Montgomery County, 2025: Montgomery County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan by Montgomery County, Va

Montgomery County, 2025

-Adopted 12 October 2004

Montgomery County, 2025 Montgomery County Comprehensive Plan The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors acknowledges the participation in the comprehensive planning process by many County residents. Their interest in the County’s future is to be commended. Each of us can make a difference. Our individual efforts do contribute towards the betterment of the entire community. The unfortunate passing of Kitty Brennan recently brought this message home to Montgomery County. Kitty enriched the County through her efforts as a member of the Planning Commission, as a resident of Riner, and as an active participant in community life. She set an example that others can follow.

Insert photo of 2004 Board of Supervisors

Insert photo of 2004 Planning Commission.

Board of Supervisors

Planning Commission

James Politis, Chair (District D); Annette Perkins, ViceChair (District A); Douglas Marrs (District B); Gary Creed (District C); Steve Spradlin (District E); Mary Biggs (District F); and John Muffo (District G)

Don Linkous, Chairman; Charlie Elgin, ViceChairman; Steve Howard, Secretary; Kitty Brennan (inset); James Martin; David Moor; Harry Neumann; and Malvin “Pug” Wells

Montgomery County Administration Clay Goodman, County Administrator Carol Edmonds, Assistant County Administrator Marty McMahon, County Attorney Montgomery County Department of Planning and GIS Services Meghan Dorsett Kelly Duty Brea Hopkins Robert Pearsall

Joe Powers Steven Sandy Michael Sutherland

Copies of Montgomery County, 2025 online and in cd-rom form. Please contact the Montgomery County Department of Planning and GIS Services for current web and cd-rom information. The department can be contacted at 755 Roanoke Street, Suite 2A; Christiansburg, VA 24073-3177

ÂŠ 2004, Montgomery County Department of Planning and GIS Services.

Table of Contents Montgomery County, 2025 Executive Summary...................................................................2 Introduction................................................................................3 Legal Basis for Comprehensive Planning..................................7 Comprehensive Planning Process..............................................9 Implementing the Comprehensive Plan...................................13 Amending and Updating the Comprehensive Plan..................16

Planning and Land Use Executive Summary.................................................................18 Introduction..............................................................................19 Community Survey Results .........................................19 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ............21 Existing Land Use Map ...............................................22 Population and Land Use Projections..........................23 Future Policy Map .......................................................32 Critical Features Map ..................................................34 Land Use Policies ....................................................................35

Planning and Government Executive Summary ................................................................53 Introduction .............................................................................54 Community Survey Results .........................................54 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends.............56 Planning and Government Goals.............................................66

Cultural Resources Executive Summary ................................................................71 Introduction .............................................................................72 Community Survey Results .........................................72 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends.............75 Planning and Government Goals.............................................81

Economic Resources Executive Summary ................................................................85 Introduction .............................................................................86 Community Survey Results .........................................86 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ........................88 Economic Resource Goals.......................................................99

Educational Resources Executive Summary ..............................................................104 Introduction ...........................................................................105 Community Survey Results .......................................105 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends...........106 Educational Resource Goals..................................................116

Environmental Resources Executive Summary...............................................................119 Introduction ...........................................................................120 Community Survey Results .......................................120 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends...........123 Environmental Resource Goals .............................................136 Environmental Atlas Soils............................................................................151 Geology ......................................................................152 Surficial Geology .......................................................153 Karst Features ............................................................154 Mine Features ........................................................................155 Faultlines ...............................................................................156 Threatened and Endangered Species..........................157 Natural Hazards.....................................................................158 Floodplains ............................................................................159 Land Use and Agriculture/Forestal Districts..............160

Health and Human Resources Executive Summary ..............................................................162 Introduction ...........................................................................163 Community Survey Results .......................................163 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends...........168 Health and Human Service Goals .........................................176

Housing Executive Summary ..............................................................180 Introduction ...........................................................................181 Community Survey Results .......................................181 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends...........185 Housing Goals .......................................................................189

Public Safety Executive Summary ..............................................................192 Introduction...........................................................................193 Community Survey Results .......................................193 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ..........193 Public Safety Goals...............................................................197

Recreational Resources Executive Summary ..............................................................200 Introduction...........................................................................201 Community Survey Results .......................................201 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends .....................203 Parks and Recreation Goals ..................................................206

Transportation Resources Executive Summary ..............................................................209 Introduction...........................................................................210 Community Survey Results .......................................210 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ..........211 Transportation Goals.............................................................219

Utilities Executive Summary ..............................................................227 Introduction...........................................................................228 Community Survey Results .......................................228 Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ..........229 Utility Goals..........................................................................234

Special Topic Plans Bikeway/Walkway Plan.........................................................239 Regional Approach to Telecommunication Towers ..............258

Village Plans Belview................................................................................TBA Elliston/Lafayette ................................................................TBA Plum Creek ..........................................................................TBA Prices Fork...........................................................................TBA Riner ....................................................................................TBA Shawsville ...........................................................................TBA

Corridor Plans 177 Corridor Plan .................................................................261

Appendices Glossary ..........................................................................A1 Work Group Participants ................................................B1 Table of Indicators ..........................................................C1 Table of Maps .................................................................D1 Index ...............................................................................E1

Introduction Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted October 12, 2004

Introduction: Executive Summary Montgomery County, 2025 marks a bellwether change in how Montgomery County approaches planning and development, by focusing on three key features of proactive planning: stewardship of resources, participatory planning, and regionalism. These features are woven throughout the plan and provide the basic framework for planning in the future. This introduction discusses these features, as well as the legal basis for comprehensive planning in Virginia, the comprehensive planning process, and a brief overview of implementation and amendment policies. Keep in mind, as you are reading the documents included in the print and interactive versions of Montgomery County, 2025, that a plan is, essentially a policy document, designed to guide growth and the decision making process. It is meant to change and be changed, a living document that provides both a map for the future and a reference point for current and future land use proposals.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Introduction

Introduction If you drove from Blacksburg to Christiansburg, in 1970, you would have seen Corning on right and a small strip mall, anchored by a Cheds store, on the left. While there were houses edging 460, the majority of the land was still agricultural, and the town edges were still reasonably well defined. Riner and Prices Fork were small villages, surrounded by farm land, and separated from the more populated areas of the county by narrow two-lane roads and reasonably light traffic. The only golf courses were located in or near Blacksburg and

Christiansburg. Aside from the Radford Arsenal and Corning, the only major industrial parks were located in Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Indeed, the economy was defined by the Arsenal, agriculture, and the two universities, (Virginia Tech and Radford University, located in the adjacent city of Radford). Virginia Tech was in the midst of rapid expansion, following the change from an all-male military institution to a co-ed university. While there were new subdivisions being built, most were located in Blacksburg and Christiansburg.

In 1970, the population of Montgomery County was 47,157. By 2000, the population of Montgomery County had grown to 83,629, a 77% increase. The farmland separating Blacksburg and Christiansburg vanished, replaced by urban growth patterns. The edges of the two towns and the villages of Riner and Prices Fork were no longer distinct, changed and obscured by residential growth. The commercial centers, once located in the downtowns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg, shifted to an expanding mall area between the two towns, on the northern border of Christiansburg. The Virginia Department of Transportation constructed a new bypass from I-81 to Blacksburg to reroute traffic from the increasingly congested 460 corridor, while deferring other road repairs and expansions. Between 1975 (the first year the records were available) and 2000, the total vehicle miles per 24 hour period increased 266%, from 689,580 miles to 1,834,637 miles. (1) Finally, the economy and labor market shifted away from the arsenal and increasingly towards retail and commercial enterprises and a growing corporate research center, located at Virginia Tech. Indeed, the only constants were rapid growth, change, and the continuing impact of Virginia Tech. In 1973, Montgomery County adopted the first of a series of comprehensive plans, each more detailed than the last. Each of the comprehensive plans focused, to one degree or another, on the need for ongoing stewardship of county resources; however the ordinances and other legal mechanisms designed to implement the plan did not always accomplish the intended goals. This problem was, perhaps, most notable in the rapid expansion of 1. Virginia Department of Transportation. (2004) Statistical information is available from the VDoT website. Data prior to 1975 was not available.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Introduction

subdivisions into areas of the County where public water and sewer and other county services were either not available or less than adequate, or where the environment was incapable of handling the level of demand placed on it. The results of this growth also meant more over crowding in schools, increased impacts to ground and surface water supplies, and increased traffic on substandard roads. Changes in the Subdivision Ordinance in 1994 and the adoption of major amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in 1999, shifted Montgomery County’s approach to planning and development from reactive to proactive. The Nature of Plans Comprehensive plans are written to address the long-range development of a community, a county, or a region. They focus primarily on land use and land quality issues: where to locate industrial, commercial, or residential growth; how to protect the physical and historical environments; and where to site the nuts and bolts infrastructure (schools, roads, water and sewer lines, parks, and other community facilities). The key, however, to understanding and guiding long-range development is to understand the terms “development” and "longrange."

Photo by C. Lindstrom

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Development can be defined in two ways-as growth and as change. How growth and change are accomplished can be either positive or negative, proactive or reactive, ongoing or static, and managed or unmanaged. Long range plans are meant to provide a guide for the ongoing, proactive management of future growth and change in order to guarantee positive conditions and create and maintain a livable and sustainable community, for current and future residents. “Long range” planning means that a jurisdiction and its residents are looking at change and development as it impacts multiple generations. Each generation covers roughly a twenty to twenty-five year span. High school students in 2004 will be raising their own families in twenty years; their parents will either be retirement age or in their final years of employment; their younger siblings will be entering the job market; and their children will be populating the schools. A "long-range" plan is a roadmap for the development of a place, a community, a county from one generation to the next. It defines the kind of place in which we want to live and of which we want to pass on to the next generation preparing the next plan. Proactive Planning Proactive planning, in Montgomery County, requires that two things occur at the same time. 1) that the County adopt a focused growth policy, built on the concept of stewardship, which works with the communities to provide high quality development opportunities while managing and maintaining current and future built and natural resources; and 2) that the County adopt and maintain planning tools which facilitate the implementation of the plan over the long term. Proactive planning provides clear guidelines for managing the county’s resources in such a way as to make them available now and well into the future. It also means that the County must continually maintain and revise not only Introduction

Photo by Robert Parker

the comprehensive plan but also the tools which implement the plan. As noted in the discussion of the legal basis for comprehensive planning, later in this chapter, state law provides the county with a number of legal mechanisms for implementing Montgomery County, 2025, including: zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, the capital improvements program, and the 2232 review process. However, the plan and the tools must be created and maintained in tandem. Proactive planning requires rethinking not only the mechanisms of planning, but the process of planning as well. The process of planning is essentially the approach to planning: in short, how planning is accomplished in community terms. Montgomery County, 2025 embodies a focused growth approach to planning, which goes beyond merely focusing growth in certain

public safety; roads and alternative modes of transportation; and solid waste disposal and public water and sewer. Indeed, the wealth of the County is in its assets. (2) Stewardship is the long range creation, use, management, and conservation of the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assets. Resource stewardship is a management approach which requires looking at the use of resources both in the short term (five years or ten years), and in the long term (twenty, thirty, or fifty years), acknowledging that what is done now will have significant and long term impacts, costs, and benefits. (3) Participatory Planning

portions of the County, most notably in the Villages, Village Expansion Areas, and the Urban Expansion Areas. It also means focusing planning efforts on the stewardship of built and natural resources, on participatory planning, and on finding, where possible and appropriate, regional approaches and solutions to planning related issues. Stewardship of Resources Resources are defined as the natural and built (man-made) assets which help to create and maintain the quality of life in Montgomery County, including: cultural and historical sites and facilities; jobs, businesses, and industries; schools and educational opportunities; land, air, and water quality; agriculture and forestry; housing, neighborhoods, and villages; medical and mental health facilities; human and social services; parks and recreational opportunities; Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Participatory planning assumes, first, that planning is never done in a vacuum. Planning decisions, whether the location of new development, the design of a neighborhood, or the construction of public infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, and so forth), have very real impacts beyond the immediate development. A new subdivision, for example, may create additional traffic on a road, add new students to an already overcrowded school, or place additional stress on other 2. Each of these types of assets is reflected in different chapters in this plan. Land use based assets, including Villages, Village Expansion, Urban Expansion, and Resource Stewardship areas are included in the Planning and Land Use Chapter. Different types of assets are dealt with in the remaining chapters, including Government and Planning Resources, Cultural Resources, Educational Resources, Economic Resources, Environmental Resources, Health and Human Resources, Housing Resources, Parks and Recreational Resources, Public Safety Resources, Transportation Resources, and Utility Resources. 3. As noted later in this chapter, there are a number of legal mechanisms, provided under the Code of Virginia, to help jurisdictions manage and maintain assets: the capital improvements program for community assets, including schools and other public facilities; and the zoning and subdivision ordinance for the creation and long-term management of new developments, small communities, villages, and urbanized areas, as well as the County as a whole.

Introduction

public facilities. The removal of a community facility, such as a park or a school, can undermine the sense of community within a village, just as the addition of a community facility can spur the development of a more cohesive sense of place. Second, participatory planning assumes that planning is best accomplished when the stakeholders (those who are either directly or indirectly impacted by change) both understand what is at issue and have a say in the outcome. Participatory planning relies on public outreach and education (4) on the one hand and public participation (5) on the other. It encourages citizens to become actively involved in their neighborhoods, their communities, and their county, and requires that the County create ongoing opportunities for education and participation.

4. Montgomery County, 2025 provides a wide variety of public outreach and education mechanisms, including traditional (newsletters, public service announcements, press releases, and information data sheets), nontraditional (websites, broadcast of public hearings, and other egovernment opportunities), and interactive (Planner in the Public Schools program, public workshops and citizen academies) approaches. While references to these approaches are mentioned in many of the chapters, the subject is covered, most prominently, in the Planning and Government. 5. Traditionally, public participation has been limited to two primary approaches: community meetings and public hearings. While both of these approaches are maintained in this plan, other public participation mechanisms are also included, including the introduction of village and the continuation of corridor planning, the community facilitators program, community/citizen advisory committees (CACs), and e-government-based participation opportunities (email and web-based surveys). As with community outreach and education, community participation is included in most of the chapters, although the primary references are included in Planning and Government.

Regionalism In 1941, the Radford Arsenal was built in Montgomery and Pulaski Counties, on farmland on the banks of the New River. Not only did the location of the Arsenal remove a significant portion of farmland from production, farmland was also lost in both Montgomery and Pulaski Counties to the housing developments necessary to accommodate new workers and their families. The placement of the Arsenal increased traffic in both counties; required expansion of the housing stock in Radford, Fairlawn, and Airport Acres in Blacksburg, as well as the area immediately surrounding the plant. In addition, it increased the need for goods and services in the city of Radford and in Pulaski and Montgomery Counties. While not always the case, the impact of development decisions often crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Choices made in Blacksburg and Christiansburg are felt in the County; choices by the County are felt within the two towns, in Radford, and in surrounding counties. This is especially true when the decisions involve economic development, utilities, or natural resources, such as watersheds. Although regionalism is nothing new to Montgomery County (6), as evidenced by the 6. In addition to the NRVPDC, Montgomery County has participated in a number of cooperative planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions, including: the Telecommunications Tower Agreement (with Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford, and Pulaski County), the Rt.. 177 Corridor Plan (with Radford), New River Community College (with Radford and the counties of Pulaski, Floyd, and Giles), the New River Airport, solid waste disposal, and economic development initiatives. The Huckleberry Trail (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Montgomery County) exemplifies more localized cooperative planning efforts.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in New River Valley Planning District Commission (NRVPDC), the official recognition of Montgomery County as part of multiple regions is recent. The designation of Montgomery County as part of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), following the 2000 Census, marks federal recognition of the County as part of a transportation region and an economic impact region. Montgomery Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional connections and the potential for cooperative efforts does not stop with the New River Valley. Higher education, transportation, tourism and economic development, and environmental concerns have created significant ties between Montgomery County and the Roanoke Valley. (7) Regionalism is based on two assumptions: 1) development and change create externalities (impacts, costs, and benefits) which do not

always adhere to jurisdictional boundaries; and 2) there is strength in numbers. Some issues, such as telecommunications towers, utilities (drinking water, solid waste, sewerage), transportation, and housing are more likely to be successfully addressed on a regional basis than by individual jurisdictions. In addition, regional and cooperative approaches are more likely to be successfully funded through grants and other external funding sources. Incorporating a regional approach to planning in Montgomery County enables the County to seek, where appropriate, regional approaches and solutions to issues and opportunities.

7. The NRVPDC defines Montgomery County as part of a geographic region (including the towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg, the city of Radford, and the counties of Pulaski, Floyd, and Giles) based its proximity to the New River and the reach of its economic, social, and cultural impact. Following the 2000 Census, the federal government designated Montgomery County as part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), based on economic patterns, and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), based on transportation patterns. The MSA also includes Blacksburg, Christiansburg, the city of Radford, and Pulaski and Giles Counties. Other examples of regional definitions, imposed by external organizations, include state and federal voting districts, state economic development and tourism regions, and various environmental and agricultural regions (Extension District, National Forest District, Conservation Districts, and Recreation Districts). Finally, the County is defined, at least in part, by regions imposed by natural features (mountain ranges, valleys, and watersheds) and by transportation corridors (U.S. 460/Rt. 11, I-81, Rt. 8, and Rt. 114).

Introduction

Legal Basis for Comprehensive Planning Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan According to the Code of Virginia, "comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants." (ยง15.22223). Generally, county comprehensive plans apply only to the unincorporated areas of the county, although state law does allow counties to include planning of incorporated towns in the county plan if the planning commission determines that it is related to planning for unincorporated areas or the county as a whole... [The plan, however,] is not considered a comprehensive plan for the town unless adopted by the town's governing body." (ยง15.2-2231). The reverse is true, as well. For an example of an "extraterritorial" chapter, see the Blacksburg Comprehensive Plan. The Blacksburg chapter does not, however, function as a comprehensive plan for the extraterritorial areas in the County, because the chapter was not adopted by the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors. As was noted in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, the plan serves a number of specific functions: Statement of County Policy: The plan is a statement of the community's goals, or "what the community wants." It offers a vision of what might be. It also identifies shorter-term policies and strategies that will lead to achievement of the goals. Guide to Decision Making: The plan is a means of guiding and influencing a variety of public and private decisions that eventually create the future county. The Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

regular ongoing public decision making process included land use cases (rezoning, special use permits, subdivisions, etc.), capital improvement programming, specific capital expenditures and other decisions. These decisions can be made on an ad hoc basis or they can be made in light of the comprehensive plan. A more effective, efficient, and attractive county will result when a plan is carefully developed and used to guide decision making. Long Range Perspective: The orientation of this comprehensive plan is 23 years into the future. A long-range plan allows decision-makers to look at current decisions in light of their long-term consequences and in terms of their impacts on other related systems. The county will live with today's decisions for many years into the future. Promoting the Public Interest: The plan is based upon facts and conclusions developed through background studies and discussions. The comprehensive planning process is open to all residents of the county. This helps promote the interest of all persons rather than the interest of individuals or special interest groups. Decisions based on a plan are less likely to be made in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Technical Expertise and Advise: The comprehensive plan provides policy makers such as the Board of Supervisors with the opportunity to receive the counsel of its advisors in a coherent, unified form. The coordination of technical studies and advice with the political decision making process is necessary to bring about the Introduction

desired growth and development in accordance with the plan an in the most efficient and economic manner. Communication: Through the comprehensive plan, the Board of Supervisors presents a unified picture of its long range goals, policies, and strategies to all those concerned with the county's growth and development. That audience includes county departments, commissions, and agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, the private development community, civic organizations, and the general public. The plan enables the actors in the development process to anticipate decisions of the Board and to develop projects supportive of the plan rather than in conflict with it. Education: The plan is educational for all actors in the development process and anyone who reads it. It should arouse interest in community affairs and offer information on both present conditions and probable future trends. It should encourage participation in the comprehensive planning process. Legal Document: In recent years, court decisions have strengthened greatly the importance of the plan as a legal document. Planning has become central to questions of growth and development from the standpoint of both the courts and policymaking bodies. Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Under the Code of Virginia, local governing bodies (the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors) are required to adopt a comprehensive plan for the physical 7

development of jurisdiction. The preparation of the comprehensive plan, however, falls to the local planning commission and, by extension, the planning office. The state statute governing the preparation and adoption specifies a number of specific activities related the comprehensive planning process, including: The planning commission is charged with surveying and studying a broad range of topics in the preparation of the comprehensive plan, including: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Land use Agricultural and forestal preservation Production of food and fiber Characteristics and conditions of existing development 5. Trends of growth or changes 6. Natural resources 7. Historic areas 8. Ground water 9. Surface water 10.Geologic factors 11.Population factors 12.Employment 13.Environmental and economic factors, 14.Existing public facilities 15.Drainage 16.Flood control and flood damage prevention measures 17.Transportation facilities 18.The Need for affordable housing in both the Locality and the planning district within which it is situated (New River Valley) 19.Additional matters related to the subject matter and general purposes of the comprehensive plan Both historic resources and mineral resources carry additional requirements. If the jurisdiction chooses not to study either or both in the preparation of the comprehensive plan, then the available surveys from the applicable state departments must be included in the Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

comprehensive plan. In addition, all plans adopted after January 1, 1981 must include a study of the production of food and fiber.

4. The designation of historical areas and areas for urban renewal or other treatment;

The Code of Virginia explicitly lays the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s expectations and requirements for a localityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comprehensive plan:

5. The designation of areas for the implementation of reasonable ground water protection measures;

"The comprehensive plan shall be general in nature, in that it shall designate the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan and shall indicate where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be.

6. An official map, a capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps, mineral resource district maps and agricultural and forestal district maps, where applicable;

The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, shall show the locality's long-range recommendations for the general development of the territory covered by the plan. It may include, but need not be limited to:

8. The designation of areas for the implementation of measures to promote the construction and maintenance of affordable housing, sufficient to meet the current and future needs of residents of all levels of income in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated." (15.2-2223)

1. The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use, such as different kinds of residential, business, industrial, agricultural, mineral resources, conservation, recreation, public service, flood plain and drainage, and other areas; 2. The designation of a system of transportation facilities such as streets, roads, highways, parkways, railways, bridges, viaducts, waterways, airports, ports, terminals, and other like facilities; 3. The designation of a system of community service facilities such as parks, forests, schools, playgrounds, public buildings and institutions, hospitals, community centers, waterworks, sewage disposal or waste disposal areas, and the like; Introduction

7. The location of existing or proposed recycling centers; and

Adopting the Comprehensive Plan--Public Hearing Requirements: In order to adopt the new comprehensive plan, both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing prior to adoption (or for the meeting where adoption is likely to occur). A legal notice must be published in newspapers with local circulation once a week for the two successive weeks prior to the meeting. The notice needs to contain a descriptive summary of the proposed action and "a reference to the place or places within the locality where copies of the proposed plans, ordinances or amendments may be examined." (15.2-2204[A]).

The Comprehensive Planning Process In 1990, Montgomery County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan, which was meant to guide growth for the final decade of the 20th century. Some of the goals, objectives, and policies included in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan reflected those included in the two previous Comprehensive Plans (1977 and 1983) and are continued in Montgomery County, 2025, including issues of affordable housing, environmental protection, and preservation of agriculture and agricultural lands. As Montgomery County has grown from 29,780 in 1950 to 47,157 in 1970 to 83,629 in 2000, the issues Montgomery County has faced have also grown, both in number and complexity. The challenges for those who live and work in Montgomery County are: how do we define the issues we face; how do we frame the goals, objectives, and policies to address these issues; and to what degree can we come together in order to produce a Comprehensive Plan reflective of our common values. In 2000, Montgomery County started the process of preparing a new comprehensive plan. The changes over the previous 25 years required that the comprehensive plan be more

than a simple update. The population, on the whole, is far more diverse, and the issues facing the County are far more complex than they were in 1975 when the county first started thinking in terms of long range planning. Rather than repeating the processes used in 1977, 1983, and 1990, the Planning Commission and the Planning Department embarked on a whole new approach, an approach that relied heavily on the provision of public information and encouraging public participation and input. Indeed, Montgomery County, 2025 is a community-driven comprehensive plan. Phase I: Community Meetings and Public Information Phase I of the comprehensive planning process involved the use of traditional

community meetings and a community survey to define the parameters of the debate and the use of the Planning Commission newsletter, News and Notes, to explain the process and the issues facing the County. Community Meetings and the Community Survey Community meetings were held in each of the four planning districts: Shawsville (Shawsville Middle School), Riner (Auburn High School), Mt. Tabor (Slusherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Chapel), and Prices Fork (Prices Fork Grange). In addition, a community survey was published in both the Roanoke Times and the Montgomery New Messenger, and printed copies of the survey were distributed at the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s solid waste collection facilities. Participants in the

2001 Community Meetings and Community Survey Location/ Response Type

Number of Participants

Mount Tabor--Slushers Chapel--Community Meeting Shawsville Middle School--Community Meeting Riner--Auburn High School--Community Meeting Prices Fork--Prices Fork Grange--Community Meeting Mail-In Community Survey Total Participants

34 11 28 10 48 131

Top 3 Responses, by Question Question

Top Response

2nd Response

3rd Response

Likes Dislikes Issues

Natural Environment Transportation Open Space/Farmland Protection

Character of Place Planning/Zoning Growth / Development

Quality of Life Sprawl/Overdevelopment Transportation / Traffic

Responses to the question concerning solutions were not categorized using the same method because of the variety of suggestions.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Introduction

community meetings and on the surveys were asked the same four questions: 1) What do you like about Montgomery County? 2) What do you dislike about Montgomery County? 3) What are the three most important issues Montgomery County faces? 4) What are some possible solutions to these issues? In the four meetings, participants were separated into groups and worked with a facilitator to generate lists of responses to each question. Their responses were analyzed using content analysis which catalogued individual responses (through the examination of keywords and phrases) into subject groups. While public participation in the community meetings and the initial survey was a bit thin, the responses provided the County with a starting point for the comprehensive planning process. (7) Public Outreach: News and Notes Coinsiding with the community meetings, the Planning Department began publishing a series of articles on comprehensive planning, planning issues (agriculture), and planning tools (capital improvements program) in order to provide information to the public and help spur public interest in and understanding of the comprehensive planning process. Phase II: Working with a Consultant In 2001, Montgomery County contracted with Herd Planning and Design to provide planning assistance during the comprehensive planning process. Herd Planning and Design 7. Complete survey results, analysis or results, and the raw data from the surveys and the community meetings are available, upon request, from the Montgomery County Planning Department.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Community Meetings, 2002: Herd Planning & Design Date / Subject / Location

Number of Participants

4/25/02 - Community and Public Facilities/ County Government Center 6/27/02 - Interjurisdictional Planning: Opportunities and Issues/ County Government Center 9/10/02 - Agriculture and Open Space Preservation/ 2 Meetings-Prices Fork Grange and Auburn High School (Riner) Total Number of Participants

was already familiar with Montgomery County, having previously worked on the zoning ordinance the County adopted in 1999. (8) Between 2001 and 2003, Herd Planning and Design produced five reports for Montgomery County: 1) Review of Montgomery County Planning Documents; 2) Review and Coordination of Other Local Comprehensive Plans; 3) Report on 15.2-2232 Reviews; 4) Review and Evaluation of Cash Proffers; and 5) Review and Evaluation of Land Conservation Tools. (9) A series of three community meetings were held in conjunction with these reports to discuss by Herd Planning and Design: 1) public and community facilities; 2) cooperative planning opportunities and challenges facing Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg; and 3) agricultural and open space preservation.

49 35 50 134

updated baseline data for planning decisions. To this end, the graduate Environmental Planning Studio in the Urban Affairs and Planning Program at Virginia Tech developed a â&#x20AC;&#x153;testâ&#x20AC;? chapter covering agriculture, open space, and water related concerns, along with a list of possible indicators, including data sources and an update schedule. Their finished work was presented to the Planning Commission in December, 2002. (10)

Phase III: Examining the Application of Indicators Montgomery County wanted to examine the use of indicators, connected to the comprehensive plan, to allow the County to track progress and changes, while also providing 8. The consulting team included Milt Herd, Herd Planning and Design; Karen Gavrilovic, Paradigm Design; and Martha Mason Semmes, Town Planner/Zoning Administrator, Middleburg,, Virginia. 9. Copies of the newsletter are available in pdf format, upon request, from the Montgomery County Planning Department

Introduction

10. The Virginia Tech project final report is available in pdf format, upon request, from the Montgomery County Planning Department.

Phase IV: The Community Facilitators Initiative and Community Survey (11) Planning for the Community Facilitators Initiative & Community Survey comprehensive planning process started in September, 2002, while implementation of the project began in January, 2003. The Community Facilitator's Initiative was introduced to address the need for broad based community participation. Although hampered by bad weather, the initiative did receive support from the different communities in Montgomery County. The initiative relied on the redefinition of community from the more traditional definition based on geography to one based on resident interactions and connections (social, civic, political, religious, cultural, community, and commercial organizations) within the broader 11. The Community Facilitators Initiative & Community Survey were successful because of the all of the members of the community and all of the community groups who were involved. Special acknowledgment, however, needs to be made to certain individuals for reaching out to multiple groups and encouraging a broad range of involvement in their communities. The Montgomery County Planning Department wishes to thank all of the participants and volunteers, including: Ellen and Gary Harkrader; Mr. Fred Morton, Dr. Kitty Rogers, the Montgomery County School Board and the faculty, staff, and students of the Montgomery County Public Schools; Beth Obenshain of the New River Valley Land Trust; Mike Ewing (for web survey advice); the Ruritan; Penny Franklin and the Community Group; Fred Lawson; and John Moore. While the weather did not particularly cooperate (a large number of winter storms discouraged greater participation in the Community Survey), the Initiative garnered 826 community survey responses to date and responses are still trickling in. The student survey generated an additional 512 responses. An additional 27 letters, addressing some of the issues, but not attached to a survey, were submitted, as were 13 group survey flipcharts. In addition, we wish to thank Dr. Diane Zahm and her Land Use Planning Class (Urban Affairs & Planning Department, Virginia Tech) for crunching all of the map data. Finally, a special thank you to Carol Lindstrom, a volunteer from Echostar, who input all of the quantitative and qualitative data into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and spent more than a few days creating mounds of charts, graphs, and frequency tables.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

community, not just their particular neighborhood. Part of the impetus for this approach was a recognition of the validity of Alexis de Tocqueville's observation of the American character: "Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations." (12) Low turnouts at prior comprehensive plan community meetings suggested that few Montgomery County residents were either engaged in or interested in issues surrounding County planning. Staff from the Planning Department contacted community organizations and pitched greater community participation in the comprehensive planning process. Each organization was asked to provide one member who would be willing to function as a community facilitator, someone who could facilitate a comprehensive plan input session during one of the organizations regularly scheduled meetings during January and February, 2003. The survey was designed with these input sessions in mind. The facilitator 12. Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. ed. J.P. Mayer. Garden City, NJ. 1969 pg. 515.

Introduction

would distribute the survey to the members, at the meeting, would help members fill out the survey and a group response flip chart, collect the materials at the end of the meeting, and return the materials to the Planning Department within a specific timeframe. Montgomery County experienced one of the worst winters in many years. Schools were not the only ones affected by the weather. Meetings were canceled, churches closed, and much of the normal routine for a great many people was disrupted. The organizations that did meet often had smaller than expected attendance. Despite the weather, 68 different organizations (geographic, educational, civic, cultural, social, commercial, and religious), representing a broad cross section of the county population, participated. Surveys were also distributed to the different realty companies and mailed out to the members of the Chamber of Commerce.(13) In addition, the County made a special effort to reach out to minority organizations and underrepresented populations, including African American churches and organizations, as well as other minority, senior, and youth organizations. By the end of the process, the Community Facilitators Initiative and Community Survey generated 826 adult surveys, 512 student surveys, 13 group surveys, 27 letters, and 10,200 written comments. Of those who completed the survey, 75% were first time participants in the comprehensive planning process. (14) (15) 13. A full list of the participating organizations is included in the final report for the Community Facilitators Initiative and Community Survey, available in pdf format from the Montgomery County Planning Department. 14. This effort was recognized by the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association, which awarded the County the VAPA Public Awareness award in April, 2004. 15. Because the results from the Community Facilitators Initiative and Community Survey are included in the opening introductions for individual chapters, an overview of the results has not been included in this introduction. The final report, survey construction and methodology, and full data are available in pdf format, upon request, from the Montgomery County Planning Department.

Phase V: Citizen Work Groups (16) Starting with a kickoff session in May, 2003, citizen work groups began work on the goals, objectives, and strategies for Montgomery County, 2025. Many of the individuals who volunteered as community facilitators also volunteered for the citizen work groups. In addition, citizens with special knowledge of or interest in particular issues also volunteered. (17) Finally, individual 16. A full list of the work group participants is included in the appendix. 17. The citizen participants in the work groups brought a wide range of expertise to the process. Three members of the Montgomery County School Board served on the cultural facilities and education work group, as did a specialist in historic preservation and tourism; the Economic Development Commission participated in the development of the economic resources chapter; representatives from the local caving organization and an employee of the U.S. Forest Service served on the environmental work group; the parks and recreation chapter was generated by citizens and members of the Parks and Recreation Commission; members of the development community served on the government and planning work group, as well as the Utilities Committee, the Fire and Rescue Task Force worked with citizens on the public safety work group, and members of the Public Service Authority participated in the utilities work group.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeal members were assigned to each work group to help facilitate the meetings. An initial list of goals for each chapter, based, primarily on citizen comments included in the survey responses, was provided to each work group. A total of nine groups, covering 12 topics, met multiple times between May and August, to review and revise the individual chapters included in this plan. Phase VI: Planning Commission Work Sessions. From September to December, the individual work groups presented their initial list of goals, objectives, and policies to the Planning Commission, during work sessions, for feedback and further discussion. Individual chapters were revised following each session, and the Planning Commission received a full draft of the goals, objectives, and strategies in December of 2003. From January of 2004 through April, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed each of the chapters for a second time, along with the preliminary drafts of the chapter introductions. The first full draft of the plan was presented to

Introduction

the Planning Commission in May, 2004 and to the Board of Supervisors in June, 2004. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft plan on June 30, 2004. The Planning Commission recommended the plan to the Board of Supervisors on August 11, 2004. The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on September 27, 2004. On October 12, 2004, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted the new comprehensive plan without amendment.

Implementing the Comprehensive Plan According to the Code of Virginia, “the comprehensive plan shall recommend methods of implementation and shall include a current map of the area covered by the comprehensive plan” (§15.2-2224). In addition, the Code lists a variety of tools Montgomery County can use to implement the new comprehensive plan, including: “a capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps” (§15,2-2224). Primary Implementation Methods The Capital Improvements Program According to §15.2-2239 of the Code of Virginia: “A local planning commission may, and at the direction of the governing body shall, prepare and revise annually a capital improvement program based on the comprehensive plan of the locality for a period not to exceed the ensuing five years. The commission shall submit the program

annually to the governing body, or to the chief administrative officer or other official charged with preparation of the budget for the locality, at such time as it or he shall direct. The capital improvement program shall include the commission's recommendations, and estimates of cost of the facilities and the means of financing them, to be undertaken in the ensuing fiscal year and in a period not to exceed the next four years, as the basis of the capital budget for the locality. In the preparation of its capital budget recommendations, the commission shall consult with the chief administrative officer or other executive head of the government of the locality, the heads of departments and interested citizens and organizations and shall hold such public hearings as it deems necessary.” Montgomery County currently has a capital improvements program (CIP), however the program will need to be reviewed and revised in order to bring it into compliance both with the Code of Virginia and with the new comprehensive plan. (18) The Subdivision Ordinance: As noted in the introduction to this section, the subdivision ordinance is cited as one of the four primary methods of implementing the comprehensive plan. The current Montgomery County Subdivision Ordinance was revised in 1994 and, as with the CIP, will need to be reviewed and revised to bring it into compliance with the provisions in the new comprehensive plan.

18. The 15.2-2232 Review process, discussed at the end of this section, would help strengthen the current CIP process by establishing a project’s compliance early on.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Introduction

A Zoning Ordinance and Zoning District Maps Under the Code of Virginia, the zoning ordinance is one of the primary planning tools used to implement the comprehensive plan. According to the Code, the purpose of zoning ordinances is to promote “the health, safety or general welfare of the public” (§15.2-2283) and “to improve the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of its citizens and to plan for the future development of communities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational, and recreational facilities; that the need for mineral resources and the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the community be consonant with the efficient and economical use of public funds” (§15.2-2200) In addition, the Code of Virginia states that zoning ordinances shall consider, where appropriate, the following: : (i) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, crime and other dangers; (ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; (iii) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; (iv) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; (v) to protect against destruction of or 13

Preliminary Comparison of Comprehensive Plan Designations and Current Zoning Districts A-1

C-1

Resource Stewardship Rural Rural Communities Residential Transition (1) Village Expansion Villages Urban Expansion

encroachment upon historic areas; (vi) to protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; (vii) to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (viii) to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (ix) to protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; and (x) to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated. Such ordinance may also include reasonable Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

R-R

RM-1 PMR

W&S

W&S W&S

W&S

provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water as defined in ยง 62.1255. (ยง15.2-2283) Many of the provisions in the Code of Virginia are reflected both in this comprehensive plan and in the existing zoning ordinance, adopted in 1999. In addition, the land use designations included in Montgomery County, 2025 fit reasonably well with the zoning districts in the existing ordinance. This said, the County will need to review and revise the existing zoning ordinance to bring it into compliance with the new plan and provide mechanism for implementing portions of the new plan. Additional Implementation Tools The Community Indicators Program Community indicators are generally defined as a set of qualitative and quantitative measures, some objective and others subjective, which provide localities with the means of tracking quality of life, plan implementation, and progress. They can be used to measure the wellbeing in the community, be it economic, Introduction

Notes: 1. Higher density residential (R1, R2) is allowed in Residential Transition areas if the proposed site is served by public water and sewer. 2. The M-1, M-L, PIN, PUD-RES, and W&S PUD-COM districts in the Zoning Ordinance will need to be modified to W&S reflect the Villages, Village Expansion, W&S and Urban Expansion areas. GB

environmental, social, or cultural. In comprehensive planning, community indicators provide a mechanism for tracking the success, or failure, of programs and policies. For example, if the goal is to retain open space, possible indicators of success might include the number of acres in agricultural and forestal districts, acres placed under conservation easements, or the number of acres of farmland taken out of production. If the goal is to improve water quality, indicators might include annual Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) data for specific streams or the number of old or failing septic systems within a specific watershed in any given year. If the goal is to increase civic involvement, indicators might include public hearing or voter participation rates. While indicator programs are generally tied to comprehensive plans and managed through planning and development departments, they require annual participation across department lines, especially in data collection and application. A formal, GIS-based, indicators program could aid the County in determining critical needs and priorities, while also providing the public with an annual assessment of the both plan implementation and quality of life. A preliminary list of indicators has been included in the subject chapters of this plan (19); 14

however, the County may need to appoint a citizens advisory committee (CAC), working with staff and elected and appointed officials, to establish a more formal indicators program for the County. Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Under the Code of Virginia (15.2-2221[8]), the Planning Commission shall “if deemed advisable, establish an advisory committee or committees.” Montgomery County has a history of using citizen advisory committees, made up of a combination of citizens (stakeholders), appointed and elected officials, and County staff. Depending on the needs of the county, the Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, in conjunction with the Planning Commission, could be charged with overseeing the implementation process, (preliminary annual work program recommendations), establishing the indicators program, and/or assessing the County’s progress. In order to establish a Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, the County will need to: 1) clearly establish the purpose and responsibilities of the committee; 2) establish specific guidelines for the committee’s tasks; and 3) appoint a committee that represents the County’s broad range of stakeholders. Annual “State of the Plan” Report. 19. The indicators are incorporated into the introductions for each chapter and a table is included in the Appendix A.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

According to the Code of Virginia (§15.22221[5-6]), the Planning Commission “shall prepare, publish and distribute reports, ordinances and other materials related to its activities” [6] and “make recommendations and an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction”[5]. Annual reports on the comprehensive plan take a number of different forms: a checklist of the previous year’s goals and accomplishments, a newsletter, an annual databook, or a narrative summary. In general, annual reports could to accomplish three things: 1) provide an annual assessment of planning and plan implementation; 2) provide an annual strategic plan for implementation; and 3) if an indicator program is established, provide an annual assessment of the jurisdiction’s quality of life in the form of a databook. Annual reports need to provide an honest assessment of progress in order to maintain citizens’ faith in the process. The Planning Commission’s annual report, News and Notes, could be expanded to provide space for additional implementation information and indicator data. 15.2-2232 Reviews. One method of establishing the County’s compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is the 2232 Review Process. Under the Code of Virginia: Whenever a local planning commission

Introduction

recommends a comprehensive plan or part thereof for the locality and such plan has been approved and adopted by the governing body, it shall control the general or approximate location, character and extent of each feature shown on the plan. Thereafter, unless a feature is already shown on the adopted master plan or part thereof or is deemed so under subsection D, no street or connection to an existing street, park or other public area, public building or public structure, public utility facility or public service corporation facility other than railroad facility, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed, established or authorized, unless and until the general location or approximate location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof. 2232 Reviews are an important tool for determining the compliance of public projects, especially those included in the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The 2232 Review mechanism provides an important analytical tool for the Planning Commission and the County in the planning and budgeting processes and could be incorporated into the CIP application process. Comprehensive plans are not and should not

Amending and Updating the Comprehensive Plan be static documents. The amendment and revision of the plan, given the importance of the document and the time consuming nature of the process, should not be done in a piecemeal fashion or for the convenience of a few at the detriment of the larger goals or the common good. Changes produce impacts, and those impacts should be carefully considered prior to amending or updating the plan. This said, plans should not be considered written in stone, nor fixed in time or policy. As the County changes, so too should the plan. Policies which do not accomplish what they need to should be rethought and changed. Objectives reached should be replaced by new objectives. The County must keep an eye on the long-term goals while assessing the impact of current, and often rapidly changing, conditions. In short, the comprehensive plan should be considered a living document that can and should be revised when necessary and appropriate. Amending the Comprehensive Plan According to the Code of Virginia, once the comprehensive plan is adopted, the Board of Supervisors must recommend, approve, and adopt any amendments or changes to the Plan, only after directing “the local planning commission to prepare an amendment and submit it to public hearing within sixty days” of the Board of Supervisors request (15.2-2229). In addition, both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors are required to publish, two weeks in advance of public hearings, the

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

proposed changes and the purpose of the proposed changes. Additional requirements apply if the proposed changes are adjacent to other jurisdictions. The Board of Supervisors, in consultation with the Planning Commission, should establish an amendment process that considers Planning Commission and staff resources and considers the impact of amendments on the overall comprehensive plan and the County’s adopted goals.

years, the objectives, strategies, and policies are not. Specific strategies and policies are meant to be reviewed on a two year revolving basis; objectives should be reviewed and revised, at a minimum, every four years. As with the amendment process, the Board of Supervisors, in consultation with the Planning Commission, should establish a process of updating the comprehensive plan

Updating the Comprehensive Plan Under the guidelines set forth in the State Code, jurisdictions must review their comprehensive plans at least once every five years. The timeframe for review can be shorter (i.e. yearly, every two years, three years, or four years), but it can not extend beyond five years. The mandatory review provision is meant to insure that comprehensive plans continue to have some currency and are not just shelved upon completion. In addition to reviewing the comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission may choose to "make a study of the public facilities, including existing facilities such as [water and sewer facilities, schools, public safety facilities, streets, and highways], which would be needed if the plan were fully implemented" (§15/2/2230.1). Rather than adopt a fixed-five year review schedule, this comprehensive plan is designed to use a staggered review schedule. While the overall goals are meant to cover the next twenty

Introduction

Looking across US 460 towards Virginia Tech. Photo by Bill Edmonds

Revised - 6/13/2011 Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Planning & Land Use: Executive Summary The Planning and Land Use chapter covers three main goals: 1) balanced growth, including a description of the policy areas and land use policies; 2) policies for new development; 3) policies for community design. The Future Policy Map incorporates the following:    



Blacksburg and Christiansburg will continue to accommodate two-thirds of the County’s growth; Urban Expansion Areas and Villages/Village Expansion Areas have the potential to accommodate the remaining one-third of the County’s growth; Designated Urban Development Areas are sufficient to accommodate the next 10-20 years of growth for the Unincorporated Areas of the County Eighty percent (80%) or more of the growth in the Unincorporated Areas is targeted for the Urban Expansion Areas, the Villages and Village Expansion Areas, and the Residential Transition Areas; and Twenty percent (20%) or less of the growth in the Unincorporated Areas is targeted for the Rural Communities, Rural Areas, and Resource Stewardship Areas.

