Board OKs public hearing on Orchard Lake dam, schedules community meeting

Botetourt County supervisors voted to advertise a public hearing and hold a community meeting on a proposal to remove or otherwise address the Orchard Lake earthen dam after state regulators deemed the structure subject to Department of Conservation and Recreation oversight.

The vote authorizes a Sept. 10, 6:30 p.m., community meeting at Greenfield and a public hearing at the board’s Sept. 23 meeting so residents can comment before the board considers establishing a service district and deciding whether to accept a $500,000 DCR grant tied to dam work.

Why it matters: The dam impounds a lake that was built decades before the surrounding Orchard Lake subdivision and is now closely tied to property values and neighborhood access. DCR rules carry recurring inspection, engineering and emergency-planning obligations for regulated dams; owners can face liability for damage or injury if a dam fails.

At the meeting, multiple homeowners urged different outcomes. Anisha Sain warned homeowners could face losses in property value and raised the possibility of inverse-condemnation claims, saying, “If Orchard Lake Dam is removed, my family will have substantial decrease in our property value.” Co-owner Daryl Frase and other residents said the dam is aging and costly to bring into compliance and urged the board to accept the grant and allow a service district to fund removal and stream restoration.

County staff described the likely process. Staff said a draft ordinance would allow the county to form a service district covering Orchard Lake property owners and to loan matching funds to draw down the DCR grant; the draft assumes a $500,000 DCR award and a $500,000 local match, with specific loan terms and an annual tax rate to be set later by the board. Staff also said design and permitting work would be done to DCR standards and that DCR had preliminarily signaled the dam would likely be classified as a high-hazard impoundment, triggering extensive continuing obligations if the dam were maintained.

The board did not adopt any final policy. Instead supervisors authorized the public-notice process and asked staff to arrange subject‑matter experts at the Sept. 10 community meeting so residents may ask technical questions ahead of the hearing.

What remains unresolved: the board has not chosen whether to pursue dam removal or invest to bring the structure into compliance. Staff said the draft ordinance and the DCR grant request do not include a separate, funded engineering path to restore the dam to regulatory standards; staff told the board they would seek to clarify cost comparisons and the legal and fiscal implications at the community meeting and the hearing. The county also said it would confirm whether the county would make an interest-free loan to the service district — a possibility noted in staff comments, but one that has not been adopted.

Next steps: community meeting Sept. 10 at 6:30 p.m. at Greenfield; public hearing at the board’s Sept. 23 meeting. The board instructed staff to publish three statutory advertisements and to provide DCR representatives and county engineers at the Sept. 10 meeting.

• Ending: The board’s vote starts a statutorily required public‑notice and hearing period and does not obligate the county to pursue removal, repair or to adopt the draft service district; any final decision will be the subject of the upcoming public hearing and a future board vote.