|
Highland committee waffles on land use
BY JAMES JACENICH • STAFF WRITER
 | | South of Monterey gently rolling hills, open meadows and tree-covered ridge-tops dominate the terrain. The Highland County comprehensive plan designates the area along U.S. 220 from Monterey to Vanderpool a potential business growth area. (Recorder photo by James Jacenich) |
|
MONTEREY - The latest draft of the Highland County comprehensive plan, completed last Thursday by the Highland County Comprehensive Plan Review Committee, makes development easier than previous drafts by adding greater emphasis on the rights of property owners to use their land as they see fit.
It also gives government officials more control over the county's future by phrasing community wishes as suggestions rather than demands, and softening language that characterized threats to the environment as "severe" or changes to the landscape as "destructive."
However, the new plan retains language intended to preserve the rural character of the county, as long as officials agree it is in the best interest of citizens.
The committee did a final edit to clarify language and tighten the format. The plan has, for the first time, a timeline for completion of its goals and objectives and specific offices tasked with making sure they happen.
Valerie Weber Lowry, an at-large member of the committee, edited the final draft with Jack Flynn, a member representing Monterey. Crysta Stanton, planning commission member, was on the final editing subcommittee, but withdrew earlier in the summer. Neither she nor Weber Lowry was present at the meeting to answer questions about the final draft.
The comprehensive plan continues to support the overall rural nature of the county while encouraging suitable growth and has the backing of most of the commission, but when it comes to ridge-top development, it seemed there were as many opinions as there were committee members. Some took issue with industrial wind turbines, others supported the rights of property owners, and still others did not want to hamper development in any way.
Finding a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of a community has proven no easy task for the committee. The latest update to the plan is three years in the making. During that time, two separate committees attempted to set out a complete, yet complex view of the direction Highland County should take in the next 20 years. They covered everything from recreation to economy, demographics to community services, preservation to development. Both looked at education, government, natural resources and housing. In the end, members produced a draft that remains a work in progress.
Three of the five planners were present at Thursday's meeting (Stanton and Harry Sponaugle were absent).
Committee members softened language that tended to limit planning commission or supervisor discretion.
Ridgeline development generated the most heated debate during the three and a half hour session.
'You can't tie our hands'
"The ridgeline development clause is too hard," said planner Doug Gutshall, who has often expressed concern too many restrictions on ridgeline development would make his land worthless. "You can't tie our hands with something like this (existing paragraph)."
The draft paragraph said, "The mountainous topogra- phy of the region means that a panoramic view can be altered even by small amounts of development above the ridgeline. Highland should ensure that development on ridge tops is compatible with the environmental features of the land and the rural character of the county."
Committee member Trent Burkholder, a member of the Economic Development Authority, agreed. "I think you are going to have to soften this last sentence," he said.
Cobb proposed changing the paragraph to read, "Highland should ensure that development on ridge tops is closely scrutinized for cost/benefit of tax revenue versus degradation of environmental features of the land and rural character of the county, while also considering landowners' rights." He argued the draft statement would not get past the board of supervisors as written, but maybe his alternative had a chance.
County administrator Roberta Lambert agreed with the suggestion to delete the original paragraph in favor of the alternative suggested by Cobb.
"Should we address ridgeline development at all?" asked Monterey mayor and review committee member Janice Warner.
"We have had public meetings where ridge top protection is important to people, but here we are discussing it at 10 minutes to 10 p.m.," said committee member Betty Mitchell, president of the EDA.
Burkholder said, "We are not going to ban ridge top development that I can see. How can we say we want to carefully look at every project that would fall under ridgeline development?"
To work a way out of the impasse, Cobb suggested additional language. "I want to say the county should assess its impact in detail before considering any additional wind projects. A moratorium is not legal. If (supervisors) can't agree to this, they can go to the county attorney to find language to implement this."
Earlier in the year, Cobb had suggested a five-year moratorium on wind turbine development, an idea most committee members had supported.
"If you have a zoning ordinance that allows an application to be submitted, then you're required to process the application," said Lambert.
"The sentence should read that the county should assess wind turbines for five years," said Cobb. He asked that a five-year assessment clause be added to his change, though he expressed doubt supervisors would approve it.
The revised paragraph reads, "The actual impact of wind turbines on the Highland economy and its rural character is unknown. If the current wind turbine development proceeds, the county should assess its impact for a period of five years in detail before considering any additional wind projects."
Review committee member Don Hower, a board member of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, said, "I want to see wind turbines. We are a selfish bunch of people. We should use a God-given resource."