Above: Big Spring Mill, Elliston, 2004. North Fork Valley, 2004. Photos by Chris Valluzzo.

Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Planning and Land Use: Introduction COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS Of the three land use issues, “using the zoning ordinance to guide growth or protect property values” had the highest mean score (4.20), with 81% rating the issue as either important (22%) or very important (59%). Not surprisingly, 63% of participants who owned their own home ranked the “zoning” issue as very important, while only 38% of those who rent felt the same way. Residents in the unincorporated areas were only slightly less likely to rate "zoning” as very important (57%) than were residents in either of the two towns (62% for Blacksburg and 63% for Christiansburg). As with other issues on the survey, support for “zoning” increased based on the participant’s age, 51% of participants age 25-34, 60% of participants age 35-49, and 69% of participants age 50-65 ranked “zoning” as very important. Support among participants 65 and older was lower (56%) than the previous two age groups, but higher than those under the age of 34. Overall, only 5% of participants rated the issue as either unimportant or minimally important. In their comments, participants focused on the need for zoning enforcement and consistency, controlling growth, protecting the environment, protecting neighborhoods, and protecting the historical infrastructure. Some of the participants focused on the county’s need to provide “zoning protection for historic preservation and natural environment (streams, forests, farmland, etc.) conservation” and to provide zoning protection and tax inMontgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

centives in order to “encourage productive use/ renovation of existing buildings, especially those of historic value.” Others saw zoning as a way to “reduce overcrowding in schools,” “discourage sprawling subdivisions,” and “enhance existing neighborhoods.” Participants were split, however, on the issue of using the zoning ordinance to separate uses. While several participants felt that residential, commercial, and industrial uses should be separat-

ed, others felt that the county should encourage the development of mixed-use neighborhoods and developments. The issue of “sprawl or unplanned growth” was a close second behind zoning, with a mean score of 4.07. Of the citizens who participated in the community survey, 76% felt the issue "sprawl or unplanned growth” was either important (17%) or very important (59%). Only 7% of participants ranked it as

Photo by Chris Valluzzo

Planning & Land Use

either not important or minimally important. Concern about sprawl or unplanned growth was strongest among participants from civic (60%), religious (75%), and government (75%) organizations, and weakest among respondents from commercial and realty organizations (31%). Finally, concern over sprawl or un-

planned growth was stronger in Blacksburg, where 68% rated the issue as “very important” than in either Christiansburg (56%) or the unincorporated areas of Montgomery County (56%). While a few of the participants wrote of the extremes of either allowing unfettered

growth or stopping growth altogether, far more commented on the need to limit, focus, concentrate, or, in some fashion, control commercial and residential growth. Their suggestions included "limiting the amount of land that can be developed with a specific time period,” “ encouraging higher concentrations,” “revising [the] taxation structure and rates to discourage sprawl,” and “providing incentives to concentrate residential development.” In addition, a number of participants provided specific suggestions on areas where they felt growth and development were most and least appropriate. By in large, participants felt that growth should be concentrated in Blacksburg and Christiansburg and limited in rural areas, including the land bordering the Little River. As with other issues, participants came to differing conclusions: one participant supported apartments and duplexes near the New River Valley Mall, while another wrote that: “Look at the impact of more residences at roads that are already maxed out (Rt. 114). Some county roads (Peppers Ferry Rt. 114) are already-This has not been done and more building is planned for Rt. 114.” Of the three land use issues, “concentrating growth where utilities are already provided” garnered the least support (mean score of 3.46), although 56% still rated the issue as either important (31%) or very important (26%). Support for the issue (ranked as either important or very important) was strongest among those ages 35-49 and 50-65 (59% for each), and lowest among those ages 24-34 (47%). Among other groups, support for the issue was reasonably even, regardless of

Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

gender, location of residence, organizational ties, or previous participation. One noticeable variation in support occurred between those participants living in single-family stickbuilt residences versus those living in manufactured or modular residences. Of participants living in stick built residences, 57% ranked the issue as either important or very important, while only 44% of those living in manufactured or modular housing gave it the same rankings. In their written comments, participants drew the connection between limiting growth to areas where utilities were already provided and using utilities to “direct growth to appropriate areas.” One chided the county for “subsidizing development” through the provision of utilities “outside the areas near the towns.” Others, however, had a more expansive view of the connection between infrastructure and growth, by including transportation, schools, and other public facilities. As one participant wrote: “Before development is allowed in an area look at future needs for

Photo by Chris Valluzzo

Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

schools, rescue & fire and police. Will the development cover the cost of building new schools, rescue & fire departments & increase size of police department including additional need for courts, etc.” Participants planning-related comments, however, were not limited to the three planning issues included in the community survey. Planning-related issues generated 634 written comments, covering subjects as diverse as the need for greater public involvement to the need to increase ADA accessible residential development, including: • Increased cooperation between jurisdictions; • Increased public/private cooperation; • Commercial and industrial development; • Environmental concerns; the connection between planning and human services; • Sustainability; • Compact and cluster development; • Revitalization and preservation; • Development in villages; • Stricter codes (not just for zoning) and regulations; and • Overall quality of planning in Montgomery County. Participants felt strongly about the need for public involvement and for the need to be careful in “amending the comprehensive plan” while remaining both flexible and innovative. Planning & Land Use

West of Shawsville. Photo by Chris Valluzzo

CURRENT AND HISTORIC TRENDS AND CONDITIONS Planning Ordinances: In the years since the last comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, much has changed in Montgomery County, including the major revisions of the subdivision ordinance in 1993 and the zoning ordinance in 1999. The revised subdivision ordinance allowed the County to track minor and family subdivisions through a process of plat approval, eliminated many loopholes, and added a variance procedure. The new zoning ordinance, adopted in December of 1999, introduced the County to sliding scale zoning and eliminated large-scale, "by right" residential development, on lots as small as 1/2 acre, in the agricultural zone. The sliding scale specified the number of lots that could be created by right, based on the acreage of the original (parent) parcel. The revised zoning ordinance provided the tools to allow 27

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

the County to take a more proactive approach to planning. Special Plans: In addition to the passage of two significant ordinances, Montgomery County also took on a number of area and subject-specific plans, including the 1990 Bikeway Walkway Plan, included as an addendum to the comprehensive plan, the Rt. 177 Corridor Plan, and a Regional Approach to Telecommunications Towers plan These three plans are incorporated into Montgomery County, 2025. Urban Development Areas: In 2007, the General Assembly added Section 15.2-2223.1 to the Code of Virginia requiring high growth localities to designate Urban Development Areas in their comprehensive plans by July 1, 2011 (counties) and July 1, 2012 (cities and towns). Designated Urban Development Areas (“UDA”) are to be areas of reasonably compact development that can accommodate 10 to 20 years of projected growth. In 2010, the legislation was amended to establish density and design criteria for UDAs and to improve the coordination between transportation and land use. The UDA legislation defines high growth localities as having either a population of at least 20,000 and a 5% growth rate, or a growth rate of 15% or more, between the most recent decennial censuses (§15.2-2223.1 B). According to data currently available from the U.S. Census Bureau,

Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Montgomery County grew from 83,639 in 2000 to approximately 94,392 in 2010, representing a growth rate of 12.9%. Based on the growth rates and population thresholds outlined in the legislation, Montgomery County is therefore required to amend their Comprehensive Plan to incorporate at least one Urban Development Area that will allow for development at a density of at least four single-family residences, six townhouses, or 12 apartments, condominium units, or cooperative units per developable acre, and a floor area ratio of at least 0.4 per acre for commercial development, or any proportional combination thereof.

Existing Land Use (1) As the Existing Land Use Map indicates, single-family residential development (yellow) is slowly beginning to claim much of the road frontage in the rural portions of Montgomery County, while leaving the more remote land undeveloped. While there are significant areas of contiguous open space, in the form of agricultural and wooded areas throughout the County (green), development along the roadways creates the perception that open space is being significantly diminished. In some cases, 1. Additional planning information, including discussions of rezonings, special use permits, zoning variances and appeals, and building permits, is included in the Planning and Government chapter, immediately following this chapter. There are two Planning related chapters in this Plan: one which relates to Land Use Policies and one which relates to the process of Planning, including public information, public involvement, and local and regional cooperation.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

that perception is true, most notably in the suburbanized areas adjacent to Blacksburg and Christiansburg; in the Childress area west of Riner, flanking Peppers Ferry Road (Rt. 114) and Prices Ford Road; and along portions of Riner Road (Rt. 8) and Radford Road (U.S. Rt. 11). There are also significant rural lands under federal (Jefferson National Forest), state (Virginia Tech, Selu Conservancy, Pedlar Hills Natural Area Preserve), religious, and charitable (Nature Conservancy, Camp Alta Mons, Izaak Walton League) ownership. POPULATION, LAND USE, AND THE FUTURE POLICY MAP Population projections form the basis for most current and future planning decisions. From a public sector perspective, the current and anticipated population of a county determines the public facilities and services a county will need to provide. From a private sector perspective, the current and anticipated population of a county determines land use changes (residential, commercial and industrial) that a county will need to accommodate. The purpose of this chapter is to provide information and analysis concerning growth trends in Montgomery County. A population planning range for the year 2030 has been developed. This population planning range, in turn, has been used as a guide in developing a future policy map for land use. Population: Historic Trends The first US Census in 1790 found Montgomery County with a total population of Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

13,228. By the year 1900, the County's population had only risen to 15,852. Between 1900 and 1960 the County's population slowly doubled to 32, 923. From 1960 to the present, Montgomery County experienced 20 years of rapid population growth followed by 20 years of steady population growth. The rapid growth from 1960-1980 saw a population increase of 30,000+ persons. During this time period County growth rates greatly exceeded the state growth rates. The steady growth period from 1980-2000 saw a smaller population increase of 20,000+ persons. During this time period County growth rates were similar to state growth rates. The most recent US Census in 2000 found a County population of 83,639. Regional and Local Trends In absolute numbers, the population increase in Montgomery County has consistently exceeded those of all surrounding jurisdictions. Montgomery County increases of 10,000+ persons (1980-1990) followed by 9,000+ persons (1990-2000) exceeded Roanoke County increases of 6,000+ persons (1980-1990) and 6,000+ persons (1990-2000). Moreover, population increases in Montgomery County have been distributed across the county. The towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg and the unincorporated portion of the County have experienced similar rates of population growth. As a result, approximately 2/3rds of the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total population has consistently been located within the two towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg, while the remaining 1/3rd has been located in the unincorporated area of the County. Planning & Land Use

Population Forecasts Several population forecasts for Montgomery County were developed in order to provide a population planning range for the unincorporated area of Montgomery County for the year 2030. Each population projection is based on different assumptions and arrives at a different population total. Used together, the three projections provide the population planning range that is then used as a guide in developing a future policy map for land use. Population Projections based on Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) Growth Rates: The first set of projections are based on data from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC), a state agency. The VEC regularly develops population projections for each city and county throughout the state. These projections are then used by other state agencies for planning purposes. Currently available VEC population projections (May, 2003) were used

Riner Historic District, Riner, Virginia. Photo by staff.

for Montgomery County. Projections are 90,800 for 2010, 97,900 for 2020 and 105,000 for 2030. These VEC projections yield the following average annual growth rates for Montgomery County as a whole: 2000-2010 0.86% 2010-2020 0.78% 2020-2030 0.73% Applying the VEC growth rates for Montgomery County as a whole to Blacksburg, Christiansburg and the unincorporated area of Montgomery County produce the following population projections:

Population Projections based on Blacksburg Growth Rates: The second set of projections is based on the Blacksburg 2046 Comprehensive Plan (BCP) adopted by the Blacksburg Town Council in November 2001. The BCP developed town population projections to the year 2046. Projections were 46,750 in 2010, 49,680 in 2020, and 52,700 in 2030. The BCP assumes that Virginia Tech will add an additional 5,000 graduate students between the years 2001 and 2010 slowly increasing enrollment to 30,783 by 2010 and thereafter remaining at this enrollment level. It assumes that town population growth from 2000 to 2010 will grow largely due to enrollment increases at Virginia Tech. The nonstudent population will grow at a moderate rate for this period of time. After 2010 population projections in the Town are solely attributed to nonstudent residential growth based on the expansion and success of the Corporate Research Center, Industrial Park, and improved interstate access. The Town population will continue to grow at an increasingly slower rate until population growth levels off to about 5% per decade by 2046. It also assumes that the percentage of total student enrollment living in Blacksburg (on- and off-campus) will stay consistent with 1990-2000 statistics when 95% of total enrollment lived within town boundaries. The BCP projections yield the following average annual growth rates for the Town.: 2000-2010 1.81% 2010-2020 0.63% 2020-2030 0.61%

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Applying the BCP growth rates to Christiansburg and the unincorporated area of Montgomery County, in addition to Blacksburg, produce the following population projections:

Population Projections based on 1980-2000 Growth Trend: The final set of projections is based on a continuation of the steady growth trend exhibited by Montgomery County during the 1980-

2000 time period. Each decade during this period saw a population increase for the county of approximately 10,000 persons. A continuation of this trend would result in population projections of 93,600 in 2010, 103,600 in 2020, and 113,600 in 2030. These projections yield the following average annual growth rates for Montgomery County as a whole: 2000-2010 1.19% 2010-2020 1.07% 2020-2030 0.97%

Photo by Chris Valluzzo

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Applying these growth rates for Montgomery County as a whole to Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and the unincorporated area of Montgomery County produces the following population projections. Summary of Population Projections Three population projections were developed for Montgomery County to the year 2030. Each is based on differing growth assumptions. They yield a population planning range of 105,000-113,600 for Montgomery County as a whole and 34,000-36,850 for the unincorporated area of the county. They assume that the growth rate of the unincorporated area will be the same as the county as a whole. Therefore, approximately 1/3rd of the County's total population will continue to be located in the unincorporated area and approximately 2/3rdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s will continue to be located in the two towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Projected Residential Land Use Need The population planning range previously developed for the unincorporated area of the county yields an increase of 6,900 to 9,750 persons over the 30 year time period, 2000- 2030. To convert this increase in population into an increase in housing units necessitates an assumption be made regarding the number of persons per household. On a national basis the number of persons per household has been slowly declining. From 1990 to 2000 the US Census showed the number of persons per

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

household (average household size) decreasing from 2.63 to 2.59. This trend is reflected in Montgomery County. From 1990 to 2000 the US Census showed the number of persons per household in the unincorporated area of Montgomery County decreased from 2.6 to 2.5. For planning purposes, a continuation of this trend will be assumed with a lower figure of 2.3 persons per household used for the year 2030. Based on this assumption, the increase of 6,900 to 9,750 persons yields an increase of 3,000 to 4,200 dwelling units over the time period 2000 to 2030 calculated as follows: Low population projection (Virginia Employment Commission growth rates) for the unincorporated area: • 2030 population projection = 34,000, 2000 population = 27,109 • 34,000 (2030) 27,109 (2000) = 6,900 person increase 2000-2030 • 6,900 persons / 2.3 persons per household = 3,000 dwelling units Middle population projection (Blacksburg Comprehensive Plan growth rates) for the unincorporated area: • 2030 population projection = 36,100, 2000 population = 27,109 • 36,100 (2030) 27,109 (2000) = 9,000 person increase 2000-2030 • 9,000 persons / 2.3 persons per household = 3,900 dwelling units High population projection (1980-2000 Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Growth Trend) for the unincorporated area: • 2030 population projection = 36,850, 2000 population = 27,109 • 36,850 (2030) 27,109 (2000) = 9,750 person increase 2000-2030  9,750 persons / 2.3 persons per household = 4,200 dwelling units Projected Residential Land Use Need: Summary The Comprehensive Plan proposes that the majority of the need for residential land uses in the unincorporated area of Montgomery County be met from three land use policy areas: 1) Urban Expansion Areas, 2) Villages, and 3) Village Expansion Areas. The identified needs for residential land uses to the year 2030 can be met through the development of properties within the Urban Expansion Areas around Blacksburg, Christiansburg and Radford and within the six Village/Village Expansion Areas of Belview, Elliston/Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville. In particular, a range of 3,000-4,200 dwelling units is needed in the unincorporated area of Montgomery County to the year 2030. The designated Urban Expansion Areas and Village/Village Expansion Areas can accommodate 11,600 dwelling units at full development. Population Projections and calculations to address the Urban Development Area Legislation The state mandated Urban Development Area legislation requires that the designated

Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

urban development area “shall be sufficient to meet projected residential and commercial growth in the locality for an ensuing period of at least 10 but not more than 20 years” and specifies that “future residential and commercial growth shall be based on official estimates of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia or official projections of the Virginia Employment Commission or the United States Bureau of the Census.” The legislation further encourages consultation and cooperation with adjacent localities to establish the appropriate size and location of urban development areas to promote orderly and efficient development of their region and states that “if a town has established an urban development area within its corporate boundaries, the county within which the town is located shall not include the town’s projected population and commercial growth when initially determining or reexamining the size and boundary of any other urban development area within the county.” Because the County’s population figures typically include the Town of Blacksburg and the Town of Christiansburg, each jurisdiction was analyzed separately to determine compliance with the legislation. Based on 2000-2010 census data, both the Town of Christiansburg and the Town of Blacksburg qualify for UDAs. As per requirements in the legislation, the UDA capacity calculation for the County could not include either the populations of Blacksburg or Christiansburg (since they are required to adopt their own UDAs). In addition, none of the official sources cited in the Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

Table 1. Population Estimates and Forecasts Table 1 - Population Projections * Locality Montgomery County VEC Projections Montgomery County Census 2010 Revised Total

VEC AAGR **

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

73,913

83,629

91,363

96,782

103,24

73,913

83,629

94,392

99,991

106,66

Blacksburg 2010 Revised Total

34,922

39,573

42,620

45,148

48,162

Christiansburg 2010 Revised Total

15,402

16,947

21,041

22,289

23,777

Unincorporated 2010 Revised Total

23,589

27,109

30,731

32,554

34,727

2010-2020

2020-2030

0.58%

0.65%

* VEC - State Demographer Projections have not yet been updated following the release of the 2010 Census figures. Average Annual Growth Rates were derived based on the 2010 Census Data and currently available VEC projections (as of 2/25/11). Annual average growth rates are 0.58% for the 2010-2020 period and .65% for the 2020-2030 period. The 2020 and 2030 projections shown above for UDA have been calculated by applying these rates to the latest 2010 US Census base year of 94,392. ** Both towns in Montgomery County are now required to do UDA based on the percent change in population from 2000-2010. Previously only Blacksburg was required to do UDA based on the percent change in population from 1990-2000. All calculations for County UDA Areas reflect only on the unincorporated portions of the County.

Planning & Land Use

legislation address population growth projections for towns. The VEC State Demographer Projections for Montgomery County will not be available from VEC until December 2011, following the release of the 2010 Census figures. Therefore, for the purposes of establishing County and Town 10 and 20 year projections, the most recent available VEC data was used to establish an Average Annual Growth Rate that was used to estimate future population. Average annual average growth rates were calculated by Renaissance as 0.58% for the 2010 - 2020 period and 0.65% for the 2020 - 2030 period. The 2020 and 2030 projections for Montgomery County shown for UDA capacity have been calculated by applying these growth rates to the latest 2010 US Census base year population for each locality and are presented in Table 1.) Note that the 10-20 year projected growth includes only the projected population for the unincorporated areas of Montgomery County, excluding Blacksburg and Christiansburg. (see Table 2). The tables on the following pages describe the calculations used to establish the required UDA capacity for Montgomery County, as required by the legislation:

Table 2. Population Projections for Unincorporated Areas of Montgomery County Locality

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

Montgomery County Unincorporated

23,589

27,109

30,731

32,554

34,727

Urban Development Areas The state code requires that the UDAs be able to accommodate the projected residential and commercial growth for the next 10 to 20 years. As a whole, the County is expected to add approximately 5,600 people during the next 10 years, and 12,275 people during the next 20 years. The Unincorporated Areas are projected to add 1,823 people during the next 10 years and approximately 4,000 people during the next 20 years. This growth will require an estimated 792 to 1,738 new housing units and 109,365 to 240,000 square feet of commercial space (retail and of-

 Table 1 summarizes the population estimates based on average annual growth rates derived from the latest VEC projections.  Table 2 summarizes the population projections for the unincorporated areas of the county, which are considered for UDA designation. Riner Historic District, Riner, Virginia. Photo by staff.

Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Alleghany Springs Road. Photo by C. Valluzzo.

Montgomery County’s vision for the Urban Development Areas is one of connected, selfsustaining communities that offer a mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses; a full complement of public services and facilities; amenities that support a high quality of life; and design that complements the County’s surrounding rural area, incorporating cluster development, conservation design and/or Traditional Neighborhood Design. The County, in collaboration with other governmental agencies and the private sector, is committed to ensuring that all public spaces in residential and commercial areas within the Urban Development Areas become increasingly pedestrian friendly through a variety of measures. These measures may include the construction, improvement, and maintenance of public squares, parks and pedestrian connections, and the attention to street design details such as landscaping, lighting, and provision of attractive street furniture. Residential, office, civic and commercial areas in the Urban Development Area should have convenient access by foot, bicycle, and transit. Growth will be directed toward the Urban Development Areas through a variety of incentives. Such incentives may include but not be limited to density bonuses, reduced application fees, fast track permitting and plan review. Targeted public investments in amenities such as street lighting, landscaping, street furniture, sidewalks and trails may be focused in UDA areas to attract and augment private investment and to support community design in keeping with the traditional design principles outlined in the UDA legislation. Additionally, Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

public investment in utilities and capital facilities may be focused in UDA areas as appropriate to promote compact development and to encourage, attract and leverage private investments. Offering such incentives only or primarily within Urban Development Areas, increases the likelihood that these areas will be the focal point for future growth and help the County to meet established goals of reducing public costs and improving service delivery while accommodating population growth in a planned manner. Land Use Policies governing Urban Development Areas are found under PLU 1.9. Urban Expansion Areas: Urban Expansion Areas are the preferred location for new residential and nonresidential development occurring in unincorporated areas of Montgomery County. These areas will accommodate a full range of residential unit types and densities. These are areas adjacent to Blacksburg, Christiansburg and Radford and are intended to be natural expansion areas for uses occurring within town and city boundaries. Transportation improvements within Urban Expansion Areas will be designed to tie into the existing street network serving the City and the towns and development in these areas will be compatible with and complimentary to development within corporate limits. Land Use Policies governing Urban Expansion Areas are found under PLU 1.8.

Planning & Land Use

Yellow Sulphur Springs. Photo by C. Valluzzo

Villages: Villages should be predominately residential but may include a “downtown” area of business, commercial and institutional uses at densities higher than found in surrounding rural areas. Villages are larger rural communities where limited mixed-use development activity has historically occurred and public utilities are available. They are separate and distinct from each other and from nearby towns. Villages have served as and will continue to serve as focal point for surrounding rural areas. Land Use Policies governing Villages are found under PLU 1.7. Village Expansion Areas: Village Expansion Areas are intended to provide an alternative to scattered rural residential development and to provide an opportunity to enhance the vitality of existing villages by providing for compatible expansions of residential and employment uses. Village Ex39

pansion Areas are adjacent to existing villages where appropriate new development can be accommodated while retaining the viability and character of the historic village core. These are natural expansion areas for the Villages that may potentially be served by future public sewer and water extensions. Development in Village Expansion Areas should be designed to tie into the existing street network serving the village it is adjacent to and to complement and augment the historic character and development pattern of the existing village. A mix of appropriately scaled residential, non-residential and community uses are anticipated in Village Expansion Areas. Using the Future Policy Map, each Urban Expansion Area and each Village/Village Expansion Area was evaluated to determine its future capacity for residential development. Both the approximate amounts of undeveloped acreage and undeveloped lots were determined. Undeveloped acreage included larger parcels that have not been developed to date, that are not restricted by steep slopes, and that are not in preferred locations for commercial or industrial development. It should be noted that the three Urban Expansion Areas were not evaluated for future residential development because of their potential for primarily commercial and/or industrial development:- Falling Branch Urban Expansion Area (Parkway Drive), Christiansburg Industrial Park Urban Expansion Area (Houchins Road), and Bypass East Urban Expansion Area (Peppers Ferry Road Extension). Undeveloped lots included small parcels that have be subdivided but not developed to date and parcels that have been zoned for future residential development. ExMontgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

amples include Warm Hearth Retirement Community (Mabry Lane) and the Greear Planned Unit Development (Riner). Land Use Policies governing Village Expansion Areas are found under PLU 1.6. Residential Transition Areas Residential Transition Areas are stable, low-density residential neighborhoods in close proximity to Municipalities and Urban Expansion Areas or areas of higher density residential development outside of Village/Village Expansion Areas or Rural Communities such as major subdivisions, mobile home parks, and residentially zoned land. Land Use Policies governing Residential Transition Areas are found under PLU 1.5. Rural Communities Rural communities are small-scale, stable rural residential communities of local historical significance. They have specific place names, are often located at crossroads, and have traditionally functioned as community focal points. The existing development pattern in these areas should be preserved. Land Use Policies governing Rural Communities are found under PLU 1.4. Rural Areas: Rural Areas include areas not generally served by public utilities, where agricultural and rural residential uses are predominant, and should be preserved and stabilized. Land Use Policies governing Rural Areas are found unMontgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

der PLU 1.3 Resource Stewardship Areas: Resource Stewardship Areas are rural areas with high resource value based on soil types, environmental sensitivity, or other unique land characteristics. These areas also include land that is preserved from future development through public or private conservation efforts. Land Use Policies governing Resource Stewardship Areas are found under PLU 1.2. FUTURE LAND USE SUMMARY The primary land use goal in this Comprehensive Plan is for "focused growth." This goal directly reflects the comments and recommendations from many participants in the community survey. It necessitates a proactive approach by the County to maintain a balance between urban and rural areas by planning for orderly growth to occur in areas with adequate resources and services to support growth. Building on the comments and recommendations from the community survey, the concepts described by "focused growth" were actively debated by several of the citizen working groups as they developed specific goals and strategies. In particular, the Government & Planning Working Group discussed and developed the idea of distinct villages in the county, each with its own historic core, characCross References and Notes: 2. Please see â&#x20AC;&#x153;Land Use Policies/Designations.â&#x20AC;? Herd Planning & Design, 2003. The report is available, upon request, from the Montgomery County Planning Department.

Planning & Land Use

ter and community focus, and with the basic public utilities and facilities to support future growth. Government & Planning also discussed urban expansion areas as a land use designation to address the inevitable growth outward from Blacksburg, Christiansburg and Radford. Similarly, the Environment Working Group discussed and developed the concept of a stewardship approach for natural resources that would benefit both current landowners and future generations. The next step in the process was taken by Herd Planning & Design. The planning consultant considered the comments and recommendations and concepts that had been developed to date and shaped a specific set of future policy area designations for Montgomery County. The Herd report also called for development of a countywide natural resource overlay map indicating critical, sensitive and special resources. These features are shown on the Critical Features Map. (2) As a final step, the policy area designations were applied to the population and land use projections to yield the Future Policy Map. The Future Policy Map for land use identifies distinct urban and rural areas, while providing sufficient land to accommodate the expected demand for new housing and commercial and industrial development. New urban development is expected and encouraged to occur in areas of the County where adequate roads, utilities, and public facilities (schools, parks, etc.) are available, planned, or may be logically extended or enhanced to support higher density development. These areas generally include undeveloped properties and infill properties 41

around Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford, and the larger Villages. The Future Policy Map incorporates several important assumptions and targets regarding future development. They are summarized below: 1. Blacksburg and Christiansburg will continue to accommodate 2/3rd’s of the Future Development within Montgomery County. It is assumed that the future growth rate for the unincorporated areas for Montgomery County will approximate the future growth rate for the two towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Therefore, approximately 1/3rd of Montgomery County’s future residential development will continue to be accommodated in the unincorporated areas while the remaining 2/3rd’s will continue to be accommodated in the two towns.

development of these areas. The six Village/Village Expansion Areas of Belview, Elliston/Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville are also important to the County’s future. They are separate and distinct from each other and from nearby towns. They serve as focal points for surrounding rural areas. With the extension of public utilities, the provision of public facilities, and the application of traditional development patterns, they can accommodate new development while retaining their vitality and historic character. Accordingly, the County will need to work jointly with the residents of each village/village expansion area to prepare a village plan to guide future development.

2. Urban Development Areas, Urban Expansion Areas and Village/Village Expansion Areas have the potential to accommodate the 1/3rd of Future Development within Montgomery County that is anticipated to occur in the Unincorporated Areas: Urban Expansion Areas including the designated Urban Development Areas, adjacent to Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford are planned for a broad range and mix of uses at urban development densities and intensities. These areas are served by or planned for central sewer and water service and will provide natural expansion areas for uses occurring within town and city boundaries. Accordingly, the County will need to work closely with respective municipalities on the planning and

3. Designated Urban Development Areas are sufficient to accommodate the next 10-20 years of growth for the Unincorporated Areas of the County Urban Development Areas are designated areas within the Mid-County and 177 Urban Expansion Areas adjacent to the Town of Blacksburg, the Town of Christiansburg and the City of Radford that are planned for compact, mixed use development at urban development densities and intensities. They are intended to serve as a focal point for growth over the next 10-20 years. Development within the UDA must be compact, using Traditional Neighborhood Design principles, and designed to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic with a full complement of services and amenities. Development in the UDA should also provide for transit facilities or stops. Urban Development Areas are served by or planned for central sewer and water ser-

Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

vice, and transportation infrastructure. A projected range of 792 to 1,738 new housing units and 109,365 to 240,000 square feet of commercial space (retail and office) are needed in the unincorporated areas of Montgomery County to accommodate future development to the year 2030. This translates to approximately 204 to 448 acres of land. The designated Urban Development Areas have the potential to accommodate approximately this projected development. 4. 80% or more of Future Development within the Unincorporated Areas is targeted for the Urban Development Areas, Urban Expansion Areas, Village/ Village Expansion Areas, and Residential Transition Areas. Urban Development Areas, Urban Expansion Areas and Village/Village Expansion Areas can be provided with the necessary infrastructure, such as utilities, roads, and public facilities, to accommodate future growth and development. Going forward, this will necessitate coordination and cooperation between county government, municipalities, residents, and land developers. 5. 20% or less of Future Development within the Unincorporated Areas is targeted for the Rural Communities, Rural Areas, and Resource Stewardship Areas. Rural Communities and their surrounding Rural Areas have the potential to develop and evolve into the next generation of Villages. However, this progression is limited in the near term by their smaller size and their lack of public utilities and facilities. The preferred uses for Resource Steward42

ship Areas are a continuation of agriculture, forest uses, outdoor recreational uses, and other natural resource based uses. This continuation can only be successful if most development is successfully accommodated elsewhere. The County has significant natural features that present constraints to development but that also offer opportunities to develop a sys-

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

tem of open space and scenic resources throughout the County. These are shown on the Critical Features Map that can be used in conjunction with land use policies to evaluate development applications.

Planning & Land Use

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Planning & Land Use Policies PLU Goal 1.0 Balanced Growth: The County will maintain a balance between urban and rural areas by planning for orderly growth to occur in areas with adequate resources and services to support growth.

planning policy area is the least densely developed of all of the planning areas and includes many largely undeveloped areas of the County. (3)

PLU 1.1 Planning Policy Areas: Establish boundaries for distinct urban and rural planning policy areas and identify preferred development patterns for each planning area to (i) promote growth where it can be supported by infrastructure improvements; (ii) maintain existing community character; and (iii) preserve agriculture, forestry, and related uses where most appropriate based on natural resources and where existing development and land use patterns support the continuation of these uses.

PLU 1.2.1 Resource Stewardship Area Land Uses: a.

b. Low-density residential development will be permitted, but not encouraged, as a secondary use in Resource Stewardship Areas.

PLU 1.1.1 Policy Area Designations: Develop a policy for the periodic consideration by the county of landowner requests to change policy area designations in the Comprehensive Plan.

c. Private and public conservation efforts and farmland retention programs, such as agricultural and forestal districts, should be focused in Resource Stewardship Areas. (4)

PLU 1.2 Resource Stewardship Areas: Resource Stewardship Areas are generally defined as rural areas of the County that have high resource value based on soil types, or that are environmentally sensitive due to topography or unique land characteristics. These areas include national forest land, state lands, private preserves, undeveloped prime agricultural soils and soils of local importance, agricultural and forestal districts, land that is subject to private conservation easements and conservation zoning and areas of predominantly 25% slope or greater. This Cross References and Notes: 3. While resource stewardship is a theme which runs throughout this plan, specific references to the resource stewardship areas are also included in the Environmental Resource Chapter, including: ENV 1.0 Natural Environmental Resources; ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources; ENV 2.1.1-11 Approaches to Open Space and Agricultural Preservation ; ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters; ENV 3.2 Vegetation and Soil; ENV 4.0 Floodplains; and ENV 6.0 Karst. References to Historic Preservation can be found in CRS 1.1.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

The preferred land uses for Resource Stewardship Areas include agriculture, forest uses, outdoor recreational uses, other natural resource based uses and accessory uses directly related to the support of the preferred land uses.

d. Non-residential uses, except those incidental to and supportive of agriculture, forest, outdoor recreational or other preferred land uses, will be discouraged in Resource Stewardship Areas. e. Rezoning to allow higher intensity uses in Resource Stewardship Areas will be discouraged. f.

The County may permit new non-agriculturally related institutional uses by special use permit provided the use is compatible in scale and intensity with agricultural and rural residential uses, poses no

Cross References and Notes: 4. For approaches to conservation, see also ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources; ENV 2.1.1-11 Approaches to Open Space and Agricultural Preservation; and ENV 6.4 Conservation .

Planning & Land Use

threat to public health, safety and welfare, and if the use helps preserve farmland, open space or historic, scenic or natural resources.

cept to resolve existing public health threats or to interconnect existing individual systems. (8) b. With the exception of public parks and outdoor recreation facilities, Resource Stewardship Areas will not be a preferred location for new community facilities.

PLU 1.2.2 Resource Stewardship Area Community Design: a.

Development densities in Resource Stewardship Areas are based on a sliding scale approach and range from .05 to 1.0 dwelling units per acre. (5)

c. Transportation access and improvements in Resource Stewardship Areas will be limited to what is necessary to serve very low-density development. New rural residential subdivisions should be served by internal streets that connect to existing rural roads to avoid strip development and to minimize individual driveway access along existing public roads.

b. New residential development proposed in Resource Stewardship Areas should be clustered, or exhibit other conservation design principles, to preserve on-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space or environmental resources. (6) c. The County will vigorously support "Right to Farm" policies in Resource Stewardship Areas to protect existing farms and farmers from nuisance complaints from neighboring rural residents. Plats for new residential lots located in the Resource Stewardship Area shall disclose that the preferred land use in the immediate vicinity of the new lot is agriculture, forestry, and related uses. (7)

d. The use of private roads will generally be discouraged in Resource Stewardship Areas.

PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Area Community Facilities and Utilities: a.

Future sewer and water service extensions to Resource Stewardship Areas will be discouraged ex-

Cross References and Notes: 5. The sliding scale was included in the new zoning ordinance, adopted in 1999. Additional references to the sliding scale can be found in ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources and ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning 6. Additional references to cluster development can be found in ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources and ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning. 7. References to Agriculture can be found in ENV 1.2 Resource Management; ENV 2.5 Agriculture; ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts; ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives; and ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Cross References and Notes: 8. Limits on the expansion of utilities into the resource stewardship areas are addressed in UTL 1.2.5 Growth Boundary.

Planning & Land Use

PLU 1.3 Rural Areas: Rural Areas are generally defined as areas of the County, not generally served by public utilities, where agricultural and rural residential uses are predominant and should be preserved and stabilized. These areas include low -density rural residential subdivisions and active agriculture on secondary agricultural soils. Agricultural uses in these areas are often fragmented and subject to encroaching rural residential development.

e. New non-agriculturally based industrial and commercial uses will generally be discouraged in Rural Areas, unless the use is compatible in scale and intensity with agricultural and rural residential uses and poses no threat to public health, safety and welfare. (12) f.

PLU 1.3.1 Rural Area Land Uses: a.

The preferred land uses in Rural Areas are rural residential development and agriculture. Rather than promoting new rural residential development in Rural Areas, the County seeks to maintain the rural character of existing rural residential developments. The County also seeks to maintain existing agricultural uses in Rural Areas.

PLU 1.3.2. Rural Area Community Design: a.

Cross References and Notes: 9. Farmland retention is also addressed in ENV 2.0: Open Space and Natural Resources; ENV 2.5: Agriculture; and ENV 2.1.3: Agricultural and Forestal Districts. 10. Rural residential cluster development is addressed in ENV 2.1.5: Rural Cluster Development. 11. Controlling rural density is addressed in ENV 2.1.9: Urban Growth Boundaries-Urban and Village Expansion.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

New development in Rural Areas shall not exceed 0.75 dwelling unit per acre.

b. New residential development proposed in Rural Areas should be clustered, or exhibit other conservation design principles, to preserve on-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space or environmental resources. (13)

b. The County will continue to promote farmland retention programs, such as agricultural and forestal districts, in Rural Areas. (9)

d. Rezonings to allow higher intensity uses in Rural Areas will be discouraged. (11)

The County may permit new non-agriculturally related institutional uses by special exception provided the use is compatible in scale and intensity with agricultural and rural residential uses and poses no threat to public health, safety and welfare.

PLU 1.3.3. Rural Area Community Facilities and Utilities: a.

Future sewer and water service extensions to Rural Areas will be discouraged except to resolve existing

Cross References and Notes: 12. Development and growth of sustainable agriculture is addressed in ENV 2.1.7: Rural Development Initiatives. 13. The preservation of open space, agricultural lands, and the rural character are discussed in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation; ENV 1.4: Wildlife Corridors; ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources; ENV 2.1: Private Open Space; ENV 2.3 Viewsheds; ENV 2.4 Forest Lands; ENV 2.5 Agriculture; ENV 2.1.5: Rural Cluster Zoning; ENV 3.1.3: Environmental Quality Corridors; ENV 3.2.6: Preservation of Natural Landscapes; ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features; and ENV 5.4 Wellhead Protection. 14. Additional references on utilities in rural areas can be found in ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries--Urban and Village Expansion Areas, UTL 1.2.5 Growth Boundaries; and UTL 1.3 Private Systems.

Planning & Land Use

PLU 1.4 Rural Communities: Rural Communities are generally defined as scattered, small-scale, stable rural residential communities of local historic significance. These communities, often located at crossroads, have specific place names and have traditionally functioned as community focal points. Some of these communities include areas zoned to higher residential categories than the surrounding the rural community. Some of these communities also have limited public sewer and/or water service. The existing development pattern in these areas should be preserved. (16)

public health threats or to interconnect existing individual systems. (14) b. With the exception of public parks, recreation facilities, and solid waste collection facilities, Rural Areas will not be a preferred location for new community facilities c. Transportation access is via existing collector highways. New rural residential subdivisions should be served by internal streets that connect to existing rural roads to avoid strip development and to minimize individual driveway access along existing collector highways. (15)

PLU 1.4.1 Rural Communities Land Uses: a.

d. The use of private roads will generally be discouraged in Rural Areas.

The preferred land use in Rural Communities is residential infill in a traditional small lot pattern, consistent with existing residential development. (17)

Cross References and Notes: 14. Additional references on utilities in rural areas can be found in ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries--Urban and Village Expansion Areas, UTL 1.2.5 Growth Boundaries; and UTL 1.3 Private Systems. 15. Issues connected to subdivision road systems can be found in TRN 1.3 Subdivisions and TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity .

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Cross References and Notes: 16. Currently, Montgomery County has 18 rural communities: Alleghany Springs, Ironto, Denhill, Piedmont, Otey, Reesedale, Ellett, Lusters Gate, McCoy, Wake Forest, Longshop, Vicker, Walton, Graysontown, Childress, Rogers, Pilot, and Sugar Grove. Although some of these communities are primarily crossroads, most have had, at one time a commercial district, many have existing historical structures included in the Montgomery County Survey of Historical Sites, and all have been places people identify themselves as â&#x20AC;&#x153;being from.â&#x20AC;? A few places already have access to limited public water or sewer, such as Alleghany Springs. However, most are not currently served by either. 17. Rural community development is addressed in ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning; PNG 4.0 Village and Rural Communities; and PNG 4.1.3 Planning for Rural Communities.

Planning & Land Use

ings may be considered for residential or nonresidential infill development that enhances the community fabric by augmenting the core of the Rural Community, provided the proposed development is compatible with adjacent uses and can be supported by existing or improved roads and planned or existing utilities.

toric, scenic, open space or environmental resources. PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities Community Facilities and Utilities: a.

PLU 1.4.2 Rural Communities Community Design: a.

New residential development in Rural Communities should be predominately single family residential. Appropriate development densities in Rural Areas should be determined on a case by case basis, depending on existing zoning. In the case of a rezoning, the proposal must demonstrate that development densities will be of an intensity that is similar to or compatible with surrounding existing development.

b. With the exception of public parks, recreation facilities, and solid waste collection facilities, Rural Communities will not be a preferred location for new community facilities. However, the County does encourage the maintenance, enhancement and where appropriate, the expansion of existing community facilities that serve a regional need. (19) c. Transportation access is via existing collector highways. New development in Rural Communities will be designed to access existing roads. Road improvements may be necessary to ensure safe ingress and egress. Street design must be compatible with the historic character of the local roads, in terms of pavement width, building setbacks, etc. (20)

b. New development proposed in Rural Communities should be designed to relate to existing community elements and provide logical connections to existing streets, sidewalks and other features. Design elements should includes a generally interconnected street network, defined open spaces that serve as exterior rooms, multiple uses within a single building, multiple uses adjacent to one another, building fronts set close to the street, comfortable and safe pedestrian access between sites and along sidewalks, on-street parking, and parking lots and garages located behind buildings. c. New structures should be of a scale and type that are consistent with existing structures. d. New residential development proposed in Rural Communities should exhibit conservation design principles, to preserve on-site natural, cultural, hisMontgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Future sewer and water service extensions to Rural Communities will be discouraged except to resolve existing public health threats or to interconnect existing individual systems. (18)

Cross References and Notes:18. Private and individual sewerage systems are addressed in UTL 1.3 Private Systems and UTL1.4 Individual Systems. 19. The placement of park and recreational facilities are discussed in PRC 2.5 Plan Review. 20. See TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity for a discussion of transportation considerations in subdivisions and developments.

Planning & Land Use

PLU 1.5. Residential Transition Areas: Residential Transition Areas are generally defined as stable, low density residential neighborhoods in close proximity to Municipalities and Urban Expansion or areas of higher density residential development outside of Villages, Village Expansion Areas, and Rural Communities, such as major subdivisions and mobile home parks. These areas include undeveloped land that has been previously zoned for residential development. There is limited public sewer and/or water service in some of these areas.

PLU 1.5.2 Residential Transition Area Community Design: a.

b. New development proposed in Residential Transition Areas should be clustered, or exhibit other conservation design principles to preserve on-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space, or environmental resources. (22)

PLU 1.5.1 Residential Transition Area Land Uses: a.

