ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, May 29, 1996 TAG: 9605290108
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
DATELINE: BLACKSBURG
SOURCE: ELISSA MILENKY STAFF WRITER
The Smart Road Citizens Advisory Committee voted 6-2 last week to declare that the highway project might have an unreasonably adverse effect on state or local policy concerning agricultural and forestal districts.
The resolution is in response to the upcoming vote before the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors on the Virginia Department of Transportation's request to take about 140 acres out of such a protected district to build the "smart" road.
If the supervisors decide at their June 10 meeting that the road project might have a negative effect on state or local policy, VDOT will be ordered not to take any action during a 60-day period, during which a public hearing would be held.
The 13-member citizens advisory committee, which began meeting in January 1995, was created by VDOT to advise the agency on design issues, said VDOT resident engineer Dan Brugh.
Now part of the committee is lashing out against its creator.
Committee Chairman Bill Richardson said a Board of Supervisors public hearing is needed because the issue is potentially precedent-setting and controversial. VDOT's response to most of the 92 questions from the county regarding the road's impact were unsatisfactory and slanted to sell the road to the supervisors, he said.
Brugh said the road will not have an adverse effect on state or local policy and does not see a need for another public hearing. He also believes VDOT answered the questions accurately and objectively.
Richardson, who was especially critical of answers regarding the road's environmental impact, said there also should be a 60-day extension because Mary Biggs, the newly elected supervisor, was not on the board during the last review of VDOT's request, including a November public hearing.
The advisory committee's resolution has been passed on to the county.
"[The supervisors] said last fall that 'Yes, it might have an adverse effect,'" Richardson said. "How can they turn around and say 'No it won't have an adverse affect?'"
In November, the Board of Supervisors voted 4-3 against VDOT's request to take the land out of the protected district. But a week later the board rescinded that vote to obtain more information about the road project.
Brugh said the group was not formed to make policy decisions. The committee's latest resolution was beyond its purview, Brugh said, though he made no attempt to stop the action.
Michael Hadbavny, one of two advisory committee members who voted against the action, agreed with Brugh.
"I frankly feel that to make a resolution like that to the Board of Supervisors, of which we have no obligation to serve, is in essence the committee being self-serving," said Hadbavny, a smart road supporter.
Richardson said after a year of meetings the committee is well informed and should play a role in the county's upcoming vote. The committee has made numerous resolutions since its inception regarding environmental and design issues, many of which Richardson said have been ignored by VDOT - a charge Brugh disputes.
"This is our first opportunity to actually give someone input about the road that might take us seriously," Richardson said, adding "it's a role we're qualified to play."
LENGTH: Medium: 64 linesby CNB