Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Gary Laro Google topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents assail Laro reappointment and press board for transparency on Google, solar projects
Summary
Multiple residents used the board's public‑comment period to oppose reappointing county administrator Gary Laro to regional posts and to demand more transparency on the Google data‑center project, industrial solar farms and associated water and traffic impacts.
Public comment at the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors meeting turned sharply critical of county leadership and development deals, with several speakers urging the board to reconsider appointments and contracts tied to a proposed Google data‑center and to oppose industrial solar projects on farmland.
Lee Martell, introduced during the citizen‑comment period, framed his remarks as an objection to county participation in a regional greenway agreement and wider development trends. "No to the invasion and subsidy of city people coming here," Martell said, listing concerns about crime, drugs and loss of rural character. Multiple other residents raised similar themes, pressing the board to slow large decisions and strengthen public notice.
The most pointed criticism focused on a pending reappointment of county administrator Gary Laro to a regional economic commission. Jane Beasley read from a March 11, 2026 email that solicited technical information about a planned data‑center site and told the board she had ‘‘written proof’’ that undermined residents' trust. Several commenters described Laro as untrustworthy and urged supervisors not to reappoint him to outside boards.
Speakers also pressed the board for clearer details about the Google project, particularly its water and traffic plans. Danny Go and other residents said county officials must provide explicit figures and studies before allowing infrastructure or regulatory changes; "You need to be free with that information and tell us," Go said, urging a public accounting of projected water use.
Board members acknowledged the volume of public concern but did not reverse the reappointment decisions at the meeting. Several supervisors said they had heard from constituents both for and against the projects and indicated they would continue to review materials and legal constraints. The record shows the public questions center on (1) whether county staff and leaders provided adequate prior notice and detail, (2) the degree to which county officials may be bound by nondisclosure agreements in economic negotiations, and (3) how infrastructure (water, roads, emergency services) would be scaled to support large private developments.
The board did not adopt any new procedural rules in response to the comments at this meeting; residents seeking further action were told to use follow‑up channels with county staff and to request agenda items for future meetings.
Ending: Supervisors said they had heard the concerns and would continue to receive documents and testimony; several citizens indicated they plan to follow up with formal requests for more detailed water and traffic studies.