The predominant and preferred land use in Residential Transition areas is residential. The type of residential developments depends upon the location of the residential transition area and may include single-family detached homes or manufactured home parks.

c. New development in Residential Transition Areas should be designed to be compatible with existing neighborhoods and subdivisions. PLU 1.5.3 Residential Transition Area Facilities and Utilities: (23)

b. The County anticipates residential development of infill properties in existing subdivisions and of undeveloped properties with existing residential zoning. Development on in-fill properties should be compatible with adjacent development in terms of scale and density and should provide a seamless transition from existing to new development. (21) c. The County should evaluate portions of the Residential Transition areas that have built out at development levels that are lower than what would be permitted by zoning to determine if there is any benefit to rezone these areas to be consistent with actual development. Cross References and Notes: 21. As with rural communities, new development will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Manufactured Housing developments are addressed in HSG 1.2: Manufactured Housing and Housing Parks. Subdivision development is addressed in HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods; HSG 1.3 Safe Neighborhoods; and TRN 1.3 Subdivisions.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

New development in Residential Transition Areas shall not exceed 1 dwelling unit per acre, with the exception of developments served by both public water and sewer.

Future sewer and water service extensions to Residential Transition Areas will be discouraged except to resolve existing public health threats or to interconnect existing individual systems or when provided by private developers

b. With the exception of public parks, recreation facilities, and solid waste collection facilities, Residential Transition Areas will not be a preferred location for new community facilities. However, the County Cross References and Notes: 22. The preservation of open space, agricultural lands, and the rural character are discussed in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation; ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources; ENV 3.1.3: Environmental Quality Corridors (pg.141); ENV 3.2.6: Preservation of Natural Landscapes; and ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features. 23. Information on the location public facilities are included in PRC 2.5 Planning Review, SFY 1.4 New Development, UTL 1.2 Public Systems; and UTL 3.2.1 Consolidated Collection Sites.

Planning & Land Use

does encourage the maintenance, enhancement and where appropriate, the expansion of existing community facilities that serve a regional need.

c. Transportation improvements in these areas will generally be limited to routine maintenance and enhancements needed to improve public safety. Countywide or regional transportation improvements that may affect Residential Transition Areas should be designed to minimize and/or mitigate potential negative impacts on these areas.

PLU 1.6.1 Village Expansion Areas Planning Process. The County will develop a planning process to work jointly with residents of each village and surrounding area to define a specific village expansion boundary and to prepare a village plan to guide future development. Upon completion, each village plan should be adopted as an amendment to the countywide Comprehensive Plan. (24) PLU 1.6.2 Village and Village Expansion Zoning Amendments. Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance to create mixed use, "traditional neighborhood design" development options that will facilitate compact traditional design of new projects in Villages and Village Expansion areas. (25) PLU 1.6.3 Village Expansion Area Land Use: a.

Village Expansion Areas are intended to provide an alternative to scattered rural residential development and to provide an opportunity to enhance the vitality of existing villages by providing for compatible expansions of residential and employment uses.

Cross References and Notes: 24. Village Planning is addressed in PNG 4.0: Villages and Rural Communities; PNG 4.1.1: Livable Communities; PNG 4.1.2 Planning for Villages; and PNG 4.2: Public Facilities. 25. Mixed use and traditional neighborhood design (TND) options are addressed in PLU 3.0 Community Design; PNG 4.1.1 Livable Communities; HHS 1.0 Livable Communities; HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods; and HSG 1.3 HSG Safe Neighborhoods.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

Village expansion areas are adjacent to existing villages where appropriate new development can be accommodated while retaining the viability and character of the historic village core.

serve as "exterior rooms," multiple uses within a single building, multiple uses adjacent to one another, building fronts set close to the street, comfortable and safe pedestrian access between sites and along sidewalks, on-street parking, and parking lots and garages located behind buildings.

b. A mix of appropriately scaled residential, nonresidential and community uses are anticipated in Village Expansion Areas.

d. Development in Village Expansion Areas should be designed to preserve critical historic resources. (27)

c. Specific land use recommendations will be developed as Village Plans and Village Expansion Area plans are developed and adopted.

e. Development in Village Expansion Areas should be designed to preserve critical natural, open space, scenic landscape resources. (28)

PLU 1.6.4 Village Expansion Area Community Design: a.

From an area wide or large-scale project perspective, gross densities in Village Expansion Areas may range up to 2.0 dwelling units per acre.

PLU 1.6.5 Village Expansion Area Facilities and Utilities:

b. Compact development and a range of housing types are encouraged in Village Expansion Areas as long as new development is sensitive to existing village character and design. (26) c. Development in Village Expansion Areas should be designed to complement and augment the historic character and development pattern of the adjacent existing village by becoming a natural "extension" of the existing village. New development in the expansion areas should relate closely to the existing village and should be an "organic" continuation of the historic fabric of the village. Design element should include a generally interconnected street network, define open spaces that Cross References and Notes: 26. Compact development and Traditional Neighborhood Designs are addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design; PNG 4.1.1 Livable Communities; HHS 2.1: Affordable Housing; HSG 1.1: Affordable Housing.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Street design must be compatible with the historic character of the local roads, in terms of pavement width, building setbacks, etc.

Extensions of sewer and water lines from existing villages into Village Expansion Areas will be permitted in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment for each village. (29)

Cross References and Notes:27. Historic preservation is addressed in CRS 1.1: Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors. 28. Environmental and open space preservation is addressed, more specifically, in ENV 2.0: Open Space and Natural Resources; ENV 2.2 Public Open Space; ENV 3.1.3 Environmental Quality Corridors; ENV 3.2.6 Preservation of Natural Landscapes; ENV 3.2.7: Protection of Riparian Features; and ENV 4.2: Floodplain Programs and Policies. 29. Growth boundaries are addressed in ENV 2.1.9: Urban Growth Boundaries--Urban and Village Expansion Areas; and UTL 1.2.5: Growth Boundaries.

Planning & Land Use

b. Village Expansion Areas are a preferred location for public investments in community facilities. (30)

c. Roads serving new development in Village Expansion Areas should be designed to tie into and enhance the existing street network serving the adjacent village. New roads and road improvements and should be designed to accommodate pedestrians as well as motor vehicles, rather than allowing motor vehicles to cause and unsafe and unpleasant pedestrian environment. (31)

Cross References and Notes: 30. The location of public and community facilities is addressed in PNG 3.1.4 Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities; PNG 4.0: Villages and Small Communities; CRS 2.1.4 Library-Based Community Space; CRS 3.1: Cultural Facilities, Programs, and Events; EDU 1.2.1: Local and Neighborhood Facilities; HHS 2.5 Community Facilities; PRC 2.5: Planning Review; SFY 1.3 Future Capital Facilities; and UTL 3.2.1 Consolidated Collection Sites. 31. Transportation is addressed in TRN 1.3 Subdivisions and TRN 1.4 Connectivity and Access Management.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

PLU 1.7.1 Village Planning Process. The County will develop a planning process to work jointly with residents of each village and the surrounding area to define a specific village expansion boundary and to prepare a village plan to guide future development. Upon completion, each village plan should be adopted as an amendment to the countywide Comprehensive Plan. (34)

Cross References and Notes: 32. Maintaining current community assets (schools, fire and rescue stations, parks, and collections facilities) and developing new community assets helps maintain both the sense of community within the Villages and strengthens the Villagesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; role as a focal point for surrounding communities. The importance of community assets is also addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design; PNG 3.1.1 Multi-use of Facilities; PNG 3.1.4 Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities; PNG 4.0 Villages and Rural Communities; PNG 4.2: Public Facilities; EDU 1.2.1 Local and Neighborhood Facilities; HHS 1.0 Livable Communities; HHS 4.2 Emergency Care Facilities; HHS 4.3 Emergency Response Facilities and Staff ; HHS 5.0 Human Services and Facilities; PRC 2.1.4 Village Plans; SFY 1.3 Future Capital Facilities; TRN 3.3 Villages and Transportation Needs; and UTL 2.3: Broadband/Fiber-optic Networks. 33. In the focused growth approach, Villages and Village Expansion Areas (PLU 1.6), Urban Expansion Areas (PLU 1.7), and Municipalities (Blacksburg and Christiansburg) represent the primary targeted areas for future development. It should be noted, however, that not all types of growth and development are appropriate for all focused growth areas and projects will continue to be evaluated on a case by case basis in accord with the stated land use policies and subsequent village plans. 34. The Village planning process is also addressed in PNG 4.0: Villages and Rural Communities.

Planning & Land Use

PLU 1.7.4 Village Area Community Design:

PLU 1.7.2 Village and Village Expansion Zoning Amendments. The County should review and revise the Zoning Ordinance to create mixed use, "traditional neighborhood" development options (35) that will facilitate compact traditional design of new projects in Villages and Village Expansion areas.

PLU 1.7.3 Village Area Land Use: a.

b. New infill development may be appropriate provided it maintains the compact traditional design of patterns of existing villages and provided development densities are generally consistent with adjacent properties. mix of housing types may be appropriate in villages provided new development is compatible in scale and character with existing structures. Alternative housing types such as "granny flats" and live-work units shall be encouraged in villages to expand the range of housing options available to County residents. (39)

Villages should be predominately residential but may include a "downtown" area of business, commercial and institutional uses at densities higher than found in surrounding rural areas. New smallscale business, commercial, and employment uses may be appropriate in villages provided they are small-scale buildings with a pedestrian oriented street front.

c. New development in the Village Areas shall conform to future Village Plans that will be adopted as part of the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Comprehensive Plan. Until such specific plans are adopted, all new development within the village shall related closely to the existing, historic fabric of the village. Design elements should include a generally interconnected street network, defined opens spaces that serve as "exterior rooms", multiple uses within a single building, multiple uses adjacent to one another, building fronts set close to the street, comfortable

c. Specific land use recommendations will be developed as Village /Village Expansion Area Plans are developed and adopted. (37)

Cross References and Notes: 35. Additional information and guidelines for community design and traditional neighborhood designs (TND) are addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design. 36.Small business development is addressed in CRS 1.3: Historic Preservation and Tourism; ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy; and ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives. 37. Village planning is also addressed in PNG 4.0. Villages and Rural Communities.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

The viability and historic character of existing villages shall be maintained by encouraging preservation of historic structures and preservation of the historic pattern of developed and undeveloped areas that define the village and its boundaries. (38)

Cross References and Notes: 38. Historic Preservation is also addressed in CRS 1.1: Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors and CRS 1.1.3: Villages and Rural Communities. 39. Compact design and other forms of traditional neighborhood design are addressed in PLU 3.0 Community Design.

Planning & Land Use

and safe pedestrian access between sites and along sidewalks, on-street parking, and parking lots and garages located behind buildings.

d. Street design must be compatible with the historic character of the local roads, in terms of pavement width, building setbacks, etc. (40)

e. Stormwater management plans for new development should consider the impact of the developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s storm water on the Village and Village Expansion Area as a whole and provide adequate storm water management facilities which work with the Villageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall stormwater management plan and requirements. (45)

PLU 1.7.5 Village Area Facilities and Utilities: a.

Villages are served by public sewer and water facilities. The extension of utilities to surrounding areas may be permitted in accordance with individual Village and Village Expansion Plans. (41)

b. Villages are a preferred location for new community facilities and public investments. Additionally, the County supports the maintenance, enhancement and where appropriate, the expansion of existing community facilities located in villages. (42) c. Transportation access to Villages is usually via existing major collector or minor arterial highways, with a network of smaller streets serving the village center. New development in or adjacent to Villages must connect to and reinforce the traditional village road network. (43)

Cross References and Notes: 40. Context-sensitive street designs and standards is addressed in TRN1.3.4. 41. The provision of utilities is also discussed in UTL 1.0 Water and Sewer. 42. See footnote 30 for specific community facility references. 43. Street design standards are discussed in PLU 3.1.1(b). See, also, TRN 1.3.4: ContextSensitive Street Design.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Cross References and Notes: 44. Street design standards are discussed in PLU 3.1.1 (b).See HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods; TRN 1.3.4: Context-Sensitive Street Design; and TRN 1.3.5 Pedestrian Transportation Facilities. 45. Stormwater Management is addressed in ENV 6.5: Stormwater Management; ENV 7.0 Stormwater and Erosion Control; and UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management.

Planning & Land Use

PLU 1.8 Urban Expansion Areas: These are areas adjacent to the Town of Blacksburg, the Town of Christiansburg and the City of Radford that are planned for a broad range and mix of uses at urban development densities and intensities. Urban Expansion areas are served by or planned for central sewer and water service and will serve as natural expansion areas for uses occurring within town and city boundaries.

PLU 1.8.1 Industrial and Business Location Study: The County Planning Department should work with the Department of Economic Development to identify locations for new industrial and businesses parks and/ or the expansion of existing parks in Urban Expansion Areas. (46)

PLU 1.8.4 Urban Expansion Area Community Design: (49) a.

b. The County will encourage high quality residential and non-residential design in Urban Expansion Areas. The County shall evaluate development proposals in Urban Expansion Areas to ensure that proposed development is compatible with existing communities and uses and is designed to minimize any negative impact on these existing neighborhoods. Such new development should be designed to provide a "seamless" transition from the existing development to the new.

PLU 1.8.2 Corridor Planning: The County should identify major transportation corridors within Urban Expansion Areas that posses unique potential for residential and non-residential development and initiate a corridor planning process to develop detailed land use policies and design guidelines to guide development in these key corridors. (47) PLU 1.8.3 Urban Expansion Area Land Use: a.

Urban Expansion Areas are the preferred location for new residential and non-residential development occurring in unincorporated areas of Montgomery County.

Cross References and Notes: 46. Economic development siting and facility requirements are addressed in ECD 1.3 Future Land Use Requirements (pg.99); ECD 3.0: Location and Land Use . 47. The majority of major corridors, in Montgomery County pass through Villages and/ or other jurisdictions: 1) US 460/Rt 11 passes through the Villages of Elliston/Lafayette and Shawsville before entering the eastern end of Christiansburg; 2) US 460. passes through Christiansburg, Blacksburg, and Montgomery County; 3) Rt. 114 passes through Belview; 4) Rt. 11 passes through Plum Creek; and Rt.8 passes through Riner. Corridor plans are meant to address development along the stretches of road between the two towns and villages and to work, in tandem, with the comprehensive plans of the two towns and the Village Plans. They are not meant to supersede existing town or village plans.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

From an area wide or large-scale project perspective, gross densities in Urban Expansion Areas may range up to 2.5 dwelling units per acre.

c. The County will encourage development of planned, mixed use, pedestrian and transit friendly communities in Urban Expansion Areas that would combine office, commercial, residential, recreational uses into a single development, with strong connections between all sites and all uses, especially pedestrian access along the public street network. Cross References and Notes: 48. Economic development siting and land use requirements are addressed in ECD 3.0: Location and Land Use. 49. Additional policies governing new development are addressed in PLU 2.0: New Development; and guidelines for community design are addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design . See, also, footnote #46.

Planning & Land Use

d. The County will encourage the use of development options (cluster, compact, mixed-use, etc. ) that make better use of the land concentrating development away from on-site scenic, natural, historic or open space resources. In particular, the County will encourage residential development designs that provide neighborhood scale open space. Such open space elements should not be "left over" areas, but rather should be key, central focal points of the neighborhood, designed as true community spaces that are well defined by the street network and adjacent buildings.

PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination/Cooperation. The County will work with the municipalities (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford) to identify areas of existing development that are accessed by municipal roads, served by municipal utilities and that can best be served by municipal services (law enforcement, trash collection, etc. ). Additionally, the County and the municipalities will identify undeveloped areas within the Urban Expansion Area that are likely to have similar characteristics once they are developed. The County will promote the orderly inclusion of such areas into the municipalities through utility agreements and mutually acceptable boundary line adjustments. In turn, the municipalities will use cash proffers or other revenue sharing agreements to insure that new development in such areas pays its “fair share” of the cost of providing county facilities and services associated with new growth. Presently the County cooperates with each municipality in the review of proposed developments located close to municipal boundaries. The County will work with the municipalities to coordinate comprehensive planning for areas located close to municipal boundaries. (52) The County will coordinate with the City of Radford, the Town of Blacksburg, the Town of Christiansburg and the NRVPDC on establishing Urban Development Areas (UDAs) and identifying opportunities for regional cooperation on infrastructure improvements, transit and transportation improvements to support development in UDAs as focal points for regional growth.

e. Development in Urban Expansion Areas will be compatible with and complimentary to development within corporate limits. PLU 1.8.5 Urban Expansion Area Facilities and Utilities: a.

Urban Expansion Areas are or will be served by public sewer and water service provided by the County or by the towns and the City, by mutual agreement.

b. Urban Expansion Areas will be the primary focus for public facility investments occurring outside the towns, the City, or the Villages. Urban Expansion Areas will be the preferred location for new community facilities that cannot be located in towns, the City, or the Villages. (50) c. Transportation improvements within the Urban Expansion Area will be designed to tie into the existing street network serving the City and the towns. (51)

Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011

Cross References and Notes: 50. Public facilities include parks and other recreational facilities; schools; solid waste collection facilities; health and human service facilities; fire, rescue, and law enforcement facilities; public water and sewer facilities, and other facilities related to the provision of utilities. 51. See, also, TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity.

Planning & Land Use

PLU 1.9 Urban Development Areas: Urban Development Areas are designated areas within the MidCounty and 177 Urban Expansion Areas adjacent to the Town of Blacksburg, the Town of Christiansburg and the City of Radford that are planned for compact, mixed use development at urban development densities and intensities. They are intended to serve as a focal point for growth over the next 10-20 years. Development within the UDA must be compact, using Traditional Neighborhood Design principles, and designed to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic with a full complement of services and amenities. Development in the UDA should also provide for transit facilities or stops. Urban Development Areas are served by or planned for central sewer and water service, and transportation infrastructure. PLU 1.9.1 Urban Development Area Land Use: a.

Development within the UDA should function as a mixed use activity center with medium scale office, retail, service and civic uses, with higher density housing in the core. Development within the UDA should consist of 2-3 story buildings with

Cross References and Notes: 52. Opportunities for cooperation between Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and the City of Radford are built into many of the subject specific chapters, including: PNG 1.0 Local and Regional Cooperation; CRS 1.1 Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors; ECD 1.1 Montgomery County Regional Indicators Program; ECD 2.1.1 Community Technical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force; ECD 3.3 Downtown Revitalization ; ENV3.5: Government Cooperation; ENV 4.1 Floodplains: Partnership and Regional Cooperation; ENV 7.0 Stormwater and Erosion Control; HHS 3.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration; HSG 1.1 Affordable Housing; PRC 1.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration; SFY 1.5 Regional Opportunities; TRN 1.2 Metropolitan Planning Organization TRN 3.0 Mass Transit; TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation; UTL 1.1 Water and Sewer: Regional Cooperation ; UTL 2.2: Telecommunications Towers; UTL 2.3: Broadband/Fiber-optic Networks; UTL 3.1.1 Solid Waste Management: Regional Cooperation; and UTL 4.0: Stormwater Management.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

minimal views of parking areas from the street. b. Overall densities in the UDA should be village-like in terms of scale and intensity, with a mixture of high density and intensity ranging from 8.0-12.0 du/ac and 0.4 FAR at the core of the development, and 4.0-8.0 du/ac and 0.25 FAR at the edges. The sought-after effect being one of a transition away from the taller, denser core area to compact, predominantly residential areas. The built form should be compatible with surrounding lower density development at the edges. c. Development within the Urban Development Area is intended to be efficient, compact, mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented with a range of residential densities that support transit. It should further provide active, passive, and natural open space that is fully integrated into the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rural areas through a network of connected trails and walkways. d. The Urban Development Area will provide for a mix of land uses including dwellings, commercial and office uses, personal and household service establishments, institutional uses, public facilities, parks, playgrounds and other similar uses meeting the needs of the adjoining neighborhoods. PLU 1.9.2 Urban Development Area Community Design: a.

Areas designated as UDAs are expected to accommodate a range of development densities and intensities including: 4 single-family residences, 6 townhouses, or 12 apartments, condominium units, or cooperative units per developable acre, and a floor area ratio of 0.40 per developable acre

e. f.

for commercial development or any proportional combination thereof The County will encourage traditional neighborhood design in Urban Development Areas. The County shall evaluate development proposals in Urban Development Areas to ensure that proposed development is compatible with existing communities and uses and is designed to minimize any negative impact on these existing neighborhoods. Such new development should be designed to provide a "seamless" transition from the existing development to the new. The County will encourage development of planned, mixed use, pedestrian and transit friendly communities in Urban Development Areas that would combine office, commercial, residential, recreational uses into a single development, with strong connections between all sites and all uses, especially pedestrian access along the public street network. The County will encourage the use of development options (cluster, compact, mixed-use, etc.) that make better use of the land concentrating development away from on-site scenic, natural, historic or open space resources. In particular, the County will encourage residential development designs that provide neighborhood scale open space. Such open space elements should not be "left over" areas, but rather should be key, central focal points of the neighborhood, designed as true community spaces that are well defined by the street network and adjacent buildings. Development in Urban Development Areas will be compatible with and complimentary to development within corporate limits. Development in Urban Development Areas should be phased to ensure that an acceptable levels of

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

transportation service is maintained using all available transportation modes. New development projects in UDAs should be required to submit an overall concept plan so that the interrelationship of proposed uses (residential, commercial, office, civic, public open space, and transportation network) can be evaluated. PLU 1.9.3 Urban Development Area Utilities and Public Facilities: a.

Urban Development Areas are or will be served by public sewer and water service provided by the County, the Montgomery County Public Service Authority, or by the towns and the City, by mutual agreement. b. Urban Development Areas will be the primary focus for public infrastructure facility investments occurring outside the towns, the City, or the Villages. Urban Development Areas will be the preferred location for new community facilities that cannot be located in towns, the City, or the Villages. c. Transportation improvements within the Urban Development Area will be designed to tie into the existing street network serving the City and the towns. PLU 1.9.4 Urban Development Area Incentives: Various incentives are available in the Urban Development Areas to encourage and facilitate compact, mixed use development. a.

Development applications that employ TND concepts will be eligible for expedited review.

b. The zoning code will be revised to provide flexibility and encourage innovative mixed-use developments. c. Increased density, height allowances, narrower streets, limited parking and smaller setbacks.

PLU 2.0 New Development: The County will promote sound fiscal planning and good design principles by applying consistent standards to evaluate the design and impact of proposed development.

PLU 1.9.5 Municipal Coordination/Cooperation. The County will coordinate with the City of Radford, the Town of Blacksburg, the Town of Christiansburg and the NRVPDC on establishing Urban Development Areas (UDAs) and identifying opportunities for regional cooperation on infrastructure improvements, transit and transportation improvements to support development in UDAs as focal points for regional growth.

PLU 1.10 Focused Growth Targets: In order to maintain a balance between urban and rural areas, the County targets 80% or more of future development within the unincorporated areas to occur within the Urban Development Areas, Urban Expansion Areas, Villages, Village Expansion Areas, and the Residential Transition Areas. Conversely, the County targets 20% or less of future development within the unincorporated areas to occur within the Rural Communities, Rural Areas, and the Resource Stewardship Area.

PLU 2.1 Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications: All residential rezoning requests will be evaluated using the following minimum criteria: 1. Location. The property must be located within a Village, Village Expansion Area or Urban Expansion Area, with the exception of Rural Residential zoning. 2. Public Utilities. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed development will be served by public sewer (preferably both public water and public sewer), and that such service is either currently available or is planned and approved by the County and scheduled for construction to the site within a defined time period consistent with the other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; with any necessary extensions to be funded by the applicant. 3. Road Access. The property must have adequate and safe road access, with any necessary improvements provided by the applicant. Entrances onto existing public roads must be adequately spaced to provide safe access and maintain adequate capacity of the existing roadway. The applicant must dedicate any right-of-way necessary for future widening of such existing road. 4. Public Facilities and Amenities. The applicant must provide a concept development plan of the entire property, showing future land uses, roads, walkways and trails, open spaces, public facility sites and the like. 5. Interparcel Access. The concept plan must show one or more street connections to all adjoining properties that are not blocked by natural barriers. The applicant must construct these connections at the time such portion of the

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

concept plan is developed. Interparcel access will not be required if the adjacent property is located in a Rural Area or a Rural Stewardship/Conservation area unless such a connection is identified on a Countywide or regional transportation plan. 6. Pedestrian Access. The rezoning proposal must include provisions for pedestrian mobility within the site and safe and convenient connections for pedestrian traffic to adjacent sites and adjacent public roadways and trails. 7. Buffers. Landscaped buffers must be provided at all edges of the site that abut existing or planned uses of lower intensities. PLU 2.2. Proffer Guidelines: The County will work with the development community to develop a framework for proffer guidelines to be used in the evaluation of rezoning applications. PLU 2.2.1 Proffer Guideline Principles: The County will consider the following principles in evaluating and developing capital facility proffer guidelines to be used in conjunction with conditional zoning (rezoning) applications: a.

Percentage of Capital Costs: Proffers for public facilities and amenities will be encouraged for each residential rezoning, and are expected to have a total value that is sufficient to represent a significant "down payment" on the cost of the various capital facilities that will be constructed to serve the new residents.

b. Calculation of Capital Costs: At the County's discretion, residential capital facility costs may be estimated on the basis of capital costs for the average unit overall, or on the basis of costs per unit type, differentiating between detached, attached, manufactured ("mobile") and multi-family units. School costs may Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

also be estimated separately. c. Direct Public Benefit: To qualify as a capital facility proffer the land, facility or fund must be dedicated or deeded to the County or to another regional, state or federal agency which will ensure that it is used for the benefit of County citizens at large and must have a measurable value that can be quantified. d. Capital Facilities Proffer Principles: To ensure that the proffer process is reasonable, effective and manageable, any proffer guidelines development by the County should be based on the following principles:

Consistency of content. Proffers should be negotiated and accepted on a consistent basis from one project to another. Uniform standards for capital facilities, based upon the Comprehensive Plan and CIP should be followed in determining appropriate proffers for a particular project.

ii. Consistency of format. The County should develop a consistent format for proffer statements with consistent style and terminology so that proffers are comparable. iii. Rational Nexus. All proffers should have a direct and rational relationship to needs created by the project itself. To the maximum extent feasible, proffers should be built or otherwise allocated so as to directly benefit the particular project. iv. Coordination. Proffers from neighboring 62

or adjacent developments should be coordinated to the maximum extent possible in order to ensure compatibility and consistency, and to avoid redundancy and conflict. e. Transportation Proffers: Proffers for roads and road improvements are considered a separate item, not included within the guideline due to the States responsibility for public roads. Road proffers should be based upon the specific needs of the site and its surrounding road network. f.

Types of Capital Facilities Proffers: The County's proffer guidelines should be comprehensive and may include the following types of proffers as appropriate and as permitted by State law: i. Dedication of land for public facilities; ii. Cash contributions for capital facilities; and iii. Construction of public facilities.

PLU 2.3 Critical Features: All development requests will be evaluated with respect to their impact on the critical, sensitive, special, and historical resources delineated on the Critical Features Map. PLU 2.4 2232 Review Policy: Develop a policy for the review by the county, in accordance with Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, of proposed new community facilities and expansion of existing community facilities. Such construction and expansions require careful consideration by local decision makers to assure that the needs and interests of the community are fulfilled in the most appropriate manner. The policy should include (1) a definition of public facility, (2) a list of what types of facilities are exempt from 2232 review, (3) application requirements for agencies and individuals submitting projects/ proposals subject to 2232 applications, and (4) an outline of how the County will process 2232 applications, including how administrative determinations will be made regarding features shown.

g. Other Types of Proffers: The County proffer guidelines should also allow for a variety of other types of proffers that will enhance the quality of development in the County including: i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Reservation of sites for private, non-profit community facilities; Phasing of development; Impact mitigation; Preservation of special environmental, natural, open space or historic features; and design criteria and features.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

The organizing framework of a TND is to create a walkable community, centered around a core area encompassing one quarter mile. This is approximately the distance at which studies have shown that a significant percentage of people will leave their cars parked and walk between destinations. Commercial and higher density residential uses should be focused within such a core area with lower densities radiating out from the center.

ii. The neighborhood has a discernible center, often a square or a green, a busy or memorable street corner, and/or a prominent civic building (a transit stop can be located at this center). The center may be surrounded by a mixed-use retail/office core area. iii. Most of the dwellings are within a fiveminute walk of the neighborhood center. iv. Small playgrounds or "pocket parks" are Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

accessible to all residents. v. To the extent possible, an elementary school is close enough so that most children can walk from their home. vi. Development is located in environmentally suitable areas, designed to preserve important environmental and cultural resources reinforced through a system of parks and public and institutional uses and, a formal neighborhood governance association to decide and/or advise on matters of maintenance, security and physical change (taxation remains the responsibility of the County). b. Streets i.

The neighborhood is served by many transportation modes, including motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle and transit; motor vehicles and parking lots do not dominate.

ii. The neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s streets form a connected network, providing a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes to any destination, which disperses traffic. (The streets are laid out generally in a "grid" pattern, forming blocks of about 1,200 feet in perimeter length each). Cul-de-sacs should be avoided; small "eyebrows" (short road loops with just a few houses) protruding from the main street should be used instead. iii. The circulation network includes streets,

alleys, sidewalks and paths.

c. Land Uses

iv. The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees, often with on-street parking, which slows traffic, creating an environment suitable for pedestrians and bicycles. v. Buildings in the neighborhood center are placed close to the street, creating a feeling of "human scale" and a strong sense of place. vi. Parking lots and garage doors rarely front the street; parking is at the rear of buildings, usually accessed by alleyways. vii. Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings that provide sites for community meetings, education, religious or cultural activities.

Montgomery County 2025â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Revised June 13, 2011

Planning & Land Use

The neighborhood has a mix of uses so that residents have opportunities to live, recreate, learn, worship, and even work and shop in their neighborhood

ii. There is a variety of dwelling types, densities and costs - single family houses, townhouses, apartments and accessory units -- for all kinds of people, including younger, older, singles, families, lower income, upper income, etc. iii. There are a variety of shops and offices at the core or the edge of the neighborhood to supply the weekly needs of a household. iv. A small ancillary building is permitted within the backyard of each house, which may be used as a rental unit, an "in-law" suite, or place to work (e.g. office or craft workshop).

Planning & Government Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Montgomery

Government & Government: Executive Summary The Planning and Government chapter provides the backbone of Montgomery County, 2025 because it defines many of the central themes expressed by the citizen participants during the three year input process leading up to this plan. These themes include cooperation, participation, information, and education. Insert Photo

The Government and Planning Goals cover six main issues: • Local and regional cooperation; • Citizen participation; • Public access, including meeting ADA requirements and providing mixed use facilities; • Planning for villages and small communities; • Planning for corridors; and • Tax structure, legislative priorities, and the impact of growth.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Planning & Government

Planning and Government: Introduction Community Survey Results The community survey asked participants to rank five planning and government issues: public involvement, public outreach, egovernment, local cooperation, and regional cooperation. Participants gave “public involvement” the highest mean score (3.99) of the five government related issues, with 76% ranking it as either important (34%) or very important (42%). Only 5% of those who responded said it was either minimally important (4%) or not important (1%). Those involved in civic (50%), religious (64%), and government (50%) organizations were more likely to rank public involvement as very important than were those involved in educational (37%), geographic (43%), or commercial (21%) organizations or enterprises. Respondents who had previously participated in the comprehensive planning process were more likely to rank “public involvement” as very important (53%) than were those participating for the first time (42%). Participants expressed a wide range of views and offer an equally wide range of solutions when it came to public involvement. Their suggestions included: “aggressive solicitation for citizens’ help,” creating more public involvement activities, increasing the amount of publicity for local issues, establishing citizen review boards, conducting educational programs, and creating innovative public forum opportunities to reach and educate community members. One participant noted that the County needs to “foster the flow of info, citizen involvement, and access to government and officials.” Another wrote, echoing others, that

the government needed to “listen to the public,” noting that “people quit voicing opinions and participating because most decisions are already made or actually decided by the more assertive.” Closely related to public involvement was the issue of government communication, outreach, education, and information. Participants gave it a mean score of 3.79, with 70% of respondents ranking it as either important (35%) or very important (35%). Very few of the participants rated it as either minimally important (4%) or not important (1%). Many of the comments related to government communication, outreach, education, and information were either similar

to those provided for public involvement or were embedded in comments dealing with other subjects. For example, a number of participants suggested that the County needed to provide public information and access to programs to a diverse range of groups: farmers, students, environmentalists, developers, and so on. Participants suggested a broad variety of public information solutions, from developing or upgrading an online GIS, to distributing information about wells and septic systems to home owners, to providing transportation maps, with the bike lanes and bus stops marked, through the public libraries and Chambers of Commerce. E-government, one approach to both public

Insert Image

Note: There are two planning chapters: Planning and Land Use, which deals with planning and land use policies, and this chapter, Planning and Government, which addresses planning practice and process.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Planning & Government

Planning and Government Issues Community Survey Results, 2003 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2.9 2.8 2.7

Mean Score for all Issues = 3.65

Public Involvement

Cooperation Government Between Towns Communication, and County Outreach, Education, Information

Regional Cooperation (Between Counties)

Public Involvement Cooperation Between Towns and County Government Communication, Outreach, Education, Information Regional Cooperation (Between Counties) E-Government Capabilities Mean Score for All Issues

E-Government Capabilities

Mean Score 3.99 3.97 3.79 3.51 2.83 3.65

Note: Forty-one issues were included in the “rate this issue in terms of importance” portion of the community survey. A mean score was calculated for each of the 41 issues, as well as for the total of all issues. Issues with scores higher than 3.65 (the mean for all issues) indicate that the majority of respondents rated the issue greater importance; a score lower than 3.65 indicates that the majority of respondents rated the issue of less importance than the on average. The scale for the survey was: 0=no response; 1= not important; 2=minimally important; 3=moderately important; 4=important; and 5=very important. Source: 2003 Community Survey, Montgomery County, Virginia.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Planning & Government

involvement and public information generated the least support (mean score of 2.83) of all 41 issues, with the largest percentage of respondents (34%) ranking it as “moderately important,” as compared to 34% ranking it either as important (22%) or very important (11%). In some respects, the response to the e-government issue was surprising given the amount of support for both public involvement and public information. The result, however, may reflect a lack of understanding of the term “e-government” by participants. The last two issues included in the community survey dealt with government cooperation at the local and regional levels. Of the two, local cooperation generated a higher mean score (3.97) than did regional cooperation (3.51), with 75% of participants ranking “local government” as either important (31%) or very important (44%). A lower percentage (57%) ranked regional cooperation as either important (25%) or “very important (32%). Interestingly, support for both local and regional cooperation was higher among Blacksburg residents (80%) than among residents from either Christiansburg (72% for local and 58% for regional) or Montgomery County (72% for local and 50% for regional), although all three jurisdictions showed significant support for cooperative efforts between jurisdictions. Only 5% of respondents felt that local cooperation was either minimally important or not important. and 11% gave regional cooperation the same rankings. Citizen comments underscored their interest in seeing the local and regional governments work together as a “team.” Participants noted that they wanted to see better and more productive relationships between Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford, and Virginia Tech, and they offered a number of suggestions, including: “refining cooperative guidelines between the County and towns;” and improving cooperative approaches to planning and zoning. In their comments, participants addressed a much broader range of issues in than those raised 55

more participants wrote that the County should raise taxes, but only if necessary and fair. Participants noted, particularly, that the County should “set [the] tax structure to support the goals,” “raising fair taxes to support projects,” “consider changing the taxing methods,” “provide a tax credit for first time home buyers,” and have a more “equitable and enforceable tax” structure. As with the comments about the quality and character of government, participants felt that the monies they put into the county system should be wisely and responsibly spent.

in the survey, including: providing assessments on the character and quality of the County government, the tax structure, and the planning and governing process. Judging from the written comments, participants want the planning and governing process to be progressive, forward thinking, practice “out of the box thinking”, “be willing to change, to look at ...things differently, have a vision,” and “develop [plans] based on consensus and sustainability.” Some of the participants felt the County needed to be both more open with and more accountable and responsible to the citizens. One participant wrote that there should be an “eradication of labels like Republican and Democrat in government--everyone should work together for the betterment of the people & environment of Montgomery County...” Survey participants also commented on the need for greater diversity in the planning and governing process. A number of participants noted that the County needed to increase minority representation in the schools, local government, and other institutions, expressing a concern that issues of diversity were not being adequately addressed. Of all of the issues raised in the government portion of the survey, none were more polarizing than the issue of taxes. While a number of participants felt that property taxes were too high or needed to be “kept at a reasonable cost,” Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Current and Historical Trends and Conditions Rezonings On the whole, rezonings remained reasonably constant between 1990 and 2003,

fluctuating between a low of four (4) in 1992 and a high of 17 in 1990 and 2000, with an average of 12 rezonings per year. In rezonings, Montgomery County lost, at a minimum, 2,686 acres of agriculturally zone land and 185 acres of conservation zoned lands in the years from 1988 to 2002. Of the rezoned land, 64.2% was used for residential purposes: 61.7% for subdivisions; and 2.5% for planned manufactured housing parks. The remaining 35.8% was used for industrial (12.5%) and commercial (23.3%) uses. It should be noted, however, that the acreage change in A-1 zoning does not accurately reflect the loss of agricultural lands in Montgomery County. According to the USDA’s 1997 Agricultural Census, Montgomery County lost 5,840 acres of agricultural lands in the years between 1992 and 1997, representing a decrease of 5.9%. Prior to 1999, one-half acre lot

Major Planning Efforts: 1990-2004 1990 1990 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2002 2002

County adopts Comprehensive Plan 177 Corridor planning process begins Work begins on the Huckleberry Trail County begins Capital Improvements Program (CIP) County adopts revised Subdivision Ordinance Rte 177 Corridor Overlay adopted Work on begins on revision Zoning Ordinance Review and Revision of 177 Corridor Plan begins (PDC) Montgomery County joins the Appalachian Regional Commission County is awarded a Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development Community Improvement Grant to fund the installation of a sewer system in Belview. Huckleberry Trail Completed (Blacksburg Library to New River Valley Mall) Work begins on the Coal Mining Heritage Park Master Plan (Radford University). Completed in 2000. County adopts revised Zoning Ordinance, including Sliding Scale County begins work on a new Geographic Information System Work begins on the new Comprehensive Plan County adopts a new Regional Telecommunications Plan County and the Free Clinic are awarded a CDBG grant to redevelop a former county office building for use by the Free Clinic. (Completed 2004) Work begins on the Community Facilitators Initiative and Community Survey. (Completed, 2003; wins VAPA award for outstanding public awareness, 2004)

Planning & Government

Subdivisions:

Montgomery County: Rezoned Land Uses, 1988-2002

Until the 1993 revision of the subdivision ordinance, the County had no effective mechanism for tracking the subdivision of land. While plat approval was required for major subdivisions, including by-right subdivisions, plat approval was not required for minor or family subdivisions prior to 1993. Since 1993, major subdivisions have accounted for 6.3% of new subdivisions and 21.4% of new lots. Minor and family subdivisions make up the rest. In

the same years, minor subdivisions accounted for 57% of all subdivisions and 42% of all new lots. Family subdivisions accounted for 36% of subdivisions, while creating 20% of all new lots. Since 1993, over 13,000 acres of land have been subdivided. Building Permits and Distribution of Manufactured Housing: Between 1990 and 2003, Montgomery County issued 5,039 “new construction”

Montgomery County: Rezonings, Special Use Permits, 1990-2003 Number of Acres Rezoned Residential 61.7% Commercial 23.3% Industrial 12.5% Planned Mobile Residential 2.5% Acreage Residential Commercial Industrial Planned Mobile Residential

1775.49 671.33 359.3 71.54

Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, 2004.

subdivisions were allowed, by-right in agriculture (A1). Additional agricultural and forestal lands were lost to “by right” residential development (most notably, along Brush Mountain) in the Agricultural (A-1) and Conservation (C-1) districts prior to the introduction of sliding scale zoning in the 1999 zoning ordinance. While major subdivisions accounted for 18.6% of the loss and rezonings accounted for 25.7% of the loss, the majority of the loss came from minor and family subdivisions (55.7%). Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4

Special Use Permits

Variances

Rezonings

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Special Use Permits Rezonings Variances Special Use Permits Rezonings Variances

1990 24 17 10 1997 18 13 8

1991 10 8 9 1998 25 9 13

1992 7 4 12 1999 6 10 9

1993 19 16 9 2000 14 17 9

1994 12 15 13 2001 17 13 18

1995 14 9 7 2002 32 13 17

1996 12 9 15 2003

Note: The new Zoning Ordinance required a special use permit for accessory structures over 850 sq. ft. and 16 ft. in height. While the requirements have since been changed to allow larger accessory structures, they still account for ___% of the special use permits between 2000 and 2003. Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, 2003.

Planning & Government

Montgomery County: Rezonings, Changes in Acreage, 1988-2002 400.00 200.00 0.00 -200.00 -400.00 -600.00 -800.00 -1000.00 -1200.00 -1400.00 -1600.00 -1800.00 -2000.00 -2200.00 -2400.00 -2600.00 -2800.00

Acreage Changes

Notes:

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

A1 C1 -163.48 -289.17 -44.18 -169.80 -13.36 -65.80 -221.40 -87.00 -56.10 -742.20 -394.00 -15.40 -245.70 -16.90 -105.64 -8.50 -232.54

RM1

R1 77.40 43.93 55.00 -241.00 13.90 353.70 42.70

21.02 204.62

9.00

R2 15.61

R3 70.85 34.62 47.32 111.86 1.44 2.90 4.40 10.10 5.60 110.50 29.40 363.30 34.40 20.60 -6.60 2.40 0.67 9.54 17.24 -2.49 2.50 -122.71

RM1 0.67 19.62 1.12 -2.00 28.00

M1 PUDRPUDC PIN PMR

CB 2.00

186.50 1.00 3.60 119.00 0.40 11.35 2.20

1.49 1.21 9.58

1. The rural residential (RR) and light manufacturing (ML) zones were introduced in the 1999 Zoning Ordinance.

GB ML M1 PUDR PUDC PIN -0.38 53.44 36.20 118.30 0.58 10.77 5.60 36.40 -30.20 155.00 4.30 2.00 12.60 12.80 2.90 5.00 16.90 215.00 57.20 0.60 103.00 23.00 40.00 5.98 11.78 52.41 -8.86 4.21 -3.26 13.34 120.00

PMR 32.60

24.70 6.00 -1.30 6.10 1.69 1.75

Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, 2004

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Planning & Government

Montgomery County: Subdivisions, 1990-2003 Montgomery County: Recorded Plats, 1990-2002 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Montgomery County: New Lots, 1990-2002 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0

‘90 ’91 ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 Major Plats

Minor Plats

Family Plats

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Major Plats 4 12 13 6 5 6 Number of Lots 76 138 124 21 59 80 Acreage 47 215 178 344 392 142 Minor Plats 37 37 53 Number of Lots 64 57 106 Acreage 223 256 500 Family Plats 27 37 30 Number of Lots 32 47 46 Acreage 88 472 227 Total Plats 4 12 13 212 163 232 Total Lots 76 138 124 117 163 232 Total Acreage 47 215 178 655 1120 869 Notes: 1. Prior to the adoption of the new subdivision ordinance in January, 1993, only major subdivisions had to be signed by the subdivision agent. 3. Combination lots have been added to the minor subdivision category in this table.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

'90

'91

'92

'93 '94

Major Subdivisions 1996 6 139 343 56 101 368 40 52 189 292 292 900

Planning & Government

1997 7 99 567 52 122 1402 37 60 840 96 281 2809

1998 8 104 139 69 168 882 36 56 329 113 328 1350

'95

'96

'97

'98 '99

Minor Subdivisions 1999 9 182 346 68 99 366 49 66 196 126 347 908

2000 7 67 274 55 118 408 46 59 180 108 244 862

2001 5 93 177 58 108 504 30 51 263 93 252 944

'00

'01

'02

Family Subdivisions 2002 8 146 239 75 157 1436 29 39 223 112 342 1898

Total 67 990 2,963 560 1,100 6,345 361 508 3,007 1,547 2,598 12,315

Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, 2003

building permits, including 2,274 permits for single-family and multi-family residential construction (41.4%) and 2,518 permits for the installation of manufactured housing (49.9%). Of the permits issued for manufactured housing, an average of 47.6% (1996-2003) were for replacement units, while 52.4% were new units on new lots. It should be noted that the majority of new manufactured housing units installed between 1996 and 2003 were located on new lots not located in manufactured housing parks; although in recent years, the trend, at least for single-wides, has reversed. Since 2000, 67% of single-wides have been placed on new lots in manufactured housing developments, while 90% of double-and triple-wides have been placed on new, privately owned lots. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the highest concentrations of manufactured housing are in eastern Montgomery County; the Belview, Plum Creek, and Bethel areas in the western portion of the County; the Pilot, Rogers and Sugar Grove areas of in the southern end of the County; and two areas adjacent to Blacksburg (Merrimac and Brush Mountain). Although the Census indicated that Shawsville and the Elliston/Lafayette areas had some of the highest concentrations of manufactured housing (as a percentage of the total number of housing units) in Virginia, building permit evidence suggests

Montgomery County: Distribution of Manufactured Housing, Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census

that the concentration in the village of Plum Creek is much higher (Plum Creek was not included as a separate community in the 2000 Census). Since 2000, of the 463 new manufactured housing units installed in Montgomery County, 39% (181 units) were installed in the Belview/ Plum Creek/ Bethel area (Census Tracts 212 and 215). In the same period of time, 28 new units, on new lots, were located in manufactured housing parks in Shawsville; and no new units, on new lots, were added in parks in either Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Planning & Government

Elliston or Lafayette. A total of 56 new units were placed on private lots in the same area (Census Tracts 213 and 214--Alleghany Springs, Denhill, Elliston/Lafayette, Ironto, and Shawsville). Of the new units on private lots, half were single-wides and half were either double- or triple-wides. Special Use Permits Since 1990, Montgomery County has approved 122 special use permits. Prior to the 60

Montgomery County: Building Permits, 1990-2003 550 525 500 475 450 425 400 375 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0

Montgomery County: Total Building Permits, Excluding Reinspections, 1999-2003 Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Duplex Multi-Family Modular Mfg. Single-wide Mfg. Double-wide Mfg. Triple-wide Commercial & Gov. Accessory Alterations Additions Towers Miscellaneous.

