ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, June 4, 1996 TAG: 9606040050
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO GENE DALTON/STAFF.
DATELINE: ELLETT
SOURCE: ELISSA MILENKY STAFF WRITER
MEMO: ***CORRECTION***
Published correction ran on June 7, 1996.
John Lipsey was misidentified in a photo that accompanied a Tuesday
story about the land involved in the "smart" road controversy in
Montgomery County.
A MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUPERVISOR says the "smart" road would destroy the area's historical value, including a Confederate cemetery.
The hayfields, pasture and forest lands on John Lipsey's Ellett Valley farm come alive if you sit perfectly still.
The sounds of songbirds, crows and woodpeckers fill the air. Squirrels scamper down the tree you're sitting under. Deer run by.
"You just don't realize when you walk through the woods of our property what is really going on there unless you sit and wait," he said.
To ensure that this land remains intact, Lipsey placed his 505 acres into a county conservation zone - called an agricultural and forestal district - more than a decade ago. Now the retired physician worries he will be watching and listening to cars speeding across the "smart" road, which would cut a 65-acre swath through his farm.
Lipsey is one of three property owners who own land in a conservation district that falls within the path of the proposed road project, an approximately six-mile link between Blacksburg and Interstate 81 that is being promoted as a proving ground for transportation research.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has a request before the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors to take about 140 acres out of the district to build part of the first two miles of the road.
The board, after getting recommendations from several county committees, will decide June 10 whether to grant, deny or delay the request based on two main issues: the road's effect on the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry within the conservation district; and the necessity of the proposed smart road to provide services to the public in the most economical and practical manner.
One of the committees, which consists of four county staff members, already concluded the road will not harm the district but had questions about whether the project serves the public practically and economically.
Owner opposition
A smart road citizens advisory committee, which was formed by VDOT, recently voted 6-2 that the smart road might negatively affect the district.
For Lipsey and Montgomery County Supervisor Joe Stewart, who is one of the other property owners, the answers to those questions are simple: The road is unnecessary and would hurt the protected district. The third major property owner, the Bandy family, could not be reached for comment.
Lipsey is concerned about the overall effect a highway would have on the sparsely populated area, where the cattle outnumber the people. In his opinion, the purpose of the agricultural and forestal district would be defeated by the road.
"You're just going to split the whole county up," he said. "It's just going to make a mess, as far as the wildlife is concerned. They need immense territory: turkeys, deer, bear."
Stewart, who farms nearly 500 acres in the district, especially fears the road would destroy the historical value of the area - a Confederate cemetery and the site of a 19th-century resort. Last week, Stewart vowed he would vote against VDOT's request.
"It's going to affect all the people down there," he said.
As a supervisor, Stewart inevitably plays a visible role in the debate (and in a similar vote last year heeded state conflict of interest laws by saying he was voting in the public interest). Lipsey, however, has not thrust himself into the public eye on the smart road issue. He is uncomfortable having his name in the newspaper.
"I have a hard time deciding: If I didn't own this land, what would my attitude toward the smart road be?'' he said during a tour of his mountain-framed farm. "I tend to believe it would be the same, but I don't know."
Effects on land
The conservation district in question was created in 1981 and is up for renewal this year. All but one of the 13 property owners who make up the 2,829-acre district have reapplied. Renewal of such districts, which needs final approval from the supervisors, is denied only in cases when the area is no longer appropriate.
Conservation districts have existed in Virginia since 1977, when the General Assembly enacted legislation permitting their creation by local governments. As an incentive to join such districts, property owners can qualify for tax benefits.
No one on the county level can recall any other attempt by a state agency to take land out of one of these districts to build a road, which means the supervisors' decision could set a precedent.
Paxton Marshall, a Virginia Tech professor emeritus in the agricultural and applied economics department, is not sure whether this is the first time such a request has occurred, but "as a general rule, efforts are made not to disturb land in agricultural districts," he said.
The question is whether the smart road would adversely affect the conservation district. VDOT says it would not, a contention that is repeated in a list of 92 questions posed to state transportation officials as part of its application to take the land.
In the answers, VDOT states the district would not be adversely affected because only limited acreage would be removed from production, among other reasons. Opponents - and Lipsey - dispute many of VDOT's numbers and believe any road construction would be contrary to the very purpose of the district: to protect farm and forest lands.
"My question has been to opponents, how does taking this land out jeopardize the rest of the district?'' said Dan Brugh, VDOT's resident engineer in Christiansburg.
Marshall, who has written about agricultural and forestal districts, said the county has the authority to take out specific parcels or even abolish the district, adding that the district will not collapse if land is removed.
What VDOT must prove is that there is no other viable route for the smart road, Marshall said. That is an issue contested by opponents of the road, who believe the road fills no transportation need. They also question why the test bed part of the smart road, where Virginia Tech would try out the research technology, could not be built on an existing road - a notion VDOT has maintained is not feasible for safety and infrastructure reasons.
"Long ago, when the agriculture district was created in the state of New York [before Virginia did so], one of the points that was made was that an agricultural district was not forever because it was recognized that there would be demand for various uses," he said.
"Just signing up didn't mean you were forever and ever protected. It gave landowners a greater voice about the use of land, and it gave them some rights."
On the other hand, Marshall said, landowners enter into these districts to protect their farms and forest lands from development. A road is clearly development that begets other development, he said.
"Those parcels of land will never be the same. ... One of the reasons is the traffic will roar up and down in the middle of the night and residents that have been protected from the noise of the road will now experience the noise of the road," he said. "Whether or not there will be air pollution is another matter, but there surely will be noise pollution."
`It's depressing'
The road to the June 10 decision has not been an easy one. The Board of Supervisors initially voted 4-3 against VDOT's request in November but rescinded that vote a week later to obtain more information about the road's affect on the environment and economic development, among other issues.
If the Board of Supervisors rejects VDOT's request, the state can always head to the courts for relief. In the past, transportation officials have indicated they would not continue to pursue the road if the county denies its request.
During the last few weeks, the supervisors have been inundated with calls and letters from both sides of the issue. Stewart said he has been visited by VDOT and Virginia Tech officials, and he has told them all how he will vote - no.
Lipsey wants the rest of the supervisors to vote no as well, or at the very least to delay the decision another 60 days to hold a public hearing.
The months in between the two votes have not been easy for Lipsey. He has started several small tree nurseries throughout his farm and would like to plant another bed of saplings in the hayfield VDOT has designated for the smart road.
He also fears he will not have enough feed for his cattle if VDOT gets the land. Two of his hayfields virtually would be swallowed up by the road.
"It's been very depressing," Lipsey said. "I can't make long-range plans and changes or try to carry out the management plan for forestry and wildlife that's been developed through the Virginia forest stewardship program."
Marshall, the Tech professor, said the issue of eminent domain - when the government takes land for public projects - always brings tough questions to the surface.
"One of the things that eminent domain does not take into account is they only look at the value of the land," Marshall said. "They don't take into account the quality of life."
LENGTH: Long : 163 linesby CNB