Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 15, 1993 TAG: 9309150251
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOEL TURNER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The supervisors voted to rezone about 2,300 acres along the 27-mile segment of the parkway in the county for agricultural-residential use, a low-density zoning that allows 1.75 housing units per acre.
That was a partial victory for parkway supporters, because the Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association wanted the board to rezone 450 parcels for residential development that would have allowed six housing units per acre.
Rick Whitney, a spokesman for the home builders, said the board was overreacting to the parkway controversy by rezoning so many parcels that were not identified as critical or sensitive by a parkway review committee.
While rejecting the builders' plea, the board also angered many people in the crowd of 200 with its decision on the two most controversial cases in the parkway battle.
On a 3-2 vote, it decided to give county officials more time to try to negotiate a settlement with Len Boone on the rezoning of property he wants to develop near the parkway. Boone filed suit against the county in January in an effort to get residential zoning for the land.
Many county residents and parkway supporters opposed Boone's request for the residential zoning, which would allow higher-density development.
Supervisors Chairman Fuzzy Minnix and Supervisor Lee Eddy said they, too, believe agricultural-residential zoning would be a good compromise on the Boone property.
But County Administrator Elmer Hodge said Boone has recently offered to settle his suit, but more negotiations are needed on conditions to protect the parkway and nearby residents.
Supervisor Bob Johnson predicted the county will lose the legal battle if the case goes to court. The county could be left without any protection for the parkway from Boone's development, he said.
The board agreed to accept an offer by Strauss Construction Co. to settle the lawsuit in which it sought residential zoning for land it plans to develop near the parkway. The board approved the residential zoning for the property, but Strauss agreed to several conditions, including a maximum density of 2.5 housing units per acre. Strauss could have built six units per acre if the board had approved it without conditions.
Hodge said Strauss' offer had merit because there is little impact on the parkway, the property has road frontage on Cotton Hill Road, and Strauss will install his own water and sewer lines.
But nearby residents oppose the proposed settlement and will seek a court order to try to block it.
Ginny Davis Owen, a spokeswoman for Citizens for Responsible Rural Growth, said the residents believe the density of 2.5 housing units per acre is too high.
Brad McGraw, an attorney for the group, said he has filed a petition to intervene in the lawsuit because the residents are being denied the opportunity to participate in the zoning process.
McGraw said more than 500 signatures have been collected on a petition opposing any zoning that would provide a higher density than agricultural-residential.
Tuesday night's decision did not deal with 11 areas that have been identified as "critical viewsheds" to protect the parkway scenery and rural environment. Most of these are zoned for agricultural use and will retain that zoning unless the board decides later to change them.
Several speakers at Tuesday night's hearing said the parkway is a valuable resource for the Roanoke Valley and Western Virginia that must be protected. They said high-density development near the highway would spoil its beauty and scenery.
Former Rep. James Olin, D-Roanoke, urged the board to protect the parkway's rural environment. Olin said he has enjoyed the parkway for 40 years, having first seen it on a vacation before he moved to Roanoke.
Johnson said the protection of the parkway's scenery and vistas is a federal issue that needs to be addressed by the federal government. The issue is much broader than Roanoke County, he said.
If the federal government wants to protect the parkway, he said, it should be more aggressive in acquiring property and taking other steps for protection.
Johnson proposed that the county ask the appropriate federal agency to hold a public hearing on the view-protection problem facing the entire parkway in Virginia and North Carolina.
He said the controversy over the Boone and Strauss rezonings has been clouded by misinformation and inaccuracies.
Supervisor Harry Nickens said the county's challenge is to protect the parkway while allowing reasonable growth. Nickens said he hopes Roanoke County will cause other localities in Virginia and North Carolina to get involved in protecting the parkway.
by CNB