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 Single-Family Detached

Manufactured Housing

Multi-Family

Commercial/Industrial

Montgomery County: Manufactured Housing, New and Replacement, 1996-2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 New 52.5% 55.9% 53.1% 51.2% 47.8% 57.4% 49.3% 52.3% Replacement 47.5% 44.1% 46.9% 48.8% 52.2% 42.6% 50.7% 47.7%

Average 52.4% 47.6%

1999 141 19 9 0 31 185 103 0 52 88 76 88 3 10 805

2000 113 0 1 0 22 154 59 1 35 70 82 94 19 18 668

2001 140 12 2 0 38 125 70 3 34 83 87 103 12 9 718

2002 151 45 0 0 27 134 62 1 36 58 89 97 2 28 730

2003 Total 131 676 42 118 13 25 0 0 34 152 109 707 53 347 0 5 46 203 55 354 64 398 90 472 4 40 7 72 648 3569

Notes: 1. The Multi-Family category in the New Construction table includes multi-family, duplexes, and single-family attached residential housing. The three categories were not tracked separately until 1999. 2. The manufactured housing data on both tables includes new and replacement single-wides, double-wides, triplewides, and modular units. 3. Since 1999, the commercial and industrial permits category includes all permits issued to commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, which accounts for the increase in commercial and industrial permits. Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, 2004

Montgomery County: New Construction and Manufactured Housing Permits, 1990-2003 Single-Family Detached Multi-Family Manufactured Housing Commercial/Industrial

1990 141 8 75 5

1991 141 5 103 4

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

1992 194 2 99 1

1993 157 2 142 3

1994 211 1 168 6

1995 198 4 111 6

1996 115 5 138 4

Planning & Government

1997 123 7 207 9

1998 134 7 181 6

1999 141 28 319 52

2000 113 1 319 35

2001 140 14 236 34

2002 151 45 224 36

2003 Total 131 2,090 55 184 196 2,518 46 247

Special Use Permits: Types of Uses, 1990-2002 Approved by Planning Commission Accessory Structures Agricultural/Garden Enterprise Amusement/Recreation Auto Repair/Service/Storage Cluster Overlay/ Development Commercial/Retail Contractor's Storage Yard Fraternity/Sorority Government Requests Home Occupation Hospital/Medical Industrial Manufactured Housing Parks Professional Office Residential/Residential PUD Resort/Bed and Breakfast Senior Housing/Facilities Storage Telecommunication Towers Miscellaneous

passage of the new zoning ordinance in 1999, 73.9% of special use permits were approved; after passage, that percentage went up to 87.7%. The difference between the two approval rates, however, is misleading. The list of special uses, included in the new zoning ordinance, was amended, in 2001, to include accessory structures larger than 850 square feet (since amended to 1200 square feet and 18 feet in height ). In 2001 Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

15 3 11 13 2 5 9 3 4 3 3 3 7 6 6 2 2 4 13 4 118

Approved by Board of Supervisors 15 3 10 13 2 5 9 4 4 4 3 3 9 6 6 2 2 4 14 4 122

4.3% 21.7%

73.9%

1990-1999 5.5%

6.8%

87.7%

2000-2002

Approved

Withdrawn

Denied

Note: Since the passage of the 1999 Zoning Ordinance, accessory structures requiring an SUP have accounted for 22.7% of all special use permits. Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, 2003

and 2002, the County had 49 special use permit requests of which 30.6% were for accessory structures (primarily private garages). Excluding accessory structures, the two uses that garnered the most requests between 1990 and 2002, were for telecommunications towers (11.4%) and automotive repair and service establishments (10.6%).

Planning & Government

Zoning Variances and Appeals Between 1990 and 2002, the Board of Zoning Appeals dealt with 131 variance requests and 19 appeals. While the majority of variances were granted (75.5%), the majority of appeals were denied (73.7%). Of the requests for variances, 77% dealt with setbacks and/or required yards. 62

Montgomery County: Zoning Variances, 1990-2002

1.5%

10.5%

15.8%

22.9%

75.6% 73.7% Variances

Appeals

Approved

Approved Denied Withdrawn Totals

Denied Withdrawn

Note: Variance Requests which asked for more than one variance (i.e. floodplain and setback, etc.) were counted in each category, but only one variance. Because of this, the total on the table below will not match the table to the left.

Variances Appeals 99 2 30 14 2 3 131 19

Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, 2004

Montgomery County: Board of Zoning Appeals, Types of Variances, 1990-2002 1990 Density Floodplain Lot Size/Coverage Miscellaneous Parking Replacement (Mfg.) Road Access (VDoT) Setbacks/Required Yards Use Unclassified

1991

1 1

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

1993

1994

1995

10 2

1996

1997

1 1

1992

1998

1999

2000

2001

1 1

1 1 6 1 6

Planning & Government

1 8

2002 Total 3 3 4 6 1 4 4 3 4 2 5 101 3 6

Public Participation and Civic Involvement One key method of gauging civic involvement is by examining the voting patterns in local elections. While this works for the towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg, which hold their town elections in May, it does not work when examining local voting patterns at the County level. County elections are part of the General Election held in November, always in combination with federal and/or state elections. Voter participation rises, depending on the level of government being considered: the highest levels of participation occur during federal elections; the lowest during local elections. In Montgomery County, voter participation (as a percentage of the registered population) peaked in 1992 when 42% of residents 18 and older registered and 85% of registered voters went to the polls. Voter participation has since declined: in 1996 34% of eligible voters registered and, of those, 74% voted in the presidential election. By 2000, the number of registered voters, who voted, dropped to 66.5%. Statewide General Elections have followed the same pattern. In 1994, voter participation peaked at 74% and have since followed a steady decline. In the 2002 election, voter participation was at 42% (although 1999 marked the low point at 41.7%). Statewide elections which involve US Senate and House races generate greater turnout than those elections which have no federal connection. The one exception to this are Govenors races. Local elections, however, do not follow the same pattern, but voter turnout is significantly lower, ranging from a high of 20.9% in the 2002 Christiansburg General Town Election to a low of 3.25% in the 1998 Blacksburg General Town Election. Overall, the average turnout for Town General Elections has been 15.3%. It is assumed that county-wide participation in County elections would be similar if they were held separately from the state and federal elections. In 1992, Montgomery County held a special election on the proposed revenue sharing Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Montgomery County: Voter Participation, 1984-2002 Number of Registered Voters

Number Who Voted

% Voting

1984 (P) 1985 (G) 1986(G) 1987(G) 1988(P) 1989(G)

24154 23601 23439 23583 26764 25326

19954 13680 11814 13539 21668 17449

82.6% 58.0% 50.4% 57.4% 81.0% 71.0%

1990(G)(L) 1991(G)(L) 1992(P)(G)(L) 1993(G)(L) 1994(G) 1995(G)(L) 1996(P)(G) 1997(G)(L) 1998(G) 1999(G)(L)

25339 25967 29343 28699 29584 30088 33030 35899 37582 38374

11570 10853 25028 20024 21183 18081 23371 17861 16620 16009

45.8% 59.0% 85.0% 70.0% 72.0% 62.0% 74.0% 49.7% 44.2% 41.7%

2000(P)(G) 2001(G)(L) 2002(G)

41063 41689 42616

27318 20154 17927

66.5% 48.3% 42.0%

Note: 1. (P) Federal/Presidential Elections; (G) Statewide, General Elections; (L) Local/County Elections. 2. Local General Town Elections were excluded from the above list of elections, although they do provide a benchmark for determining voter participation in local elections. Turnout in local elections, from 1988 to 2003, ranged from a low of 3.25% to a high of 20.9%. 3. The number of registered voters is far lower than the number of eligible voters (residents age 18 and older). In 1992, the peak year, 42% of eligible voters were actually registered. That number dropped to 29% by 1997. Source: Montgomery County Voter Registrar, 2003

Planning & Government

referendum for the 177 Corridor Overlay District. Voter participation, for that election, was 8%. Public Information In 1999, Montgomery County hired their first Director of Public Information and established an Office of Public information. In the years since, the County has significantly increased the

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

amount of information available to the public, primarily through the implementation of an egovernment website, which provides the public with direct access to a wide range of documents, including reports, plans, and minutes, as well as the more traditional press releases. In addition, the Board of Supervisors meetings are being broadcast on the public access station in Blacksburg.

Currently, planning information takes three forms: 1) the Planning Commission public hearing packets, available from the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website; 2) the Planning Commission newsletter, News and Notes; and 3) the development and distribution of planning and zoning technical data sheets.

Geographic Information System (GIS)

Local and Regional Cooperation.

Although Montgomery County has had electronic mapping since the late 1980s, the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Geographic Information System (GIS) is a fairly recent development and is currently under construction. The County is in the process of integrating geographic, building permit, and land use data into a single package, which, when completed, will significantly increase the overall effectiveness of planning and land use analysis and streamline development and construction in the County.

Montgomery County belongs to the New River Valley Planning District Commission, and, more recently, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Over the past decade, the County has worked on a number of significant cooperative efforts, including: the Montgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA), the Regional Approach to Telecommunications Towers agreement, the New River Valley Commerce Park, and the Huckleberry Trail.

Planning & Government

Additional Planning Information

Government and Planning: Goals PNG 1.0 Local and Regional Cooperation: Think regionally in order to better provide public goods and services more efficiently and effectively. In many cases this will involve the County working cooperatively with the two towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg and possibly Virginia Tech. In other cases this will involve the County working cooperatively on a regional basis with other New River Valley governments (Radford, Floyd County, Giles County and/or Pulaski County) and possibly local governments in the Roanoke Valley. (1)

PNG 2.0 Citizen Participation: Increase citizen participation in local government and provide more opportunities for public service. (2) PNG 2.1 Involving the Public: Promote more active citizen involvement in the local government process through the use of innovative approaches and increased education and outreach. (3)

PNG 2.1.1 Citizen Review: Use Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs) to study and evaluate issues and advise local government decision makers. PNG 2.1.2 Neighborhood Networks: Use of neighborhood networks as a tool for providing neighborhoods review and input on planning projects, public input into county issues, and requests to both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. PNG 2.1.3 Community Facilitators Program. Use the Community Facilitators' Program, established under the comprehensive planning process to provide citizens greater input into county issues. PNG 2.1.4 Community-Based Meetings: Organize community-based meetings, in partnership with existing community organizations, to inform and educate people on the issues and to seek their input. Community-based meetings should be held at different geographic locations around the county.

Cross References and Notes : 1. Local and regional cooperation are built into the full extent of this plan. Significant sections addressing local and regional cooperation are included the following: PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination & Cooperation (pg. 47) CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg.81); CRS 3.0 Cultural Facilities and Fine Arts (pg.83); ECD 2.0 Workforce Development (pg.100); ECD 3.0 Location and Land Use (pg.101); EDU 2.0 Livelong Learning Goal (pg.117); ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg.141); ENV 4.0 Floodplains (pg.143); HHS 3.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration (pg.176); HSG 1.1 Affordable Housing (pg.189); PRC 1.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration (pg.206); SFY 1.5 Regional Opportunities (pg.198); TRN 1.2 Metropolitan Planning Organization (pg.219); TRN 2.0 Highway System (pg.221); TRN 3.0 Mass Transit (pg.223), TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation (pg.224); UTL 1.1 Regional Cooperation (pg.234), UTL 2.2 Telecommunications Towers (pg.236); UTL 3.0 Solid Waste Management (pg.237); UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management (pg.237); and UTL 4.2 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg.237)

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 2. As with local and regional cooperation, public participation is one of the keystones of Montgomery County, 2025. Public participation is divided into two subcategories: public involvement (input) and public information (outreach). 3. Beyond the outreach methods incorporated under this goal, the plan includes a number of other methods in the introduction, planning, and subject specific chapters. These include: PLU 1.7.1 Village Planning Process (pg. 43); CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 81); CRS 3.0 Cultural Facilities and Fine Arts (pg.83); ECD 1.1 Montgomery County Regional Indicators Program (pg.); ECD 2.0 Workforce Development (pg.100); EDU 2.0 Lifelong Learning Goal (pg.117); ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg.141); ENV 5.0 Groundwater (pg.144); HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods (pg.189); SFY1.0 Public Safety (pg.197); TRN 1.0 Land Use and Transportation (pg.219); and UTL 3.0 Solid Waste (pg.237).

Planning & Government

PNG 2.1.5 Public Hearings. Hold joint public hearings with the Blacksburg Planning Commission or the Christiansburg Planning Commission on projects impacting both the county and the town.

PNG 3.0 Access: Provide increased public access to existing facilities (schools, libraries, etc.) and to new facilities. New and rehabilitated facilities should be designed to accommodate several functions, such as gyms and meeting rooms, and be compliant with all applicable Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

PNG 2.2 Informing the Public: Inform citizens about how local government works, how local government interacts with state and federal government, and how they can make their views known to local government decision makers.

PNG 3.1 Multi-use of Facilities. Develop and adopt a countywide policy for the multi-use of public facilities, including those owned by county government, parks and recreation, the Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library, and the Montgomery County Public Schools. (7)

PNG 2.2.1 Public Information: Provide information on local government in plain language and in a variety of formats. Address a diverse population using speakers, newsletters and mailings, newspapers, television (network and cable), radio, and internet (web page and CD-ROM), etc. In addition, the County should provide access to all public information through the public libraries, both in print and electronic media.

PNG 3.1.1 Multi-use Agreements. Develop and adopt an agreement on the multi-use of publicly owned facilities (government buildings, libraries, schools, fire and rescue squad stations, and parks and recreational facilities) by individuals and community-based organizations, including standardized use regulations, policies, and fee structures.

PNG 2.2.2 Planner in the Public Schools: Design and implement a Planner/ Government Official in the Public Schools program in order to promote a better understanding of planning and zoning issues, government in general, and local government in particular, in the public schools. (5)

PNG 3.1.2 Centralized Scheduling. Appoint a taskforce to study the feasibility of centralized, countywide scheduling of use of publicly owned facilities, including government buildings, libraries, schools, fire and rescue squad stations, and parks and recreational facilities.

PNG 2.2.3 Citizen Academies: Use of citizen academies as a tool for informing the public about how local government works. (6) Cross References and Notes: 4. Most, although not all, of the goals included in Montgomery County, 2025 have a public information component. In some cases, the specific approaches require the generation and distribution of materials; in other cases the specific approach requires distribution of existing materials available from other agencies. While most public information developed by Montgomery County originates from Office of Public Information, subject specific information (planning, zoning, parks and recreation, etc.) is also available from the specific departments. 5. The program would require working with the Social Science and Science coordinators for the Montgomery County Public Schools to design programs and classroom materials which would enhance students' understanding of local issues while working within the existing Standards of Learning framework. 6. Citizen Academies are currently used by the Sheriff’s Department, although the approach could be used to increase interest in other areas of government, including planning, parks and recreation, and water quality and monitoring. Citizen academies are designed to provide members of the general public with a broader range of training and knowledge, while increasing the public’s understanding and interaction with different parts of the governmental process.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

PNG 3.1.3 New Facilities. Require that all new facilities be designed in such a way as to promote and accommodate multi-use by individuals, government agencies, and community-based organizations, in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in order to facilitate the provision of human, health, recreation, and government services through a

Cross References and Notes: 7. Multi-use of public facilities recognizes that the public’s ability to use public facilities in a variety of fashions contains long-term costs while providing the public with greater opportunity, whether it is adult education and job training classes being held in the public library, schools making use of outdoor lab facilities in public parks, or parks and recreation programs utilizing school facilities. Multi-use of facilities is addressed in CRS 2.0 Montgomery Floyd Regional Library (pg.82); EDU 1.1.2 Facilities Renewal Program (pg.116); EDU 1.2.2 New Facilities (pg.116); and EDU 2.2 Nontraditional Educational Facilities (pg.117).

Planning & Government

PNG 3.1.4 Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities Initiative. Study the feasibility of implementing the Community-based Schools and Public Facilities initiative, based on the Florida and West Virginia models, which allows for the provision of government, health and human service based services through the rural schools and public facilities (EllistonLafayette, Shawsville, Riner, Belview, and Prices Fork).

PNG 4.0 Villages and Rural Communities: Retain the viability and character of villages and rural communities found throughout the County. (9) PNG 4.1 Planning Process: Involve residents of villages and rural communities in proactively planning for their future. Village and community residents need to be informed of planning tools such as "mixed uses" and "cluster development" in order that they can decide what may or may not be appropriate for their village/community.

(8)

PNG 4.1.1 Livable Communities. Develop policies which encourage the adoption of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) (10) and other design guidelines into the design process in order to maintain and produce livable communities. These principles provide a framework for and a greater potential benefit from cluster, mixed use, and planned unit development, especially in the context of villages and small communities. (11)

Cross References and Notes: 8. The Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities Initiative is also addressed in the Educational Resources Chapter (EDU 1.2, pg.116).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 9. Montgomery County, 2025 includes six designated villages: Belview, Elliston/Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville. The village plans will become part of the this plan as they are adopted. Village planning is also addressed in PLU 1.7.1: Village Planning Process (pg.43). Other village and rural community issues are included in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg.81); EDU 1.1.1 Local and Neighborhood Facilities (pg.116); and PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs (pg.207). 10. Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) standards are addressed, in greater detail, in PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 67) 11. Livable neighborhoods and communities are central to residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; quality of life. Potential ideas for consideration include: 1. Maintain a clear edge with the countryside (delineate gateways, consider open space buffers, encourage infill development), 2. Build livable communities (compact form encourages walking, reassess zoning standards regarding setbacks and mixed uses), 3. Preserve historic resources (find new uses for old buildings), 4. Respect local character in new construction (ask franchises and chain stores to fit in, landscape commercial areas, control signs, disguise communication towers), and 5. Reduce the impact of the car (design streets for healthy neighborhoods, build trails and greenways, reassess road standards). Source: "Better Models for Development in Virginia" by Edward T. McMahon. Livable neighborhoods and communities area also addressed in HHS 1.0 Livable Communities (pg. 176); HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg.175); and HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods (pg.189).

Planning & Government

PNG 4.1.2 Planning for Villages: Formulate a planning process whereby the County will jointly work with the residents of each village to prepare a village plan to guide their future development. Each village plan would be amended to the countywide Comprehensive Plan.

PNG 6.0 Tax Structure and Legislative Changes and Priorities : Reduce County dependence on the local real estate tax, while expanding local control of land use decisions and opportunities. PNG 6.1 Legislative Priorities: Work with the Virginia Association of Counties (VaCo) and the Virginia Municipal League (VML) in their efforts to diversify the revenue sources available to local governments, while expanding local control of land use decisions and opportunities.

(12)

PNG 4.1.3 Planning for Rural Communities: Formulate a planning process where by rural communities may apply to the County for assistance in preparing a community plan to guide their future development. (13)

PNG 6.1.1 Planning and Code of Virginia. Conduct a review of land use related laws included in the Code of Virginia, updated annually, to determine the impact of changes on local land use practices and regulations.

PNG 4.2 Public Facilities: Locate new public facilities (schools, parks, ballfields, libraries, fire & rescue stations, collection sites, satellite offices, etc.) where they contribute to the viability and livability of established villages and rural communities.

PNG 6.1.1 Planning and Legislative Priorities. Work with the Board of Supervisors and County Administration to expand planning-based options in Montgomery County, including transfer of development rights, an adequate public facilities ordinance, and other innovative planning tools.

PNG 4.3 Zoning Changes: Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance in order to support the future development of villages and small communities. PNG 5.0 Corridor Planning: Identify areas of the county with unique growth characteristics that are appropriate for corridor planning and plan for them using the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor plan as a model. (14)

PNG 7.0 Growth Impact: Use financial options, including cash proffers, as a way to encourage new development to pay its "fair share" for the impacts of capital facilities costs associated with new development. PNG 7.1 Cash Proffers: Develop cash proffer guidelines to address County capital facility needs such as schools, parks, libraries and fire & rescue facilities. (15) PNG 7.2 Capital Improvements Program (CIP): Continue practice of annually developing a five-year CIP to identify future capital facility needs and the means for funding them. (16)

PNG 7.3 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO): Support state legislative efforts to allow local governments to approve APFOs. Cross References and Notes: 12. See footnote #8 for additional references. 13. Examples of rural communities in the county are Alleghany Springs, Ellett, Long Shop, Lusters Gate, McCoy, Pilot, Graysontown, etc. Planning and Rural Communities is addressed in PLU 1.3 (pg.37). 14. Corridor Planning is also addressed in PLU 1.8.1 Corridor Planning (pg.45), and TRN 2.4 Access Management (pg.222).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 15. Preliminary proffer guidelines are addressed in PLU 2.2 (pg. 48) 16. Capital Improvements Program is also addressed in the Implementation Strategies portion of the Introduction to the full plan; EDU 1.1.3 Facilities Renewal Program (pg.116); PRC 2.1.2 Recreational Priorities and Funding (pg.207); and SFY 1.3.2 Capital Facilities and Funding (pg.198).

Planning & Government

Cultural Resources Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Cultural Resources: Executive Summary The Cultural Resources Chapter focuses on three primary areas: 1) Historic preservation, including public investment in the development of villages, districts, and corridors; private investment in individual properties; and historic tourism. 2) The Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library; and 3) The development and support of cultural programs and facilities.

Photos by Robert Parker

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cultural Resources

Montgomery County, 2025: Cultural Resources Cultural Resources provide key quality of life, educational, and economic opportunities, all of which increasingly play a role when companies and individuals judge the suitability of an area for relocation or expansion. In addition, cultural facilities provide cultural and historical continuity for an area or a specific locale, especially in terms of the preservation of historically or culturally significant structures (e.g. the County Government Center in the Imperial Reading Textile Factory and the Christiansburg Institute), districts (e.g. Lafayette, Riner, Shawsville, and Prices Fork), or viewsheds (McDonald's Mill). Cultural and community facilities include historic preservation and revitalization opportunities, museums and heritage parks, libraries, and fine arts and performance venues. While the public schools also provide significant cultural resources, they are included in the education chapter rather than the cultural resources chapter.

"concreting" everything in sight." Historic preservation represents a doubleedged sword: on the one hand, historic properties and districts represent significant cultural assets both within the large and small communities and in the rural portions of the county; on the other hand, most, if not all, of the properties are privately owned, often precluding direct government-based activities. In addition, historic preservation often requires that the properties be economically viable enterprises, necessitating that the governments allow some form of economic enterprise or mixed use in the structures once they have been rehabilitated.

This is especially true with larger structures. Participants did offer a range of suggestions for addressing the issue of historic preservation, including: creating community centers in local historic structures (Black House); "..Developing historic areas for tourism and educational purposes;" and encouraging revitalization of existing structures (note: revitalization comments can also be found in the economic development portion of this report, although the comments in that section are related, primarily, to the reuse of existing commercial structures). One respondent suggested specific approaches local governments could take in addressing the issue

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS: Participant comments in this portion of the community survey can be subdivided into six distinct areas: Historic Preservation, Visual Enhancement, Cultural Activities and Amenities, Libraries, Cultural Facilities (Fine Arts, Museums, and Performance Venues), and Civic/Community Centers. It is clear from participant comments that many of the participants believe that historic preservation and the preservation of "history" or "local character" should be promoted and, where possible, aided. Of the participants who responded specifically to the community surveys, 63% rated historic preservation as either very important or important. An additional 24% rated historic preservation as moderately important. As one participant noted, the county "..needs to preserve our "small town" history & stop Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cultural Resources

of historic preservation: “ The historic resources of the county are highly valued in both rural and urban neighborhoods, and protection/restoration of historic structures is encouraged through county tax incentives, zoning designations and design standards, grants and award recognition for exemplary projects, and disincentives for neglect and demolition such as fines.”

Related to the issue of historic preservation, as well as the environment and planning, are the comments addressing "visual enhancement." In most cases, respondents who cited visual enhancement as a concern fall into three categories: 1) those concerned with buffering in commercial and industrial areas; 2) those concerned with neglected properties; and 3) those concerned with the visual "beauty" either along specific corridors or in certain neighborhoods.

Cultural Resource Issues: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5

Mean Score=3.65

Historic Preservation

Cultural Facilities

Issue Historic Preservation Cultural Facilities Civic Center/Fair Ground

Civic Center/Fair Ground Mean Score 3.74 3.72 2.67

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cultural Resources

One of the common complaints among residents, regardless of age, is the lack of "things to do" in Montgomery County. Indeed one participant noted that one of the county's goals should be: "... diversity of activities for all" and went on to note that there was "Nothing Nothing - Nothing for 13-20 year old to do socially on weekends, if not involved in sports. Lived here 30 years--always been a problem..." It is a sentiment shared by many of the students who responded to the student survey as well. Another participant noted that she "would like to see less migration to Roanoke for entertainment every weekend." Of the survey respondents, 67 % rated cultural facilities as either very important or important. An additional 18% rated cultural facilities as moderately important. As the comments included in the futures statements and the strategies attest, increasing opportunity and access to cultural amenities is a recurring theme among participants. The question of who should provide these amenities, however, is open to debate. A few participants saw the local universities as central to the provision of cultural amenities and experiences. Others wanted to see cultural opportunities created outside of the scope of Radford University and Virginia Tech. As one participant noted, “while the universities offered a broad range of concerts and other cultural events, the events were passive in that community members watched the work of others rather than actively participating in the creation.” While most respondents who cited cultural facilities and amenities as an important issue did so in very general terms (i.e. "increased cultural opportunities," "interesting cultural activities," "cultural development," and "excellent cultural centers"), other respondents were far more specific in their requests, including an emphasis on fine art venues. In a few cases, respondents suggested combining cultural facilities and amenities with community centers. The most often cited example was that of Blacksburg Middle School. Other suggestions 73

Historic Preservation in Montgomery County Historic Districts in Montgomery County, 2004 Blacksburg Historic District Cambria Historic District East Main Street Historic District Kentland Farm Historic and Archaeological District Lafayette Historic District Madison Farm Historic and Archaeological District Miller Southside Residential Historic District North Fork Valley Rural Historic District Piedmont Camp Meeting Grounds Historic District Prices Fork Historic District Riner Historic District Shawsville Historic District South Franklin Street Historic District

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cultural Resources

and their subsequent work on district and individual structure nominations. In 1985, Montgomery County received a Division of Historic Landmarks grant to perform a Reconnaissance Level Survey to identify the historically and architecturally significant buildings and districts in the county. The survey, had a number of results:

Photo by Robert Parker

included the development of museums, strong support for and expansion of the library system into rural areas of the county (most notably, Elliston), and performing art venues. As with fine art centers, respondents who cited performing art venues (including the Lyric Theater) also cited the need for either a community or civic center or an amphitheater.

1) It provided the county with a comprehensive history of the Montgomery County and an inventory and series of quad maps of significant sites and structures; and 2) Led to the designation of 10 historic districts in Montgomery County. The survey included 810 structures built

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL CONDITIONS AND TRENDS: Historic Resources. Historic preservation includes the preservation of historic structures (Cambria Depot or the Do Drop Inn), neighborhoods (East Main and the Park area in Christiansburg), and districts (Riner, Prices Fork, Lafayette, Shawsville, and McDonald's Mill). Montgomery County currently has 10 historic districts, 2 historic and archaeological districts, 1 rural historic district, and 54 individual properties in the Virginia Landmarks Registry and National Register of Historic Places, with one property pending. The majority of districts and individual properties were added to the National Register of Historic Places between 1989 and 1991 as a result of Gibson and Charlotte Worsham’s Reconnaissance Level Survey in 1985-1986 Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Photo by Bill Edmonds

Cultural Resources

prior to World War II, 125 of which were deemed significant. The survey information has not been updated since 1986, when the Worshams’ final report was published, nor is there any indication of how many of the 810 structures included in the initial survey are still standing. Structures and districts built between the beginning of World War II and the mid 1950s are not included in the county data, although some, like Airport Acres, in Blacksburg (one of the first “planned communities”), should be assessed and added to a future historic preservation database, as should structures which meet qualifying requirements. Historic Resources and Tourism. According to the Virginia Tourism Corporation, tourism is the third largest employer (behind business and health services) and the third largest retailer (automobiles and groceries take the first two spots) in the state. In 2001, it generated $652 million in state revenues and $413 million in local revenues. In addition, 211,000 workers were employed in tourism related industries, accounting for 4.75% of the Virginia workforce. Historically, Montgomery County has not actively promoted tourism , although participant responses to the community survey suggest strong support for an expansion of the industry, especially in terms of agricultural, historical, and eco-tourism. While tourism does promote economic development’s emphasis on entrepreneurial enterprises and offers additional opportunities for craftsmen, artisans, and other creative workers, an expansion of tourism also means a probable expansion of low wage service jobs. In Montgomery County, in 2001, tourism generated $4,103,295 in state revenues and $1,295,840 in local revenues. A comparison of local tourism related tax revenues suggests that the amount returned to locales varies a great deal. In the New River Valley, in 2001, Montgomery County had the lowest return at 75

Montgomery County & The New River Valley : Direct Travel Payroll, 1988-2001 $30,000,000

Direct Travel Employment, 1988-2001

$28,000,000 $26,000,000

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

$24,000,000 $22,000,000 $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

$14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

$6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

1989 930 50 270 260 70 1994 1000 80 210 260 120 1999 1136 116 207 317 135

1990 860 60 220 250 70 1995 940 70 190 270 120 2000 1159 118 217 316 139

1991 1992 940 920 50 60 210 210 220 220 130 140 1996 1997 1020 1070 90 110 190 200 330 300 140 140 2001 1218 131 201 320 131

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Montgomery

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

1988 960 50 280 250 60 1993 970 70 200 240 120 1998 1133 111 202 314 142

1988 $9,280,000 $530,000 $2,740,000 $2,460,000 $550,000 1995 $11,700,000 $1,020,000 $2,390,000 $3,390,000 $1,540,000

Floyd

1989 $9,690,000 $600,000 $2,810,000 $2,800,000 $700,000 1996 $12,980,000 $1,220,000 $2,420,000 $4,270,000 $1,760,000

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Giles

1990 $9,320,000 $700,000 $2,390,000 $2,730,000 $750,000 1997 $14,110,000 $1,600,000 $2,730,000 $4,150,000 $1,920,000

Pulaski

1991 $10,640,000 $660,000 $2,430,000 $2,530,000 $1,520,000 1998 $15,514,618 $1,602,875 $2,873,077 $4,385,223 $2,137,166

1992 $10,810,000 $740,000 $2,560,000 $2,590,000 $1,640,000 1999 $15,650,000 $1,812,000 $2,990,000 $4,489,000 $2,030,000

Cultural Resources

Radford 1993 $11,590,000 $930,000 $2,490,000 $2,910,000 $1,440,000 2000 $16,708,700 $1,925,568 $3,267,052 $4,682,289 $2,176,553

Source: Virginia Tourism Corporation, 2003 1994 $12,160,000 $1,080,000 $2,660,000 $3,230,000 $1,510,000 2001 $17,689,788 $2,158,648 $3,053,789 $4,784,541 $2,066,765

Percentage Increase in Direct Tourism Payroll, 1988-2001 Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

%Âą 190.6% 407.3% 111.5% 194.5% 375.8%

Montgomery County: Direct Travel Spending, 1988-2001 $90,000,00

Montgomery County Floyd County

$80,000,00

Giles County $70,000,00

Pulaski County

$60,000,00

Roanoke County Radford City

$50,000,00

Percentage Increase in Direct Travel Spending, 1988-2001

$40,000,00 $30,000,00 $20,000,00 $10,000,00 $ 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

1988 $48,610,000 $3,430,000 $14,230,000 $13,670,000 $57,740,000 $2,300,000 1995 Montgomery $54,100,000 Floyd County $6,330,000 Giles County $13,140,000 Pulaski County $20,870,000 Roanoke County $72,110,000 Radford City $7,530,000 Montgomery Floyd County Giles County Pulaski County Roanoke County Radford City

1989 $50,460,000 $3,990,000 $14,440,000 $15,660,000 $63,920,000 $3,040,000 1996 $58,710,000 $8,180,000 $13,120,000 $25,330,000 $68,540,000 $8,290,000

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

1990 $47,530,000 $4,360,000 $12,870,000 $15,340,000 $61,100,000 $3,540,000 1997 $59,880,000 $9,800,000 $13,870,000 $23,920,000 $72,290,000 $8,470,000

1991 $48,320,000 $4,530,000 $13,060,000 $15,620,000 $55,330,000 $7,060,000 1998 $65,345,989 $9,852,165 $14,446,490 $25,846,852 $69,769,410 $9,238,918

1992 $48,950,000 $5,360,000 $13,900,000 $16,740,000 $44,110,000 $8,140,000 1999 $67,306,000 $10,656,000 $15,554,000 $27,878,000 $75,253,000 $8,983,000

Cultural Resources

1993 $53,290,000 $6,390,000 $13,680,000 $18,750,000 $64,300,000 $6,960,000 2000 $70,961,439 $11,185,533 $16,784,921 $28,715,810 $78,556,839 $9,510,548

1994 $55,790,000 $6,600,000 $14,210,000 $19,410,000 $66,710,000 $7,230,000 2001 $72,262,387 $12,061,175 $15,090,798 $28,223,643 $82,411,200 $8,686,349

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Roanoke Co. Radford

%Âą 148.7% 351.6% 106.0% 206.5% 142.7% 377.7%

Note: Direct travel spending increased, in Montgomery County, by 148.6% between 1988 and 2001. In the same period of time, tourism-related payroll increased 190.6%. With the exception of Radford, increases in direct tourism spending led to a greater increase in payroll. Interestingly enough, the number of employees grew at a slower percentage than did payroll, and in some cases there were fewer employees, but a significant increase in both payroll and receipts.

Source: Virginia Tourism Corporation, 2003

$8,000,000 $7,500,000 $7,000,000 $6,500,000 $6,000,000 $5,500,000 $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0

Montgomery County: State & Local Tourism Tax Revenue, 1988-2001 Montgomery County

Pulaski County

Floyd County

Radford City

Giles County

Ratio of Local Tourism Tax Revenue to State Tax Revenue, 1990-2000

S1988 L1988 S1991 L1991 S1994 L1994 S1997 L1997 S2000 L2000 Source: Virginia Tourism Corporation, 2003

State Revenue from Tourism Taxes, 1988-2001 1988 Montgomery $2,790,000 Floyd $170,000 Giles $760,000 Pulaski $710,000 Radford $120,000 1993 Montgomery $2,700,000 Floyd $300,000 Giles $690,000 Pulaski $910,000 Radford $370,000 1998 Montgomery $3,575,176 Floyd $486,143 Giles $759,598 Pulaski $1,347,021 Radford $526,655

1989 $2,810,000 $180,000 $740,000 $770,000 $150,000 1994 $2,840,000 $310,000 $730,000 $950,000 $390,000 1999 $3,711,000 $557,000 $845,000 $1,514,000 $515,000

1990 $2,530,000 $200,000 $660,000 $740,000 $190,000 1995 $2,770,000 $300,000 $670,000 $1,030,000 $410,000 2000 $3,923,616 $586,205 $914,308 $1,564,380 $547,054

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

1991 1992 $2,410,000 $2,450,000 $210,000 $250,000 $660,000 $710,000 $760,000 $830,000 $350,000 $420,000 1996 1997 $3,060,000 $3,280,000 $380,000 $480,000 $660,000 $730,000 $1,260,000 $1,230,000 $450,000 $490,000 2001 $4,103,295 $649,140 $844,193 $1,579,031 $513,119

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

1990 0.23 2.85 0.71 1.64 0.53

1995 0.24 2.10 0.73 1.31 0.41

2000 0.33 1.62 0.80 1.26 0.45

Local Revenue from Tourism Taxes, 1988-2001 1988 1989 $500,000 $570,000 $370,000 $500,000 $390,000 $460,000 $730,000 $970,000 $50,000 $60,000 1993 1994 Montgomery $660,000 $700,000 Floyd $600,000 $620,000 Giles $490,000 $510,000 Pulaski $1,270,000 $1,320,000 Radford $170,000 $170,000 1998 1999 Montgomery $1,191,672 $1,212,000 Floyd $861,208 $902,000 Giles $640,899 $679,000 Pulaski $1,762,473 $1,909,000 Radford $230,323 $229,000 Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

Cultural Resources

1990 $590,000 $570,000 $470,000 $1,210,000 $100,000 1995 $670,000 $630,000 $490,000 $1,350,000 $170,000 2000 $1,282,890 $951,047 $735,933 $1,975,329 $243,687

1991 1992 $630,000 $620,000 $570,000 $570,000 $470,000 $480,000 $1,190,000 $1,200,000 $170,000 $180,000 1996 1997 $910,000 $1,090,000 $650,000 $820,000 $490,000 $600,000 $1,410,000 $1,680,000 $190,000 $220,000 2001 $1,295,840 $1,017,202 $656,302 $1,925,766 $220,768

many of the jobs created by tourism are either low wage, part-time, or both. Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library.

Photo by Robert Parker

.32, while Floyd County had a return of $1.57 in local revenue for every $1.00 in state revenue. The difference in state and local tax revenues, despite local earnings, may have more to do with the types of businesses and the primary tourism attractions. Much of Montgomery Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current tourism industries centers on Virginia Tech, which does not generate revenues from on campus activities. The tourism industry employed 1,218 workers, or 2.1% of the local workforce, and generated a payroll of $17,689,788 (approximately $14,520 per worker). While tourism is often touted as an important part of a sustainable economy, evidence suggests that

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

The Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library currently has two libraries in Montgomery County, located in Blacksburg and Christiansburg, with an additional library, serving the eastern portion of the county, slated to be developed in the former Meadowbrook Nursing Home facility in Shawsville. The library system represents a critical and central cultural resource in Montgomery County, providing a diverse range of opportunities, from book clubs and reading groups to family night activities. Since 1999, the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library has seen increased usage. Circulation per capita grew from 5.36 (481,453) to 5.74 (559,846) in 2002. In the same period of time, the materials per capita (1.97 to 2.02) has also increased, as has the number of visits per capita (from 3.12 to 3.63). Between 1999 and 2002, the overall operating expenditures increased 24%, despite limited budgets. This said, the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library still falls well behind the state averages, although it meets or surpasses benchmark expectations. For operating

Cultural Resources

expenditures, Montgomery and Floyd Counties spent $20.85 compared to the state average of $27.38. The benchmark for expenditures for libraries similar to the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library is $14.73, a figure that has not risen since 1999. Similar patterns show up when looking at materials and visits per capita. However, in circulation per capita and turnover rate per capita, the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library surpasses both the state median and the established median benchmark. Cultural Facilities and Programs Currently, Montgomery County contributes funding to a number of cultural organizations and institutions, including the Lyric Theater, Montgomery Museum (Pepper House), Smithfield Plantation, and the High Street Community Center, which is housed in the Old Christiansburg Institute building adjacent to Schaeffer Memorial Baptist Church. In addition, Montgomery County provides significant gallery space for area artists in the County Government Center. The Montgomery County Parks and Recreation Department continues to offer access to cultural programming, especially through their seniors program.

Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library: Per Capita User Rates and Operating Expenditures, 1999-2002 7

Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library: per capita user rates, 1999 and 2002.

6 5 4

Source: Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library, 2003

3 5.36 5.05 5.1

5.74

6.23 5.23 5.1

2 2.74 3.1

1.97

3.44 3.1

3.12 3.42

3.63

MFRL VA Median

2.02

Med. Benchmark 0

Circulation,1999 Circulation, 2002

Materials, 1999

Materials, 2002

Visits, 1999

Visits, 2002

$28.00

MFRL

$27.00

VA Median

$26.00

Med. Benchmark

$25.00 $24.00 $23.00 $22.00

1999 2000 2001 2002

Total Operating Expenditures $1,626,432 $1,720,308 $2,099,305 $2,032,622

$21.00 $20.00 $19.00 $18.00

MFRL

$17.00 $16.00 $15.00 $14.00

1999

2000

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

2001

2002

Cultural Resources

VA Median

Med. Benchmark

1999

$18.09

$17.35

$14.73

2000

$18.76

$18.70

$14.73

2001

$21.53

$20.86

$14.73

2002

$20.85

$27.38

$14.73

Cultural Resources: Goals CRS 1.1.3 Historic Villages and Rural Communities. Maintain the viability and historic character of existing villages and rural communities by encouraging preservation of historic structures and preservation of the historic pattern of developed and undeveloped areas that define the villages, rural communities, and their boundaries.(4)

CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation Goal: Promote the preservation of the historical and cultural integrity of the built and natural environment, including individual structures, districts, and historically significant landscapes and viewsheds. (1) CRS 1.1 Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors: Develop and revitalize historically significant districts, villages (Riner, Prices Fork, Lafayette, Elliston, Shawsville, and Merrimac), and corridors (US 460/Rt 11 and Catawba).

CRS 1.2 Preservation of Individual Properties. Promote the historic preservation of individual structures by providing local technical assistance to local landowners and developers.

