|
Group proposes simple solution for McDowell
BY JAMES JACENICH • STAFF WRITER
STAUNTON - "There's been a change of circumstances which raises the question of the need of a preservation plan," said Lee-Jackson Educational Foundation president Jack Ackerly last Thursday at a meeting of the McDowell Battlefield Preservation Committee.
As the long talks about the fate of the McDowell Battlefield and the village itself unfolded last year, residents there and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation agreed a preservation plan was in order. Such plans are used by the foundation, in conjunction with battlefield area residents and city or county officials, to delineate how preservation efforts are planned for each of the battlefields the foundation oversees in its historic district. But as of last week, officials in Highland and the separate Civil War preservation groups involved in McDowell properties, concluded that maybe a preservation plan here isn't really nec- essary after all.
"First, the battlefield itself, east of the Bullpasture River, has now been acquired by preservation groups," said Ackerly. "Secondly, Mr. (Howard) Kittell (executive director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation) pointed out at the previous meeting that the SVBF does not have targeted for purchase any land west of the river. This should remove the concerns of those McDowell folks who feared future purchases in McDowell by the SVBF. Speaking for LJEF, we have no interest in any land purchase west of the river, nor does the Civil War Preservation Trust whose representative, Tom Gilmore, could not be here tonight. Since the battlefield itself is now owned by preservation groups and there is now a general agreement, why do we need to draw up a plan?"
Highland County supervisor Jerry Rexrode agreed with Ackerly that circumstances had changed and that a preser- vation plan was not necessary.
Highland County planning commission member Doug Gutshall and Ackerly met prior to the meeting and Ackerly had written down some of Gutshall's ideas about appropriate additions for the county's comprehensive plan to use, in lieu of an official SVBF preservation plan. One paragraph would deal with the land on the east side of the Bullpasture River and the second with the land on the west side of the river.
Lee-Jackson recently bought the Oscar Driver property - the last major piece of the battlefield that was not in preservation group hands - and consequently, all that may be required at this point to define the needs of protection and growth is something in the county's land use document, which is currently in draft form.
"Why do we really need a preservation plan?" asked Ackerly. "We already have an understanding. Essentially, we don't have any disagreement. Preservation groups don't have an interest in buying property. We don't have a disagreement, why do we need an agreement? I would be glad to provide information to the board of supervisors for the comprehensive plan. Let's keep west of McDowell open for clean industry … The battlefield is basically preserved," said Ackerly.
Kittel was not as quick to dismiss the need for a preservation plan, however. "Given the history of discussion in the past two and a half years, the foundation feels a preservation plan is the appropriate way to go to make sure we are all on the same page. We operate under a master management plan that recommends we work with communities where there is interest in the community to have a plan. There was indication there was interest in a plan (for McDowell). If there isn't, we have other priorities. We weren't going to do a $50,000 plan like in other counties. We were going to sit down here and identify particular properties and set priorities where development should occur or shouldn't occur, and put it in the comprehensive plan. (So) I think we're on the same page."
Rexrode suggested, "Instead of a full plan, (let's) incorporate into the comprehensive plan the county's wishes. You already have what you need. There's nothing viable (as battlefield) west of the Bullpasture."
Gutshall agreed. "The battlefield is mentioned two or three times in the land section of the comprehensive plan - positively, I might add."
"Things have changed since we started," said Rexrode. "All the groups that want to preserve the battlefield have already preserved it. We can do this with a few paragraphs in the comprehensive plan."
Ackerly produced a small, folded piece of paper with notes that he had drafted with Gutshall's help. The first paragraph concerned the east side of the Bullpasture. Reading from the paper, he said, "The McDowell Battlefield is substantially owned now by preservation groups, little additional property east of the Bullpasture River needs to be acquired to interpret the battlefield."
The second paragraph addresses the area west of the Bullpasture River. "Preservation groups are not interested in acquiring land west of the Bullpasture River; in the future they may have an interest in acquiring parcels east of the Bullpasture (on U.S. 250 toward Staunton)," he read.
Bryan Obaugh, former chair of the McDowell Battlefield Advisory and Review Committee, asked what would happen if land on the east side of the Bullpasture came available for purchase, but the condition of purchase required that any overlap on the west side of the river would have to be purchased as well. Obaugh was already familiar with the SVBF policy of cooperation with local governments and that the foundation was required to honor any agreements with the county.
"Would you tell someone there is an agreement with the county, reconsider, or turn the parcel away?" Obaugh asked Kittell.
"If the collective agreement is Jack's statement, then yes, we would," said Kittell. The SVBF would not buy the property if the purchase conflicted with the county government's wishes, he explained. "The management plan tells us that we work with local governments." He would tell a prospective seller that there was an agreement with the county and, if the purchase terms conflicted with the county agreement, then the parcel would not be bought.
Ackerly, who also sits on the SVBF board, said, "I don't think it is a problem. If you had light business that wanted to come in there, SVBF would consider severing five acres (for preservation) and sell off the rest."
The SVBF could divide any land it may purchase in the future and sell off everything except what it needed, but only if it were permitted under existing federal legislation.
Kittell said land bought with federal money cannot be further subdivided without congressional approval. And if the parcel were sold in its entirety to another owner, the requirement to maintain the parcel as one piece "runs with the land," he said.
However, if the land is purchased with non-federal dollars or by one of the other preservation groups, the restriction on subdividing a property does not apply.
Kittell explained it is the foundation's practice to not split a parcel of land that is offered for sale if the seller wants to sell the entire parcel, but only a portion is needed for preservation. The landowner, not the SVBF, drives such negotiations, he said. Kittell added the SVBF is not interested in buying developed property, such as those with modern houses, because the buildings become a liability and expense and do not add to the preservation or interpretation of the battlefield.