Mitchell tried to add a discussion of solar power in the plan because solar panels could be put on ridge tops just like wind turbines and would have a similar effect on the landscape, but Cobb was adamant solar had not been discussed before and would not be discussed so late in the review process, especially since Mitchell's proposal had not been presented in writing prior to the meeting. He said Mitchell could address solar power with supervisors later. He said the plan would be reviewed annually from now on and that additional changes could be introduced.
Committee softens language
Burkholder took the lead in asking for softer language throughout the document. "Destruction is a harsh word," he said, in reference to a paragraph on development under natural resources. "Development does not 'destroy' the landscape."
The original paragraph said, "Highland County has been blessed with 'not quite enough' of the resources which, in other parts of the country have led to destruction of the natural landscape through mineral extraction, dams, large scale farming, or any sort of development."
The committee agreed to substitute "alteration" for "destruction."
On the topic of karst terrain, he said, "I think we should take out the word 'severe.'" The original sentence said, "Because karst terrain is relatively weak and unstable, it presents severe problems for development." The committee agreed to remove the word.
Under transportation, in reference to a paragraph on scenic byways, Lambert added that state agencies involved will not process the application without the local resolution of support."
The draft sentence read, "The Commonwealth of Virginia, in cooperation with the Commission of Outdoor Recreation, is authorized to designate existing roads of high scenic, aesthetic or cultural value as Scenic Byways."
The committee agreed to Lambert's suggestion.
"Who is going to interpret 'compatible'? It's subjective," said Cobb, referring to the third objective under economy. "We (planning commission) do look at these things on a case by case basis. 'Compatible' is not the right word; say, 'while considering.'"
The draft objective said, "Ensure that new business and industrial development occurs in suitable locations and is compatible with the county's environmental, scenic and rural character." The committee agreed with Cobb's change.
Cobb argued the phrase, "protected and capitalized," in reference to land use, was contradictory. He said one cannot protect land and make use of it, but Mitchell asserted one could.
The sentence, taken from the section on land use, said, "It is crucial the attributes that most define local character be identified, protected and capitalized upon."
His argument rested on the definition of capitalize, which when used as a transitive verb means "to convert into capital," he said.
The word, when used as an intransitive verb, as it was in the phrase, means, "to gain by turning something to advantage," and carries the further connotation of exploitation or taking advantage of someone or something, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Cobb recommended changing "capitalized upon" to "promoted" and the committee agreed. Promoted means "to contribute to the growth or prosperity of."
A reference to "siting rural buildings to their context" as a key way of protecting scenic resources under strategies for the future, was deleted at Cobb's suggestion for being too vague.
However, "limit ridgeline development" remained, as did "encourage open space development designs," "consider viewshed easements around particularly important sites," "use scenic designations (like Virginia Byways and Virginia Scenic Rivers)," "set standards for outdoor lighting," "maintain farmland and forestland," "control signage," "develop corridor plans and overlay districts," and "minimize the visibility of wireless communication towers and other tall structures," none of which were considered too vague.
The committee deleted one land-use strategy: "Limit water and sewer development to within designated boundaries."
"I'm not clear how (this strategy) came about," said Warner.
"You don't want to limit yourself at all," said Burkholder.
Cobb agreed. "Particularly if you can find a developer to do it," he added.
The committee deleted a reference to possibly changing the definition of the McDowell Battlefield core area. "There is not going to be a change to the core area," said Hower.
The strategy now reads, "Complete work of McDowell Battlefield Preservation Committee to define preservation and growth areas."
Lambert explained supervisors, charged with carrying out the strategy, had no authority to change the core area.
The final section of the plan summarizes the results of the Highland County Community Workshop held June 22, 2005 and the agriculture input workshop held by the Virginia Cooperative Extension at its Feb. 21, 2006 producers' meeting. There were 100 participants at the commu- nity facilitated by members of the CSPDC. The producers' workshop was limited to local producers.
Warner asked the workshop data be deleted from the plan. "I don't see that this has any value," she said.
Burkholder agreed, and added, "There were only 17 responses (to the citizen input questionnaires)." Burkholder later said that while the responses represented 17 valid opinions, it was too small a population sample to be included in the plan. He said the responses were considered during the review process, however.
Lambert recommended the workshop data be put in volume two of the plan which includes additional data, tables and other material that contributed to the final draft after other members of the committee indicated that they did not want to include statistical information in the comp plan.
Flynn added the final changes to the draft and submitted one paper copy and a CD with the files to Lambert for distribution to planners and supervisors.
Planners and supervisors will hold a work session on the comprehensive plan at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 25 in the Highland County Modular Conference Center in Monterey.
A public hearing on the plan will be held later in the year, with final approval of the plan by the board of supervisors likely by early 2008.
The draft of the plan is on the county Web site at: www.highlandcova.org.
| 
)