CRS 1.1.1 Certified Local Government Program. Establish a countywide Certified Local Government program, as outlined under the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, including maintaining and updating the inventory of historic structures in Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Montgomery County. Establishing a countywide Certified Local Government program would require a cooperative effort between Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg, as well as the City of Radford. (2)

CRS 1.2.1 Historic Preservation Easements. Target specific areas of the county for conservation and historic preservation easements, allowed under the Virginia Historic Preservation Easement Program (1996), thereby preserving both historic structures and districts by preserving the context in which they are situated and by affording long-term legal protection. CRS 1.2.2 Regional Survey of Historic Resources Database and GIS Layers. Provide direct access to information on individual properties, within Montgomery County, to property owners by establishing, maintaining, and updating the County Survey of Historic Resources GIS database. (5)

CRS 1.1.2 Historic Signage. Establish a systematic program, through the Department of Historic Resources Local Marker program, to provide historic markers, town markers, and appropriate historical signage, as well as an online and printed guide to the local markers, throughout Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg, in order to preserve the history of the area and promote the development of a viable historybased tourism industry. (3)

Cross References and Notes: 1. Issues surrounding historic preservation are also addressed in the Planning and Land Use Policies (pages 35-50), specifically PLU 1.2.1 (f), PLU 1.3.2(b), PLU 1.4.2(d), PLU 1.5.2(b), PLU 1.6.4(d), PLU 1.7.4(a), and PLU 1.8.4(d). Flexible road standards is addressed in TRN 1.5 (pg. 221). 2. The Certified Local Governments Program, established under the Federal Historic Preservation Act (1966) is administered by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). Program requirements and benefits are available from the DHR. 3. State provisions for historic markers are included in sections 10.1-2209 and 10.12210 of the Code of Virginia.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

CRS 1.2.3 Public Information. Provide public information on historic preservation and historic preservation easements to individual landowners and developers, including access to forms and a list of local preservation and easement specialists. Cross References and Notes: 4. Land use policies for rural communities, villages, and village expansion areas are included in PLU 1.4: Rural Communities (pg. 38), PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 41); and PLU 1.7: Villages (pg. 43). 5. Gibson and Charlotte Worsham conducted the initial survey of historic resources in Montgomery County in 1986. The survey culminated in the designation of 10 historic districts throughout Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg, including four village districts in the unincorporated portions of the County. The survey has not been updated since the initial survey. The initial database would be based on the Worsham survey.

Cultural Resources

CRS 1.2.4 Preservation Incentives: Density Bonuses. Provide incentives, including density bonuses, to developers to encourage the preservation of significant historic structures and viewsheds on property slated for development.

CRS 2.0 Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library: Provide increased access to high-quality library facilities throughout Montgomery County. (7) CRS 2.1 New and Existing Facilities and Programs. Provide adequate public library facilities, based on population growth trends and need, throughout Montgomery County.

CRS 1.2.5 Preservation Incentives: Taxes. Proactively promote historic preservation by education landowners about the various state and federal tax benefits for historic preservation. Provide tax incentives, including a historic preservation land use tax program, which would allow for a reduction in real estate taxes for structures and properties which contribute to historic districts or viewsheds.

CRS 2.1.1 Library Facility Standards. Work with the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library Board to establish a set of criteria for determining future physical library needs, including the resiting and upgrade of existing facilities and the siting of new facilities. CRS 2.1.2 Public Information: Events and Programs. Establish a countywide public-information approach to the provision and promotion of library-based cultural and educational events and programs (special readings, art shows, book clubs, literacy and adult education programs, etc.).

CRS 1.3 Historic Preservation and Tourism. Actively encourage the development of economic enterprises which maintain or enhance the historic nature of existing districts, including the development of tourism-based industries (bed and breakfasts, antique shops, gift shops, and attractions) and tourism corridor plans (eg. an antiques corridor along Rt. 11/460 or a Coal Mining Heritage Corridor). (6)

CRS 2.1.3 Public Information: Technology. Work with the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library Board to develop a library-based technology plan that will provide increased open access to technology-based public information, including: the provision of local, wired, public meeting rooms where citizens can watch and participate in public meetings; greater public webaccess; and increased electronic access to government forms, reports, and other documents. CRS 2.1.4 Library-Based Community Space. Work with the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library Board to develop of community meeting space in existing facilities and the design community multi-use facilities in new and rehabilitated facilities.

Cross References and Notes: 6. Tourism is supported by ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy (pg. 102). Eco- and Agri-tourism are addressed in ENV 2.1.7 (Rural Development Initiatives (pg. 139).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 7. The Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library is also addressed in PNG 3.1: MultiUse of Public Facilities (pg. 67), PNG 3.1.4: Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities Initiative (pg. 68); EDU 1.2: Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities (pg. 116) and EDU 2.2.4: Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library (pg. 117)

Cultural Resources

CRS 3.0 Cultural Facilities & Fine Arts: Provide increased access to and support of cultural facilities and opportunities, including both public and private museums, fine arts facilities, and performing arts venues.

CRS 3.2 Heritage Parks & Trails System. Continue to develop the of Heritage Parks and Trails System to connect public, nonprofit, and private heritage and cultural sites or nodes (Coal Mining Heritage Park at Merrimac and the Farm Heritage Park at Riner), while providing venues for local cultural events (Coal Mining Heritage Day, Riner Heritage Day, etc.), artisans (an artisans' market), and performers (small performance and demonstration facilities) celebrating elements of Montgomery County's heritage. (8)

CRS 3.1 Cultural Facilities, Programs, and Events. Work with local organizations to provide increased cultural displays, programs, and events at publicly-owned venues, including the County Government Center, Coal Mining Heritage Park and Science Center, parks and recreation facilities, and school facilities.

CRS 3.2.1 Coal Mining Heritage Park. Continue to implement the master plan for the Coal Mining Heritage Park, in partnership with the Coal Mining Heritage Association and other interested individuals and organizations.

CRS 3.1.1 Public Gallery / Exhibition Space. Continue to provide gallery / exhibition space for local artists and artisans. Montgomery County currently provides publicly accessible gallery and exhibition space in the County Government Center, through a cooperative arrangement with the Blacksburg Arts Council, for local artists and artisans.

CRS 3.2.2 Riner Branch, Montgomery County Museum. Develop, through a public private partnership, the Riner Branch of the Montgomery County Museum, including the cannery and the cabin located on the Auburn High School grounds, immediately south of Auburn High School.

CRS 3.1.2 Public Support of Cultural Facilities and Programs. Continue County support of locally operated cultural facilities, including the Christiansburg Institute, Lyric Theater, and the Montgomery County Museum, while working with citizens groups to increase cultural opportunities in Montgomery County, including festivals, additional museum and gallery facilities, youth arts programs, and performance venues.

CRS 3.2.3 Farm Heritage Park. Create a master plan for the development of a Farm Heritage Park in Riner, in partnership with Radford University, Virginia Tech, the Friends of Riner, Montgomery County Museum, agricultural and farm organization, and the Agricultural Extension Service. Cross References and Notes: 8. Heritage parks are also addressed in EDU 2.2: Non-traditional Educational Facilities (pg. 117) and PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs (pg. 207).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cultural Resources

Economic Resources Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Economic Resources: Executive Summary The economic resources chapter focuses on four primary goals: 1) Land use and quality of life, including establishing a quality-of-life indicators and benchmarking program; 2) Workforce development, including vocational and technical training and retraining; 3) Location of economic resources and the quality of development; and 4) Developing, attracting, and retaining economic resources. Photos by Robert Parker

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Economic Resources

Economic Resources: Introduction Ask county residents to define â&#x20AC;&#x153;economic development,â&#x20AC;? and the number of definitions are likely to be as numerous as the responses. However, the definitions touch on common themes: the abundance and quality of jobs; the quality of development, including environmental impacts and location; wages; and the impact of economic development on quality of life. As with other issues, economic development strongly interlocks with many of the other issues facing Montgomery County in the future, including affordable housing, environmental quality, education, transportation, and utilities. The quality of jobs and the wage scale impact the ability of individuals and families to afford housing; the quality of education and strength of workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; skill sets directly influences the quality and range of industries likely to either relocate to or start up in the county; and the availability of sites and the presence of infrastructure dictate the location and amount of business growth in Montgomery County.

to be environmentally friendly while providing quality jobs and higher wages. With a couple of notable exceptions, most wanted to see industrial areas kept out of the more rural portions of the county and away from existing residential areas. In short, they wanted the industrial areas defined and, at least to some degree, limited. While a several respondents noted that industrial development could mean improved wages and an increased tax base, more respondents expressed concern over potential environmental impacts and the need

for a clear separation of land uses. Finally, a number of participants saw industrial growth as a means of keeping local youth from moving away by providing quality job opportunities. The mean score for commercial growth (3.06) was similar to that of industrial growth. While few respondents noted specific commercial enterprises they would like to see developed in the County or suggested the expansion of existing commercial areas, more respondents wanted to either limit commercial development or redirect commercial

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS: Participants were asked to rank a series of five economic development related issues: 1) industrial growth, 2) commercial growth, 3) tourism, 4) agriculture, and 5) high tech growth. The mean scores for each issue indicated less support for commercial and industrial development than for agricultural, high tech, and tourism development. The future statements, on the other hand, indicated a much higher level of support for both industrial and commercial growth. Industrial growth had a mean score of 3.07, Participants indicated that they wanted to see industrial development, but they wanted to see it sited in either existing industrial parks or in areas which were already industrialized. In addition, they wanted the industrial development Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Economic Resources

development into downtown areas or existing commercial structures (redevelopment and revitalization). There is, however, a distinct exception to the view that commercial growth should be contained: a number of participants, in discussing compact developments, suggested an emphasis on mixed use in planned neighborhoods. High-tech (3.59), agricultural (3.29), and tourism (3.25) growth received higher scores than either industrial or commercial development, although none of the three garnered as many comments as either industrial or commercial development. A number of participants felt that Montgomery County and the New River Valley

should be made more "tech friendly." In order to encourage high tech growth, respondents made a number of suggestions, including: 1) improving high tech infrastructure; 2) providing incentives to high tech firms willing to locate in the area; 3) working with Virginia Tech to encourage the expansion of high tech industries; and 4) encouraging the growth of local industries. One factor that accounts for the favorable comments for high tech growth is the belief that high tech industries are cleaner and more environmentally friendly than more traditional industrial developments. As with industrial development, some respondents saw high tech growth as a way of bringing in both quality jobs

Economic Development Issues: Mean Scores, 2003 3.65 3.6 3.55 3.5 3.45

Mean Score

3.4 3.35 3.3 3.25 3.2

Commercial

3.06

Industrial

3.07

Tourism

3.25

Agriculture

3.29

High Tech

3.59

All Issues

3.65

3.15 3.1 3.05 Commercial

Industrial

Tourism

Agriculture

High Tech

All Issues

Note: Forty-one issues were included in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;rate this issue in terms of importanceâ&#x20AC;? portion of the community survey. A mean score was calculated for each of the 41 issues, as well as for the total of all issues. Issues with scores higher than 3.65 (the mean for all issues) indicate that the majority of respondents rated the issue greater importance; a score lower than 3.65 indicates that the majority of respondents rated the issue of less importance than the on average. The scale for the survey was: 0=no response; 1= not important; 2=minimally important; 3=moderately important; 4=important; and 5=very important. Source: 2003 Community Survey, Montgomery County, Virginia.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Economic Resources

and higher wages. Participants written comments indicate broadbased support for both the continuation of agriculture as a going concern in Montgomery County and the expansion of specific forms of tourism, most notably those focusing on the environment, agriculture, or history. As reflected in the economic development goals, the community survey respondents and the economic development work group volunteers agreed on the need for developing a holistic approach to economic development that focused on individual, group, and community asset formation as a means of increasing both the quality of economic development and the quality of life in Montgomery County. Comments from the two open-ended questions fell into seven distinct categories: 1) general comments concerning the need for or the lack of need for increased economic development; 2) appropriate locations for economic development; 3) job and wage quality, including the need for a "living wage;" 4) specific types of economic development, including agricultural, commercial, high-tech, industrial, and eco-, agri-, and historical tourism; 5) revitalization and redevelopment, including historic preservation; 6) the need for design standards for industrial and commercial areas; and 7) environmental concerns primarily related to industrial development. Participants discussed social issues related to economic development (including the current and future level of wages and quality of jobs); environmental concerns (the need for clean development); the need for increased worker training and retraining; and the creation and implementation of design standards for commercial and industrial sites. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of comments, regardless of subcategory, either directly cited or implied the need for quality development--that is, development that has a low impact on both the natural and man-made environments; pays, at least, a living wage; and provides increased opportunities to current and future Montgomery 87

County residents. As one participant noted: The county needs a plan to attract good jobs to C'burg & B'burg. These jobs would include management, technical, computer, etc. The county needs to be able to provide good jobs for its college grads. We have plenty of minimum wage low end jobs. How about attracting businesses w/tax incentives to land regional, or corporate headquarters here? Along with improving the quality of jobs and wages, some participants also suggested expanding adult and teen education opportunities, especially in tech related fields. One participant suggested "Educate single parents with affordable education to improve income;" while another participant suggested "more vocational opportunities for high schoolers who do not have a focus on academia." CURRENT AND HISTORIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS Anyone who spends time examining economic development trends since 1970 is likely to be struck by the changes in where and how we work, the kind of job market we are facing, the kinds of skills we bring to the job, and what we receive in return. Indeed, the economic landscape around the county, as with the rest of Virginia, has undergone radical changes in the past 30 years, most notably in the loss of manufacturing as the primary employment category in the private sector and the impact that loss has had on the overall earnings of workers who live and/or work, in Montgomery County. Public & Private Sector Employment The percentage of public and private sector jobs in Montgomery County has not changed in thirty years. In 1970, the public sector Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Montgomery County: Employment, 1970-2000 57500 55000 52500 50000 47500 45000 42500 40000 37500 35000 32500 30000 27500 25000 22500 20000 17500 15000 12500 10000 7500 5000 2500 0

Total full-time and part-time employment Wage and salary employment Proprietors employment Farm employment Private employment Government and government enterprises

Distribution of Non-Farm, Private Sector Employment, 1970-2000

1970

1980

Total full-time/part-time emp. Wage and salary emp. Proprietors employment Farm employment Private Sector Public Sector Total full-time/part-time emp. Wage and salary emp. Proprietors employment Farm employment Private Sector Public Sector

1990

2000

1970 28821 26327 2494 974 19690 8157 1990 49643 43519 6124 728 33788 15127

1980 38403 34742 3661 827 25466 12110 2000 55769 48927 6842 728 38995 16046

Economic Resources

1970

1980

1990

2000

Construction Manufacturing Retail trade

Finance, insurance, and real estate Services Other

Montgomery County & Radford: % Change in the Number of Non-Farm Jobs, by Sector and Industry, 400.0% 350.0%

Total full-time and part-time employment Nonfarm employment Private employment Construction Manufacturing Transportation and public utilities Retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate Services Government and government enterprises State and local

300.0% 250.0% 200.0% 150.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% -50.0% -100.0%

1970 28821 27847 19690 1354 10052 630 3257 743 3225 8157 7368

1980 38403 37576 25466 1778 8970 766 5404 1830 5987 12110 11428

1990 49643 48915 33788 2201 9782 636 8868 2318 9022 15127 14113

2000 55769 55041 38995 2464 7826 990 10423 2505 13244 16046 15113

% Change in Number of Jobs, 1970-2000 Total full-time and part-time employment

Frederick Clarke

% Change in Manufacturing Employment, 1970-2000

Nonfarm employment Private employment Construction

Loudoun

Warren

Fairfax

Fauquier

Shenandoah

Prince Edward

Rappahannock

Page Culpeper

Stafford King George

Rockingham Madison

Westmorland

Manufacturing

Greene

Manufacturing jobs increased by 8.9% in Virginia between 1970 and 2000, while manufacturing jobs decreased in Montgomery County by 22.1% in the same period of time.

Transportation and public utilities Retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate

Highland

Spotsylvania

Louisa

Hanover

Bath

Fluvanna Goochland Rockbridge

Powatan Buckingham Cumberland

Amherst Appomattox Bedford

Amelia Prince Edward

Nottoway

Campbell

Roanoke

Giles

State and local

Buchanan

Sussex

Charlotte

Chesapeake

Lunenburg

Bland

Suffolk

Mecklenburg

Greenville

Wythe Russell

Washington Lee

Southampton

Pittsylvania

Floyd

Wise

Halifax

Pulaski

Tazewell Dickenson

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Middlesex

Montgomery Franklin

Lan caster

NorthMathews ampton Gloucester James Henrico City Charles City York Chesterfield Poquoson Newport Hampton Surrey Prince News George Norfolk Isle of Virginia Wight Dimwiddie Beach

Brunswick

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2004. The BEA combines Montgomery County and Radford city data. According to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, the manufacturing sector, in the 3rd Quarter of 2002, employed 5,594, representing 14.9% of the overall workforce (including public and private sector employers).

King King and William Queen

New Kent

Nelson

Botetourt

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Albemarle

Craig

Government and government enterprises

Essex Caroline

Augusta

Alleghany

Services

Orange

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick

Henry

Grayson

Scott

New River Valley Counties Used as Comparison

Economic Resources

Increase in Manufacturing Jobs (5.1% or more) No significant increase or decrease (-5% to 5%) Decrease in Manufacturing Jobs (-5.1% or more) Information not available

accounted for 30% of the jobs in the county. In 2000, the public sector still accounted for 30%, leaving 70% of the jobs provided by the private sector. Industries and Occupations. In 1970, slightly more than half of the private sector jobs (51.1%) in Montgomery County were in manufacturing. Although the number of manufacturing firms has increased in the past 30 years, the number of manufacturing jobs has steadily decreased. In 1970, manufacturing centered on three primary industries: high tech (Poly-scientific, Electro Tec, and Corning), textile (Imperial Reading), and defense. Of the private sector firms, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (Hercules) was by far the largest employer, although the employment levels, since the construction of the plant in the 1940s, have fluctuated rather dramatically based on the level of US military action at any given time. In 1970, the Radford Arsenal, which produced much of the rocket propellant used in the Vietnam War (as well as Korea and World War II), was in full swing and provided manufacturing jobs to workers who lived as far away as southern West Virginia and North Carolina. In 1996, control of the Radford Arsenal shifted from Hercules to Alliant Techsystems, and there has since been an increased emphasis in privatizing the facilities and encouraging the growth of non-defense related uses (Grucci Pyrotechnics). According to the Roanoke Times, in the eight years prior to Alliant Techsystems takeover of the RAAP, the arsenal lost 8,600 jobs. In the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, the military presence and defense related production at RAAP have increased. However, as the numbers from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership indicate, the level of civilian/private sector employment is well below previous levels and the 8,600 jobs that disappeared in the late 1980s and early 1990s Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

have not been replaced. While defense-related work still plays a significant manufacturing role in Montgomery County, the textile industry has disappeared, replaced by a growing emphasis on technology and truck/automotive related industries. With the exception of Imperial Reading, whose building has since been renovated to accommodate the needs of the County government, the major manufacturing employers in Montgomery County in 1970 remain some of the major employers in 2000, joined by a number of new, large-scale manufacturing firms, including Rowe Furniture, Hubbell Lighting, Federal Mogul, Eagle Picher Industries (Wolverine Gasket), and C&S Door Corporation. The majority of the new manufacturing firms are located in the four industrial parks (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Elliston-Lafayette, and Falling Branch), all of which were created since 1980. In addition, there are an increased number of small firms, including over 100 technology, environmental technology, and biotechnology firms located in the Virginia

Tech Corporate Research Center. The creation and expansion of these small, locally-created firms are likely to lead to the future expansion of manufacturing in Montgomery County. Service and Retail Sector Employment. While manufacturing jobs have decreased, jobs in the service and retail sectors have substantially increased. In 1970, the service sector accounted for 11.6% of overall non-farm employment and 16.4% of private employment in Montgomery County and the City of Radford. Retail jobs accounted for a similar percentage: 11.7% of overall non-farm employment and 16.5% of private sector employment. In 2000, service industry jobs accounted for 34% of private sector jobs (24.1% of non-farm employment) and retail climbed to 26.7% of private sector employment (18.9% of non-farm employment). Although the increase in retail and service jobs signals a greater diversification of the local economy, the jobs, especially those in retail and in personal, food, entertainment, and lodging

Montgomery County: Major Manufacturing Employers, 2002 Employer

Type of Industry

Number of Employees

Alliant Techsystems, Inc. Litton Poly-Scientific Rowe Industries, Inc. Eagle Picher Industries Federal Mogul Corporation Hubbell Industries C&S Door Corporation Corning, Inc Electro Tec Corporation

Explosives Fiber Optics/Security Products Furniture Automotive Gaskets Engine Bearings Lighting Fixures Doors and Blinds Ceramic Fibers Motors & Generators

1,000 to 1,499 600-999 600-999 300-599 300-599 300-599 100-299 100-299 100-299

Virginia Economic Development Partnership, 2002

Economic Resources

Distribution of Occupations in Montgomery County: Comparison To Other Jurisdictions, Based on Ratio to State Average, 2000. (State Mean=1.00) 2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

Above 1.30.

Management, Professional & Related Occupations

Service Occupations

Sales & Office Occupations

Construction, Extraction, & Maintenance Occupations

Montgomery Co

Rockingham County

Albemarle Co

Spotsylvania

Augusta Co.

Stafford

1.11 to 1.30

Production, Transportation, & Materials Moving Occupations

.91 to 1.10

.70 to .90 Below .70

Hanover Co. Montgomery

Albemarle Augusta

Hanover Rockingham

Significantly Higher % of Workers in Occupation Moderately Higher % of Workers in Occupation % of Workers within Range of State Average (Mean) Moderately Lower % of Workers in Occupation Significantly Lower % of Workers in Occupation Spotsylvania

Stafford

Management, Professional or Related

1.05

1.29

0.67

1.01

0.71

0.92

1.08

Service Occupations

1.20

1.02

0.95

0.79

0.95

1.03

0.97

Sales and Office Occupations

0.87

0.89

0.97

1.19

0.90

1.07

1.01

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry

0.76

1.00

2.51

0.40

3.48

0.33

0.25

Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance

0.85

0.73

1.28

1.07

1.25

1.18

1.22

Production, Transportation, and Material Moving

1.01

0.53

1.85

0.79

1.83

0.94

0.64

Total

39369

60527

32962

45165

46797

55417

45588

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Economic Resources

services,, pay substantially less than those in manufacturing, are more likely to be part time, and do not always offer the same benefits (including health insurance). Although the growth of the retail and service sectors in Montgomery County may be viewed with some concern, it is important to note that the rise in these two sectors also indicates a diminished dependence, in the same period of time, on the Roanoke Valley. This is especially true in professional services and in large-scale retail. The reliance on Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley meant that funds earned in Montgomery County were exported to neighboring jurisdictions rather than being spent locally and adding to the local tax base. The development of the local service and retail industries meant that not only did we stop exporting local monies, but we started importing monies from other jurisdictions. Service Sector: According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, statistics for 2000 and before are based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. Numbers for 2001 and later are based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAISC). Although there are some similarities between the two systems, there are enough significant differences to make data comparison between the two problematic. The SIC system, which was the basis for the data included in this report, defined the service industry as: “...establishments primarily engaged in providing a wide variety of services for individuals, business and government establishments, and other organizations. Hotels and other lodging places; establishments providing personal, business, repair, and amusement services; health, legal, engineering, and other professional services; educational institutions; membership organizations, Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

and other miscellaneous services, are included.” The increase in the service and retail sectors is clearly connected to the creation and subsequent expansion of the mall area in northern Christiansburg, but the expansion of the service sector goes beyond the jobs created in the hotel, restaurant and fastfood, and the entertainment industries. The construction of the new Carilion Hospital and expansion of medical services added additional service sector jobs in the County, as did the shift of mental health services jobs from St. Albans, in Pulaski County, to the new Carilion facility. Call centers, like Echostar’s technical support center in the Falling Branch Industrial Park, added additional jobs to the economic landscape in the county. Professional services, including law and engineering, expanded as the population expanded and as the need for those services increased. Finally, consulting based firms at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center, including Waste Policy Institute, added a large number of high paying jobs in the County’s service sector. Retail Sector. Expansion of retail service in the past 30 years can be tied, almost directly, to the expansion and promotion of the mall area of Christiansburg as the “New River Valley’s Downtown.” The creation and expansion of the mall area can also be tied to the diminished presence of medium scale retailers in both Blacksburg and downtown Christiansburg. In 1970, both Blacksburg and Christiansburg had chain retail outlets in their downtown areas: Roses in downtown Blacksburg, Leggetts in downtown Christiansburg. By 2000, the chain retail stores were concentrated in the area surrounding the intersection of Rt. 114 (Peppers Ferry Road) and US 460. The creation of the mall area also created a shift in purchase patterns in the region. In 1970, if you lived in Giles, Pulaski, or Montgomery Economic Resources

Counties for example, you drove to Roanoke if you wanted to visit large scale retailers (Sears, Penneys, etc.). After the development of the New River Valley Mall, and the subsequent expansion across both 460 and Rt 114, residents in Montgomery County and the surrounding area need not spend a day going down to Roanoke. The development and expansion of the mall had four distinct effects: 1) the expansion of revenue from sales taxes; 2) increased concentration of traffic at the Rt. 114/US 460 intersection; 3) increased number of relatively low-paying retail based jobs; and 4) the loss of smaller retail outlets and the loss or shift of jobs in outlying areas (including retailers like Catos in Pearisburg) due to the closer proximity of larger retail outlets marketing lower cost goods. It should be noted that although Montgomery County has seen a tremendous increase in the number of service and retail sector jobs, and a corresponding decrease in manufacturing jobs, the distribution of occupations in the county is within range of the state average. The number of people in service related occupations was moderately higher than state average (1.20:1.00), whereas the number in construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations was moderately lower (.85:1.00). Location of Business and Industrial Areas. The majority of business and industrial areas are located either in or in close proximity to Blacksburg and Christiansburg, or in the 177 Corridor between the city of Radford and Carilion Hospital adjacent to I-81. The notable exceptions are the Elliston/Lafayette Park, located next to US 460/ Rt 11, at Elliston, and Rowe Furniture, across the South Fork at Lafayette. Montgomery County and the two towns provide industrial, corporate, and research sites in five parks. In addition, small business districts are located in the villages (Riner, Elliston, Shawsville, and Prices Fork) and along specific 92

Business & Industrial Locations in Montgomery County Corporate, Research, and Industrial Parks in Montgomery County Park

Location

Blacksburg Industrial Park Christiansburg Industrial Park Elliston-Lafayette Industrial Park Corporate Park Midway Office Park VTU Corporate Research Center

Blacksburg Christiansburg Elliston Branch Christiansburg Christiansburg Blacksburg

Insert County Map with Location of Business and Industrial zoning and Industrial Parks

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Economic Resources

corridors (Rt. 11 at Plum Creek, Rt 114 at Belview, and Rt 460/Rt. 11 at Lafayette) Wages and Income Wages vary in Montgomery County. While the universities, the Corporate Research Center, manufacturing companies and corporations, and various small high-tech concerns provide many higher skill, higher wage jobs, many of the jobs, especially those in the personal and hospitality services and commercial/retail industries, provide substantially lower wages. Wages in Montgomery County and surrounding environs have increased since 1970, although they have not kept pace with Virginia as a whole. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the wage per job average, in 1970, was $5,770 in Montgomery County and the City of Radford, $5,117 in the New River Valley, and $6,233 in Virginia. Between 1970 and 2000, wages climbed locally (343.8% in Montgomery County and the City of Radford), regionally (382% in the New River Valley), and statewide (456.9% in Virginia). By 2000, the wage per job average was $25,606 in Montgomery County and the City of Radford, $24,633 in the New River Valley, and $34,656 in Virginia . In the thirty year span, the gap between the wage per job average at the local and regional level and the state level has grown. In 1970, the ratio of the local average to the state average was .92 for Montgomery County and the City of Radford and .82 for the New River Valley; by 2000, the ratio of the local average to the state average was .73 for Montgomery County and the City of Radford and .71 for the New River Valley. The same trends hold true for per capita income and median household income, both of which evidence the growing gap between the local and state levels. Median family income, unlike per capita and median household, has narrowed the gap between the local and state medians, although it is still showing a moderate disparity. Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Median Household, Median Family, & Per Capita Income, 1980-2000 Median Household Income and Ratio to State Average, 1980-2000 Virginia Montgomery Co. Floyd Co. Giles Co. Pulaski Co. Radford, City of

1980 $17,475.00 $13,082.00 $12,230.00 $13,589.00 $14,482.00 $14,434.00

Ratio 0.75 0.70 0.78 0.83 0.83

1990 $33,328.00 $22,949.00 $22,968.00 $24,125.00 $23,319.00 $19,487.00

Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.72 0.70 0.58

2000 $46,677.00 $32,330.00 $31,585.00 $34,927.00 $33,873.00 $24,654.00

Ratio 0.69 0.68 0.75 0.73 0.53

Median Family Income and Ratio to State Average, 1980-2000 Virginia Montgomery Co. Floyd Co. Giles Co. Pulaski Co. Radford City

1980 $20,018.00 $17,084.00 $14,585.00 $15,274.00 $16,247.00 $18,680.00

Ratio 0.85 0.73 0.76 0.81 0.93

1990 $38,213.00 $32,128.00 $27,439.00 $29,416.00 $28,057.00 $31,318.00

Ratio 0.84 0.72 0.77 0.73 0.82

2000 $54,169.00 $47,239.00 $38,128.00 $42,089.00 $42,251.00 $46,332.00

Ratio 0.87 0.70 0.78 0.78 0.86

Per Capita Income and Ratio to State Average, 1980-2000 Virginia Montgomery+Radford Floyd Co. Giles Co. Pulaski Co.

1980 $10,176.00 $7,125.00 $7,285.00 $7,702.00 $7,104.00

Ratio 0.70 0.72 0.76 0.70

1990 $20,527.00 $13,434.00 $13,125.00 $14,656.00 $13,628.00

Ratio 0.65 0.64 0.71 0.66

2000 $31,210.00 $19,573.00 $18,185.00 $20,262.00 $21,627.00

Ratio 0.63 0.58 0.65 0.69

Sources and Notes: Median Household and Median Family Income: U.S. Census Bureau. Per Capita Income: US Bureau of Economic Analysis. The ratio of local median and per capita income to the state equivalent provides an indication of how closely aligned the local economy is to the state average: Ratio Range Ratio Description =Above 1.30 Income is significantly higher than state median or per capita =1.11 to 1.30 Income is moderately higher than state median or per capita =1.0 State Median or Average =.91 to 1.10 Income is within standard range of state median or per capita =.70 to 9.0 Income is moderately lower than state median or per capita =Below .70 Income is significantly lower than state median or per capita

Economic Resources

Median Family and Household and Per Capita Incomes: Ratio to State Average, 2000 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40

Jurisdiction

Wage Per Job Virginia $36,160 Albemarle + Charlottesville $32,020 Roanoke (Independent City) $30,667 Roanoke + Salem $30,599 Stafford $29,745 Hanover $29,656 Giles $28,213 Spotsylvania + Fredericksburg $27,724 Augusta, Staunton + Waynesboro $27,620 Pulaski $27,665 Montgomery + Radford $26,889 Rockingham + Harrisonburg $26,869 Floyd $22,172

State Average = 1.00

Median Family

Median Household

Per Capita

Pulaski

Floyd

Giles

0.89 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.82 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.61

Frederick Clarke

Montgomery

Ratio

Radford Montgomery+Radford

Loudoun

Warren

Fairfax

Fauquier

Shenandoah

Prince William

Rappahannock

Page Culpeper

Stafford King George

Rockingham Madison

Median Family Virginia 1.00 Montgomery 0.87 Floyd 0.70 Giles 0.78 Pulaski 0.78 Radford 0.86 Montgomery+Radford 0.00

Median Household 1.00 0.69 0.68 0.75 0.73 0.53 0.00

Westmorland

Per Capita 1.00 0.00 0.58 0.65 0.69 0.00 0.63

Greene Highland

Essex Caroline

Augusta

Hanover Fluvanna Goochland

Wage Per Job: Ratio to State Average, 2001

Rockbridge

Powatan Buckingham Cumberland

Botetourt

Appomattox Bedford

Craig

Amelia Prince Edward

Nottoway

Campbell

Roanoke

Giles

King King and William Queen

Middlesex

NorthMathews ampton Gloucester James Henrico City Charles City York Chesterfield Poquoson Newport Hampton Surrey Prince News George Norfolk Isle of Virginia Wight Dimwiddie Beach Sussex

Charlotte

Chesapeake

Lunenburg

Suffolk

Montgomery Brunswick Buchanan

Bland

Franklin

Halifax

Pulaski

Mecklenburg

Tazewell

Southampton Greenville

Pittsylvania

Floyd Dickenson

Lan caster

New Kent

Nelson

Amherst

Alleghany

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Louisa

Bath

Wythe Russell

Washington

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick

Henry

Grayson

Scott

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2003

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Spotsylvania

Albemarle

Wise

Lee

Orange

Economic Resources

Above 130: Significantly above state average 1.11 to 1.30: Moderately above state average 1.00 State Average ($36,160) .90 to 1.10 Within range of state average .70 to .89 Moderately below state average Below .70: Significantly below state average 95

A comparison of the decade growth rate for per capita personal income indicates that while rates have fallen at the national, state, and local levels since 1985, the level in Montgomery County fell faster and farther than either the state or national rates (although all three rates are parallel and reflect, perhaps, the same trends). In the same period of time (1980-2000) the economy in Montgomery County made a significant shift away from manufacturing and towards service and retail sector jobs, which have traditionally offered lower pay and fewer benefits. Income and the Problem of a High Concentration of Students. One problem inherent in discussing income trends in Montgomery County is the presence of a large student population, which skews the per capita and household income numbers. Unfortunately, the presence of a large student population and their lower than average incomes masks problems of income level and distribution in the county and all too often creates a convenient method of explaining away lower income scales. One way of determining income is to look at ratio of per capita , median household, and median family income for those

Photo by Robert Parker

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Per Capita Personal Income: Decade Growth Rate, 1980-2000 11.0% 10.5% 10.0% 9.5% 9.0% 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0%

Montgomery Co. Virginia United States

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2004

1980

1985

1990

Montgomery Co. Virginia United States

1995 1980 9.8% 10.4% 9.5%

census block groups with a median age of 26 and older to the overall income levels for the county as a whole. The age is based on the assumption that the majority of undergraduate and masters level students are 18 to 25 years old. While there may well be some Ph.D. students 26 and older, they are statistically more likely to have spouses in the workforce and children in the public schools. Block groups with an average age of less than 26 indicate that at least half of the residents are at or near college age. The data indicates that there is a fairly wide Economic Resources

2000 1985 9.8% 9.9% 9.1%

1990 6.5% 7.3% 6.8%

1995 4.1% 4.7% 4.7%

2000 3.8% 4.3% 4.3%

disparity in income, based on location. Higher income families tend to live in or near Blacksburg or in southern Christiansburg. The highest concentration of upper income block groups are located in heavily suburbanized areas, most notably Ellett Valley and Brush Mountain (Brush Mountain Estates, Preston Forest, and Laurel Ridge). Lower income residents are located in the same areas (Plum Creek, Belview, Merrimac, etc) with high concentrations of manufactured housing. The majority of the block groups, (76.5%) have families in which two or more members of the family work. Only 9 out 96

Non-Student Block Groups 202-2 (Hethwood) 202-3 (Oak Manor) 202-4 (Merrimac) 203-1(Brush Mtn) 203-2 (Toms Creek) 203-5 (McBryde Village) 204-1 (North Main Sub.) 205-2 (North Blacksburg) 205-4 (Indian Run) 206-1 (B’burg/Lusters Gate) 206-2 (B’burg/ South Main) 207-3 (B’burg/Airport Acres) 207-4 (B’burg/ South Main) 207-5 (Ellett Valley) 208-1 (Christiansburg) 208-2 (Christiansburg) 208-3 (Christiansburg) 208-4 (Christiansburg) 209-1 (Christiansburg) 209-2 (Christiansburg) 209-3 (Christiansburg) 210-1 (Christiansburg) 210-2 (Christiansburg) 210-3 (Christiansburg) 211-1 (Christiansburg) 211-2 (C'burg/Merrimac) 212-1 (Belview/114) 212-2 (Prices Fork) 212-3 (McCoy) 212-4 (Brush Mtn) 213-1 (Mt.Tabor/Catawba) 213-2 (Ironto/North Fork) 214-1 (Elliston/Lafayette) 214-2 (Elliston, South) 214-3 (Shawsville ) 214-4 (Alleghany Springs) 215-1 (Rogers/Pilot/Sugar G) 215-2 (Riner) 215-3 (Childress/Little River) 215-4 (Plum Creek/Bethel)

Median Age 27.8 26.7 40.7 36 37.3 36.5 38.5 26.1 38.9 34.6 36.5 41 26.3 26 32.9 34.8 34.3 32 36 35.4 36 45.1 36.8 36.4 32.4 34.3 36.7 34.3 33.7 37.5 40.3 38.8 35.9 33.5 39.2 43.4 38.2 37.2 38.4 34.5

MHI $29,559 $34,750 $20,667 $30,069 $49,091 $61,080 $56,591 $26,696 $52,083 $45,750 $34,896 $37,545 $18,207 $22,679 $38,438 $25,439 $40,500 $27,986 $37,125 $48,906 $34,276 $39,427 $54,643 $39,688 $34,766 $35,861 $23,782 $35,861 $35,333 $35,556 $54,185 $39,485 $36,971 $29,250 $36,947 $37,440 $36,715 $35,000 $50,104 $54,199

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Ratio 0.91 1.07 0.64 0.93 1.52 1.89 1.75 0.83 1.61 1.42 1.08 1.16 0.56 0.70 1.19 0.79 1.25 0.87 1.15 1.51 1.06 1.22 1.69 1.23 1.08 1.11 0.74 1.11 1.09 1.10 1.68 1.22 1.14 0.90 1.14 1.16 1.14 1.08 1.55 1.68

MFI $31,250 $59,464 $42,750 $39,167 $52,708 $77,839 $78,656 $60,368 $56,607 $86,615 $52,807 $80,714 $30,000 $31,953 $40,938 $40,250 $42,826 $35,847 $43,125 $50,417 $40,667 $49,837 $60,863 $41,897 $43,371 $58,750 $30,417 $42,361 $43,333 $40,938 $60,357 $41,184 $41,422 $31,797 $43,333 $45,509 $39,452 $48,155 $35,347 $37,560

Ratio 0.66 1.26 0.90 0.83 1.12 1.65 1.67 1.28 1.20 1.83 1.12 1.71 0.64 0.68 1.71 0.64 0.68 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.76 0.91 1.07 0.86 0.92 1.24 0.64 0.90 0.92 0.87 1.28 0.87 0.88 0.67 0.92 0.96 0.84 1.02 0.75 0.80

Economic Resources

PCI $17,323 $20,533 $18,286 $23,073 $26,314 $36,019 $23,087 $29,568 $23,365 $29,481 $23,876 $25,989 $12,369 $16,512 $17,351 $13,995 $18,978 $14,157 $17,111 $23,306 $19,081 $22,013 $21,387 $20,242 $19,193 $22,171 $14,113 $16,515 $18,405 $22,007 $26,293 $19,155 $17,074 $14,435 $23,521 $16,919 $19,964 $18,992 $23,133 $15,077

Ratio 1.01 1.20 1.07 1.35 1.54 2.11 1.35 1.73 1.37 1.73 1.40 1.52 0.72 0.97 1.02 0.82 1.11 0.83 1.00 1.36 1.12 1.29 1.25 1.19 1.12 1.30 0.83 0.97 1.08 1.29 1.54 1.12 1.00 0.85 1.38 0.99 1.17 1.11 1.35 0.88

% 2-Income Families 49.5% 60.0% 49.1% 51.2% 57.3% 57.5% 52.5% 57.4% 75.1% 60.5% 44.3% 55.0% 57.2% 48.5% 69.0% 48.8% 61.0% 47.3% 55.7% 65.2% 59.4% 48.4% 71.0% 66.0% 59.2% 79.5% 37.8% 51.7% 63.0% 53.6% 59.2% 70.4% 52.6% 38.7% 58.9% 62.6% 60.7% 63.4% 71.3% 56.6%

Montgomery County: Ratio of Median Household Income (MHI), Median Family Income (MFI), and Per Capita Income (PCI), by Census Block Group, to Montgomery County Income Levels., 2000 The 2000 Census listed median household income as $32,330, median family income as $47,239, and per capita income as $17,077. The percentage of families with two or more workers applies to the median family income only and does not include non-traditional households.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census

Commuting Patterns: Montgomery County, 2003

of 40 block groups have a majority of one income families. Commuting Patterns.

225 3384 (Roanoke Valley)

Giles 1933

1242

Montgomery

1785 1840

1252

Radford

Pulaski

2248

1872 249

Floyd 74.1% of the people who work in Montgomery County, also reside in the County. 25.9% commute from neighboring locations. Of the people who live in Montgomery County, 79.1% work in the county. The remaining 20.9% commute to other jurisdictions, including the Roanoke Valley and Pulaski.

Commuting patterns, including both incommuting and outcommuting, in 2000 show that while Montgomery County does export workers to neighboring jurisdictions, far more workers commute to Montgomery County for their jobs. According to the Virginia Employment Commission, Montgomery County has 29,589 workers who both live and work in Montgomery County and an additional 10,319 workers who commute to Montgomery County from other jurisdictions. Pulaski County contributes the largest number of people to the Montgomery County workforce (2,248); it also employs the largest number of Montgomery residents who work outside of Montgomery County (3,384). Unlike Pulaski County, which contributes more workers to the Montgomery County work force than draws from the same workforce, the city of Radford contributes the second largest number (1,785) workers, but draws a greater number of workers from Montgomery County (1,840) than it contributes. Montgomery County has, however, a reasonably balanced rate of in and outmigration with both Pulaski County and the City of Radford. The same is not true for the other neighboring jurisdictions. Some, like Giles and Floyd, contribute far more workers to the Montgomery County workforce (1,933 and 1,252, respectively) than they draw from the Montgomery County resident population (249 work in Floyd County and 225 work in Giles County). Finally, although Montgomery County outcommuters to the Roanoke Valley account for a very small percentage of the Roanoke Valley workforce, they account for nearly 39% of Montgomery County residents who commute to other jurisdictions for work.

Source: New River Valley Planning District Commission, 2003

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Economic Resources

Economic Resources: Goals ECD 1.0 Economic Development, Land Use, & Quality of Life. Actively promote economic development in the region, which takes a sustainable approach to the environmental, social, cultural, and economic integrity of the county and which contributes to the quality of life.

ECD 1.2 Mixed Use Development. (3) Encourage the use of mixed-use and campus design approaches to new business and industrial developments. ECD 1.3 Future Land Use Requirements. Require the expansion of future economic development to be located in areas of the county which are designated as urban expansion, village expansion, or villages.

ECD 1.1 Montgomery County Regional Indicators Program Design and implement a regional indicators program, incorporating physical, social, cultural, and economic benchmarks, in order to provide local jurisdictions (Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and the City of Radford) with a method of defining success, tracking progress, and flagging problems to be addressed. (1) ECD 1.1.1 Quality of Life Committee. Appoint a Quality of Life Commission, to oversee the formation, implementation, and maintenance of the Montgomery County Regional Indicators Program. Membership should represent all of the stakeholders and be drawn from current county commissions and boards (Planning Commission, Economic Development Commission, Human Relations Council, etc.), citizen organizations, and the educational and business communities. (2)

Cross References and Notes: 1. The Planning Commission initially explored the use of indicators in 2002, in conjunction with a project by graduate students in the Virginia Tech Urban Affairs and Planning Environmental Planning Studio course. A preliminary list of indicators have been included in the introductions of each chapter and an index of indicators is included in the appendix. Additional references to the indicators program are included in the “implementation” portion of the Introduction (pg. 12 of full plan). 2. Quality of life is, in many respects, subjective, although there are key indicators which are generally used to gauge a locale’s overall quality of life, including economic opportunity and income, housing affordability, educational quality and resources, and community amenities. While the majority of this plan, in one form or another, addresses quality of life issues, albeit indirectly, the issue is directly addressed in the Health and Human Resources chapter: HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg. 175).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

ECD 1.4 Economic Development Strategic Plan: Work with the Economic Development Department and the Economic Development Commission to actively update and implement the applicable portions of the Economic Development Strategic Plan, including areas concerned with land use, workforce development, and business retention and growth. (4)

Cross References and Notes: 3.. Additional references to mixed use development are included in: PNG 4.0 Villages and Rural Communities (pg. 68); PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 41); PLU 1.7 Villages (pg.43); PLU 1.8 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 45); HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg. 175); HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods (pg. 189); and PRC 2.3 Trails (pg.207) 4. The work group cited specific sections of the Economic Development Strategic Plan for four subjects: a) Workforce (Join forces with a regional-wide workforce development task force; survey target industries to assess labor market demand; Develop an action plan to increase the available IT skilled workforce; Advocate for a Comprehensive Vocational Training Facility to serve the County; Connect vocational training with the needs of existing targeted industries). b) Development (Expand the main industrial parks available industrial property; Develop new shell building in Christiansburg; Develop minimum investment criteria for locating in Montgomery County’s available industrial parks; Identify sites with the greatest marketing potential/appeal and focus resources; Establish viable real estate development partnerships to encourage speculative building on sites; Educate communities about Economic Development Department’s marketing and client management strategies). c) Program (Mobilize community resources to support local business development; Cooperate with Blacksburg and Christiansburg to interview and profile local businesses; Develop local industry database, with linkages, as a marketing tool; Encourage local participation in regional initiatives; Publish inventory of local resources; Promote business retention and expansion programs). d) Marketing and Recruitment (Create a technology zone; Enroll local business leaders in target marketing efforts; Restructure incentives in ways that favor the development of industries in target sectors and the creation of primary and/or family wage jobs.