SVBF also has the option to purchase an easement that would limit development on a particular property, while the property remained in the hands of the landowner.
Easements are forever
Rexrode said he was concerned about the proliferation of easements in the county because, an easement, by definition, is granted in perpetuity. "Five-hundred years from now, what (are) people going to need to survive?" he asked. "You can protect land for a certain amount of time. Some day you are going to have legislators look at perpetuity and say it served its purpose.
"If the word perpetuity were taken out, local boards would have less objection to them," he continued. "Forever is a long time. I'm not going to live that long. When we get on into this, do we interject something about conservation easements? All conservation easements should be looked at by your governing body … I'm not opposed to them as long as you can have development - you can have open spaces and development. It makes more sense to have housing in a cluster and put the rest of the property in open spaces."
Rexrode said conservation easements do not require supervisors' approval at this time, however. This is something he said should be changed.
"They check with zoning, that's where it stops. In most cases all they do is check with zoning," said county administrator Roberta Lambert, referring to the county board's role. She also said that if property is zoned residential, manufacturing, etc., conservation organizations usually check with the county. They have been submitting more of the potential easements to the Board for comment particularly those that border major primary roads.The Virginia Outdoors Foundation's guidelines state: "The classification or identification of the property in the local government's comprehensive plan, and the current zoning of the property; the easement being considered shall be consistent with and should promote the goals of the local land use plan."
Ackerly's proposal was submitted to the committee as one way to solve the problem of how to preserve the battlefield and protect the rights of neighbors to grow and develop.
"Why don't we say in the comprehensive plan (that) each preservation organization will work with the county?" asked Rexrode. There are four separate preservation groups with interests in the core area, each operating under a separate set of guidelines.
"Is there a way we can meet with the supervisors and talk in confidence (concerning land transfers)?" Kittell asked. In a show of good faith that the SVBF is working with county officials on issues related to battlefield preservation, Kittell agreed to keep the board discreetly informed of potential purchases, even though the foundation is not required to do so. Presumably, the other preservation groups would also discuss potential acquisitions with county officials before expanding their holdings within the core area.
Kittell said sellers do not want the details of proposed land transfers to become public knowledge until after a sale is finalized. "It's been a concern all along of the foundation," said Kittell. Willing sellers need to know that any negotiations would be kept confidential. He said that explains the supposed reluctance of the foundation to discuss ongoing negotiations in the past. Such secrecy has been perceived negatively by some in the McDowell community, but was meant only to protect the privacy of individual landowners, he said.
Rexrode assured Kittell the organizations could speak with the county administrator, who would communicate the information to supervisors individually, avoiding the need for a meeting subject to Virginia's Freedom of Information Act which could require opening discussions publicly.
McDowell may need STP
Rexrode noted his desire to keep an option open for a sewage treatment plant that would probably need to be built south of McDowell in the battlefield core area to have sewage transferred downhill from the village. "You have to look at development and really be practical. You have to have water, sewer. One of my biggest concerns is somewhere down the road we are going to have to put a sewer system in there. It could be 100 years, I can't say when, but it's gong to come," said Rexrode.
Kittell assured Rexrode that ownership by the SVBF or the retention of an easement on the property doesn't prohibit a sewer line. "You have to go through a process to make sure it doesn't destroy it (the land)," said Kittell. "You have a fail safe. A conservation group has to come to the board of supervisors to seek their endorsement."
For the SVBF, failure to receive the endorsement of the board of supervisors is sufficient to prevent purchase of property. "Our management plan is very clear. We will cooperate with local government and will not challenge local government policy," said Kittell.
But, Kittell added, "It would be unfortunate, hypothetically, if preserved land looked at the back of convenience stores. When we (SVBF) bought land on Crab Run, we were concerned that a convenience store would detract from putting trails into that property."
Kittell said SVBF would like to see development adjoining SVBF property be done in a manner that would not detract from the interpretation of the battlefield.
"I have no problem (with that)," said Rexrode. "I think citizens of Highland County would want to see that (the battlefield is preserved.) But once it's purchased, can we find money to do something with it? People of McDowell, when they have the reenactment, a lot of people come for the reenactment. You have to have access; a lot of people can't walk up there (Sitlington Hill, where most of the fighting took place)."
Focus shifts to comp plan
"We are not going to rush into approving the comprehensive plan until it is done right. We are going to go word for word, piece by piece, no hurry," said Rexrode. "It is our board's opinion not to rush into approving the comprehensive plan until it is done right … You've got to look at the future."
He asked for the exact wording of the Ackerly compromise by next month. "Doug (Gutshall) represents us on the comprehensive plan; we'll review it," he said. "We can basically work this out so we don't need a preservation plan."
"Ackerly's statement takes care of it, pretty much," said Kittell. "My concern is that the county adopt a policy that the battlefield is protected in the future."
Kittell was satisfied that a statement written into the comprehensive plan would be sufficient to protect the battlefield.
However, because preservation groups already own the most significant parts of the battlefield, the real concern is not that the battlefield be protected, but that development be allowed within the core area, as expressed by Rexrode.
Rexrode said citizens would be apprised of further developments through The Recorder and radio station. The committee meeting and Ackerly proposal will be discussed at the Oct. 2 meeting of the board of supervisors.
"The process now does reflect the intent of the people in the core area," said Obaugh. "You are going to have your exceptions, but this should suffice for the people of McDowell."
"I think we do have an agreement," said Rexrode.
"I make a motion to let Ackerly draw up some language for the comprehensive plan," said supervisor Lee Blagg.
The motion passed on the affirmative vote of Rexrode and Blagg; supervisor Robin Sullenberger was not present.
| 
