Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Valley Link Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Appomattox supervisors to join legal effort over Valley Link route; board asks staff and county attorney to review options
Summary
Nathan Brown told the board that Valley Link route shifts now place the project over his cabin and asked the county to join joint legal representation, consider matching other counties’ pledged funds, and contact Campbell County representatives; the board asked staff and the county attorney to evaluate options and report back.
At the June 15 meeting Nathan Brown, a property owner, told the Board of Supervisors that the Valley Link project’s revised route now places infrastructure directly over his cabin and other affected land. Brown said eight of nine counties had voted to oppose the Valley Link project; he asked Appomattox County to (1) contact three Campbell County representatives for support, (2) formally authorize the county attorney to join and retain outside counsel for the SEC proceeding, and (3) consider matching $250,000 pledged by several other counties to fund a joint legal effort.
Brown described prior maps that he said showed the line over his pond but said later adjustments now place the line over his cabin and newly built roads. He asked that Appomattox County not be the coalition’s weakest link should counties present a joined legal challenge in September. The public comment concluded with Brown asking local representatives to write to PJM, Dominion, Valley Link and the governor; he requested staff and legal follow-up.
Board members requested that county staff and the county attorney review Brown’s requests and provide feedback on legal options and the implications of joining joint counsel or contributing funds. No motion to authorize legal representation or a county contribution was recorded during the meeting; instead, supervisors asked for information so they could consider options at a future time.
Separately in supervisors’ concerns, staff reported an engineering firm had been retained to study a proposed shooting range and that a site‑plan and normal review process (60–90 days) would be required before operations could begin.
