Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, May 1, 1995 TAG: 9505010005
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN CASEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Ever since she was a child, Sheila Stover has had trouble with the sun.
There were sunburns, blistery sun poisonings and sunstroke. Finally, the fair-skinned grandmother developed skin cancer. Thanks to surgery, prayer and an all-natural diet, she's beaten that as well, she says. At least so far.
Stover also is extremely sensitive to chemicals. Perfumes make her choke; chemical fumes make her ill. The wrong additive in a bottle of juice can leave her bedridden for days at a time. Unless it's distilled, water causes her joints to ache.
So when she and her husband, Bernard, looked for a home in 1989, they thought they'd found the dream setting: 10 acres of fresh air in southern Botetourt County nestled in a bucolic glen near the Carvins Cove dam.
On the edge of the mostly grassy acreage was a long, thick stand of trees. The oaks, sycamores, maples and poplars towered over trickling Carvins Creek and an adjacent trail, creating a near impenetrable umbrella of shade.
Stover left her small house and walked in those shadows, drinking in the sweet air, her knees brushing against wildflowers and ferns. There, she was safe from chemicals that could leave her gasping - and from the sun and the dreaded cancer it might bring back.
"It was totally shaded. There was no sun in here. I walked this five days a week," she said.
Until two years ago.
Late in 1992, the city of Roanoke told the Stovers it needed some of their land to install a new waterline from Carvins Cove. The lines are part of a multimillion-dollar water system upgrade that will ensure adequate water supplies for the city for years to come.
After being threatened with condemnation, the Stovers said, they sold the city an easement in May 1993 to install a waterline across 0.7 acre. The price was $1,750.
About two weeks later, the work began. The contractors buzzed down dozens of trees, cutting a broad swath along the Stovers' property. The city installed a 3-foot-wide waterline from the dam.
To the Stovers' surprise, contractors also built a broad gravel road parallel to the buried pipeline, running from the dam and a nearby pumping station. Because of the clearing, much of the shade that Sheila Stover treasured was gone.
"I cried every time I came down here," she said.
Last September, she heard buzz saws again. More trees - about 40, Stover says - came down before she chased the tree cutters off. The land they were cutting on wasn't part of the right of way.
"I said, 'What are you doing? Why are these trees being cut?' They said, 'Well, Apco hired us to clear trees for a power line.'"
This time, the Stovers found out, the city had asked Appalachian Power Co. to install a commercial power line to the dam.
The tree cutters left last fall - after they and the city realized that the additional trees indeed were on the Stovers' land but not on the easement. But last month, the city condemned more of the Stovers' property for the power line, and the Stovers expect the saws to be back any day. More trees, marked with red paint, will have to come down for the power line.
In response, the Stovers have filed a $471,000 lawsuit in Botetourt County Circuit Court against the city, Apco and subcontractor Trees Inc.
"I'm angry about what they've done and that basically, they feel they're above the law," Sheila Stover said. "We've been threatened; we've been abused; we've been deceived. At some point, it's just got to stop."
Apco spokeswoman Victoria Ratcliff declined to comment on the complaint. The utility never discusses pending litigation, she said.
Most of the allegations in the strongly worded lawsuit, however, relate to the city. The lawsuit claims city officials intentionally lied to and defrauded the Stovers. The lawsuit also alleges that the city tried to trick the Stovers into selling the property by misrepresenting papers it asked the couple to sign.
The Stovers claim in court papers that the city had no right to build the road and that officials knew from the beginning that they'd have to put a power line through the Stovers' property, but intentionally concealed it from them.
City Attorney Wilburn Dibling declined to discuss specifics.
The city filed its response to the Stovers' lawsuit in Botetourt County Circuit Court on Friday. It denies city officials lied to the couple or in any way misrepresented what would go in the waterline easement.
The response admits a document the city asked the Stovers to sign contained language indicating that they were selling the land, rather than granting an easement. That was an "oversight" that was corrected at the Stovers' request, the city's response notes. And it denies that officials knew when they were negotiating the waterline easement that they'd eventually have to erect a commercial power line through the property.
The case has not been scheduled for trial.
In letters to the Stovers, the city twice promised to protect the property. One was sent before the Stovers granted the waterline easement. The other came shortly afterward.
In the first letter, dated September 1992, a right-of-way agent noted that the city requires its contractors to return land to "as good or better condition than it was originally." In the second, sent in May 1993, he wrote: "We will request that the contractor make every effort to avoid, preserve and protect as many trees as possible."
In addition, the waterline easement the Stovers granted the city never mentions construction of a gravel road. Rather, the easement says the land is needed for "the purpose of constructing, installing, and thereafter maintaining, operating, relaying and, if necessary, replacing a public water pipeline facility with all the necessary appurtenances."
Finally, the city's own file contains an engineer's drawing of the needed electrical easement. It is dated March 15, 1993 - seven weeks before the Stovers sold the waterline easement to the city. It appears to show that the city planned to install electricity seven weeks before it bought the easement for the waterline from the couple.
"It's inconceivable to me that [the city] would plan a major project, needing electricity to the dam, laying waterlines, and so forth, without knowing the extent of the project way in advance," Dirk Padgett, the Stovers' attorney, said. "They had to know about it.
"As in many disputes between neighbors, both sides have made some mistakes," Dibling said.
by CNB