Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, October 10, 1994 TAG: 9410100006
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAN VERTEFEUILLE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
If the Roanoke Valley has a soul, a spirit, it lives within the mountains that surround us.
Whether or not they possess a piece of the real estate, valley residents feel a sense of communal ownership of their landscape.
So what say should the public have when those mountains are developed?
Roanoke Mayor David Bowers suggested to Roanoke County supervisors that city residents have a stake in the mountains, and he hopes the county takes steps to protect the views.
"Our citizens don't have any direct control of the ridgetops, but the citizens of the city are very interested in them," Bowers said. "We don't want our mountains marred by unsightly development. I'd rather have a high-rise built in downtown Roanoke than built on a mountainside."
Conservation easements, restrictions on building above a certain elevation, density regulations and open-space tax breaks are some of the methods other communities have employed to keep their viewsheds scenic.
But public sentiment about the landscape can conflict with the desires of the people who hold the deeds on that land. Any restrictions on development could affect property values, and while county supervisors tepidly endorse studying ridgeline protection, they are hesitant to tamper with property rights.
"I'm in favor of giving it serious study," said Lee Eddy, chairman of the Board of Supervisors. "We need to approach it carefully. It could in a sense restrict the way landowners can use their property."
Added Supervisor Fuzzy Minnix: "We just can't go around jerking land away from people for the good of all the world without compensation."
Under the state Land Use Assessment Program, counties can adopt ordinances that let them give tax breaks to landowners who commit to keeping their ridgelines and mountain land as "open space," said Dick Gibbons, environmental program manager at the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Landowners are not prevented from selling or developing their land.
It's the same program that offers tax breaks on agricultural land to farmers, allowing them to pay taxes on a fraction of what the land's market value might be. This use-value tax break is the only way many farmers can afford to stay in business as market pressures drive up the value of their land.
"Property considered open space would have to be identified in the comprehensive plan; for example, `all the ridgetops viewed from the city of Roanoke are important open space,''' Gibbons said.
"That's magnanimous of the state," Supervisor Harry Nickens said. "It doesn't cost them anything - it only costs local governments."
But he said he's "amenable" to such a tax break, as long as there's a clause that requires landowners to pay back taxes should they sell their mountainside land for development while they are in the program.
Nickens supports voluntary compliance by landowners.
"The reason this area is so attractive is the scenery," he said. "If developers destroy that, the market value's going to dry up. I'm looking for a symbiotic relationship."
Minnix said he would favor tax breaks for landowners who put their property in an open-space program because it would provide compensation to property owners who agreed to restrict the uses of their land.
It also would reduce the tax collected on that property.
Supervisor Bob Johnson said he supports ridgeline protection but wonders if residents are willing to pay the price. Besides, the topography of the mountains is a natural obstacle in the way of some building, he said.
Construction that citizens dislike often has to occur before public support jells for such ordinances. So far in Roanoke County, there have been grumblings about a few apartment and condo developments on ridges, but much development on the mountains has been scattered and small-scale.
In North Carolina, a stark, concrete condominium development known as "the sugar cube on top of Sugar Mountain" was the catalyst for protection of the western Carolina mountains through a state law passed in 1983.
"If you think Virginia has sentiments of strong private-property rights, you ain't seen nothing till you come to North Carolina," said Vera Guise, executive director of Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Nevertheless, North Carolina counties supported the law that restricts buildings more than 40 feet high on the crest of ridges, requires sediment control and gives local governing bodies power to determine if the construction protects "the natural beauty of the mountains."
Roanoke County Planning Director Terry Harrington said the county needs to look at the major ridgelines-Green Ridge, Read Mountain, 12 O'Clock Knob and others-that define the valley. "It's kind of the logical extension of some of the resource protection programs we've been working on."
But earlier this year, supervisors refused to authorize Harrington to apply for a $15,000 state grant that the county would have used for public education on ridgeline and tree preservation in subdivisions. If they had gotten the grant, planners were going to spend a year on a public-education campaign; in the second year, they would have developed guidelines to protect trees during development.
The grant authorization was killed in the cross fire of supervisors' bickering over another issue, so the Planning Department will have to wait another year to try again.
County Administrator Elmer Hodge said the county attorney is studying how the county could protect ridgelines as part of a possible Blue Ridge Parkway overlay district.
"I think ridgeline protection is important from a number of standpoints," Hodge said. The higher up development is, the more problems it can have with drainage, and roads are harder to build on slopes.
As for any action being taken, Hodge said, "It's safer to say we aren't really looking at anything right now."
Supervisor Ed Kohinke, who owns ridgeline property in Catawba, said he wants to see a specific proposal before commenting, but "I'm always leery of ideas that lead to adding more layers of restrictions to property."
Here's a look at what other communities have done to protect their mountains:
Boulder, Colo.: Boulder, at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, has a "blue line" ordinance that prohibits public water and sewer from being extended above a certain elevation. A height restriction forbids buildings - commercial and residential - from being taller than 35 feet anywhere in the city, although they can rise up to 50 feet if they're approved after a review. Hillside development guidelines are even stricter.
Residents also approved an open-space program that dedicates part of the city's sales tax to buying up land around the perimeter of the city and up the hillsides "so it's not cluttered with suburbs," city planner Andrea Mimnaugh said. Parks and trails are some of the uses of this open space.
Clarke County, Va.: Outcry from property owners forced the county to drop some proposed restrictions on mountainside development last year. Only the least restrictive aspects - erosion and sediment control and timber-cutting regulations - were put into effect.
Clarke County sees more development on its mountainsides than it does in the valley, but its "unique zoning" helps limit the density, natural resource planner Alison Teetor said. The county uses sliding-scale zoning that metes out "development rights" that determine how many houses can be built on a parcel. The number of development rights granted depends on the size of the parcel; a 100-acre mountainside parcel, for instance, would get four development rights, for four homes. Teetor said the development rights are used for all areas of the county, not just the mountains.
Clarke's comprehensive plan also has stream setbacks on the mountain, requiring houses to be set back at least 100 feet from year-round streams and 50 feet from wet-weather streams.
Asheville, N.C.: The city has a hillside area development section in its zoning ordinance, which calls the hills and mountains "a significant natural topographic feature of the community [that] creates a desirable setting, visible to the entire city."
The ordinance encourages innovative site and architectural design that's in harmony with the character of the area; retention of trees and other vegetation throughout sites; road designs that follow the natural topography; and preservation of predominant views, "in order to retain the sense of identity and imagery that the hills and mountains now impart to the city of Asheville."
The city also has larger lot-size requirements for houses built on slopes of more than 40 percent.
Memo: ***CORRECTION***