who criticized proposed changes that would allow solar projects of 8.5 acres as a by-right use and said the draft ordinance removes slope limits, decommissioning bonds and other protections. \"I think the 1 acre is appropriate,\" Bish said, arguing the board should require larger proposals to return for review.

Other residents voiced similar objections. Eric McReynolds said he and a group of county residents oppose utility-scale projects and worry about environmental impacts and abandoned equipment. David Rose urged restoring a 1-acre threshold and questioned language about decommissioning costs. Amy Venable, who said she and her husband farm on land held by family since the 1930s, recommended larger setbacks (she proposed 300 feet), tighter noise limits (no more than 3 dBA above preconstruction background or 40 dBA), and specific screening standards to reduce visual impacts.

Emma Wyatt, who identified herself as a certified zoning administrator for Virginia, an AICP-certified planner and chief operating officer of a community development entity, reviewed the ordinance's technical provisions. Wyatt recommended keeping restrictions on siting solar on steep slopes (she cited preservation of a prohibition above 15% slope and specific measures for 10'15%), retaining the special-exception permit process so neighbors have formal input, and requiring land-disturbance plans prepared by a qualified engineer.

Soil scientist and farmer Hunter White told the commission the community had previously spent more than a year developing the current ordinance and said proposed edits \"pull all the teeth\" from the document. Several planning commissioners also voiced concerns that removing the special-exception path would take local review away from citizens and could allow projects to be sited across agricultural land without community input.

At the planning commission's portion of the joint meeting, commissioners discussed several specific edits that had been blacked out in the proposed rewrite, including slope protections and language requiring engineer-prepared land-disturbance plans. Commissioners asked for clarification of an exemption for solar projects \"for agricultural purposes\" and whether that language would allow expansive development on farmland without acreage limits.

The planning commission reached consensus to keep the existing solar ordinance on the books while scheduling a workshop to identify and propose targeted revisions. Commission Chair Rufus called for regrouping and a workshop to consider whether to \"beef this ordinance up\" or to make focused clarifications; commissioners agreed and asked staff to return recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. That consensus, as recorded in the joint meeting, is not a formal ordinance adoption; it directs further work by the commission and staff.

Planning staff and several supervisors also noted the political context: speakers referenced state-level legislation (identified in public comments as SB 1190) and said the county should consider legal advice and coordinate with local legislators if statewide policy proposals reappear. Several speakers suggested seeking an opinion from the Virginia attorney general's office to ensure the county's ordinance would not trigger preemption or invite immediate state scrutiny.

The planning commission's next steps, as stated on the record, are to hold a workshop incorporating the evening's discussion, keep the existing ordinance in effect during the review and prepare recommendations for the Board of Supervisors.

The public comment period and planning commission discussion together spanned the meeting's opening public-comment and the formal joint-agenda review; members of the public who attended urged retaining siting controls and environmental protections while commissioners sought legal and technical clarity before recommending any rewrite to the board.","Public commenters and members of the Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors urged keeping special-exception review, slope limits, decommissioning sureties and other protections in the county's solar ordinance and agreed to hold a workshop to refine the language.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Washington County Board actions, Feb. 11

Board awards sole-source contract to complete EMS station design to protect federal grant funding

Board agrees to reallocate Smart Scale funds to extend Cook Street; town of Abingdon to forgo its project

Residents, planners urge retaining special-exception review as county revisits solar ordinance