Economic Resource

ECD 2.0 Workforce Development: Develop a local workforce with the skills, training and experience necessary to succeed and advance in the job market of the future. (5) ECD 2.1 Public Education and Workforce Development: Actively promote technical and professional training and workforce development for current and future workers in Montgomery County, which is necessary for future success. ECD 2.1.1 Community Technical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force: Recognizing that knowledge-based capital is one of the region's strengths, appoint a task force to 1) evaluate knowledge-based capital in the Montgomery County MSA, as well as current student and adult educational and vocational training opportunities and facilities; 2) develop a long range plan for workforce development that addresses long-range needs and objectives; and 3) design and promote training and retraining programs which will benefit students, workers, and area businesses and institutions. (6)

to retrain existing workers to meet the challenges and needs of a changing economy. ECD 2.2 Future Workforce Development: Provide new workers with the skills and training necessary to succeed in the future. ECD 2.2.1 Technical and IT Training: Increase the number of skilled IT workers in the New River Valley. Provide more required and elective IT courses in the public schools. ECD 2.2.2 New Workers: Attract to Montgomery County and the New River Valley new workers with target industry skills. ECD 2.2.3 Retention of College Graduates: Retain IT skilled individuals graduating from local universities and colleges in the local work force.

ECD 2.1.2 Vocational / Technical Skills: Work with high school vocation / technical directors, guidance counselors, and others in the Montgomery County Public Schools to provide new programs and strengthen existing programs intended to develop marketable skill sets for non-college bound students. ECD 2.1.3 Worker Retraining: Working with the area businesses, the Montgomery County Public Schools, New River Community College, and the two universities, provide programs

Cross References and Notes 5. Workforce development is also addressed in EDU 2.1 Job and Vocational Education (pg. 117) and HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg. 175). Issues surrounding diversity, living wage, accessibility, and expanded opportunities are addressed in HHS 2.2: Economic Development (pg. 175). 6. The task force should be made up of members from the Montgomery County Public Schools, the New River Community College, Virginia Tech, Radford University, local businesses, the Montgomery County Economic Development Department, the Montgomery County Economic Development Commission, and the Board of Supervisors, and representatives from Blacksburg and Christiansburg. The Community Technical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force is cross listed as EDU 2.1.1 (pg. 117)

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Economic Resource

100

ECD 3.2.4 Flex-Industrial Zoning: Review and revise the County Zoning Ordinance to allow flex-industrial uses, by special use permit, in the GB General Business and M-1 Manufacturing zoning districts within the Villages, Village Expansion and Urban Expansion Areas. (8)

ECD 3.0 Location and Land Use: Identify appropriate locations for new businesses to start and existing businesses to expand. (7) ECD 3.1 Industrial & Business Parks: Identify locations for new industrial and business parks and/or the expansion of existing parks. ECD 3.1.1 Product Inventory: Set county objectives for locations and square footage to be developed in order to have "product" in inventory.

ECD 3.1.6 Research & Development Zoning: Review and revise the County Zoning Ordinance to allow research & development uses in the M-1 Manufacturing zoning district.

ECD 3.1.2 Partnership Agreements: Work cooperatively with other localities in the development of regional business and industrial parks.

ECD 3.3 Downtown Revitalization: Encourage the adaptation and reuse of existing buildings in downtown locations. (9) ECD 3.2.1 Technology Zone: Consider development of a technology zone for downtown Christiansburg.

ECD 3.2 Zoning. Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow for innovative approaches to the design and organization of industrial, light industrial, and business parks and business districts.

(10)

ECD 3.2.3 Fiber Optics: Extend fiber optic capabilities in downtown areas. (11)

ECD 3.2.1 Campus Settings: Promote mixed use approaches (campus settings) mixing commercial, industrial, academic, and residential land uses, to the development of future business parks.

ECD 3.2.3 Downtown Courthouse: Maintain County Courthouse in downtown Christiansburg.

ECD 3.2.2 Two-Plus Story Structures: Consider increasing the intensity of selected business parks by going 2+ stories in height rather than single story buildings. ECD 3.2.3 Smaller Sites: Promote the development of smaller (2 to 5 acre) industrial sites within business and industrial parks.

Cross References and Notes 7. Issues surrounding business location and land use are also addressed in the Land Use Policies, included in the Government and Land Use Chapter. For more specific information, see PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 41); PLU 1.7 Villages (pg. 43); and PLU 1.8 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 45). Additional references to the siting of business and industrial areas is included the Environmental Resources chapter, including ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 141); ENV 5.0 Groundwater (pg. 144); and ENV 6.0 Karst (pg.147 ). Transportation related issues are addressed in TRN 1.4 Connectivity and Access Management (pg. 220).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes 8. The Zoning Ordinance defines flex industrial as Light industrial activities that occur in buildings of no more than two stories in height, with one or more loading docks, and not more than half of the gross floor area used for offices. 9. Downtown revitalization, as it relates to historic preservation, is included in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg.81). 10. Technology infrastructure, including telecommunications towers, is also addressed in UTL 2.0 Electric, Telecommunications, and Gas Utilities (pg. 236). 11. Fiber-optic networks are also addressed in UTL 2.3: Broadband/Fiber-optic Networks (pg. 236).

Economic Resource

101

ECD 4.0 Attraction & Retention of Business and Industry: Attract new and retain existing businesses and industries that can best create viable job opportunities for all, expand the local tax base and maintain those qualities that make the County a highly desirable place to live and work.

ECD 4.2 External Focus: Attract new businesses and industries to the county primarily from the four sectors (transportation, plastics & polymers, biotechnology and information technology) targeted in the Economic Development Strategic Plan. ECD 4.2.1 Air Transportation: Support development of good air transportation service in order to complete in a global economy. (13)

ECD 4.1 Internal Focus: Encourage the growth of new and existing businesses and industries presently located in the county.

ECD 4.2.2 Rail Transportation: Support passenger rail service to Christiansburg and improved freight rail service along the Interstate 81 corridor. (14)

ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy: Encourage entrepreneurship and small business startups by county residents, including industrial, commercial, tourismbased, recreational and agricultural enterprises.(12)

ECD 4.2.3 Retail Quality: Recognize that the presence of upscale retailers is an important consideration for many locational decisions. Therefore support development of a quality regional mall.

ECD 4.1.2 Expansion Incentives: Develop financial incentives for existing businesses that meet growth objectives. Financial incentives for growth of existing businesses should be equivalent to financial incentives used to attract new businesses.

ECD 4.2.4 College Graduates Data: Include college students that have graduated or are going to graduate in labor market figures.

ECD 4.1.3 Visitation Program: Continue visitation program with existing businesses.

Cross References and Notes 12. Small business development issues are also addressed in the Environmental Resources and Cultural Resources chapters of this plan. For additional references on Agriculture-related economic development, see ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives (pg. 139). Cultural and historic tourism and historic tourism corridors are addressed in CRS 1.3 Historic Preservation and Tourism (pg. 82). Recreational tourism and enterprises are addressed in PRC 2.4 Commercial Recreational Facilities (pg. 207).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

ECD 4.3 Local Tax Structure: Evaluate the implications of state changes to the local tax structure and the impact on current and future economic development. (15)

Cross References and Notes 13. Air transportation is addressed in TRN 5.1 Air Transportation (pg. 225). 14. Rail transportation is addressed in TRN 5.2 Rail Transportation (pg. 225). 15. Issues surrounding the local tax structure are addressed in PNG 6.0 Tax Structure and Legislative Changes and Priorities (pg. 69). Issues related to public funding sources, including cash proffers, are addressed in PNG 7.0 Growth Impact (pg. 69); PLU 2.2 Proffer Guidelines (pg. 48); PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs (pg. 207); and SFY 1.3 Future Capital Facilities (pg. 197).

Economic Resource

102

Educational Resources Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Montgomery

Educational Resources: Executive Summary

Insert Photo

Montgomery County recognizes that educational assets contribute significantly to the quality of life in Montgomery County, surrounding counties, and communities and increase economic opportunity and development. The educational resource goals focus on three primary goals: 1. Provide high quality, life-long educational facilities and program; 2. Provide life-long learning opportunities, including giving adults and students the skill sets to succeed in the market place; and 3. Develop and support effective non-traditional educational facilities and programs.

Insert Photo

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Educational Resources

104

Educational Resources: Introduction For the past 30 years, to one degree or another, education has defined much of life in Montgomery County. Virginia Tech and Radford University (in the City of Radford) remain two of largest employers in the area.. Add to that the faculty and staff with the Montgomery County Public Schools, private school teachers not part of the public sector employment, and people who work in support services and related industries, and the presence of education effectively permeates the county’s character and development Indeed, in the 2000 Census, 35% of the population self identified their industry as educational, health care, or social services. It should come as no surprise, then, that nearly half the respondents to the community survey were connected, in some fashion, to education or an educational institution. The challenge for both the Montgomery County Government and the Montgomery County Public Schools is centered on how to best serve a growing and diverse population--not just those in elementary or secondary schools, but those who, facing changes in the market place, are forced to retool into new professions or upgrade their skill sets to remain competitive in their chosen professions. The education resource goals are meant to address the needs of all residents rather than just those in the traditional public school classroom. In addition, the goals recognize that the County must, of necessity, try to do more with less. As budgets tighten, it becomes necessary to begin to find ways to use the County’s facilities in more ways, whether as part of a community-based schools program; as a community, cultural, or recreational center, as a learning hub for nontraditional students; or as a touchstone for supporting diversity.

opportunities for children, 2) educational opportunities for adults, and 3) new educational facilities. All three issues rated well above the mean (3.65), but the written comments from participants indicated that concern for education went well beyond these three issues. Of the three primary issues, participants were asked to rate, educational opportunities for children ranked the highest (4.34). Indeed, of those who responded, 66.4% rated educational opportunities for children as “very important;” an additional 19.4 percent rated it as “important.” Only 1.1% of participants felt it was “not important.” The comments from participants underscored their level of concern for public

education in the county, and their comments touched on a number of issues, including the quality of teachers and teacher retention, the quality of schools and problems with accreditation, the expansion of educational opportunities, school funding, the range of programs, and delivery of services. Educational opportunities for adults received the second highest score of the three issues (3.97), with 44.8% identifying the issue as being “very important” and 28.3% saying it was “important.” Again, participant comments indicated a strong interest in vocational and technical training and retraining. The final education issue dealt with the

Insert Photo

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS The community survey asked participants to consider three key issues: 1) educational Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Educational Resources

105

provision of new educational facilities. While the mean score for the issue (3.82) was well above the mean for all issues (3.65), and the majority of respondents considered new educational facilities as either “very important” (42.6%) or important (25.8%), the written comments suggested that participants had a certain amount of ambivalence when it came to the issue. Of those who specifically addressed facility issues in their responses, the majority focused on the need to upgrade existing facilities, the multiuse of existing and future facilities, and a need to look at redistricting to more evenly distribute the current and future student populations. A number of participants raised concerns about the current condition of some of the older schools. This is especially true of the responses

from the students who filled out the student community survey. While the adult participants talked about building new schools, the students wrote about replacing windows that leak, providing air conditioning, and upgrading science labs. This difference in perspective is the difference between those seeing the outside of the buildings and those seeing the inside of the classrooms. The students comments, concerning education in Montgomery County, were, in some ways, far more telling than those of the adults. While the adults wrote about teacher retention and taxes, the students expressed concerns about physical shortcomings of their own schools. One student from Auburn suggested building “a covered walk way to the high school,”

Educational Resource Issues: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2

Edu. Opportunities: Children Edu. Opportunities: Adults New Educational Facilities Mean for All Issues

Mean Score 4.34 3.97 3.82 3.65

presumably to keep middle school students out of inclement weather. Another student noted that the schools do “not having good facilities and supplies & overcrowding.” Yet another pointed out that “schools do not have all of the equipment they need.” Of all of the concerns expressed in the student surveys, overcrowding, lack of equipment, and perceived lack of funding were the overarching themes. If the future statements the students wrote are any indication, the students believe that the county will effectively address education problems between now and 2025. As one student noted: “Montgomery County is a cool place to live... Open places, less violence, and better schools.” Another predicted that the schools were “cleaned up (rebuilt). And still another wrote: When I was in school, some of our schools didn't have air conditioning and were very old buildings. At present time, our county is a wonderful place for children to attend school. There are many brand new state of the art schools with the latest technology available in use. Current and Historical Trends and Conditions Educational Attainment.

4.1

The level of educational attainment in Montgomery County reflects the close proximity 3.9 of two universities and an expanding professional service job market, driven by the Corporate 3.8 Mean Score= 3.65 Research Center. According to the 2000 Census, 3.7 82.8% of the Montgomery County population, 25 years and older, are high school graduates, 3.6 5.7% have associate degrees, 35.9% have Edu. Opportunities: Children Edu. Opportunities: Adults New Educational Facilities bachelor’s degrees, and 18.6% have graduate or professional degrees (up from 16.2% in 1990). Note: Forty-one issues were included in the “rate this issue in terms of importance” portion of the At the state level, for the same age group, 81% community survey. A mean score was calculated for each of the 41 issues, as well as for the total of all issues. Issues with scores higher than 3.65 (the mean for all issues) indicate that the majority are high school graduates, 5.6% have associate of respondents rated the issue greater importance; a score lower than 3.65 indicates that the majority degrees, 29.5% have bachelor’s degrees, and of respondents rated the issue of less importance than the on average. The scale for the survey was: 11.6% have graduate or professional degree. 0=no response; 1= not important; 2=minimally important; 3=moderately important; 4=important; and Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of 5=very important. Source: 2003 Community Survey, Montgomery County, Virginia. the population who are high school graduates 4

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Educational Resources

106

Montgomery County: Educational Attainment, 1980-2000 16.2%

No Degree High School 1990 10,005 8,007 2000 8,581 11,556

26.4%

15.4% 5.5%

21.1%

15.3%

1990

No Degree

90.0%

High School

85.0%

Some College

Associates Bachelors Graduate/ Population Degree Degree Professional 25 Years+ 5,820 2,105 5,850 6,153 37,940 9,067 2,926 8,693 9,097 49,872

% High School Graduates

Some College

80.0%

82.8%

Associates Degree 17.2%

18.2% 17.4% 5.9%

23.1% 18.2%

Bachelors Degree

75.0%

Graduate/Professional Degree

70.0%

Note: Information includes Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg.

65.0%

73.6%

62.0%

60.0% 1980

1990

2000

Montgomery County + Radford & Comparative Jurisdictions: Ratio of College Degrees to State Average, 2000

Montgomery Albemarle Augusta Hanover Roanoke Rockingham Spotsylvania Stafford Virginia

Graduate/ Associates Bachelors Professional 2,926 8,693 9,097 3,736 17,397 17,301 3,529 8,861 4,311 3,109 11,245 5,079 10,176 21,596 11,144 2,644 9,081 4,919 3,673 11,070 5,281 4,163 10,550 6,056 262,813 835,011 539,977

2.00 Montgomery Albemarle

1.60

Augusta Hanover

1.40

Roanoke

1.20

Rockingham

1.00

Spotsylvania

0.80

Stafford

0.60

Note: The county data includes the data from adjacent cities (Montgomery +Radford; Albemarle+Charlottesville; Augusta+Harrisonburg; Roanoke+Roanke City & Salem; Rockingham+ Staunton & Waynesboro; and Spotsylvania+Fredericksburg).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

1.80

State = 1.00

0.40

Educational Resources

Associates Degree

Bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Degree

Graduate/ Professional Degree

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census

107

Montgomery County: Location of Public Schools, 2004

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Educational Resources

108

Montgomery County Public School Facilities, 2004 School Elementary Auburn Belview Christiansburg Elem. Christiansburg Primary Elliston-Lafayette Falling Branch Gilbert-Linkous Harding Avenue Kipps Margaret Beeks Prices Fork Shawsville Middle Auburn Blacksburg Christiansburg Shawsville High Auburn Blacksburg Christiansburg Eastern Montgomery 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 Note: The new middle 0.60 schools in Blacksburg and Christiansburg are not 0.40 included because 0.20 information was not 0.00 available.

Age

Date Built

Last Renovation /Addition

Sq. Ft. per Pupil

Number of Program Mobile Units Capacity

Enrollment: Fall, 2003 National Standards:

5 52 41 31 42 13 41 31 10 41 52 33

1998 n/a 1951 1962 1972 n/a 1961 1990 1962 1972 n/a 1993 1962 1951 1970

33 1

1970 2002 n/a 2003 n/a 1934

n/a 69

1993 1972 1972 1970

143.8 153.8 98 118.2 91.3 116.4 141.6 208.8 135.3 133.2 139.8 149.6

0 0 3 5 11 5 0 0 0 0 5 3

600 240 380 440 160 480 360 260 480 440 180 280

565 261 419 457 227 551 318 228 493 413 220 254

1999

104.5

6 0 0 0

220 1200 1200 240

318 921 767 251

287.2 205.1 231.7

2 0 0 1

524 1216 1216 510

360 1163 977 295

1979 1963 1972 1990 1972

--1973 --

65 1938 1972 33 1970 n/a n/a 32 1971/2 2 2001 n/a --

Ratio of 2003 Fall Enrollment to Program Capacity.

Elementary Schools: 100-130 sq. ft per pupil; calculations based on 2002 student population. Middle Schools: 120 to 150 sq. ft per pupil; calculations based on 2002 student population. High Schools: 150-200 sq. ft per pupil; calculations based on 2002 student population. Notes: 1.School Data taken from Shaping Tomorrow Together, July, 2000, DeJong and Assoc. 2.School population data taken from Montgomery County Public Schools Enrollment Projections 2002--Final Report, DeJong and Assoc. 3.Mobile unit data provided by Montgomery County Public Schools, August 2003. 4. Fall Enrollment Data is from the Virginia Department of Education,2004 5.Average age of school structures in Montgomery County is 31.3 years.

Program Capacity = 1.00

AES BES

CES CPS ELES FBES GLES HES

KES MBES PFES SES AMS SMS AHS BHS CHS EMHS

Sources: MCPS Facility Master Plan, July 2000; Virginia Department of Education, 2003.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Educational Resources

109

rose from 62% to 82.8%. In the same period of time, despite a significant population increase (73%) in residents 25 years and older, the actual number of county residents, in the same age group, without at least a high school degree has decreased from 10,945 in 1980 to 8,581 in 2000 (-21.6%). Finally, between 1990 and 2000, the percentage increase in the number of residents, over the age of 25, with bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (increase of 48.6%) or graduate or professional degrees (increase of 47.8%) has risen faster than the overall population in the same age group (increase of 31.4%) These change can be attributed to two factors: 1) the newer population, relocating to Montgomery County, is more likely to have a high school diploma and have bachelors or a graduate/professional degree; and 2) the graduation rate (from high school and/or college) has increased for each successive generation of county residents. Public School Facilities. Montgomery County is currently served by 12 elementary schools, four middle schools, and four high schools, organized in four separate strands: Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Auburn, and Shawsville. While the Auburn and Shawsville Strands are predominantly rural, the Blacksburg and Christiansburg Strands are a mixture of rural and urban. The two villages, Prices Fork and Belview, located in the northern end of the County are served by the villagebased elementary schools; however, students from the Prices Fork Elementary attend Blacksburg Middle and High Schools, and students from Belview attend Christiansburg Middle and High Schools. Of the rural middle and high schools, Auburn serves the villages of Riner and Plum Creek, as well as the 177 growth corridor, while Shawsville Middle and Eastern Montgomery High School serve the villages of Elliston-Lafayette and Shawsville. Given the emphasis on concentrating growth into the villages and village expansion areas, which are served by public water and sewer, growth in the Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Montgomery County Public Schools: Fall Membership, 1995-2003 1995 Blacksburg Gilbert Linkous Harding Kipps Margaret Beeks Total Blacksburg MS Blacksburg HS Total Christiansburg Elementary Primary Falling Branch Total Christiansburg MS Christiansburg HS Total Villages Auburn Bethel Riner Belview Prices Fork Elliston-Lafayette Shawsville Total Auburn MS Shawsville MS Total Auburn HS Eastern Mont. HS Total Village Total Overall Total

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003 Average

386 419 398 346 334 300 287 290 318 307 278 292 271 253 228 231 208 228 463 461 488 460 478 460 484 480 493 463 448 444 436 393 401 375 390 413 1,619 1,606 1,622 1,513 1,458 1,389 1,377 1,368 1,452 876 929 880 886 871 889 901 861 921 993 1,020 1,047 1,099 1,104 1,160 1,156 1,174 1,163 3,488 3,555 3,549 3,498 3,433 3,438 3,434 3,403 3,536

342 255 474 418 1,489 890 1,102 3,482

371 352 366 397 397 412 412 412 419 371 379 399 388 436 442 433 460 457 518 501 484 490 502 518 515 546 551 1,260 1,232 1,249 1,275 1,335 1,372 1,360 1,418 1,427 737 740 761 763 737 716 762 800 767 876 946 949 974 968 945 965 962 977 2,873 2,918 2,959 3,012 3,040 3,033 3,087 3,180 3,171

393 418 514 1,325 754 951 3,030

588 594 600 611 580 565 200 211 207 329 220 310 244 226 230 216 203 216 214 261 261 220 220 247 242 218 215 192 221 220 233 226 244 236 218 238 209 233 227 269 260 269 267 263 246 241 249 254 1,495 1,363 1,507 1,549 1,496 1,515 1,467 1,544 1,527 262 285 294 280 290 253 262 295 318 256 264 280 251 238 214 237 233 251 518 549 574 531 528 467 499 528 569 273 304 319 335 345 350 341 349 360 296 311 298 292 295 290 289 292 295 569 615 617 627 640 640 630 641 655 2,582 2,527 2,698 2,707 2,664 2,622 2,596 2,713 2,751 8,943 9,000 9,206 9,217 9,137 9,093 9,117 9,296 9,458

590 206 286 230 222 229 258 1,496 282 247 529 331 295 626 2,651 9,163

Educational Resources

110

unincorporated portions of Montgomery County over the next twenty years will have a significant impact on both the urban and rural middle and high schools. Population and housing trends in the County suggest that the areas of major growth in the next two decades are likely to occur in the villages and village expansion areas of Prices Fork and Plum Creek, as well as the 177 corridor, which used to be served by Bethel Elementary. Of the twenty schools in the Montgomery County Public School System, nine are serving student populations larger than the stated program capacities for the schools. In two cases, Elliston-Lafayette Elementary and Auburn Middle School have populations at more than 140% of capacity, significantly above what the schools were designed to serve. Two others, Prices Fork Elementary and Falling Branch Elementary have populations at or near 120% of capacity. A number of schools have had ongoing capacity problems since 1995 (the earliest state records). For example, Prices Fork School, built in 1951, has a program capacity of 180; however, since 1995, the school has served a minimum population of 192 in 2001 and as many as 247 in 1997. Elliston-Lafayette Elementary has a program capacity of 160, yet the smallest population the school has serve, since 1995, is 209. (1) Despite the construction of three new elementary schools (Auburn, Falling Branch, and Kipps), two new middle schools (Blacksburg and Christiansburg), and one new high school (Eastern Montgomery), the County’s public schools are predominantly housed in aging structures. Two of the schools, Shawsville Middle and Auburn High, are still housed in buildings constructed in the 1930s and are in need of substantial renovation. In addition, two schools

1. In addition to the primary school facilities in the County, there are also two smaller facilities serving non-traditional students. Because of their relatively small size, the Independence and Wilson Avenue Schools have not been included in the analysis of educational facilities.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

(Prices Fork and Belview) were built in the 1950s, four were built in the 1960s, and the reminder were built in the 1970s. No new schools were built during an 18 year span between 1972 and 1990. Despite aging buildings, no schools were renovated between 1973 and 1999, with the exception of Belview Elementary in 1979. In 1999, the County renovated Auburn Middle School. In 2000, DeJong and Associates wrote a facilities evaluation for the Montgomery County Public Schools. According to the DeJong study,

eleven out of twenty schools needed new windows and frames; eleven need new roofs; twelve needed new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; and 17 needed additional improvements to meet ADA requirements In the years since the DeJong report, no systemic renovations have been funded through the County’s Capital Improvements Program, although the Montgomery County Public Schools have submitted proposals for each of the last five CIPs and the County has indicated an interest in potentially funding systemic renewals for

Montgomery County Public Schools: Fall Membership, by Grade, 1995-2003 Grade

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

122

767

733

756

689

709

727

679

723

730

728

751

752

767

699

718

727

711

752

690

726

746

719

734

668

677

689

698

686

734

736

709

734

670

673

726

750

678

692

729

708

736

672

679

753

740

698

697

709

721

715

731

699

736

772

739

689

691

711

735

715

749

691

744

760

746

688

692

722

741

734

704

692

716

745

757

669

705

733

774

735

742

760

800

788

839

783

773

821

620

690

680

648

689

726

736

710

684

543

580

606

623

580

624

649

684

630

532

545

544

605

607

556

583

610

660

9165

9336

Total K-12

8935

9079

%±K-2

n/a

%±3-5

n/a

%±6-8

n/a

%±9-12

n/a

9183

9193

9189

9193

9117

-2.7%

-1.9%

-2.9%

-3.0%

-4.5%

-5.2%

2.8%

n/a

0.8%

-2.0%

-5.7%

-4.3%

-4.1%

-6.3%

-0.1%

n/a

-2.7%

-3.5%

2.4%

-2.9%

2.0%

3.1%

5.3%

n/a

-17.7% -18.1% -26.8% -27.1% -22.5% -21.3%

Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2004

Educational Resources

111

Prices Fork and Elliston-Lafayette Elementary Schools.

Montgomery County: Dropout Rates, 1997-2002 4.40

96-97

97-98

98-99

Virginia

3.47

3.27

3.18

Montgomery

3.85

3.45

3.02

Floyd

0.44

1.03

1.02

3.20

Giles

2.41

4.26

3.08

2.80

Pulaski

3.63

4.23

3.84

2.40

Radford

4.00 3.60

2.51

2.35

3.15

99-00

00-01

01-02

Virginia

2.53

2.46

2.02

Montgomery

3.08

2.98

2.70

1.20

Floyd

1.16

1.80

1.96

0.80

Giles

2.10

2.32

1.36

Pulaski

3.20

2.62

1.81

Radford

1.66

1.47

1.99

2.00 1.60

0.40

96-97

97-98

98-99

99-00

00-01

01-02 Frederick

State of Virginia

Clarke

Loudoun

Warren

Montgomery

Fairfax

Fauquier

Shenandoah

Floyd

Prince William

Rappahannock

Page Culpeper

Stafford King George

Rockingham

Giles

Madison

Westmorland Orange

Greene

Pulaski

Highland

Spotsylvania

Essex Caroline

Augusta Albemarle Louisa

Radford

King King and William Queen

Hanover

Bath

Lan caster Middlesex

Fluvanna Goochland Rockbridge

Appomattox Bedford

Craig

Chesterfield Amelia

Botetourt

Prince Edward

Nottoway

Gloucester

James Henrico City Charles City York

Powatan Buckingham Cumberland

Prince George

Surrey

Newport News Isle of Wight

Dimwiddie

Campbell

Roanoke

Giles

Lunenburg

Mecklenburg

Tazewell

Wise

Wythe Russell

Washington Lee

Southampton Greenville

Pittsylvania

Floyd Dickenson

Halifax

Pulaski

Virginia Beach

Suffolk Brunswick

Bland

Norfolk

Chesapeake

Montgomery Buchanan

Poquoson Hampton

Sussex

Charlotte

Franklin

Northampton

Mathews New Kent

Nelson

Amherst

Alleghany

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick Grayson

Scott

Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2003

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Henry

1.31 and above-significantly higher than state average 1.11 - 1.30= moderately above state average .90 - 1.10 = within range of state average .70 - .89 = moderately below state average .69 and below= significantly below state average

Educational Resources

Changes in Student Population In 2000-01, the Montgomery County Public Schools reported 9,093 students in their fall membership. Of these students, 45% were in elementary school (K-5), 22.8% were in middle school, and 30.7% were in high school. Four years later, in 2003, the distribution of students in elementary, middle, and high schools remained nearly the same (46.6% in elementary schools, 23.9% in middle schools, and 29.5% in high schools). However, population patterns in the schools suggest reasonably high volatility in the elementary school and high school populations, while middle school populations tend to remain fairly stabile. Changes in the student population can be attributed to university related migration, especially among graduate students and younger faculty and their families, and local and regional migration as families move from rental to owner-occupied housing. As the population projection report indicates, Montgomery County has grown by approximately 10,000 residents, per decade, for the last two decades--a trend the County expects to continue. Of the total population, between 17% to 18% were under the age of 18. While the overall population trend, since 1970, indicates that the under 18 population is decreasing as an overall percentage of the total population (from 27.6% in 1970 to 17.1% in 2000), there is some indication that the percentage of population has stabilized and residents under the age of 18 will continue to represent roughly 17% of the total population. This projection assumes a stable and fairly constant population growth, however changes in the composition of the Virginia Tech student body, especially with an increase in the number of graduate students, is likely to have an impact on the number of students in the elementary school population over the next 20 years.

112

Montgomery County: Public School Accreditation, 2000-2004 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Fully Accredited 2 2 5 8 Provisional Accreditation, Meet State Standards 12 7 7 Provisional Accreditation, Needs Improvement 3 8 8 12 Accredited with Warning 2 3 Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2003-2004 Accreditation Report; Montgomery County Public Schools, 2004. Frederick Clarke

Loudoun

Warren

Fairfax

Fauquier

Shenandoah

Prince William

Rappahannock

Page

00-01

01-02

02-03

Culpeper

03-04

Stafford King George

Rockingham Madison

Westmorland Orange

Greene

Spotsylvania

Essex Caroline

Augusta

Albemarle

Lan caster

Louisa

Hanover

Bath

King King and William Queen

Middlesex

Fluvanna

Goochland

Rockbridge

New Kent

Nelson

Henrico Charles City

Powatan

Buckingham

Cumberland

Amherst

Alleghany

Botetourt

Appomattox

Bedford

Craig

Prince Edward

James City

Chesterfield

Amelia

Nottoway

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Under the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (8VAC 20-131-10 et. seq.), adopted by the State’s Board of Education, schools are “fully accredited” when the “eligible students meet a pass rate of 70% in each of the four academic areas,” a 75% pass rate in 3rd and 5th grade English, and a 50% pass rate in 3rd grade science and history/social science. “Provisionally Accredited/Meets State Standards” schools have “achieved the provisional accreditation benchmarks...,but have not met the requirements to be rated fully accredited.” Schools which have been given a “provisionally accredited/needs improvement” rating, failed to meet the provisional accreditation benchmarks in one or more academic areas. Finally, schools which receive an “accredited with warning” rating had “pass-rate performances on SOL tests [which were] 20 or more percentage points below any of the More provisional accreditation benchmarks.” 1 to 5 5 to 15 16 to 25 Than 25 Schools Schools Schools Schools According to the School Superintendent, three 124:All Schools Fully Accredited high schools (Auburn, Christiansburg, and Eastern Montgomery) should receive 1.11 to 1.23: Above state average full accreditation in 2004. All others should 1.00 State Average(81% of schools) be fully accredited by the target date of 2007. .90 to 1.10 Within range of state average .70 to .89 Moderately below state average Below .70: Significantly below state average Highland

Prince George

Surry

York

Newport News

Isle of Wight

Dinwiddie

Campbell

Roanoke

Giles

Charlotte

Lunenburg

Franklin

Virginia Beach

Mecklenburg

Chesapeake

Southampton

Greenville

Pittsylvania

Floyd

Wise

Halifax

Pulaski

Tazewell

Dickenson

Norfolk

Suffolk

Brunswick

Bland

Poquoson Hampton

Sussex

Montgomery

Buchanan

Northampton

Mathews

Gloucester

Wythe

Russell

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick

Henry

Grayson

Washington

Lee

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Scott

Educational Resources

113

Montgomery County: Sources of Funding for Public Education, 2003 8.8% 45.8%

7.9%

36.4%

37.3%

Floyd

Montgomery

State Sale/Use State Funds

8.7% 36.6%

45.4%

6.1%

Federal Funds Local Funds Other Funding

Giles

Loans, Bonds, Etcc

7.5%

9.4% 32.2% 9.4%

42%

43.4%

46.8%

Pulaski

4.5% Radford

Sources: Virginia Department of Education, 2004; DeJong & Associates â&#x20AC;&#x153;Facility Master Plan Background and Summary Report, 2000; Montgomery County Capital Budget, Fiscal Years Ending June 30,2003-June 30, 2007.

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

Last Renovated New New n/a n/a see below n/a New n/a n/a 1972 1972 n/a 1972 1999 1963 b. 1972 1972 1972 1973 1979 b. 1972 b. 1970 1952 b. 1990

46.7%

7.4%

6.5%

Capital Improvement Funds for School-Related New Construction & Renovation, FY2003-2007 FY 03/04 - FY06/07

Future FY

New Christiansburg Middle $22,777,815 New Blacksburg Middle $23,628,347 School Cafeteria Equipment $52,568 Blacksburg Track $33,000 Auburn HS/Elliston ES $35,600 School Roof Replacements $3,404,748 Eastern Montgomery HS $15,871,241 Other School Projects $95,160 Auburn ES-Water/Sewer $692,083 Elliston-Lafayette ES $6,658,207 Prices Fork ES $5,634,666 Blacksburg HS Parking $203,300 Auburn HS $4,653,791 Auburn MS $4,371,025 Christiansburg ES $6,840,010 Christiansburg PS $7,248,184 Gilbert Linkous ES $8,364,424 Margaret Beeks ES $8,989,600 Shawsville MS $3,813,009 Belview ES $7,494,624 Harding Avenue ES $6,648,516 Shawsville ES $7,724,080 Independence Secondary $690,406 Falling Branch ES $1,425,108 Totals $66,590,562 $80,758,950 Note:According to the 2003-2007 Capital Budget, school-related projects account for 97% of future capital budget requests.

State Sale/Use State Funds Federal Funds Local Funds Other Funding $6,979,543.17 $29,007,999.52 $5,181,914.46 $36,525,337.57 $2,002,836.97 $1,243,225.50 $7,362,991.73 $1,167,304.60 $5,879,636.26 $110,885.88 $1,747,978.29 $9,104,667.06 $1,221,223.12 $7,339,474.05 $606,162.33 $3,424,695.70 $17,133,033.80 $3,437,374.78 $11,775,567.91 $806,443.11 $883,702.22 $5,141,509.20 $532,499.15 $4,968,240.85 $306,413.21

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Prior FY

Educational Resources

Loans, Bonds $0.00 $0.00 $15,125.00 $0.00 $949.19

Total Receipts $79,697,631.69 $15,764,043.97 $20,034,629.85 $36,577,115.30 $11,833,313.82

114

Technical Training and Higher Education

High School Dropout Rates.

Higher education is a central feature in Montgomery Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic and educational landscape. While both Virginia Tech, located in Blacksburg, and Radford University, located in the neighboring city of Radford, offer ample adult educational opportunities, the cost of both universities may place them out of reach for adults interested in gaining new skills or expanding existing skills. New River Community College, located in Dublin (Pulaski County), offers technical training, but the distance from Montgomery County may prove to be a hindrance to adults who can not afford the necessary transportation. Currently, NRCC classes are offered through a satellite location in Christiansburg and through the public schools.

Montgomery Co. Albemarle Co. Augusta Co. Hanover Co. Roanoke Co. Rockingham Co. Spotsylvania Co. Stafford Co.

Average Teacher Salary, 2003 $37,390 $40,532 $37,731 $38,991 $44,139 $37,958 $42,589 $44,161

Notes: 1. Virginia Average Salary for FY 2003 was $42,778. 2. According to the Montgomery County School Superintendent, the average salary figures are influenced by the composition of the work force. School systems with a higher proportion of experienced teachers, such as Montgomery County, will display a higher average salary figure than school systems with a lower proportion of experienced teachers.

Despite the influence of local educational institutions and increasing levels of educational attainment in the county, the graduation rates still vary, rather dramatically, depending on the school. According to the Superintendent of the Montgomery County Public Schools, the drop out rate varies from a low of 2% at Blacksburg High School to a high of 5% at Eastern Montgomery High School.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Montgomery County Public Schools: Average and Median Teacher Salaries, 2003

Source: Montgomery County Public Schools, 2004; Virginia Department of Education, 2003-2004 Classroom Teacher Salary Survey (December 1, 2003)

Educational Resources

115

Educational Resources: Goals EDU 1.1.4 Landbanking: Land bank sufficient land for future educational uses, including the expansion of existing facilities and the construction of new facilities.

EDU 1.0 Educational Facilities and Opportunities: Provide high quality, lifelong educational opportunities and facilities throughout Montgomery County.

EDU 1.1.5 Decommissioned & Abandoned Structures: Develop a policy for publicly owned, decommissioned or abandoned structures, including facilities owned by Montgomery County, the Montgomery County Public Schools, and other applicable agencies and departments.

EDU 1.1 New and Existing Educational Facilities: Address current and future educational facility and program needs in Montgomery County through a cooperative approach between Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, citizens, the business community, and the Montgomery County Public Schools.

EDU 1.2 Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities: Develop a Community-Based Schools approach to the provision of public, health, and educational services, through the location and provision of such services through the schools. Recognizing the importance of the schools to the fabric of local communities and neighborhoods (4)

EDU 1.1.1 Local and Neighborhood Facilities. Develop a policy to maintain the neighborhood, village approach to the placement of elementary schools, recognizing that such schools provide an identity of the area they are meant to serve and aid in the positive development and maintenance of community identity.(2)

EDU 1.2.1 New Facilities. Develop a policy for the design of new school facilities which would accommodate multi-use, including a combination of community-based human, health, recreational, and government services. (5)

EDU 1.1.2 Facility Standards. Develop and adopt a mutually acceptable planning standard for school facilities, including renovation standards and a mobile classroom policy. EDU 1.1.3 Facilities Renewal Program: Design and incorporate a Facilities Renewal Program into the Montgomery County Capital Improvements Program, which would allow for large scale renewal, renovation, and expansion of existing facilities to meet future needs, including: physical upgrade, systemic upgrades (i.e. electrical, hvac, roofs), and facility changes for programmic upgrades (renewal/rehabilitation of science, vocational and technological facilities), while recognizing the need for multi-use facilities. (3) Cross References and Notes: 2. The retention of Village-based facilities underscores the observation that â&#x20AC;&#x153;Villages have served as, and will continue to serve as focal points, for surrounding rural areasâ&#x20AC;? (PLU 1.7, pg 43). Village Area Facilities and Utilities are addressed in PLU 1.7.5 (pg. 45). Additional information on Villages (PLU 1.6, pg. 41) and Village Expansion Areas (PLU 1.7, pg. 43) can be found in the Planning and Land Use chapter. 3. The capital improvements program is also addressed in the plan implementation portion of the Introduction; PNG 7.2 Capital Improvements Program (pg. 69); PRC 2.1.2 Recreational Priorities and Funding (pg. 207); and SFY 1.3.2 Public Safety Facilities and Funding (pg. 198).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

EDU 1.2.2 Civic Zoning. Create a special school/ civic zoning district which would allow a broader range of activities to be performed in civic structures, including: the provision of human, health, and government services; child care; and before and after school programs.

Cross References and Notes: 4. Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities are also addressed in PNG 3.1.4 (pg. 68). 5. Issues of access and multi-use of facilities are addressed in PNG 3.0: Access (pg. 67); PNG 3.1: Multi-use of Facilities (pg. 67); CRS 2.1.4: Library-Based Community Space (pg. 82); and PRC 1.1.4 Facility Sharing (pg. 206).

Educational Resource

116

EDU 2.0 Lifelong Learning. Adopt a countywide approach to lifelong learning needs, including: 1) the development of adult education and job training facilities and programs; 2) development and provision of child care programs and facilities (pre-K, K-12 before and after school programs and facilities, and at-risk youth programs and facilities); and 3) nontraditional educational programs and facilities.

EDU 2.2 Nontraditional Educational Facilities. Continue to develop nontraditional educational facilities (such as the Coal Mining Heritage Park and Science Center, the Farming Heritage Park, the Christiansburg Institute, Blacksburgâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Heritage Community Park and Natural Area, and the Montgomery County Museum) to provide expanded educational opportunities through public/private partnerships.

EDU 2.1 Job and Vocational Education. Explore the expansion of university, community college, vocational, and technical programs in Montgomery County through the reuse of abandoned or decommissioned educational facilities and funded through public/ private partnerships.

EDU 2.2.1 Coal Mining Heritage Park Educational Facilities . Continue to develop the historic and scientific educational facilities and programs in the Coal Mining Heritage Park, (8)

EDU 2.1.1 Technical and Vocational Training Opportunities. Prepare a study, in conjunction with Economic Development, Montgomery County Social Services, and the Montgomery County Public Schools, that examines current and future technical training and vocational training needs in Montgomery County and recommends possible approaches to the provision of new or upgraded vocational and technical training facilities and programs. (6)

EDU 2.2.2 Farming Heritage Park Educational Facilities: Develop the historic and agricultural educational facilities at a Farming Heritage Park, including the establishment of facilities and programs supporting agricultural extension, 4-H, and Future Farmers of America. EDU 2.2.3 Christiansburg Institute and Christiansburg Community Center. Support the development of alternative educational and museum facilities and programs at the Christiansburg Institute and Christiansburg Community Center (original Christiansburg Institute), focusing, specifically, on the needs of minority communities in Montgomery County.

ECD 2.1.2 Community Technical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force: Recognizing that knowledge-based capital is one of the region's strengths, appoint a task force to 1) evaluate knowledge-based capital in the Montgomery County MSA, as well as current student and adult educational, technical, and vocational training opportunities and facilities; 2) develop a long range plan for workforce development that addresses long-range needs and objectives; and 3) design and promote training and retraining programs which will benefit students, workers, and area businesses and institutions. (7)

Cross References and Notes: 6. Technical and Vocational Training is also addressed in: ECD 2.0 Workforce Development (pg. 100) and HHS 2.4 Technical and Vocational Education Facilities and Programs (pg. 175). 7. EDU 2.1.2 is cross listed as ECD 2.1.1: Community Technical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force (pg. 100).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

(9)

EDU 2.2.4 Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library. Provide continuing support for the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library, including the development of new facilities, the revitalization of existing facilities, and the expansion of the technical infrastructure in support of adult educational opportunities. (10) Cross References and Notes: 8. Heritage Parks are also addressed in CRS 3.2: Heritage Parks and Trail System (pg. 83) and PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs (pg. 207). 9. Although the Christiansburg Institute and the Christiansburg Community Center, located, respectively, west of Franklin Street and next to Schaffer Memorial on High Street in Christiansburg, are outside of the jurisdiction of this plan, the work performed benefits all Montgomery County residents. In the past, Montgomery County has been asked to support and lend expertise to the development process of both institutions. Participants in the Cultural and Educational Facilities workgroup felt strongly that this support should be recognized and continued. 10. The Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library is also addressed, in greater detail, in CRS 2.0 (pg. 82).

