SWVA DCTA criticizes Amsterdam town hall
An attempted town hall charm offensive by Botetourt County Supervisor Tim Snyder and representatives of Google (Aug. 13) came off to the residents who attended as merely offensive.
The monthly forum, held at the VFW Hall off Roanoke Road to discuss topics of interest to Snyder’s constituents, hosted three representatives from Google. They had prepared comments to assuage concerns about the company’s proposed Greenfield data center campus with talking points about water replenishment and electric grid stabilization, but were regularly taken off script by the skeptical audience.
“We just don’t want you here” went a frequent response. “Your answers are no good.”
“No good” was the best Snyder and the Google PR team could get themselves. Normally open to all, Thursday’s event only allowed residents of Snyder’s Amsterdam District. An unidentified man in rose-tinted shades stood in front of the door, arms crossed, turning away non-residents. The press was also barred entry, as it had been from Google’s events with the Roanoke City and Botetourt County Chambers of Commerce in April and July. They were joined by a dozen would-be attendees, who protested the lack of transparency.
“Tim introduced his meeting saying it was an opportunity for us to hear more. But what the company representatives presented was only more of the same talking points that citizens have repeatedly addressed as unacceptable,” said Scott Yates, a SWVA DCTA member and Amsterdam District property owner who was able to attend the town hall. “Our elected leaders’ apathy towards the will of the people is shocking on an emotional level, and it’s antithetical to the democratic process.”
The meeting was the second time in three weeks that Snyder had publicly alienated his own voters. A speech he gave but may not have authored at July’s Board of Supervisors meeting, pitching a board-controlled alternative to the Planning Commission’s proposed independent water supply study, prompted a heated exchange with Buchanan Supervisor Linda Rottman, and jeers from the gallery. So too did his disclaimers of non-involvement with the Google deal, despite having chaired the Planning Commission when zoning was amended to clear the way for the development.
Ben Verschoor and Julie Bivins, Southwest Virginia Data Center Transparency Alliance
Green Line could protect rural Botetourt
Having lived in Botetourt County my entire life and owned and operated an electrical construction business for 49 years, I have witnessed firsthand the changes our community has experienced. I have also had the privilege of serving four years on the Planning Commission (1995-1998), 16 years on the Board of Supervisors (1998-2013), and 13 years as your State Delegate for Botetourt County (2013–2026).
While growing up here, many of the conveniences we now enjoy simply did not exist in Botetourt County. Today, we can grocery shop, enjoy a meal at a local restaurant, participate in cultural activities, and take advantage of a growing range of recreational opportunities, all within our own county. We also have three small towns – Buchanan, Fincastle and Troutville – where we have the pleasure of walking the streets, shopping, dining and receiving service benefits.
Given the proximity to Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke, with the ease of convenience getting to these two locations, along with it came the growth and expansive development – much of which many fear has grown too fast, leading to the lack of long-range planning. Given that, I, over time, have felt at some point we should begin to protect our rural character and give more consideration to planned growth and development.
Having discussed extensively with county staff over time, one concept worth exploring is the potential for what was implemented in Virginia Beach in 1979 and defined today as the “Green Line.” The Green Line is a boundary drawn across a locality that allows for higher density development on one side and less dense development on the other. As an example, a 100-acre parcel beyond the Green Line would allow development to be concentrated on a 60-acre cluster, while 40 acres would remain greenspace.
The higher density land-use would not prohibit or restrict property owners from developing their property. It would, going forward, place special conditions on those developments, which could bring potential net gains to the property, creating a more desirable and environmentally friendly area compatible with the agricultural nature of our county.
The areas around the towns of Fincastle and Buchanan would be allowed to grow to a higher density within a given radius, conceivably one to two miles beyond the town boundary. Fincastle, as an example, to protect its historical significance, should probably have within the boundary an historical overlay with covenants for architectural design and review.
Though I am no longer in local government, where zoning is one of the primary functions, I share the same frustrations as many others who believe our growth could be better managed. After numerous attempts over the years to suggest and recommend consideration, it’s my understanding that county administration is now seriously considering this concept. I appreciate the county’s desire to preserve and protect future greenspace.
Terry Austin
Buchanan
Letter addresses Aug. Planning Commission meeting
The Planning Commission (PC) meeting on August 10 was just like most of them with Mark Tyson, as usual, trying and wanting to be the center of attention and not understanding the purpose for which Botetourt County has a planning commission.
Now, with the water study destined to be conducted by an “unbiased panel” instead of a panel that includes him, he had to invent a new way to attempt to be the star of the show.
So, what did he do? He had to get something on the agenda he wanted to talk about which had nothing to do with the mission of the PC, even though there were other important matters to be heard that evening. Accordingly, he put on the screen and read a snippet from an alleged letter that some alleged person (possibly anonymous?) supposedly wrote which Mr. Tyson said was given to him by “a supervisor” (anyone want to guess which one?).
Is it possible that all of this is just a charade? Did Mr. Tyson prepare this alleged document and send it to “a supervisor” and then have that supervisor give it to him so he could spin this episode and attempt to gain sympathy by claiming that he is the victim when he clearly is not?
Don’t forget or overlook his despicable behavior at the PC planning session on July 6 or his reprehensible shouting and screaming profanity directed at a county employee during the first recess of the Board of Supervisors (BoS) meeting on July 28. And we have this “loose cannon” sitting on a county commission? Doesn’t it appear that he may be the intimidator rather than the one being intimidated as he attempts to have us believe? Does he need an anger management course? Does he need a course on how to do the job of a planning commissioner? If the job is so tough with no pay and he doesn’t even get all of his expenses reimbursed, is there any alternative he can take?
Thankfully, there are no other representatives of our county who conduct themselves in such a shameful and disgusting manner at public meetings. If there were, then I am sure the members of the Chronic Complainers Club (CCC) would cheer and applaud that type of conduct just as they do when Mr. Tyson has these frequent tantrums!
And, to top it off, there was the ruse pulled by one who apparently signed up to speak, but did not indicate the public hearing in which she wished to be heard. When asked by the chair, she said she just wanted to congratulate the PC. When she was graciously given the opportunity to speak, the first few words she said seemed to be congratulatory, but she soon changed her tune and wanted to talk about how poorly she thought Mr. Tyson was treated at the July 6 planning session when he shouted out in a loud, angry and uncontrolled way. The chair immediately stopped her and pointed out that comments from the public at PC meetings are limited to the public hearing items. She thought she had a clever way to circumvent the rules, but, thankfully, she got caught and silenced and we didn’t have to hear the same old drivel from her that day!
I heard there was going to be a free clown show in the early evening hours at the Daleville VFW on August 13, so I went to observe. I stayed in my car and watched for about an hour. As I am not an Amsterdam District resident, I did not go inside as some “privileged ones” did, nor did I attempt to go inside and then complain about not being allowed in because I was not an Amsterdam District resident, as did another one who thinks the rules don’t apply to her.
I would like to have heard what the Google representative had to say, but from what I have heard about that event and not surprisingly, the CCC members acted just as they do at other public meetings as they do not want to hear anything which does not fit their narrative. I did notice that all the clowns did not go into the meeting because they were not Amsterdam District (or possibly not even Botetourt County) residents, just people who have nothing better to do and enjoy the company of many others who never questioned the legally advertised and conducted actions taken by the BoS in 2024, about which they now constantly whine, moan and gripe and are heard to say “We didn’t know.”
And, thankfully, I had a copy of The Fincastle Herald with me and was able to use it to keep the sun out of my eyes so I would not miss a minute of the show!
Bob Patterson
Fincastle
Buchanan District
