ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, May 21, 1996 TAG: 9605210085
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MATT CHITTUM STAFF WRITER
THE BOTETOURT CENTER at Greenfield will have room for the largest industry site in the Roanoke Valley. And even its naysayers are preparing for its arrival.
When Mary Craghead Blount died Oct. 7, 1994, she changed forever the character of the northern reaches of the Amsterdam area of Botetourt County.
Blount owned a massive spread of farmland along U.S. 220 known as Greenfield. Though some county residents wanted the 922 acres of rich, green earth to remain a farm, Blount's will directed that it be sold.
That the land would be developed seemed a given, though just how depended on who ended up with it. Several developers, including A.R. Overbay, who is building a 300-home golf course development just across the street from Greenfield, inquired about it.
But last July, after a unanimous vote by the Board of Supervisors, Botetourt County laid down $4,563,900 for the land.
Today at 4 p.m. in the Old District Courthouse in Fincastle, the supervisors very likely will approve the rezoning of about 750 acres of the farm, clearing the way for a multiuse park unlike anything else in this end of the state.
Botetourt Center at Greenfield will feature a recreation area, an elementary school, greenways, natureways, a 100-acre office park, and, perhaps most significantly, more than 500 acres for light industrial use. That's the largest single industrial park in the Roanoke Valley, larger even than the 440-acre Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology on U.S. 460.
The vote comes after a year of study by County Administrator Jerry Burgess and his staff, along with a citizens committee appointed by the supervisors to oversee historical and environmental preservation.
The result, so far, is a 2-inch thick rezoning request bulging with environmental, groundwater, traffic and historical studies requested by the citizens panel and other residents, as well as 20 pages of "protective covenants" that will restrict builders on everything from the height of their buildings to the plants on their lawns.
"This is about as democratic as it gets," Burgess said of the public influence on the request.
"I think it's something that even the people opposed to it will be proud of," said Supervisors Chairman Bill Loope, of the Valley District.
The project has had no shortage of skeptics. Many objected to "leapfrogging" the kind of industrial development common in the southern part of the county north into a more rural section. But most now seem resigned to the idea that the county will have its way with the farm.
"I don't think we can stop it, but we want to make this as good as it can be," said Bob Bagnoli, co-chairman of Citizens for Responsible Land Use in Botetourt County, which formed to oppose the Greenfield project.
Bagnoli and others are now focusing on the development that probably will spring up along U.S. 220 between Daleville and Greenfield. "We want to control the development, and not let it control us," Bagnoli said.
The likely approval of the Greenfield project comes as the county and the valley are beginning to run short of available land for new industry. Botetourt County's EastPark Commerce Center has one more expansion site available. The county's Vista Corporate Park has two sites. R.R. Donnelley & Sons will occupy the remainder of Roanoke County's Valley TechPark.
Beth Doughty, executive director of the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership, says that land shortage gives Greenfield regional importance.
"It benefits everybody," she said, because industries don't just recruit in Botetourt County; they cover a 60-mile radius.
Bagnoli said that begs the question of whether more industry is desirable or necessary, since Botetourt County is in such sound fiscal shape.
"Industry needs more places to build, but the county doesn't need more industry," he said.
Over the past three years, more than 15 new industries have located in Botetourt County. The county is clearly friendly to more coming. County Administrator Burgess says having them locate in a county-owned park gives the county leverage to govern the development. Not just any industry is desirable.
Hence, the many protective covenants. Strict regulations on buildings, noise, parking, landscaping - the list goes on - will discourage loud, dirty industries from locating in Greenfield.
Burgess said the covenants were modeled on those of other successful parks, such as the Innsbruck business park in Richmond and Corporate Landing in Norfolk.
No buildings can be more than 45 feet high, with all equipment on top of buildings to be shielded from view, for example. All above-ground equipment, such as transformers, trash containers and bailers, must be located behind buildings when possible and shielded from view of any roads, adjoining lots, greenways or lakes or ponds.
No more than 40 percent of any lot can be occupied by a building. At least 30 percent of a lot must remain free from buildings and asphalt.
Businesses have to install a landscaped traffic island every 15 angled parking spaces, or every eight parallel spaces.
The covenants are fairly comprehensive, with an emphasis on preserving greenspaces. That extends to property that won't be developed, such as the 38 acres of greenways that run along the creeks on the property for about 41/2 miles, and a natureway, which is like a greenway, except that it is left untouched to preserve the natural habitat of native plants and animals. The park is also bordered almost completely by a 100-foot-wide conservation easement to hide the development from neighbors.
Several historical sites - such as cemeteries, the original Greenfield farmhouse and places of archeological importance - also will be protected.
That sits well with Gwen Johnson, chairwoman of the Botetourt chapter of the Valley Conservation Council and member of the Greenfield citizens committee.
"The best thing would be that it be left as a farm, but that was not going to be," she said. If the land has to be developed, the county's plan is a good one, in her view.
She said she's proud to have had input on the project, though she's not sure how much power the committee actually had. She thinks the committee was formed in part to calm angry residents.
"I think we kept the county honest," she said. "We probably brought [the plans] to a little bit higher standard."
For Bagnoli's group, the standards still are not high enough. The conservation easement, he said, is not wide enough to really hide the industry from view. And the traffic impact on the junction of Interstate 81 at U.S. 220 has not been fully explored.
"All the people I talk to are angry about it," he said. "It's a short-term gain for a long-term loss. ... What we will gain from Greenfield is more money. Any time you get more money, you've traded something for it."
If Greenfield's critics were in a battle to keep industry in the southern part of the county, Bagnoli said, it may be time to concede they've lost the land along 220 north to Greenfield. The key now, he said, is to control the terms of surrender, to ensure that development north of Daleville lives up to the standards set by Greenfield.
"Greenfield has a sign ordinance," he said. "Botetourt County doesn't."
Johnson agrees. Right now, she said, there is nothing to protect that area from becoming one long strip mall.
"Botetourt County cannot afford to be swallowed up by Roanoke," she said. "And it's going to take the citizens to tell the Board of Supervisors not to let it happen." Architectural, landscaping and sign standards need to be put in place now, "because the development is going to come hard and fast."
According to County Administrator Burgess, county officials feel the same way. He said the planning commission already is developing a new zoning ordinance and subdivision controls.
"I believe the county should, very soon, strengthen our controls on development," he said.
LENGTH: Long : 137 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: Map. color.by CNB