Educational Resources

117

Environmental Atlas Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Montgomery

Environmental Atlas

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Soils

Environmental Atlas

151

Environmental Atlas

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Geology

Environmental Atlas

152

Environmental Atlas

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Surficial Geology

Environmental Atlas

153

Environmental Atlas

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Karst Features

Environmental Atlas

154

Environmental Atlas

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Mines

Environmental Atlas

155

Environmental Atlas

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Faultlines

Environmental Atlas

156

Environmental Atlas

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Threatened and Endangered Species

Environmental Atlas

157

Environmental Atlas

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Floodplains

Environmental Atlas

158

Environmental Atlas

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Land Use and Ag. & Forestal Districts

Environmental Atlas

159

Environmental Resources Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Environmental Resources: Executive Summary In 1947, Gifford Pinchot, wrote that "conservation means the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time...[and] demands the application of common sense to the common problems for the common good." The natural resources of Montgomery County (including open space, agriculture, forests, water, karst, flora, wildlife, and mineral resources) are vital to the county’s quality of life and provide substantial economic and recreational opportunities for the citizens of the county. By considering the natural resources in Montgomery County as a sustainable asset, an asset which will continue to contribute to the quality of life of generations to come, the County can encourage stewardship through the use of Best Management Practices, increased interjurisdictional cooperation, and common sense in natural resource conservation, preservation, and management. The environmental resources chapter focuses on seven key areas of interest: • Resource Stewardship, including open space, water quality, air quality, species and habitat protection and environmental planning through the implementation of a geographic information system (GIS). • Agriculture, Open Spaces, and Natural Resources • Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters • Floodplains, including hazard mitigation • Groundwater Resources • Karst • Stormwater and Erosion Control Photos by Robert Parker

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

119

Environmental Resources: Introduction COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS Participants were asked to rank five specific issues: agricultural preservation, environmental quality, old or failing septic systems, open space preservation, and protection of surface and groundwater. Of the five issues, protection of surface and groundwater had the highest score (4.33) and generated the greatest number of comments. Participants, overwhelmingly, rated the protection of ground and surface water as either “important” (19%) or “very important” (67%). Only 4% felt that protection of surface and groundwater was either “minimally important” (2%) or “not important” (2%). In examining response to the “protection of surface and groundwater” issue, the survey produced the following results:

and dusty yards fresh in participants minds, water-related concerns dominated many of the comments and the discussions in the community meetings. While most of the written comments were short and direct, demanding that the County pay attention to water quantity and quality, others drew the connection between water quality, environmental protection, and land use. One participant wrote that “...we need to protect ground water and limit residential expansion.” Others recommended that the County “reduce water pollution by using organic methods where possible for county parks and landscaping, ... use environmentally sound agricultural practices;” “require buffer zones

on creeks and streams,” and “encourage riparian vegetation.” A number of participants suggested that the County take a coordinated, watershed approach to water resources, including: developing a “ watershed plan and implement [it] on whole watershed basis,” “coordinate watershed management and planning,” “develop a karst terrain ordinance and mapping program to protect groundwater,” and implement better "floodplain management.” Environmental quality ranked a close second, among participants, with a score of 4.30, with 84% ranking it as either “important” (18%) or “very important” (66%). As with “protection of ground and surface water,” the issue produced

• 69% of homeowners ranked the issue as "very important” while only 55 % of renters gave it the same ranking; • 83% of those living in modular residences, 69% of those living in stickbuilt residences, 53% of those living in singlewides, and 50% of those living in doublewides ranked the issue as “very important;” • 69% of those with children and 65% of those in households with no children ranked the issue as “very important,” and • 68% of those living in the unincorporated areas of the county and 66% of town residents ranked the issue as “very important.” Interestingly enough, women were more likely to rate the protection of surface and ground water as “very important” (61% to 69%). The result is, perhaps, not surprising given that the Community Survey followed closely on the heels of one of the worst droughts in the County’s history. With low water levels in the New, Little, and Roanoke Rivers, dry wells, Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Photo by Robert Parker

Environmental Resources

120

Environmental Resource Issues: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003 4.40 4.30 4.20 4.10 4.00 3.90 3.80

Mean Score for all Issues = 3.65

3.70 3.60 3.50 3.40

Protection of Surface and Groundwater

Environmental Quality

Open Space Preservation

Protection of Surface and Groundwater Environmental Quality Open Space Preservation Agricultural Preservation Old and/or Failing Septic Systems

Agricultural Preservation

Old and/or Failing Septic Systems

Mean Score 4.33 4.30 4.14 3.84 3.46

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

some similar subgroup results, although there were some differences between significant groups. Participants aligned with education (70%), government (67%), and religious (68%) organizations were more likely to rank “environmental quality” as “very important,” than were participants from civic (59%), community (57%), and commercial/realty (53%) organizations. There were also differences in how participants in different age brackets ranked the issue of “environmental quality:” participants between 18 and 24 (57%) and over 65 (55%) were less likely to rank the issue as “very important” than were those ages 25-34 (62%), 35-49 (71%), and 50-65 (72%). Participant comments, concerning “environmental quality” centered on four main issues: 1) the need for increased and effective environmental monitoring, especially of air and water quality; 2) the need for a more proactive approach to resource management in the County; 3) increased public education and awareness of environmental issues and best practices, especially in the agricultural community; and 4) the need to pay closer attention to and have greater awareness of the impact of industrial, commercial, and educational institutions on the environment. Participants advocated attracting clean or green industries, working with local companies and educational institutions to clean up environmentally unsound practices, and working with governmental agencies to enforce existing ordinances. Participants comments, however, were not limited to these four issues. Many of the participants noted the need for increased interjurisdictional cooperation, especially in terms of water quality and waste management; the need for better agricultural and logging practices; the need for more stringent environmental assessments before approving development; and the need to increase environmental education in the public schools and among organizations in the County. Open space preservation ranked third among the environmental resource issues (mean score 121

Photo by Bill Edmonds

of 4.14 and median score of 5.0), with 79% of participants rating open space preservation as either important (22%) or very important (57%). As described in the community facilitators glossary, open space preservation is a catchall category that refers to “the preservation of open space features and viewsheds, including ridgelines, agricultural and forestal areas, natural areas, wetlands and open water, and wildlife habitats.” Citizen comments covered a wide range of open space issues, including the preservation of natural habitats, development of greenways, the use of zoning to “maintain open space and [a] high level of environmental preservation,” the creation of nature preserves, the promotion of development patterns which encourage open space preservation, the development of conservation easement programs and land trusts, Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

and the design and implementation of effective open space planning. As with the other environmental issues, participants saw proactive approaches and interjurisdictional cooperation as central to the preservation of open space. One participant suggested that the County “develop a plan to preserve open space that used county ordinances, the land trust, and county monies,” Others suggested working with “surrounding localities to protect wood areas and greenspaces that cross county boundaries” and “adopt [an] open space plan into the comp plan that identifies natural and cultural resources worthy of protection.” Still others suggested specific programs to address open space preservation issues, including: “institute a greenway park program similar to Roanoke Valley communities;” and “designate special protected natural areas and wildlife corridors to provide habitat for native plants and animals [by cooperating] with the Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trails [program] to develop tourism.” Agricultural preservation, although included in the description for open space preservation, was treated as a separate subject because the issue went beyond the preservation of natural resources. As defined in the Community Facilitators Handbook glossary, agricultural preservation includes not only the preservation

Photo by Bill Edmonds

Environmental Resources

Photo by Bill Edmonds

of farms and other agricultural lands, but also recognizes agriculture as a threatened industry in Montgomery County (as well as most rural jurisdictions in Virginia). In this sense, agricultural preservation is an environmental, planning, and economic issue. Agricultural preservation had a mean score of 3.84, with 69% of participants rating it as either important (29%) or very important (40%). Support for agricultural preservation varied significantly by organizational type, previous participation, and age. Of the organizational types that participated in the community facilitator’s initiative, only 8% of commercial or industrial organizations rated agricultural preservation as “very important,” while 53% of participants from religious organizations, 41% from civic and community organizations, and 39% from educational organizations gave it the same ranking. Those who had previously participated in a planning workshop were more likely to rate agricultural preservation as “very important” (50%) than were new participants (39%). Support for agricultural preservation increased with age, with the highest level of support coming from participants ages 50-65 (45% rated it as “very important”), results which reflect similar trends on other environmental issues. A number of participants noted the need to preserve the family farm, preserve local farming 122

Photo by Bill Edmonds

in order to protect the local food supply, and protect farmland from subdivisions and developers. One common theme running through participants comments was the need to maintain government support of local agriculture through use-value taxation, maintaining the “safety net (tax reduction)” for agricultural areas (family farms), and by “promoting markets for our locally produced farm goods.” Participants also noted the need to expand the terms of the debate to include forestal lands, urging the County to “not lock up forest land for parks but maintain the forest land base as productive forest to provide continued economic benefits.” Again, as with other environmental issues, participants suggested using existing and expanded zoning laws, other ordinances, tax incentives, and other support programs to Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

help maintain the quality and quantity of local agricultural and forestry lands. The last issue addressing environmental resources was concern for old and/or failing septic systems. While the issue did not garner as much support as other issues, with a mean score of 3.43, 57% of participants felt the issue was either “important” or “very important.” Interestingly enough, concern over old and/or failing septic systems was higher among Blacksburg residents (62%) than among County (53%) or Christiansburg (53%) residents. Among participants’ chief concerns was the need for heightened testing and monitoring, increased emphasis on alternative systems, and a concern over the impact of septic systems on the groundwater supply, especially in areas with karst terrain. As one participant observed, “there are too many septic systems for the geology.” Participants comments were not, however, limited to the five environmental issues included in the “rate this issue” portion of the survey. Participants expressed concerns over the need for local and government support for conservation easements, the purchase or transfer of development rights, and other landowner agreements; increased awareness of agricultural runoff and non-point source pollution; strengthening of local erosion and sediment control laws and ordinances governing trash, junk cars, property maintenance, and litter; and limiting the impact of light pollution in rural areas. As one participant wrote, “the county is now evolving into not only the dumping grounds for dead automobiles but dead mobile homes are starting to litter the county landscape.” Another wrote, “I do not want to leave my children/grandchildren [with] the filthy sprawl I left in North[ern] Virginia.” Indeed, not wanting to become Northern Virginia, maintaining the rural qualities and quality of life, and preserving the natural environment were fairly common themes, especially in participants’ futures statements.

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL TRENDS AND CONDITIONS Physical Description Covering 388 square miles, Montgomery County is characterized by three distinct geographies: the Blue Ridge Mountains in the southeastern portion of the county, the initial slopes of the Allegheny Mountains along the northern portion, and the Christiansburg Plateau, in the southern, central, and western portions, separating the two ranges. In addition, Montgomery County is split by the Continental Divide, which defines the eastern edge of the Christiansburg Plateau and neatly cuts Brush Mountain and Gap Mountains, in the northern portion of the county, into three

Photo by Bill Edmonds

Environmental Resources

123

Montgomery County: Average Temperature and Precipitation, 1951-2003 Average Maximum & Minimum Temperatures: Blacksburg 3 SE, VA (440766), 1951-2003 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

Average Annual Precipitation, by Month, 1951-2003 4.2 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2

Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Jan

Feb Mar

Apr May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep

Oct Nov Dec

Average Max. Temperature (F)

BLACKSBURG 3 SE, VA (440766)

PILOT 1 ENE, VA (446723)

Average Min. Temperature (F)

LAFAYETTE 1 NE, VA (444676)

RADFORD, VA (446999)

Average Max. Temperature (F)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov Dec Annual

BLACKSBURG 3 SE, VA (440766) Average Min. Temperature (F)

40.9

44.7

52.9

63.6

72.1

78.8

82.7

81.6

75.7 65.5 54.9 44.2

63.1

BLACKSBURG 3 SE, VA (440766) Average Total Precipitation (in.)

20.4

22.9

29.7

38.7

47.4

55.3

59.7

58.5

51.4 39.3 31.1 23.6

39.8

BLACKSBURG 3 SE, VA (440766) LAFAYETTE 1 NE, VA (444676) PILOT 1 ENE, VA (446723) RADFORD, VA (446999) Average Total SnowFall (in.)

2.97 3.03 2.57 2.37

3.05 2.86 2.68 2.43

3.78 3.37 3.25 3.15

3.54 3.14 3.47 3.29

4.02 3.74 3.77 3.5

3.58 3.38 3.32 3.22

3.97 3.96 3.94 3.43

3.52 3.3 3.76 3.32

3.37 3.03 2.79 2.91 3.11 2.9 2.76 2.79 3.16 3.34 2.66 2.61 2.86 3.33 2.81 2.54

40.52 38.32 38.54 36.28

BLACKSBURG 3 SE, VA (440766) LAFAYETTE 1 NE, VA (444676) PILOT 1 ENE, VA (446723) RADFORD, VA (446999)

7.1 6.5 6.2 0.3

6.1 5.4 4.3 0

4.3 3 2.9 1.3

0.7 0.4 0.6 0.2

0 0 0 0

0 0 0.1 0

1.1 0.8 1.3 0.3

3.8 3.6 3.3 0

23.1 19.6 18.8 2.1

Source: Southeast Regional Climate Center, 2004 Note: Temperature data is unavailable for the Lafayette, Pilot, and Radford stations.

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

124

separate watersheds. East of the Divide, the streams and runoff contribute to the headwaters of the James River, which flows into the Chesapeake Bay, and the north and south forks of Roanoke River, which merge at Lafayette and flow into Albemarle Sound on the North Carolina coast. To the west, the water enters the New River, part of the much larger Mississippi River watershed which empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Continental Divide defines far more than the flow of ground and surface water. To the east of the Divide, the valleys narrow, bordered by moderately steep ridges. To the west, the land in the New River Drainage Basin is marked by gently rolling land, Although there are mountainous areas on the west side of the divide, their sides and ridges are far more moderately sloped. The degree of slopes, east and west, have an impact on the type, degree, and impact of runoff from construction, logging operations, and other land uses. On steeper slopes, runoff has less chance to be absorbed into and filtered by the soil and vegetation. Any construction or land use that increases runoff on steeper slopes will potentially contribute to additional flooding, increased silt in streams, and loss of top soil. Climate The climate in Montgomery County is generally mild, with temperatures ranging from average low of 20.4° in January to an average high of 82.7°in July. Depending on the area of the County, the average annual precipitation varies, between 40.52” in the Blacksburg area to 38.32” in Lafayette, 38.54” in Pilot, and 36.28 “ in Radford. Just as the precipitation amounts vary depending on the area of Montgomery County, so too does the time of the year when the greatest precipitation is likely to occur. In the Blacksburg and Radford areas, May is the wettest month, with an average of 4.02” and 3.5” of precipitation, respectively. For eastern and southern Montgomery County, July is the wettest month, with an average of 3.96” in Lafayette and 3.94” Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Portrait of a Drought: Blacksburg 3 SE, VA (440766), 1998-2002 8 Mean, 1951-2003

7.5

1998 1999

2000

6.5

2001

2002

5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Note: At one time, Montgomery County had four climate stations: Blacksburg, Lafayette, Pilot, and Radford. The Pilot station was discontinued in 1985, and the Radford station was discontinued in 1992. Subsequently, there is no data available for the parts of Montgomery County most effected by the 1998-2002 drought. The Blacksburg station data was chosen because the Blacksburg station typically has the greatest amount of precipitation annually. Average 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2.97 3.05 3.78 3.54 4.02 3.58 3.97 3.52 3.37 3.03 2.79 2.91 40.52 3.15 2.47 4.01 2.32 2.26 5.03 2.61 1.97 3.18 1.47 2.46 2.64 33.57 7.41 3.48 4.15 5.02 7.61 5.73 1.56 4.51 0.91 2.79 0.67 2.77 46.61 3.47 2.33 2.97 3.17 2.39 1.28 4.75 3.17 4.85 1.64 1.31 1.92 33.25 2.4 2.2 1.98 5.13 1.66 6.44 4.08 4.46 3.16 0.02 1.69 2.02 35.24 2.07 1.42 3.6 0.74 7.86 2.94 4.87 2.83 1.69 1.17 0.41 2.02 31.62 0 0.62 4.05 2.83 5.08 5.27 2.37 0.87 4.47 4.73 5.24 3.81 39.34 1.21 6.31 3.08 4.43 6.18 7.57 7.75 2.64 4.06 1.8 3.87 2.7 51.6

Southeast Regional Climate Center, 2004

Environmental Resources

125

in Pilot. Air Quality

Montgomery County: Total Facility Emissions for Criteria Air Pollutants, 1996 and 1999 Emissions in short tons (2,000 lbs) per year.

Air quality data for Montgomery County is a bit thin or outdated primarily because there is no air monitoring station in the County and the relevant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data does not extend beyond 1999. The closest monitoring station is located in the Roanoke Valley. Because of geography, larger population, and denser development, the data is not applicable to Montgomery County and the New River Valley. Indeed, the lack of an air quality monitoring station was raised as a concern by participants in the community survey. Data on air pollutants and emissions from specific facilities is available, however the data is five years out of date, so there is no way of determining whether conditions have improved or deteriorated. Data from the EPA indicates there are 67 commercial and government operations in Montgomery County which produce and release pollutants into the air. As the point sources of pollutant emissions map (left) indicates, there are high concentrations of point sources in the Blacksburg Industrial Park, in northeast Christiansburg, and at the Radford Arsenal.

1996

Pollutant Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Dioxide Volatile Organic Compounds Particulate (size < 2.5 micrometers) Particulate (size < 10 micrometers) Ammonia

1024 377 1073 1124 527 626 0.31

1999

Emissions Density, 1999 (Tons per Square Mile)

158 1372 3277 1190 83.4 133 0.32 Total

52-130 11-32 2.6-20 9.4-23 2.1-3.5 7.8-13 1.7-2.9 96-260

Note: Although the EPA data indicated between 10 and 15 contributing sources for the above totals, two facilities generated the majority of the emissions: Radford Arsenal and Virginia Tech. There is no indication of the amount of emissions contributed by non- or multi-point sources, most specifically automobiles. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AirNOW, 2004.

Point Sources of Pollutant Emissions, 2003

Water Quality Unlike air quality, there are water quality monitoring stations in Montgomery County. In addition, the Save Our Streams program, administered by the Virginia Natural History Museum, uses volunteers to monitor streams. According to the EPA, nine facilities have permission to discharge pollutants into the surface waters in Montgomery County. In addition, there are 27 community water systems (homes and businesses), 11 transient water systems (rest areas, camp grounds, and gas stations), and 3 non-transient, non-community water systems (schools) in Montgomery County. The majority of the consolidated facilities Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EnviroMapper, 2004

Environmental Resources

126

with permits to discharge to water are wastewater treatment plants, including the Blacksburg Country Club STP, BVPISA Waste water treatment facility, the Town of Christiansburg, the Montgomery County PSA, the Riner Town Sewage Treatment facility, the Shawsville Town Sewage Treatment facility, and Virginia Tech Water Supply. The remaining facilities are located at two corporate sites: Federal Mogul and the Radford Arsenal. Of the 27 community drinking water systems, located in Montgomery County, 11 purchased treated surface water, 12 use ground water, and the remaining two (Blacksburg-ChristiansburgVPI Water Authority and the Radford Arsenal) use surface water, primarily drawn from the New River. Public systems provide drinking water to 54,270 residents (in the combined jurisdictions. The remaining systems are either privately operated or are specific to a subdivision, manufactured housing park, or industry. Impaired Streams (1) The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, which is tasked with monitoring Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) in accordance with regulations from the federal Clean Water Act, identified eight streams or portions of streams impaired by man-made causes and 1 stream impaired by natural causes in two watersheds: the Roanoke River and the New River. With the exception of Wilson Creek, none of the stream impairments had a single cause. Of the eight streams, two were impaired by general standard (benthic) causes, six by agricultural causes, six by urban causes, and two (both in the area west of Riner) by domestic septage from private septic systems. Soils (2) 1. A map of the impaired streams in Montgomery County is included in the Environmental Atlas at the end of this introduction.

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Montgomery County: Impaired Streams, 2002 (2002 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load Priority List) Watershed / River or Stream Roanoke River Roanoke: North Fork

Length 15.31 6.56 miles

Roanoke: Wilson Creek New River: Crab Creek

6.91 miles 12 miles

New River: Meadow Creek

4.48 miles

Cause Temperature Fecal Coliform; Metals in fish tissue Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform General Standard (Benthic) Fecal Coliform

New River: Little River New River: Mill Creek

1.29 miles 15.27 miles

Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform

Stroubles Creek

7.08 miles

New River

52.08 miles

Fecal coliform; General Standard (Benthic) 4.98 Fissue Tissue-PCBs

Source Natural Conditions NPS-Urban; Unknown NPS-Urban NPS Agriculture/Urban NPS Agriculture/Urban Agriculture/Wildlife/ Domestic Septage NPS-Agriculture/Wildlife NPS-Agriculture/Wildlife Domestic Septage NPS Agriculture/Urban; NPS Agriculture/Urban VDH Fish Consumption Advisory / Unknown

Notes: 1. The only point source cited by the DEQ was the Radford Army Arsenal Plant, which discharged Ammonia (71.59) into the New River (Water Quality Based Effluent Waters 2002 303(d) TMDL Priority List). 2. NPS = Non-point source Source: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2004

According to the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Montgomery County (1980, 1982) Montgomery County has seven primary soil types: 1) Groseclose-PoplimentoDuffield, 2) Caneyville-Opequon-Rock outcrop, 3) Berks-Groseclose-Lowell, 4) Berks-LowellRayne, 5) Berks-Weikert, 6) Glenig-Parker, and 7) Unison-Braddock. The soil types, in Montgomery County, align with other features and land uses. Areas with both geologic faults and, in two cases (Price Mountain and Brush Mountain) semi-anthracite 2. A description of each of the soil types can be found in the glossary under soils. A soil map for the county is include in the Environmental Atlas at the end of this introduction.

Environmental Resources

coal seams, have Berks-Weikert soils, overlaying an acid shale and sandstone residuum bedrock. Areas with significant karst features, most notably in the Roanoke River (North and South Fork) and the Toms Creek watersheds, are characterized by Caneyville-Opequon-Rock outcrop, Berks-Lowell- Groseclose, and Groseclose-Poplimento-Duffield soils, all of which overlay limestone bedrock formations. Farmland in Montgomery County is located, primarily, in areas with Groseclose-PoplimentoDuffield, Berks-Groseclose-Lowell, and Unison Braddock soils, although only Unison-Braddock, an alluvium soil found along the New River, is considered prime soil by the US Department of Agriculture.

127

Geology and Karst (3) As the description of the soils indicates, a large portion of Montgomery County sits on limestone, shale, and sandstone bedrock and is characterized by a karst topography, including sink holes and caves. Inasmuch as karst is a feature associated with limestone, little, if any karst features are prevalent in the area southwest of Riner and south into Floyd County. Until the 1940s and early 1950s, Montgomery County had a significant semianthracite coal mining industry, centered on Brush and Price Mountains. Although the coal still exists in the two locations, the cost of removal and environmental constraints made mining in those two locations prohibitive. Currently, mining, in Montgomery County, is limited to quarrying limestone southeast of Blacksburg and west of Shawsville. Vegetation and Endangered and Threatened Species (4) Much of the vegetation in Montgomery County is typical of mixed hardwood/conifer forests, with white oak, red maple, northern red oak, white ash, white pine, and Virginia pine on the southern and southwestern slopes and scarlet oak and chestnut oak on the northern and northeastern slopes. On April 22, 2004, Representative Rick Boucher and Senator John Warner introduced the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness and National Scenic Areas Act of 2004.â&#x20AC;? The bill would designate the portion of Brush Mountain, extending from Blacksburg east into Craig County, as the Brush Mountain Wilderness Area (4,707 acres in Montgomery County) and the Brush Mountain East Wilderness Area (3,800 3. Maps dealing with Geology, Surficial Geology, Karst, and Mines can be found in the Environmental Atlas at the end of this introduction. 4. The Threatened and Endangeres Species map can be found in the Environmental Atlas at the end of this introduction.

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Montgomery County: Rare and Endangered Species, 2004

Scientific Name Common Name Amphibian Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender Bivalvia (Mussels) Lasmigona subviridis Green Floater Natural Communities Natural Community Appalachian Cave Drip Pool/epikarstic Community Crustacea (Amphipods, Isopods, & Decapods Caecidotea vandeli Vandel's Cave Isopod Stygobromus estesi Craig County Cave Amphipod Stygobromus fergusoni Montgomery County Cave Amphipod Diplopoda (Millipedes) Pseudotremia cavernarum Ellett Valley Pseudotremia Millipede Diplura (Diplurans) Litocampa sp. 3 A Cave Dipluran Fish Noturus gilberti Orangefin Madtom Percina rex Roanoke Logperch Lepidoptera (Butterflies & Moths) Appalachian Pyrgus centaurae wyandot Grizzled Skipper Mammals Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Vascular Plants Vascular Plants Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush Clematis addisonii Addison's Leatherflower Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower Paxistima canbyi Canby's Mountain-lover Phlox buckleyi Sword-leaved Phlox

Global State Federal State Rank Rank Status Status

Date Last Obs.

G3G4 S2S3

1979

1981

SOC

1970

G2G3 S1S2 SOC

1969

G1G2 S1S2 SOC

1999

G1G2 S1

1969

SOC

G2G4 S1

SOC

1971

G2 S2 SOC G1G2 S1S2 LE

LT LE

1989 1986

S1S2 SOC

1975

1947

G2 G2 G2 G2 G2

S2 S2 S2 S2 S2

SOC SOC LE SOC SOC

1996 2001 2002 1993 1992

Note: Department of Conservation & Recreation Codes: S1=extremely rare; S2=very rare; S3=rare to uncommon; S4=common; G refers to Global Rank, with numbers coinciding with state numbers. LE= listed endangered; LT=listed threatened; SOC=species of concern; SC=special concern. DCR, 2004.

Environmental Resources

128

acres in Craig County). Among other things, the bill would require the development of a trail plan for hiking, mountain bike, and equestrian trails, consistent with the Wilderness Act. Montgomery County is part of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) “ridge and valley physiographic province.” Specifically, the County is recognized for its karst features, including caves, and for its dolomite glades. Currently, Montgomery County has 18 threatened or endangered species. Of these, three are federally designated as endangered species: the Roanoke logperch (a fish), the Indiana bat, and the smooth coneflower. Hazards and Hazard Mitigation (5) In the spring, 2004, the New River Valley Planning District Commission released the New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2004 in response to the passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which requires that state and local governments adopt mitigation plans by November 1, 2004 or be deemed ineligible for future FEMA assistance. (6) In the years between 1969 and 2002, there 5. Unless otherwise noted, the information in hazards and hazard mitigation portion of this introduction was taken from the New River Valley Planning District Commission’s draft version of the New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2004. The PDC map is included in the atlas. 6. According to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, “local mitigation plans must include: 1) a planning process; 2) risk assessment, including the types of hazards and vulnerabilities; 3) mitigation strategy, including goals, analysis of options, and action plan; and 4) plan maintenance process, including methods of monitoring, evaluating and updating within a five year cycle.” In addition, the act requires that jurisdictions take an “all natural hazards planning” approach, including consideration of atmospheric, hydrologic, and geologic hazards, as well as other types of hazards (wildfires, subsidence in karst areas, etc.). It is important to note that “hazard” is defined as “an even or physical condition that has the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural loss, damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss.”

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

were 28 Presidential Disaster Declarations issued in Virginia, 50% of which have included the New River Valley. Most of the disasters were from flooding, winter weather (blizzards, storms, and ice), and hurricane-related storms (Camille, Agnes, and Fran). An additional Federal Disaster declaration was issued for Montgomery County following a storm that resulted both in ice and in flooding. Finally, the US Department of Agriculture, in 2000, declared a USDA Disaster, based on the severe drought which started in 1999 and lasted until 2002 and resulted in $2,700,000 in farm facility and livestock weight losses in Montgomery County alone. Of the hazards included in the Planning District Commission’s hazard assessment, flooding, most specifically flash flooding, is the most prevalent natural hazard in Montgomery County. The New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2004 cites sixteen specific flooding sources in the County. According to the New River Valley PDC, as of “December, 2002, the National Flood Insurance Policies inforce in Montgomery County covered $15,289,700 in the unincorporated portions of the County, $2,386,900 in Blacksburg, and $2,485,200 in Christiansburg.” Finally, the Hazard Mitigation Plan identified the areas along the South Fork of the Roanoke River and the Roanoke River as “Special Flood Hazard Area,” in part because of the range of structures at risk during a major flood event, including Shawsville Elementary School, the Elliston Wastewater Treatment Plant, and some 85 homes. Other areas prone to flooding include the densely developed area along Plum Creek and portions of Blacksburg and along Crab Creek in Christiansburg. Flooding and flash flooding, however, are not the only hazards in Montgomery County. As the years between 1998 and 2002 amply demonstrate, portions of Montgomery County were highly susceptible to the drought conditions, conditions which resulted in 370 dry wells and springs. As the annual and Environmental Resources

Montgomery County: Flooding Sources, 2004 Roanoke River Watershed: • Roanoke River • North Fork Roanoke River • Bradshaw Creek • Indian Run • South Fork Roanoke River • Spring Branch • Bottom Creek • Elliot Creek • Goose Creek New River Watershed: • New River • Toms Creek • Slate Branch • Stroubles Creek • Plum Creek • Crab Creek • Little River James River Watershed: • Craig Creek Source: New River Valley Planning District Commission, The New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2004.

Photo by Bill Edmonds

129

monthly precipitation averages indicate, the southern and western portions of Montgomery County were far drier than either the northern or eastern areas. Unfortunately, the climate stations in those two areas were closed well in advance of the 1998-2002 drought, so data is unavailable. Other hazards identified by the New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2004 include: severe weather (snow, ice, lightening, cold, and hail), wildfires, subsiding sink holes and mines, and earthquakes. It should be noted that, despite the number of faultlines in Montgomery County, no major earthquakes have had their epicenter in the County, although earthquakes have occurred in both Giles and Pulaski Counties. Of the remaining hazards, Montgomery County is most likely to have problems with severe weather. In recent years, ice has proven to be a greater problem, countywide, than other weather related events, although the winterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ice storms have led to only one Presidential Disaster Declaration in 1994. Presidential Disaster Declarations have also been issued in the region for winter storms (2000), blizzards (1996), and snowstorms (1993) Montgomery County averages 68 fires per five year period. While fires in the County do not occur on a grand scale (average size is 2.1 acres), the amount of development, including subdivisions, into the forested lands in the county increases the chances of significant property damage if a large scale fire, in fact, occurs.

Number of Working Farms in Virginia, 1997

1987 177 772 346 544 360 279

Craig Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Roanoke

Frederick

1997 176 731 341 517 370 273

Clarke

Fairfax

Fauquier

Shenandoah

Prince Edward

Rappahannock

Page Culpeper

Stafford King George

Rockingham Madison

Westmorland Orange

Greene Highland

Spotsylvania

Essex Caroline

Augusta

Lan caster

Louisa

Hanover

Bath

King King and William Queen

Middlesex

Fluvanna Goochland Rockbridge

Henrico Charles City

Powatan Buckingham Cumberland

Botetourt

Appomattox Bedford

Craig

James City

Chesterfield Amelia

Prince Edward

Nottoway

Prince George

Surrey

Gloucester York Newport News

Isle of Wight

Dinwiddie

Campbell

Roanoke

Giles

Charlotte Lunenburg

Franklin

Suffolk Southampton

Mecklenburg

Greenville

Wythe Russell

Washington Lee

Virginia Beach

Pittsylvania

Floyd

Wise

Halifax

Pulaski

Tazewell Dickenson

Norfolk

Chesapeake Brunswick

Bland

Poquoson Hampton

Sussex

Montgomery Buchanan

Northampton

Mathews New Kent

Nelson

Amherst

Alleghany

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Albemarle

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick

Henry

Grayson

Scott

Source:U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997 Agricultural Census

Number of Working Farms, Per County 1-133 Farms 134-229 Farms 230-351 Farms 352-631 Farms 632-1834 Farms

Montgomery & Neighboring Counties: Number of Farms and Acreage, 1997

Agriculture (7) In the spring of 2000, the Montgomery County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a series of community meetings in the four planning districts (Mount Tabor, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville). Reactions from meeting participants indicated an almost

Craig Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Roanoke

7. A map of the Agricultural and Forestal Districts and Land Use Assessment designations is included in the Environmental Atlas.

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Loudoun

Warren

#of farms 176 731 341 517 370 273

Acreage 45684 122613 67245 93074 80406 26688

Photo by Robert Parker

Environmental Resources

130

Virginia: Average Size of Farms, in Acres, 1997 Frederick

Avg. Farm Size, 1997

Clarke

Loudoun

Warren

Fairfax

Fauquier

Craig Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Roanoke

Shenandoah

260 acres 168 acres 197 acres 180 acres 217 acres 98 acres

Prince William

Rappahannock

Page Culpeper

Stafford

King George

Rockingham

Madison

Westmorland Orange

Greene Highland

Spotsylvania

Essex Caroline

Augusta Albemarle

Louisa Hanover

Bath

Fluvanna Goochland Rockbridge

Powatan Buckingham Cumberland Amelia

Botetourt

Appomattox Bedford

Craig

Prince Edward

Nottoway

Campbell

Montgomery

Bland

Franklin

Sussex Chesapeake Suffolk

Mecklenburg

Greenville

Wythe Russell

Washington Lee

Southampton

Pittsylvania

Floyd

Wise

Halifax

Pulaski

Tazewell Dickenson

Middlesex

Lunenburg

Roanoke

Brunswick Buchanan

Lan caster

NorthMathews ampton Gloucester James Henrico City Charles City York Chesterfield Poquoson Newport Hampton Surrey Prince News George Norfolk Isle of Virginia Wight Dimwiddie Beach

Charlotte

Giles

King King and William Queen

New Kent

Nelson

Amherst

Alleghany

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick

Henry

Grayson

Scott

Source:U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997 Agricultural Census (8)

universal concern over the loss of open space and agricultural lands and the degradation of environmental quality during the previous two decades. As evidence, the participants pointed to the large-scale suburban developments on the southern slope of Brush Mountain and on the agricultural lands surrounding Riner. Indeed, one need only drive south on Route 8 or through the 460 corridor between Blacksburg and Christiansburg to note the changes in the land use patterns since the early 1980s. According to the 2000 Virginia Agricultural Statistics Bulletin, published by the Virginia Agriculture Statistics Service, Montgomery County had 517 farms covering 93,074 acres. Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

0 to 100 acres 101 to 200 acres 201 to 300 acres 301 to 400 acres 401+ acres

The number, however, is misleading because it includes not only the large scale working farms, but hobby and part-time farms as well. As is noted later in this chapter, very few of the farms in Montgomery County are large enough to provide sole support for the families living onsite. While cultural definitions of farms are more often linked to images of the large scale operations in the Midwest, the Commerce Departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s definition uses a far more broadly drawn base criteria. According to the Commerce Department, based on the definition used in the 1974 census, a farm is any property or place which produced and sold $1,000 or more in agricultural products during the census year. The Environmental Resources

definition, however, varies according to area and to state. The Virginia Land Use definition requires that a property consistently produce and sell $1,000 or more in agricultural products over a five year period in order to qualify for the land use program. In any case, the definitions allow for a broader range of farms than one might suppose. Of the six counties included in this study, two of the counties, Floyd and Montgomery, have consistently lost farms since 1987. Of the remaining four, three (Craig, Giles, and Roanoke counties) have shown a gain in the number of farms between 1992 and 1997, following an initial loss of farms between 1987 and 1992. The gains in the number of farms in those counties in the years between 1992 and 1997, however, did not make up for the losses incurred in the previous five year period. Only Pulaski County saw a net gain in the number of farms during the 10 year period of this study. In Montgomery County, the most dramatic loss of farms occurred in the years between 1992 and 1997. In the five years prior to the revision of the Subdivision Ordinance in 1993, 8 The agriculture portion of this introduction was written during the summer of 2002 and reflects available data at that time. In the intervening years, additional agricultural land has been lost, but the introduction of the sliding scale in the 1999 Zoning Ordinance significantly reduced the rate of loss. The study draws heavily on census information from both the U.S. Census and the U.S and Virginia Departments of Agriculture and Forestry, and the U.S. Department of Commerceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1987, 1992, and 1997 Censuses of Agriculture. One caveat, however, the Commerce Department completes their agricultural census every five years (in years ending in 2 and 7); however, the countylevel information is not released until two to three years later. While the USDA is performing a new Agricultural Census this year, the information for Virginia Counties is not slated to be released until 2004, which effectively limits the currency of the census data. Where applicable, the information has been supplemented with rezoning and special use permit data for the years since 1997 and by the 1999 and 2000 Virginia Agricultural Statistics Bulletin. Additional information was provided by the Virginia Tech/ Montgomery County Extension Office and the U.S. Forest Service.

131

Montgomery & Neighboring Counties: Distribution of Farms, by Size, 1997

Craig

Montgomery County, Distribution of Farms, By Size, 1987-1997 Farms by size: 1 to 9 acres 10 to 49 acres 50 to 179 acres 180 to 499 acres 500 to 999 acres 1,000 acres or more

1987 1992 1997 25 39 34 156 128 136 213 238 213 111 94 96 24 20 26 15 18 12

Giles

240 1987

220

1992

200

Montgomery

1997

180

Roanoke

160 140

Pulaski

120

Floyd

100 80

Size of Farm, in Acres

60 1-9 Acres

10-49 acres

50-179 acres 180-499 acres

0 1 to 9

10 to 49

50 to 179

180 to 499

500 to 999

1,000+

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987, 1992, 1997 Agricultural Census

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

500-999 acres 1000 acres or more

Environmental Resources

132

Montgomery County & Neighboring Counties: Changes in Agriculture, 1987-1997 Number of Active Farms, 1987-1997

Change in Agricultural Acreage: by County, 1992-1997

800

Acreage, 1987 50308 118115 71550 97319 78577 29758

Farms 87

700

Farms 92

600

Craig Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Roanoke Co.

Farms 97

500 400 300

Acreage, Acreage, 1992 1997 45451 45684 116509 122613 73097 67245 98914 93074 71803 80406 24924 26688

200

More than 7501 5001 to 7500 2500 to 5000 1 to 2500 0Âą

100 0

Craig 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45

Floyd

Giles

Montgomery

Pulaski

Roanoke

+/- Change in the Number of Active Farms, 1987-1997

-1 to -2500 -2501 to -5000 -5001 to -7500 -7501-or more Urban Area or Information not available

Frederick Clarke

Loudoun

Warren

Fairfax

Fauquier

Shenandoah

Prince William

Rappahannock

Page Culpeper

Stafford

King George

Rockingham

Madison

Westmorland Orange

Greene Highland

Spotsylvania

Essex Caroline

Augusta Albemarle

Louisa King King and William Queen

Hanover

Bath

Lan caster Middlesex

Fluvanna Goochland Rockbridge

Craig

Floyd

+/- Change 87-92

Giles

Montgomery

+/- Change 92-97

Pulaski

Appomattox Bedford

Craig

Chesterfield

Amelia

Botetourt

Roanoke

Prince Edward

Nottoway

Prince George

Montgomery

Bland

Chesapeake

Lunenburg

Roanoke

Franklin

Halifax

Pulaski

Mecklenburg

Tazewell

Suffolk Southampton Greenville

Pittsylvania

Floyd

Dickenson

Virginia Beach

Sussex

Brunswick

Wythe Russell

Washington

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Poquoson Newport Hampton News Norfolk

Isle of Wight

Dimwiddie

Charlotte

Giles

Buchanan

Lee

Surrey

Campbell

Net +/- 1987-1997

Wise

Gloucester

James Henrico City Charles City York

Powatan Buckingham Cumberland

Northampton

Mathews New Kent

Nelson

Amherst

Alleghany

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick Grayson

Scott

Environmental Resources

Henry

Source:U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997 Agricultural Census

133

Montgomery and Neighboring Counties: Changes in Agriculture,1987-1997 # of Acres being Farmed, U.S. Agricultural Census, 1992 and 1997 130000 120000 110000 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0

acres, 92 acres, 97

Craig

Floyd

Giles

Montgomery

Pulaski

Roanoke Co.

Change in Acreage being Farmed, US Agricultural Census, 1992 and 1997 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000 -5000 -6000

8603 6104 1764 223 -5852

Craig

Floyd

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Giles

Âąacres

-5840

Montgomery

Pulaski

Roanoke Co.

Environmental Resources

Photo by Robert Parker

Montgomery County actually gained 1,595 acres of agricultural land. In the five years following the passage of the ordinance, Montgomery County lost 5840 acres. Of the agricultural acres lost, 25.7% were rezoned to accommodate high-density residential or business uses. An additional 18.6% were developed into large-lot subdivisions. The remaining farmland was lost to a combination of uses, although the primary losses were due to minor and family subdivisions. Finally, between 1990 and 2002, a minimum of 12,315 acres were subdivided. The actual number is higher, but the County did not track minor and family nor were landowners required to submit their minor or family subdivision plats for approval prior to the revision of the Subdivision Ordinance. It should be noted that the passage of the 1999 Zoning Ordinance and the introduction of the sliding scale and rural residential zoning have significantly decreased the number of

134

Montgomery and Neighboring Counties: Farm Income and the Value of Land, 1987-1997 Average Farm Income: 1987, 1992, and 1997 $60,000 $55,000 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0

Income, 1987 Income,1992 Income,1997

Photo by Robert Parker

Craig

Floyd

Giles

Montgomery

Pulaski

Roanoke Co.

Frederick Clarke

0-20% Increase in Value 21-40% Increase in Value 41-60% Increase in Value 61-80% Increase in Value 81% or Greater Increase in Value Decreased Value Value Not Given

Loudoun

Warren

Fairfax

Fauquier

Shenandoah

Prince William

Rappahannock

Page Culpeper

Stafford

King George

Rockingham

Madison

Westmorland Orange

Greene Highland

Spotsylvania

Essex Caroline

Augusta Albemarle

Lan caster

Louisa King King and William Queen

Hanover

Bath

Middlesex

Fluvanna Goochland Rockbridge

Henrico Charles City

Powatan Buckingham Cumberland Appomattox Bedford

Craig

Prince Edward

James City

Chesterfield

Amelia

Botetourt

Nottoway

Prince George

Surrey

Gloucester York Newport News

Isle of Wight

Dimwiddie

Campbell

Montgomery

Bland

Lunenburg

Roanoke

Franklin

Mecklenburg

Tazewell

Wise

Suffolk

Scott

Southampton Greenville

Wythe Russell

Washington Lee

Virginia Beach

Pittsylvania

Floyd

Dickenson

Halifax

Pulaski

Norfolk

Chesapeake Brunswick

Buchanan

Poquoson Hampton

Sussex

Charlotte

Giles

Northampton

Mathews New Kent

Nelson

Amherst

Alleghany

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

major subdivisions being sited in the A-1 district. In 2001, 8.5 acres were rezoned from A-1 (Agriculture) to either a residential or commercial use. Among other features, the 1999 Zoning Ordinance removed major subdivisions as a by-right use in the A-1 district, requiring subdividers to rezone to R-R (Rural Residential) and made the denser development dependent on the provision of public water and sewer not available in much of the agricultural and rural areas of the County. Despite changing requirements, minor and family subdivisions continue to have an effect, accounting for the subdivision of 676 acres and 2348 acres respectively between January of 2000 and December of 2002. The majority, but not all, of the minor and family subdivisions occurred in agricultural or rural districts.

