Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Corridors topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge planning commission not to adopt preferred transmission corridors
Summary
Dozens of Buckingham County residents told the planning commission the proposed comprehensive-plan amendment that designates ‘preferred’ transmission corridors would pre-empt landowner protections, harm historic sites and farmland, and should be deferred for study.
Dozens of residents told the Buckingham County Planning Commission on July 28 that a proposed amendment to designate preferred transmission corridors would invite utility projects and strip landowners of protections. Amy Crawford, who described missing or improperly formatted pages in the staff options matrix, said the county should “defer the amendment entirely” and use studies and surveys to identify what to protect rather than rushing a policy change.
Speakers across the county raised overlapping concerns about historic preservation, farmland loss, and inadequate notice. Betty Tyson, owner of the Snowden property, said Smithsonian and Monticello had evaluated portions of her land and warned that corridors would threaten sites from the Peter Jefferson period. “This is a threat to the history of our county and to our national history,” Tyson said. Residents citing the James River corridor and century‑old farms urged the commission to keep the comp plan’s protections and to remove any ranking that would mark certain places as preferred for future transmission lines.
Speakers also highlighted legal and practical consequences. Heidi Divya Bertu said conservation easements must match the county plan when signed, so naming a preferred corridor could block landowners from using easements to prevent lines on their land: “A conservation easement is the strongest, most permanent protection a landowner has against a future line. This amendment would take that tool away.” Frank Howe disputed claims that undergrounding was “impossible,” calling burial a cost choice and urging the county to insist on buried cables rather than overhead towers that would “desecrate” the landscape.
Commissioners heard repeated calls to remove the county’s proposed “preferred 0.25” corridors and instead strengthen the list of places to protect. Several speakers urged tabling the amendment until the route for the nearby 765 kV proposal is announced in September and recommended forming a task force to advise the commission. The public-comment period closed after a long series of voices representing farms, historic properties, conservation interests and residents who said they had not been notified directly of the proposal.
