|
Conservation impedes development, board says
BY JAMES JACENICH • STAFF WRITER
MONTEREY - The Highland County Board of Supervisors Tuesday night tabled a request for review of two pending applications for conservation easements from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and in a separate issue voted to table a request for participation in an application for inclusion in the federal Resource Conservation and Development Program.
Laura Thurman, conservation easement specialist for the VOF, wrote in a Sept. 21 letter to county administrator Roberta Lambert, "Is there anything in the current Highland County Comprehensive Plan (including transportation issues) that would provide a conflict in placing a conservation easement on (these properties)?"
County attorney Melissa Dowd said in response to discussion from the board on how conservation easements affect land values, "Typically, value goes down."
"And typically the rest of the taxpayers' rates go up," said supervisor Jerry Rexrode. "I think in some areas you can totally support them (conservation easements). In some areas, the county is going to look at potential growth areas, and will have to designate growth areas to keep (conservation easements) from happening."
One application is for 734 acres adjoining U.S. 220 near Bolar and is zoned for agriculture. The second is for 1,900 acres near southern McDowell, which adjoins the battlefield, U.S. 250, and is near Route 678. It is zoned for either agriculture or conservation.
Dowd said easements could be negotiated with VOF and other easement holding organizations to allow some growth and development.
"The statutes require that they be in harmony with our comprehensive plan," Dowd added. "They always ask for board input."
Lambert disagreed. "They don't always ask for board input. Most of the conservation easements on file have not gone through the board," she said. "There is no requirement that they do that … I have talked to the VOF and asked them to start running (applications) through the board and they have. Most of the conservation easements that are already on file were zoned residential, and they run those through the board."
"I think from the presentations we have heard, their (VOF's) preference is that they be in complete harmony with the comprehensive plan," said supervisor Robin Sullenberger. "The issue is, we need to get out in front of this in terms of making our designations of where we think our growth areas should be. We are perusing that right now."
Dowd said, "You have the opportunity at this point to make a suggestion to landowners to consider modifications to the easements if there is something you see in those two land areas."
"I'm asking you to determine legally, does eminent domain take precedence over (a conservation easement)?" Rexrode asked Dowd. "I'd like a legal opinion. Take Route 250 - it has a right of way of 50-60 feet, and in some places wider. From what I've seen, (conservation easements) border right where you need to do some work. That's been my concern right along. Our comprehensive plan wants to add improvements to (U.S.) 250. Is this easement going to hamper that?"
Dowd said in general, eminent domain takes precedence if it is for the public good, but the government authority exercising eminent domain has to pay for the property that is taken. She also said conservation easements do not typically hamper existing road improvements.
Rexrode questioned how property owners could claim the tax breaks conservation easements bring from reduced property values while the same owners build multi-million dollar houses on those properties.
Dowd explained conservation easements could be worded to exclude parts of a property from any development restrictions that applied to the rest of the property. She did not answer the question how improvements on one part of the property would affect the value of another part of the property that was under a conservation easement. She said that was a matter better left to an appraiser to explain.
The board directed Dowd to review the county's options before responding to the VOF request. Sullenberger told Lambert to inform the VOF counsel is reviewing the matter to ensure the language is not too restrictive.
The VOF board of trustees will meet in November to consider the easements.
Board tables request to participate in
regional conservation group
A separate issue dealing with a request from the Upper James River Roundtable - formed several years ago with representatives from the Alleghany, Bath, Botetourt, Craig, Highland and Rockbridge counties, and the cities of Buena Vista, Covington and Lexington - was tabled.
The roundtable seeks designation under the federal Resource Conservation and Development Program. Supervisors voted to table the request to adopt and acknowledge an application from the roundtable council to the United States Department of Agriculture for Resource Conservation and Development Program designation. The request also asked for designation of a representative for the board of supervisors to the roundtable, which the supervisors did not act on.
"I'm opposed to it," said Blagg. "Some things don't have anything to do with conservation. This is flying on a grant; it dies when the grant dies. This goes back to Highland County being Highland County. What fits one location doesn't ever fit us. When you are taxing real estate as your base for your tax system, invoking something that cuts land values 20-40 percent, we are going to have to suck that up. Am I wrong? Absolutely not."
In response to an offer from the council to send a member to a board of supervisors' meeting, Blagg said a representative could come, but that person would not change his mind on the issue.
Sullenberger said, "Bill Strider (formerly of the Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission) and I firmly opposed this the first time around because it is redundant. It is creating a job for somebody, among other things. The thing that has changed is one of the reasons to implement this is to access grants."
The Mountain Waters Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. was formed to initiate, develop and promote regional projects benefiting outdoor recreation, land conservation, water resources and environmental education. It is paid for almost every year with a grant from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.
According to a letter from council chairman Tammy D. Stephenson, "From our regional perspective, an action plan has been developed of activities that we believe will complement and/or enhance those already planned by the local governments and all other agencies throughout the region. Our goal is not to duplicate any existing efforts." Stephenson said projects the council recently conducted were two conservation easement workshops with the Valley Conservation Council, and certifying interested citizens as water quality monitors.
The USDA National Resources Conservation Service said in a circular on the federal Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (which reauthorized the Resource Conservation and Development Program), "The RC&D program pulls together people, communities, Indian tribes, and grassroots groups that unite in shared purposed and pool resources to get work done. Volunteers are committed to revitalizing and sustaining their communities through the RC&D program. To date (January 2007), 375 areas across the nation (plus the Caribbean and Pacific basins) have been designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as RC&D areas. They serve more than 85 percent (2,681) of U.S. counties and over 77 percent of the U.S. population.
"In fiscal year 2006, RC&Ds completed more than 4,586 projects. These resulted in 968 businesses created and 1,651 businesses expanded; 8,256 jobs created; 6,225 miles of streams and 14 million acres of wildlife habitat improved. Nearly 1 million people developed new skills."
Assistance is provided to designated RC&D areas through their organized RC&D councils. "Councils also obtain assistance from other local, state, and federal agencies; private organizations; and foundations. RC&D priorities are set by area residents to meet their needs," the circular said.
Supervisors voted unanimously to table approval."If we don't take any positive action, they are going to have to remove us," said Sullenberger. But he expressed some misgivings. "Your concerns are justified. Highland County is unconvinced that it is totally in our best interest to be a participant. But some of these things we ought to support."
"But like Lee says, it is tying it all together," said Rexrode.
| 
