Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 14, 1994 TAG: 9409140081
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CATHRYN McCUE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The county would be the first of seven localities to adopt some or all of a proposed "conservation overlay district" that would restrict certain land uses along the river, from its headwaters in Montgomery County 80 miles to Smith Mountain Lake.
The Board of Supervisors, after a one-hour work session that included slides of bucolic river scenes, illegal dumps and industrial runoff, scheduled an Oct. 27 public hearing, with probable adoption of the new district.
The Planning Commission and its staff have recommend adoption, and few citizens turned out for meetings this summer.
The proposal includes setbacks from the river or flood plain for new construction, vegetative buffers, erosion and sediment controls, and agricultural buffers. Mining, landfills, auto shops, scrap and salvage services and underground storage tanks would not be allowed.
The rules would not affect existing uses, Planning Director Terry Harrington said. The conservation measures would be required only for future development.
The overlay district was developed last year after years of study and meetings of the four counties, two cities and one town through which the upper Roanoke River flows. The other six communities are in varying stages of review.
"We are really kind of out in front of the pack, so to speak," said Assistant Planning Director John Hartley.
In each locality, the draft probably will undergo the scrutiny of the planning commission and the ruling body - city council or county board of supervisors - as well as the public. That all takes time.
"Maybe we're behind Roanoke County," but the city has had many other issues to work on, said Roanoke's planning director, John Marlles. His commission has scheduled a workshop for Thursday.
Montgomery County's Planning Commission probably will look at the draft this fall, Planning Director Joe Powers said. It's bound to stir controversy in the county, home of the river's headwaters. About 44 miles of river run through mostly farms and forests.
An open-space plan for the county that included strictly voluntary measures was defeated last year after landowners resisted what they saw as government meddling in their land use.
Salem Planning Director Joseph Yates went over the plan with his planning commissioners and will prepare a staff report later this year, he said. Most of the land along the city's 6.2-mile stretch of river already is developed.
"Adopting it as is ... probably will have little or no effect on the city," Yates said.
Franklin and Bedford counties and Vinton are updating their comprehensive plans, which they hope to wrap up this fall.
"What we're trying to do is finish up this and get on with that," Vinton Planning Director David Holladay said. The town Planning Commission is "all enthusiastic" about the idea, he said, and likely will follow Roanoke County's lead.
Franklin County also supports the plan, Planning Director Tim Krawczel said.
At Tuesday's work session, none of the Roanoke County supervisors appeared opposed to the plan. Supervisor Bob Johnson asked whether some of the regulations could be considered a "taking" for which the county would have to reimburse property owners.
By requiring farmers to keep their riverfront land in hay or pasture, "you've taken [a farmer's] ability to make a living," he said.
Hartley replied that the county attorney would review that issue.
A so-called takings movement has grown in Virginia and the country over the last couple years, fueled by property owners and natural resource industries that see many environmental regulations as infringing on their rights and land value.
In an interview earlier in the day, Montgomery County farmer James Clouse echoed some of those concerns. Once a year, he said, the North Fork of the Roanoke River floods, widening from 30 feet to 500 feet sometimes.
"That's some of the best ag land in the county. What use can be made of this land" if an ordinance allows him to grow only grass, and not productive row crops.
Clouse also wondered who would pay for the fencing if he's required to keep his beef cattle out of the stream, and who pays for it when the river rises and washes it away.
"These are a couple of very critical issues for those of us who live along the river and for farmers in general," Clouse said.
Indeed, the takings controversy could "crop up" as each locality considers its version of a Roanoke River conservation overlay, said Helen Smythers, a planner with the Fifth Planning District Commission.
"It's time for them to see if their public will agree with what we've done," said Smythers, who has worked on the proposal from the start. She said one shortcoming is that the plan covers only the river, but not the many miles of streams and creeks that flow into it.
"Everything that happens on every piece of land is important," Smythers said.
by CNB