Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, September 16, 1993 TAG: 9309160110
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: CATHRYN McCUE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
\ Roanoke County got kudos from a Blue Ridge Parkway official Wednesday for having the "courage" to limit development in some areas along the world-famous scenic highway.
"It took a tremendous amount of foresight, more than we had hoped. We think it's a magnificent move," said Jim Ryan, chief planner for the parkway in the Asheville, N.C., headquarters.
Many of the 29 counties that border the parkway, which runs 470 miles through Virginia and North Carolina, are watching to see how Roanoke County's pioneering efforts turn out, Ryan said.
Meanwhile, back at home, the county is being sued by two developers, facing a third possible lawsuit by a citizens' group, and can't seem to please anyone.
"We tried to compromise, tried to do the right thing. No matter what we do, we lose," Supervisor Bob Johnson said.
He went on to blast the National Park Service for not doing more to preserve the pastoral views along the parkway, which he characterized as a federal issue.
"We're being taken to the cleaners. We're the bad guys," Johnson said.
The county has been grappling with the issue for almost a year, prodded largely by developer Len Boone's proposal to build a subdivision on the Beasley Farm, a large tract near Cotton Hill Road. The farm offers one of the few remaining open, rural vistas along the parkway's 27-mile journey through the county.
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors rezoned 2,300 acres in four areas to curtail growth along the parkway. Although much of that land can't be seen from the parkway, or is off in the distance, it will act as a buffer for more critical views, Ryan said.
But the future of those critical "viewsheds," and the Beasley Farm, is still uncertain.
Here's a quick look at how the controversy has shaped up.
December 1992: As part of its countywide zoning update, the board rezoned hundreds of acres to permit more residential development, but reserved four large tracts near the parkway as agricultural, at the urgent request of the National Park Service.
Prior to the rezoning, the four tracts had been zoned for up to six houses per acre. The temporary agricultural zoning allowed one house per 1.5 acre.
Also that month, Boone unveiled plans to develop the Beasley Farm, which was included in the new agricultural zone.
And finally, the county appointed a committee of builders, parkway officials and conservationists to identify critical views and reach consensus on development along the parkway.
In January, the county was slapped with lawsuits from Boone and another developer, who wants to build homes on the 80-acre Sigmon farm, also near Cotton Hill Road. Residents in that area organized in protest against the proposed developments.
By July, the study committee had identified 11 areas that were critical views. Two of these are on the Beasley Farm.
The committee recommended limiting development in these areas to one house per three acres. It also recommended establishing an overlay district that would include setback, placement, height and other development standards.
In August, the county moved to limit the density of the Beasley Farm and other parkway lands.
On Tuesday, the board voted to allow up to 1.75 homes per acre on 2,300 acres - part of the four large tracts that had been temporarily zoned.
The board also decided to delay any action on the Beasley Farm and the 11 critical areas.
Finally, the board approved a negotiated deal with Strauss Construction Co., developer of the Sigmon property, to build a maximum of 2.5 homes per acre. Opponents are trying to stop the deal in court, and have a hearing scheduled for this afternoon.
The compromise between Strauss and the county "established a precedent" for doubling the density on the 2,300 acres from the temporary zoning, Johnson said. Zoning changes are partly based on existing zoning of adjacent property.
Asked whether the move set a precedent in the county's dealings with Boone, Johnson declined comment, saying the matter is in court.
The supervisors have not voted on the low-density zoning for the 11 "viewsheds," recommended by the committee and the Planning Commission, County Planner Janet Scheid said Wednesday.
And the study committee still is working on development standards for the those areas, she said.
\ "Whether we come out of this with a shining example that we can hold up as a prototype . . . or whether it's an example of something gone awry, the jury's still out," said Jim Fox, land resource specialist with the parkway.
With 4,000 private landowners along its route, development is to some degree creeping toward the entire parkway. "This probably is the hottest of the hot spots," Fox said.
Many of the parkway's counties have zoning or land-use planning, but it is often not sufficient to staunch suburban sprawl.
The continuing clash of private property interests versus public interest in the national landmark recently spurred Wayne Strickland to act. The executive director of the Fifth Planning District Commission sent letters to 10 other regional planning agencies up and down the parkway, to see if they would be interested in taking a multi-regional approach to the issue.
Seven groups have agreed, Strickland said. He hopes an initial meeting will take place within two months. One result, he said, could be a model ordinance that localities could use in whole or part to institute local land-use controls.
On the national front, Rep. Bruce Vento, R-Minn., plans to introduce a bill this year that would provide grants to local governments and other organizations to find that delicate balance between private and public interests on lands surrounding national parks.
"Too many localities have pretended like the parks didn't exist," said Bill Chandler, director of conservation for the National Parks and Conservation Association, a parks watchdog group.
He pointed out places like Gettysburg, Penn., and Gatlinburg, Tenn., where commercial and other development obscure the natural environment of the parks.
\ Supervisor Johnson has said that if the National Park Service wants to protect the Blue Ridge Parkway scenery so badly, why doesn't it buy the Beasley Farm and other property.
"It's dollars," said the parkway's landscape architect, Robert Hope.
The agency's Land Protection Plan lists about 350 parcels along the parkway it wants to buy or to which it wants to acquire some kind of conservation easement. The Beasley Farm will be added by the end of the year, Hope said.
"That doesn't provide any money," he noted. The farm will have to jostle with the other parcels for priority, and parkway officials will have to jostle with their colleagues in roughly 350 units of the National Park System - like Yellowstone and Yosemite - for limited money.
On average, the parkway spent about $100,000 annually over the past several years on buying land, the bulk of it in Virginia.
Each purchase requires a willing seller and congressional approval, as well. The agency hasn't exercised its power of eminent domain along the parkway for almost two decades, preferring to either negotiate with landowners to buy the land or acquire an easement.
The irony, however, is that developers are drawn to the parkway corridor for the same reason more than 20 million people drive along it each year - the rural beauty.
"It's going to be a tough issue, I think, for quite some time," Hope said.
Memo: shorter version ran in the Metro edition.