Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, September 17, 1993 TAG: 9309290317
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
It could have - and should have - demonstrated such commitment more strongly, though. There were two major exceptions to the rezoning: two properties currently targeted for residential development. One of these the board rezoned high-density residential, the other it delayed acting on while the county staff and the developer continue to try to work out a mutually acceptable land-use plan.
The former, the Sigmon property, is not visible from the parkway. As Supervisor Bob Johnson correctly pointed out, arguments against high-density zoning for this land are misleading when they are linked to concerns for maintaining the scenic road's attractiveness. Whatever interests nearby residents have in limiting development there, fear of spoiling the parkway view is not one of them.
Unless, of course, dense development on the Sigmon property is used to bolster an argument for high-density residential zoning for the other parcel, the Beasley property, which is very visible from the road.
The county continues talking with developer Len Boone, trying to find a way to keep houses off one small part of this land, an area known as "the bowl and the knoll," which has been identified as one of 11 "critical views" along the county's leg of the parkway.
Boone would be willing to accept low-density zoning for this section (leaving it undeveloped only if some parkway angel buys it from him), but is pressing for high-density residential zoning on the rest of the acreage.
Land outside the bowl and knoll is visible from the parkway, however, and the board would have acted with reasonable concern for preserving an invaluable asset had it followed Supervisor Lee Eddy's lead when he called for low-density residential as the appropriate zoning. Only Board Chairman Fuzzy Minnix voted with him.
The issue is a complex one, though. Such action by the board might have prompted Boone to quit talking, withdraw the concessions he has made and press his lawsuit seeking high-density residential zoning for the entire property - bowl, knoll and all. As Johnson pointed out, there is risk along that route.
In any case, it's worth emphasizing that this is but one skirmish. The debate before the county isn't just about the fate of this particular property. It shouldn't be about not-in-my-back-yard protests disingenuously recast as a save-the-parkway campaign; or about density in general, in an already urbanized county. This is about protecting a unique attraction - not just for recreation but for economic development.
In broader terms, the very messiness of this situation illustrates how lacking communities are in the tools and resources they need to guide their growth and control their future.
Johnson was right, again, in citing the need for a wider effort to preserve the scenic integrity of the parkway, which crosses many localities in its winding path through Virginia and North Carolina.
Not just Roanoke County but all the localities favored with this beautiful asset have a responsibility for its stewardship, and should work together to protect it. If they do, they're likely to find they need help from Richmond to give them the tools necessary for proper planning.
They'll need aggressive leadership from the National Park Service in identifying the parkway's needs. And they will need federal support to preserve one of the nation's most popular national parks. None of these will be easy to get.
Is the parkway worth the effort? More than 23 million people visit it each year. Twenty-three million people can't be wrong.
by CNB