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick

Henry

Grayson

Source:U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997 Agricultural Census

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

135

Environmental Resources: Goals ENV 1.0 Natural Resource Stewardship: The County is committed to preserving, conserving, and managing its natural resources, as a sustainable asset, for the benefit of its citizens and future generations.

of the county, and a scale of 1:4,800 with a 10-foot contour interval for slow growth areas of the County. ENV 1.3.2 Well and Septic GIS Data: Work with the NRV Health Department to expand a current Floyd County program for gathering GPS data on new septic and well systems into Montgomery County. Use the GPS data to develop a GIS-based location map for septic systems and wells that can tie into the database to easily monitor areas where septic failures and well contamination are concentrated. (11)

ENV 1.1 Stewardship: Encourage funding of Department of Forestry and Virginia Extension Service programs to help encourage good stewardship of Montgomery Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s natural resources. ENV 1.2 Resource Management: Encourage the use of Forestry and Agriculture Best Management Practices (BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s). (9)

ENV 1.3.3 Bedrock Geology Maps: Create bedrock geology maps, similar to Geology of the Blacksburg Quadrangle, Virginia, for areas of Montgomery County in the following United States Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps: Eggleston, Newport, McDonalds Mill, Glenver, Elliston, Ironto, Radford North, Radford South, Riner, Pilot, Check, Indian Valley, and Alum Ridge. Priority should be given to the fast developing areas around Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford.

ENV 1.3 Environmental Planning and Mapping: Develop a natural and critical resources geographic information system to facilitate effective environmental planning in Montgomery County, including: Critical Resources Map; Comprehensive Plan; Land Use Policy Map; Comprehensive Plan GIS Significant historic structures and districts (see Cultural Resources chapter); Groundwater and surface water resources; Floodplains; Karst terrain; Soils; Vegetation; Geology and geologic features (other than karst); Rare and endangered species; Well and septic systems; Agricultural and Forestal Districts; Conservation easements; and State and federal lands. (10)

ENV 1.3.4 Karst GIS Database: Identify and provide information that will be useful in land use decision making for each sinkhole, sinking creek, cave, karst spring, etc. This information should include, at a minimum, the precise location (recorded by GPS), type, and size of the karst feature, as well as issues of concern that may require future monitoring of the feature. (12)

ENV 1.3.1 Environmental GIS Program: Initiated a mapping program to produce large-scale maps optimal for environmental planning for the entire county. Maps should be produced at a scale of 1:2,400 with a 5-foot contour interval for the fast growth areas Cross References and Notes: 9. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are also encouraged in other sections of the Environmental Resource Goals, including: ENV 1.5: Water Quality (pg. 137); ENV 3.1 Agricultural Programs and Practices (pg. 141); ENV 5.5.2 Groundwater: Best Management Practices (pg.145); ENV 6.5.3 Karst: Erosion and Sediment Control (pg. 147); ENV 6.6 Karst: Best Management Practices (pg. 148); and ENV 7.1.5 Stormwater and Erosion Best Management Practices (pg. 149). 10. The environmental layers are part of a larger GIS system which Montgomery County is currently developing. GIS strategies are also include in Cultural Resources (CRS 1.2.2, pg. 81), Health and Human Services (HHS 3.2.2, pg. 176), Public Safety (SFY 1.1.5, pg. 197), Transportation (TRN 1.1.2, pg.219), and Utilities (UTL 1.4.3, pg. 235)

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

ENV 1.3.5 Floodplain Mapping: Improve and update existing floodplain mapping data through continued requests to FEMA, while utilizing the resources of educational institutions, to re-delineate County floodplain boundaries. (13) Cross References and Notes: 11. Well and Septic Systems are also addressed in ENV 3.3: Individual Septic Systems (pg. 142); ENV 5.1: Septic Systems and Well Water Testing (pg.144); ENV 5.2.1 Septic System Maintenance (pg.145); ENV 5.2.2: Alternative Wastewater Processing Systems (pg.145); ENV 5.3 Groundwater Quality Protection Programs and Policies (pg.145); ENV 5.5.3: Wastewater/water Recycling and Reclamation Programs (pg.146); ENV 5.7.2 Well Testing (pg.146); UTL 1.3 Private Systems (pg.235); and UTL 1.4 Individual Systems (pg.235). 12. Issues surrounding Karst are covered in greater detail in ENV 6.0: Karst (pg.147). 13. Floodplains are addressed in greater detail in ENV 4.0 (pg. 143).

Environmental Resources

136

ENV 1.4 Wildlife Corridors: Establish green spaces, including corridors and greenways, that promote viable wildlife habitat. ENV 1.5 Water Quality: Develop and initiate water resource management and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to preserve and maintain ground and surface water quality. (14)

management is a critical component due to the increasing development in the county. ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resource : To work with county residents to conserve the natural resources and agricultural character of the land in the county. (16) ENV 2.1 Private Open Space: Encourage the preservation of the rural and agricultural character of private land within the County through cooperative efforts with local landowners.

ENV 1.6 Air Quality: Routinely monitor air quality in the County to determine if air quality is declining.

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and Village Expansion Areas] ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways

ENV 1.6.1 Mass Transit: Encourage the use and development of mass transit systems in the County. (15) ENV 1.6.2 Monitoring Station: Work with the Department of Environmental Quality and area universities to establish an air monitoring station in the Montgomery County. ENV 1.7 Species Protection: Protect threatened and endangered plant and animal species in the County. Wildlife habitat

ENV 2.2 Public Open Space: Encourage the acquisition and development of additional active and passive parklands and open space with the cooperation of Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Virginia Tech, and other related entities. ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition Program ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways ENV 2.3 Viewsheds: Develop and enact a plan of action for the protection and preservation of the scenic byways and transportation corridors, rivers, tributaries, and ridgelines. (17) ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities Cross References and Notes: 14. Groundwater concerns are addressed in ENV 5.0 (pg.144) and ENV 6.0: Karst (pg.147). Surface water concerns are addressed in ENV 3.0: Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 141) and ENV 4.0 Floodplains (pg. 143). 15. Mass Transit is also addressed in HHS 2.3 Transportation (pg. 175) and TRN 3.0: Mass Transit (pg. 176).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 16.See the end of section 2.0 for the detailed list of strategies included in this section. 17. Scenic locations include Scenic Byways/Viewsheds (Route 8, Catawba Road, Prices Fork Road, Interstate 81, and Route 460), Rivers and Tributaries (New River, Little River, and North and South Forks of Roanoke River), and Ridgelines (Brush Mountain, Prices Mountain, and Paris Mountain).

Environmental Resources

137

ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and Village Expansion Areas] ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition Program ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways ENV 2.4 Forest Land: Minimize the loss of the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s productive forestlands. ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and Village Expansion Areas] ENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational Distribution Program ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways ENV 2.5 Agriculture: Maintain the agricultural land in various types of active production and discourage its conversion to other land uses. ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and Village Expansion Areas] ENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational Distribution Program ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways ENV 2.6 Open Space Corridors : Create a countywide greenway plan which would include a riverside protection plan for the New, Roanoke, and Little Rivers and their tributaries. Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and Village Expansion Areas] ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition Program ENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational Distribution Program ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways ENV 2.7 Land Trust Support Objective: Support, through policy and funding measures, land trusts for the New River Valley that coordinate conservation easement programs and other land conservation transactions, such as the donation and purchase of easements. Develop a program for the County to hold interest in conservation easements. ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational Distribution Program ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways ENV 2.8 Inter-Authority Planning Cooperation: Initiate cooperation among Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford, Virginia Tech, Radford University, as well as surrounding counties to coordinate their plans to prevent gaps in rivershed and viewshed protection projects and stretch open space protection budgets by pooling talents and resources. ENV 2.8.1 Representative County Planning Group: Create a team of county representatives responsible for bringing county interests to the attention of the Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford planning agencies. ENV 2.8.2 Cooperative Area Plans: Create and implement action plans for those areas identified in Objective 8, Milton Herds 2002 report, as well as those

138

incentives above and beyond those currently provided through the Land Use Assessment program. (19) ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning: (20) Sliding Scale Zoning is a method of zoning requiring that the larger the initial size of the parent parcel prior to subdividing, the lower the permitted density. The permitted density decreases on a sliding scale as the size of the parent parcel increases. The rationale is that higher densities should be allowed on smaller tracts because they are difficult to farm and may have already moved out of agriculture and into the residential land market. Minimum lot size is usually set at 1 acre or a maximum of 2 acres and a large number of acres can be utilized for open space.

areas identified by the Representative County Planning Groups. ENV 2.1.1-12 Approaches to Open Space and Agricultural Preservation: (18) ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts: Special Service Districts (SSDs) are created by passage of an ordinance by the Board of Supervisors. They require an organized plan and dedicated board to carry out the goals, which could be tailored to open space preservation. SSDs can be used to preserve open space by allowing a designated board to purchase development rights with the money raised from special real estate taxes. ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities: Community Development Authorities (CDAs) are very similar to Special Service Districts but are allowed specifically to raise funds to purchase easements and development rights. The other key difference is that Authorities can take on long-term debt allowing them to issue revenue-generating bonds as a means of producing income. ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts: Agricultural/Forestal Districts are rural zones that have been reserved for the production of agricultural products and timber. Established as a local planning tool in the 1970s by the General Assembly, they are established according to state guidelines with the approval of the local governing body. A district constitutes a voluntary agreement between landowners and the government that no new, non-agricultural uses will take place in the district. An agricultural/forestal district provides much stronger protection for farmers and farmland than does traditional zoning, because it assures that the Use Value Assessment will continue to be available to landowners within the district. Participation in an agricultural/forestal district can also provide protection from local nuisance ordinances. To encourage agricultural/forestal district participation and to reflect the 8-year commitment by landowners, the County should consider local tax Cross References and Notes: 18. Development in the agricultural and forested areas of the County are discussed in greater detail in PLU 1.2: Resource Stewardship Areas (pg.35) and PLU 1.3: Rural Areas (pg.37). 19. Land Use Assessment is currently used in Montgomery County.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning: Rural Cluster Zoning allows a relatively significant amount of residential development to occur in rural and farming areas while at the same time ensuring that such development is designed and laid out to have the least possible impact on the landscape and to preserve large chunks of open space land even after development is complete. ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements: Conservation Easements are restrictions placed on a parcel of land by its owner that limit how the land may be used in the future. Based on the ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decision, a conservation easement may be used to prevent the future conversion of land from its present state to residential, commercial, or other uses. The placement of a conservation easement on a land parcel is totally voluntary and, in most cases, results in tax benefits for the owner. Conservation easements may be used alone or in combination with a local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. (21)

ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives: (22) Cross References and Notes: 20. Sliding scale zoning is currently utilized in the A-1 (Agriculture) and C-1 (Conservation zoning districts). 21 " A Model Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program for Virginia" (April 2004) Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and Farmland Preservation Task Force. 22. Rural development initiatives represent one part of the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s entrepreneurial economy. Additional references to small businesses is included in ECD4.1.1: Entrepreneurial Economy (pg.102).

Environmental Resources

139

unaware of the tools available for the protection of their land, and those that have had some exposure to these tools only have a partial understanding of how they work. This strategy is essential for the success of open space preservation, because until landowners are more familiar with the available tools, the County will continue to meet resistance from many of the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residents. (23)

Economic Development is normally associated with industrial and commercial enterprise efforts, but the basic approach can also be applied to the agricultural and forest industries. Such efforts can include agritourism and eco-tourism, development and promotion of alternative and/or local markets and the development of alternative products or production techniques. Rural Economic Development Initiatives are a part of this report because they are voluntary and address the fundamental benefit of making open space land uses more economically competitive and intensive in order to achieve long term conservation.

ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways: Virginia Byways are existing roads with significant aesthetic and cultural values, leading to or lying within an area of historical, natural or recreational significance. Virginia Byways designate corridors of regional significance. Accordingly, the County actively supports the retention of agricultural, forest, and open space uses along Virginia Byways.

ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment: Use Value Assessment is a popular program in Virginia that has been used by many localities since the 1970s. Use Value Assessment is a system by which property taxes are based on the current use of the land, rather than on its potential market value as developable (residential, commercial, or industrial) land. This change in tax rate often provides farmers with enough additional income to continue farming, when they otherwise would have to sell their land to pay their taxes. It is also known as Land Use Assessment.

(24)

ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and Village Expansion Areas] : Urban Growth Boundary consists of invisible lines drafted by planners to signify areas beyond which future growth in the city should not pass. The boundary is often drawn outside of existing political boundaries, such as city limits. Land within the boundaries is designated as â&#x20AC;&#x153;urbanizable land.â&#x20AC;? ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition Program: Public Land Acquisition Program is a fund created by a county for the express purpose of purchasing public open space for use as parks, or recreational corridors. ENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational Distribution Program: To give the residents of Montgomery County access to open space preservation information from the county, state and national level, which they can use to protect their land from development. One of the fundamental problems with open space protection is that most landowners are Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 23. Overall approaches to public information is addressed in PNG 2.2: Informing the Public (pg.67). 24. Scenic Byways is also referenced in TRN 2.6 (pg.223)

Environmental Resources

140

ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters: The county is committed to working to maintain and to enhance the quality of its many streams and rivers for human health, habitat vitality, and safe recreational opportunities. Furthermore, the county is committed to ensuring that the problems such as flooding, erosion, and sedimentation will be minimized. (25) ENV 3.1 Agricultural Program and Policy: Encourage farmers and landowners to work with existing government agencies, such as Skyline Soil and Water District, and programs and to learn about and use Best Management Practices (BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) to protect surface water qualities. ENV 3.1.1 Floodplain Ordinance: Enhance the floodplain ordinance to require that riparian buffers remain undisturbed at a specified distance from the edge of all streams with a designated floodplain (e.g. minimum of 100 feet). (26) ENV 3.1.2 Water Quality Protection Ordinance: Develop a water quality protection ordinance that includes provisions to preserve the natural forested vegetation along the corridors of all perennial streams and rivers. ENV 3.1.3 Environmental Quality Corridors: Develop an Environmental Quality Corridor (or Water Quality Corridor or Creek Overlay District like Blacksburg) that requires the preservation of riparian buffers as a foundational component. ENV 3.1.4 Agricultural Best Management Practices: Work with farmers to locate and obtain grant funding from resources such as the Virginia Agricultural Best Management Practices Cost Share or the USDAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Environmental Quality Incentives Program. These incentives encourage the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) including riparian buffers, fencing of livestock, and providing alternative watering sources for livestock. Cross References and Notes: 25. Floodplains are addressed in ENV 4.0: Floodplains (pg. 143). Erosion and Sediment Control is addressed in ENV 7.0: Stormwater and Erosion Control (pg.148) and UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management (pg. 237). 26. Riparian buffer easements are addressed in ENV 7.3.3 Tax Incentives for Riparian Buffer Easements (pg.149 ). Riparian areas are addressed in ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features (pg.142).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

ENV 3.1.5 Environmental Education and Outreach: Develop an educational and outreach program tailored to farming practices near impaired waters to assist farmers in sharing information and learning about alternative techniques. ENV 3.1.6 Agricultural and Forestal Districts: Strengthen the quality of the Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD) management plan review to ensure that water quality goals are an essential element on properties in the AFD. Enlist the assistance of Extension Service staff, the Skyline Soil and Water Conservation District staff, and other advisory bodies in clarifying the review process. ENV 3.1.7 Skyline Soil and Water Conservation District: Work with the Skyline Soil and Water Conservation District to identify county needs and participate in district programs. In order to facilitate the programs of the District and to demonstrate commitment to the partnership, the County should increase funding resources (currently $4000) to the District equivalent to at least half of the amount provided by the highest paying county (currently Floyd County at $11,455) in the District. ENV 3.1.8 Extension Service: Work with the county Extension Service to disseminate information in newsletters to farmers and to organize educational sessions on maintaining water quality while enhancing agricultural practices. ENV 3.2 Vegetation and Soil: Develop initiatives and ordinances that maintain and enhance of the integrity of surface water bodies during development and redevelopment projects by minimizing clearing of vegetation and disturbance of soils. ENV 3.2.1 Impervious Surface: Amend zoning ordinance to reduce the percent of coverage from buildings, parking, and other impervious surfaces. ENV 3.2.2 Vegetation: Increase incentives for maintaining existing vegetation during development. ENV 3.2.3 Compliance Incentives: Adjust the fee schedule to allow for a reduction in fees for quality 141

development proposals that comply with the purposes of this objective. ENV 3.2.4 Maintaining Water Quality: Establish standards for water quality improvement during the development or redevelopment of properties located within Urban Expansion Areas, and other areas targeted for development and redevelopment, through replacement of improperly maintained BMPs, replacement of inefficient sanitary sewer lines or failing septic systems, and, where appropriate, revegetation along streams. ENV 3.2.5 Commercial and Industrial Runoff: Locate away from the County's water bodies those nonresidential activities that use, store, or manufacture significant quantities of toxic substances. ENV 3.2.6 Preservation of Natural Landscapes: Develop general design evaluation guidelines, criteria, and techniques that promote the preservation of natural landscapes and apply them in the evaluation of rezoning and/or special use permit applications. ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features: Where appropriate, require rezoning and special use permit applicants to describe in general detail the natural character of significant creeks, rivers, lakes, and ponds (as characterized on United States Geological Survey Maps) located on the property, as well as the 100-year floodplain. Require applicants for such rezonings and/or special use permits to explain how the significant surface water bodies and related shorelines to be retained upon completion of the project will be protected during construction. ENV 3.2.8 Shrink/Swell Soils: Amend applicable County Ordinances to require a shrink/swell soils study for development and construction. (27)

Cross References and Notes: 27. Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (2000 Edition) Section R401.4 Soil Tests (effective October 1, 2003)

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

ENV 3.3 Individual Septic System Work to reduce septic leaching problems by encouraging proper locating, maintenance, and testing of septic tank systems. ENV 3.4 Public Awareness: Address water resource concerns in the County by developing networking opportunities for citizen groups and school programs to share information and pool resources, and enlist their aid in the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s stream water quality monitoring programs. ENV 3.4.1 Grants: Assist organizations in locating and obtaining grant funding for various projects for the County’s streams and rivers. ENV 3.4.2 Technical Data/ Resources for Identifying Problem Areas: Provide technical data and resources where available to allow citizen groups to identify current and potential future problems or concerns. ENV 3.4.3 Citizen Involvement: Enlist the aid of citizen groups in community clean up efforts such as Adopt-A-Highway, Adopt-A-Stream, Broomin’ and Bloomin’, Save Our Streams, etc. ENV 3.4.4 Public Information: Activities, Meetings, and Events: Maintain a list of contact information for local citizen groups involved in water quality issues, and work with citizen groups to communicate activities, meetings, and other events to a central office so that information can be disseminated to other citizen group leaders. ENV 3.4.5 Citizen Water Quality Monitoring: Identify groups that have a significant interest in surface water in the County including, but not limited to, angling groups, outdoor recreation groups and/or companies, watershed or water quality protection organizations, science and ecology classes in public schools, etc. Hold the training sessions and obtain commitments from volunteers to perform regular monitoring of streams that are of particular interest to them. ENV 3.4.6 Save Our Streams: Work with the Virginia Natural History Museum, Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Tech departments, and/or DEQ officials to 142

continue implementation of the Save Our Streams Program, including develop training sessions and monitoring kits for interested county volunteer monitors and schools.

ENV 4.0 Floodplains: Montgomery County seeks to maintain and enhance the integrity of its floodplains through improved public education, public safety, governmental cooperation, ordinances, and data.

ENV 3.5 Government Cooperation: Work with the Towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg, the City of Radford, and neighboring counties to ensure consistency and compatibility of goals, objectives, and strategies in the water quality planning process.

ENV 4.1 Partnership and Regional Cooperation: Continue to build partnerships with public agencies to preserve and enhance floodplains in the County.

ENV 3.5.1 Regional Roundtable: Enlist the aid of the New River Valley Planning District Commission, Roanoke Valley Regional Commission, and the Roanoke River Corridor Committee to develop regional roundtables to plan for and to address water quality concerns.

ENV 4.1.1 Regional Cooperation: New River Valley: Enhance collaboration with the New River Valley Planning District Commission through regular participation in regional meetings. ENV 4.1.2 Regional Cooperation: Roanoke & James River Watersheds: Develop working relationship with local governments in the Roanoke Valley to preserve and protect floodplains within the headwaters of the Roanoke and James Rivers. ENV 4.1.3 Public Education: Work to educate property owners, builders, lenders, and others of the negative effects of building within the floodplain. Education programs should be developed in collaboration with the relevant agencies listed above. ENV 4.2 Floodplain Program and Policy: Develop programs/policies/ordinances that will encourage developers and builders to avoid developing within or directly adjacent to the floodplain. ENV 4.2.1 Flood Damage Prevention Overlay District: Enhance the Flood Damage Prevention Overlay District of the zoning ordinance to require that riparian buffers remain undisturbed at a specified distance from the edge of all streams within a designated floodplain (e.g., minimum of 100 feet) as well as to encourage greater buffers through incentives such as tax relief or land use valuation. ENV 4.2.2 Code Enforcement: Continue to enforce applicable county, state and federal regulations within the designated 100-year floodplain.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

143

ENV 4.3 Public Safety: Reduce and/or eliminate the longterm risks to human life and property from flooding and its effects through the use of timely data. (28)

ENV 5.0 Groundwater: Montgomery County is committed to maintaining an abundant and clean supply of subsurface water resources. ENV 5.1 Septic System and Well Water Testing: Work with the New River Valley (NRV) Health Department to develop a process for locating and testing well water quality and septic systems on a regular basis to ensure that groundwater quality is consistently monitored and that contamination risks are minimized. (29)

ENV 4.3.1 Regional & Local Hazard Mitigation Plan: Continue to work with the New River Valley Planning District Commission to develop a local hazard mitigation plan. ENV 4.3.2 Flood Mitigation Measures: Following completion of the local hazard mitigation plan (which may include prioritized areas), apply for Flood Mitigation Assistance Program funds (dependent on successful completion of strategy 2) to acquire or relocate structures from floodplain areas and to construct certain types of minor and localized flood control projects. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds may be sought following a hazard declaration and assistance may be sought through the New River Valley Planning District Commission.

ENV 5.1.1 Tracking Septic System Maintenance: Develop an official process in conjunction with the NRV Health Department and certified private septic system maintenance firms to track septic system maintenance throughout the County. The process could include the following components but may include others deemed appropriate by the partnership participants: Private firms should report the name, address, date of pumping, overall quality of the septic system, and other information deemed necessary by the participating parties. The Health Department should maintain the records provided by the private firms in the upcoming statewide database system for ease of reference and use. Once the database is established, the health department with other agencies can identify septic systems that have not been pumped and send reminders to landowners (much like the private firms do now for past customers). ENV 5.1.2 Septic System/ Well Testing with Real Estate Transactions: Implement a county process with the NRV Health Department, which would require that well testing and/or septic system testing reports accompany every real estate transaction involving septic systems or well water resources.

Cross References and Notes. 28 Hazard Mitigation and the New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan are also addressed in SFY 1.1.4: NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 197) and UTL 4.2: Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 237). A copy of the NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan is available from the New River Valley Planning District Commission.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

ENV 5.1.3 Monitoring of Alterative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems: Assist the NRV Health Department in identifying engineering firms that install, monitor, and maintain alternative onsite wastewater treatment systems in the County. Work with the engineering firms to participate in the septic system Cross References and Notes 29. Issues surrounding septic systems are also addressed in UTL 1.4: Individual Systems (pg. 235).

Environmental Resources

144

maintenance partnership to share information about the location and condition of the alternative systems. Since these systems are regularly monitored, the necessary information should be readily available. ENV 5.2 Education: Educate landowners on various factors to consider in choosing and maintaining onsite wastewater treatment systems, and encourage connections to public sewer systems where possible. ENV 5.2.1 Septic System Maintenance: Identify septic tank owners who have not regularly maintained their septic systems through the process outlined in objective one. Beyond sending postcard reminders, disseminate educational pamphlets and booklets developed by the Virginia Water Resources Center to educate reluctant septic tank owners of the benefits of regular maintenance procedures. ENV 5.2.2 Alternative Wastewater Processing Systems: Work with the NRV Health Department to promote alternative wastewater processing systems that treat effluent before discharging the waste into surrounding soils. These systems are particularly suited to Montgomery County given the incompatibility of county soils with traditional systems. These systems should be promoted in new developments and especially for homes that have experienced a septic system failure. ENV 5.3 Groundwater Quality Protection Programs and Policies: Develop and/or update ordinances, policies, and programs that ensure responsible land use in karst terrain for the protection of groundwater quality. ENV 5.3.1 Septic System Maintenance: Update the process for applying for Building Permits to require that a proof of septic system maintenance accompany the application. ENV 5.3.2 Drainfield Requirements: Review the zoning ordinance to ensure that lots in areas that require septic tank waste disposal systems are large enough to accommodate two drain fields one of which can be used for repair drainage fields when the first field fails.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

ENV 5.3.3 Connection to Public Sewer: In cases where public sewer is available, require hook-ups to the system for new units, even where the zoning ordinance would otherwise allow septic systems. Where existing septic systems fail and sewer systems are accessible, require hook-ups to the system instead of a septic system repair job. ENV 5.4 Wellhead Protection: Complete all twelve steps for the wellhead protection process as identified by the Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee within 5 years of the adoption of this plan. ENV 5.4.1 Well-Head Protection Program: Implement a Well-Head Protection Program, including: 1) Establish a Wellhead Protection Advisory Committee and appoint a project leader; 2) Determine the appropriate areas to include in wellhead protection areas, based on the 1993 Wellhead Protection Program report for Montgomery County; and 3) Identify management strategies to mitigate the impact of land uses within the protection area on the water source. (Consult Montgomery Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1993 Proposed Wellhead Protection Program and the Virginia Ground Water Protection Steering Committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1998 Implementing Wellhead Protection publication.) ENV 5.4.2 Public Involvement: Encourage public involvement in the development and implementation of the wellhead protection program by including interested citizens on the advisory committee and holding public information and comment sessions in communities that might benefit from a wellhead protection program. ENV 5.5 Conservation: Encourage landowners to conserve water and consider the impacts of their water use on others in their region. ENV 5.5.1 Public Information: Develop and disseminate educational materials to the public on water conservation measures for both private and business uses. ENV 5.5.2 Best Management Practices. Strategy: Work with local farmers to identify best management practices for crop watering during drought years. Enlist 145

the aid of area universities, the Farm Bureau, and other interested parties in developing educational materials and disseminating the information. ENV 5.5.3 Wastewater/water Recycling and Reclamation Programs: Investigate water recycling/reclamation practices and advocate such practices where applicable in the County.

ENV 5.7.2 Well Testing: If contaminated well systems are identified due to monitoring efforts in the County, work with the NRV Department of Health, area universities, and/or citizen groups or other appropriate resources to test wells in the surrounding area to ensure that other nearby wells are checked for health risks.

ENV 5.6 Development: Minimize the coverage of impervious surfaces to allow rain percolation through strategies such as low-impact development and stormwater management planning and concentrate new development in areas where public water supplies and sewer systems exist or are planned. ENV 5.6.1 Groundwater Identification: Identify areas of the County where groundwater resources are abundant and encourage rural development and redevelopment in proximity of these water resources. Consider these areas for designation as expansion areas and/or urban growth areas. ENV 5.6.2 Adequate Facilities Policy: Develop an adequate facilities policy for the County modeled after the Route 177 Corridor Overlay District to ensure adequate levels of service for public water supplies. ENV 5.6.3 Cooperative Urban/Suburban Planning: Coordinate planning efforts with the towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg and the City of Radford to encourage infill development in and around the towns and city. ENV 5.7 Monitoring: Implement a monitoring program for well systems in areas that may be affected by mine drainage (notably, near Brush Mountain and Price Mountain) or other areas that are at a particular risk of contamination to ensure public health and safety. ENV 5.7.1 Water Quality: Work with the NRV Department of Health, area universities, citizen groups or other appropriate resources on developing a regular monitoring schedule to keep track of water quality concerns in wells near closed mines.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

146

ENV 6.0 Karst Goal: Montgomery County is committed to managing karst terrain in such a manner so as to: 1) protect groundwater and surface water resources from contamination; 2) reduce potential for property damage resulting from subsidence, or other earth movement, and sinkhole flooding; 3) protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and 4) protect the habitat of rare, threatened, and endangered animal species and ecosystems that depend on the environmental quality of Montgomery Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s karst terrain. ENV 6.1 Planning: Identify and map bedrock geology, karst terrain, and sensitive karst terrain at a scale appropriate for environmental planning. Incorporate these maps into the planning tools used by the county. ENV 6.2 Program and Policy: Adopt policies and procedures that preserve, protect, and restore significant karst features in Montgomery County. ENV 6.2.1 Karst Ordinance: Adopt a Karst or Carbonate Area Ordinance that includes: a. Programs, policies, and/or amendments to established ordinances that will preserve and restore Karst Feature Buffers around karst terrain recharge features (e.g., sinkholes, caves, sinking creeks). b. Programs, policies, and/or amendments to established ordinances that will establish substantial (one thousand [1000] feet) minimum distances from which underground storage tanks and hazardous waste must be kept from karst terrain recharge features (e.g., sinkholes, caves, sinking creeks). c. Programs, policies, and/or amendments to established ordinances that prohibit trash dumps in karst terrain recharge features, especially, but not limited to sinkholes. d. Programs, policies, and/or amendments to established ordinances that substantially increase the minimum septic system standards set by the New River Valley Department of Health to ensure greater groundwater protection in karst areas. Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

ENV 6.3 Public Awareness: Promote public awareness of karst related issues by providing public information on karst geology and water quality. ENV 6.4 Conservation: Encourage and facilitate the application of permanent open space land conservation tools to protect areas of the County identified as sensitive karst. Potential open space tools include, but are not limited to, agricultural-forestal districts conservation easements, large lot zoning, sliding scale zoning, rural cluster zoning, public land acquisition, and the purchase of development rights. Each of these tools is detailed in the open space section of this plan. ENV 6.5 Stormwater Management: Maintain the predevelopment drainage patterns (including the quantity and timing) of runoff draining into karst terrain features. ENV 6.5.1 Karst Feature Overlay Districts: Amend the Montgomery County Subdivision and Zoning ordinances to include a Karst Feature Overlay District (or Limestone Overlay District). Development within this district should maintain pre-development drainage patterns on the site and the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff entering karst terrain features on, and adjacent to, the site. In addition, the construction of any structure in an area determined by a Geophysical Study to be susceptible to subsidence that would be harmful to the public safety or the safety of future residents should be prohibited if the potential harm cannot be mitigated. ENV 6.5.2 Low Impact Development: Amend the Montgomery County Subdivision and Zoning ordinances to allow and strongly encourage the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. It will be necessary to carefully screen the LID tools to ensure that those techniques used in Montgomery County are appropriate for use in karst terrain (please refer to the Karst-LID Workgroup study being conducted by the Northern Shenandoah Planning District Commission, contact details in Appendix II). ENV 6.5.3 Erosion and Sediment Control: Amend the County Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance to protect karst recharge features and encourage land developers to implement additional Best Management 147

Practices (BMPs) to limit the clogging of karst recharge features by sediment. ENV 6.6 Conservation Best Management Practices: Encourage the use of both agricultural and silvicultural BMPs and cost share programs in karst areas, especially the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

ENV 7.0 Stormwater & Erosion Control: County is committed to managing stormwater and erosion in order to protect surface water quality and aquatic habitat vitality, to guard against the loss of landmass and to maintain and enhance human health and safety. (30) ENV 7.1 Stormwater and Erosion Management Program. Develop a proactive stormwater management program designed to address stormwater runoff in watersheds and villages.

ENV 6.6.1 Karst and Ground Water Best Management Practices: Work with the Skyline Soil and Water Conservation District, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Farm Service Agency and the Virginia Department of Forestry to help improve voluntary implementation of karst and groundwater protection BMPs.

ENV 7.1.1 Village Planning and Stormwater Management. Work with the County Engineer to develop a stormwater management plans in tandem with each of the six village plans (Belview, EllistonLafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville). ENV 7.1.2 Comprehensive Watershed Management Study. Conduct a local comprehensive watershed management study for Montgomery County and revise ordinances to address results.

ENV 6.6.2 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program: Strongly encourage landowner participation in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and work with the sponsoring agencies to achieve as a high a participation rate as possible.

ENV 7.1.3 Stormwater Management Database. Create a database of projects, integrated with the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s GIS, that would track projects and activities, including timber operations, which contribute to runoff and erosion.

ENV 6.7 Governmental Cooperation: Work with the towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg, the City of Radford, and the neighboring counties to provide a regional approach to land use management decision-making in karst terrains and karst impacted groundwater and surface water resources.

ENV 7.1.4 Stormwater Management Ordinance. Develop, adopt, and implement a stormwater management ordinance, in line with Phase II of the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (VPDES), including 1) provisions for water quality assessment in site designs and reviews; 2) provisions for strengthening current stormwater management and erosion control requirements; and 3) and provisions which reflect new Virginia Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements (SWPPP) which went into effect July 1, 2004.

ENV 6.7.1 Regional Karst, Groundwater, and Surface Water Roundtables: Enlist the aid of the NRV Planning District Commission and Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission to develop regional roundtables to plan for and address karst terrain and related groundwater and surface water issues. ENV 6.8 Water Quality: Gauge and establish baseline water quality data at all major springs. ENV 6.8.1 Hydrological Studies: Perform hydro studies (dye trace) to delineate recharge areas for major (>0.5 MGD) springs and water supply wells serving > 10 residences or industries.

Cross References and Notes: 30. Stormwater Management is also addressed in UTL 4.0: Stormwater Management (pg. 237). Stormwater management plans for Villages are addressed in PLU1.7.5e Stormwater Management Plans (pg.45).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

148

ENV 7.1.5 Stormwater and Erosion Best Management Practices. Develop a Best Management Practices approach to water management for development and redevelopment, including the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques (clustering, limiting impervious surfaces, use of innovative pavement, etc.). ENV 7.1.6 Public Awareness and Education. Develop an erosion/ stormwater management public awareness program. ENV 7.2 Stormwater Authority. Examine the feasibility of developing of a joint Stormwater Utility (Stormwater Authority), including fee structure, for Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford. ENV 7.3. Compliance. Investigate alternative means of encouraging compliance with erosion and sedimentation control. ENV 7.3.1 Enhanced Inspections. Utilize building inspectors to enhance compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance. Additional building inspector

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Environmental Resources

man-hours required for erosion and sediment control inspection may be funded through a stormwater utility fee. ENV 7.3.2 Pre-Construction Notices. Implement an on-site erosion control pre-construction notice to encourage public enforcement of the Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance. This notice is intended to help ensure that erosion and sediment control measures are properly installed, by including a list of permit conditions and plan requirements prior to construction. Additionally, the public will be put on notice that such construction has been permitted while construction sites without such a notice have not. ENV 7.3.3 Tax Incentives for Riparian Buffer Easements. Provide a tax exemption for land designated as a riparian buffer, if held under a perpetual easement. Riparian buffers protect streams and shorelines from erosion and prevent sedimentation of waterways. Such an exemption is provided for under Article 5, Chapter 36 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia.

149

Health & Human Services Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Health and Human Resources: Executive Summary The Health and Human Services Chapter addresses quality of life issues in the social, natural, and built environment, including the provision of adequate health and human services and facilities. Montgomery County recognizes that healthy communities are communities in which both what we have in common and how we are different are celebrated, and in which the health of the community is measured in the success and satisfaction of all of its residents. There are five key goals included in the Health and Human Services Chapter: • Sustainable and Livable Communities • Quality of Life • Regional Cooperation and Collaboration • Medical and Mental Health Facilities • Human Services and Facilities

Photos by Robert Parker

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Health and Human Services

161

Health and Human Resources: Introduction In the 2003 Community Survey, participants were asked to think about the changes they would like to see over the next 20 years and then describe Montgomery County in 2025. While the focus of the survey was on land use planning issues, the comments generated by the survey were far broader in range and far more inclusive in intent. They covered topics as broad as the need for increased tolerance and diversity in Montgomery County and as focused as the need to address inequities, poverty, and other social issues not generally broached in land use planning based documents. It is important, however, to recognize that the character and quality of land use development, the location of public and private facilities, and the resulting environmental quality have very real consequences on the social, cultural, and health and mental health conditions within. Initially, issues connected to health care were included in the same category as fire, rescue, and law enforcement. However, the results of the community survey indicated a substantial interest in not only health care issues, but also in human service issues, most notably those connected to the provision and distribution of childcare, elder care, and at-risk youth services and facilities. The comments dealing with human service issues can be found in this portion of the report, as well as in comments connected to housing, education, economic development, and parks and recreation. Whether the issue was afterschool programs and community facilities which cater to k-12 students or the provision of a senior accessible frisbee golf course, the subject of services and facilities for both the oldest and youngest citizens turned out to be a key issue for many of the respondents. As Montgomery County and the surrounding region continue to grow, the need for human services will expand. While the Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

provision of shelters and group homes, mental health and at-risk youth facilities are not often popular and all to often provoke NIMBY responses, the reality is that they are facilities which are needed, but rarely addressed in comprehensive plans. As the debates over the construction and expansion of the Carilion Hospital facility, south of Radford, have shown over the last few years, even traditional health care facilities can run into public opposition, especially when their placement is seen as an

encroachment on existing land uses, on historically defined landscapes, or on land values in the vicinity. In other words, while their provision is not often popular, it is all to often necessary and should be taken into consideration in the comprehensive plan. For this reason, the subject of health and human services has been removed from the original element (Public Safety) and is now a separate element. The health and human services chapter is intended to address the development of a livable

Photo by Robert Parker

Health and Human Services

162

and sustainable community for all residents and the provision of future health and human service facilities which go a long way in defining quality of life, including: •Health care facilities (hospitals and clinics); •Mental health facilities (clinics, and public and private treatment centers); •Group homes, shelters, and halfway houses; •Childcare facilities; •Facilities for seniors (daycare, retirement communities, long-term care facilities); •Rehabilitation facilities; •Facilities designed to accommodate those in the community with disabilities; and •Facilities that address the needs of the very poor.

Community Survey Results The community survey asked participants to rank 41 issues, drawn from comments made at previous community meetings. Only one, availability of medical care, was included in the Health and Safety category. Three additional issues, originally connected to other chapters, are also related to this chapter: affordable housing, the quality of manufactured housing parks, and educational opportunities for adults. The majority of concerns included in this chapter, however, did not come from the fortyone issues but from the participants written comments. Participants expressed concern over issues related to both children and senior

Health & Human Resources: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003 4

3.97

3.96

3.93

3.9 3.8 3.7

Mean Score for All Issues = 3.65

3.6 3.5 Mean Score 3.4 3.3

3.4 Educational Opportunities for Adults

Quality of Affordable Housing (Senior, Low Income, Manufactured Housing Parks First Homes)

Increased Access to Health Care Facilities

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Health and Human Services

citizens, including, the provision of daycare for both groups; issues surrounding diversity and human relations, including the need for stronger neighborhoods and affordable housing; issues surrounding human potential, including job training, access to resources, living wages, and greater opportunity; and issues connected to improving and maintaining the quality of life of Montgomery County residents. Educational Opportunities for Adults Of the four issues included in the “rank these issues” portion of the survey, educational opportunities for adults scored the highest, with a mean score of 3.97. Of those who responded, 73% rated educational opportunities for adults as either important or very important. Their written comment clearly reflected this level of concern. Participants noted the need for additional adult educational opportunities at the local universities, affordable night classes, an increased emphasis on vocational training opportunities for adults and non-college bound students, improved educational benefits, support of literacy efforts, adequate funding, and equal educational opportunities. A number of the participants saw access to education as central to quality of life and economic opportunity. One respondent commented that “Part of the charm of the county is the rural feel with opportunities available for citizens to better themselves.” Another suggested that the County “ educate single parents with affordable education to improve income.” Still another wrote that: “Montgomery County should be an area known for its excellent educational opportunities for all. Facilities and personnel should be provided to meet the needs of a growing, prosperous community.”

163

Increased Access to Health Care. Both in their ranking of the “increased access to health care” as an issue and in their written responses, participants clearly saw access to both health care and mental health care as important issues. Of those who responded to the survey, 74% ranked increased access to health care as either important or very important. Of those participants who had never participated in a planning input session, 75% rated increased access to health care as important or very important. Finally, of those age 50 and older, 78% rated increase access to health care as important or very important. Participants concern for access to health care was reflected in many of their written comments. This was especially true for those respondents who lived in Eastern Montgomery County, where the closest hospital is located not in Montgomery County but in Roanoke. Of those who wrote written responses, most focused on the quality and quantity of health care in Montgomery County, as well as health care for the poor and uninsured. As one participant noted, “ people get sick on days other than Tuesday.” Another saw the issue in terms of “universal accessibility.” Many of the respondents, however, tied health care to the needs of a growing retirement

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

population. One participant wrote that inasmuch as Montgomery County “is becoming a retirement community, a new medical center” is needed. Surprisingly, the concern over health care was relatively strong among student respondents as well, although the emphasis was on access to affordable health care and the need for additional health care facilities rather than the provision of services for senior citizens. As one student, from eastern portion of Montgomery County, noted “ there are no doctors to help you.” Others commented that there were no doctors’ offices or hospitals. Students suggested getting more hospitals, more doctors, more nurses, “hospitals closer to us," and “getting more health departments.” In addition, students were asked if they could talk to the members of the Board of Supervisors, what would they say. One student wrote that s/he would “like to live close to a doctor.” Another wrote that s/he would “tell them we need more hospitals and doctors offices.” Indeed, concerns about proximity and availability of doctors and hospitals were the central themes in the students comments about health care.

questions, including elder and childcare, diversity, poverty, and equity. Citizens’ interests in healthcare went beyond just the issues of proximity or access. A few respondents suggested increasing the number of specialists in Montgomery County, encouraging a trend that has marked the County’s growth over the past 30 years. Since 1970, there has been a decreased reliance on medical facilities in Roanoke as the number of professionals and medical specialists have increased in the County. Other participants felt there was a need to increase medical services aimed at senior citizens, including a greater number of long-term care facilities and programs Participants noted the need for expanding senior and youth facilities and programs, including: child and adult daycare facilities, and youth services, programs, and facilities. Perhaps not surprisingly, comments on the community survey tended to focus far more on the needs of seniors and less on youth services,

Affordable Housing Affordable Housing, which garnered nearly as many written comments as environmental and economic development issues, had a mean score of 3.93, with 73% of respondents rating affordable housing as either important or very important. The issue of the quality/livability of mobile home parks had a far lower score (mean=3.4), with 55% of survey participants rating the issue either important of very important. Issues Raised in Citizen Comments In addition to the issues included in the “rate this issue” portion of the citizen survey, a wide variety of issues were introduced in citizen and student responses to the open ended Health and Human Services

164

whereas the exact opposite was true in the student surveys. Both groups (citizens and students) raised the issue of diversity and the need for cohesive response towards issues related to equity and poverty in Montgomery County. The issues of diversity and equity generated some of the more specific comments in the participants’ written responses. One participant wrote that the county needed to pay “attention to race relations, poverty, and limited income housing” Another suggested that the county needed to become a “welcoming community for all races, sexual orientations, and socioeconomic groups.” Others suggested that Montgomery County “embrace diversity,” while providing” opportunities for growth.” and that "Montgomery County should be a place where different cultural, ethnic, and economic strata can prosper with their social and basic needs met.” Finally, one noted that: As any concerned citizen, I would like to see Montgomery County improve in areas of Race issues for minorities and the less fortunate. Participants suggested a number of possible solutions or starting points for addressing diversity and equity issues. One participant suggested increased“ collaboration/ communication among diverse groups.” A number of participants suggested increased “minority representation in the schools and government.” In addition, a number of

lack of youth programs and activities. In one of the letters to the members of the Board of Supervisors, a student wrote:

participants suggested a greater emphasis on the development of mixed income neighborhoods. One wrote, “I would like to see a county with mixed income levels living together in neighborhoods” mirroring a “concern for the less affluent to have ready & affordable access to workplace & home. Student respondents addressed the issues of diversity, poverty, and other social concerns at a greater rate and covering a broader range of topics than did the adults, although their comments were not generally as detailed. While citizen comments focused primarily on diverse neighborhoods and increased opportunity, students wrote about problems of homelessness, lack of jobs and opportunities, poverty, and the

“The county could definitely find a way to deal with the poverty in the area. They could focus more on helping poor families and provide them with better benefits and services.” Another wrote that “With better education, the poverty level will decrease and our community would function more efficiently.” When asked what issues they felt Montgomery County was facing, students cited population growth, drugs and alcohol, and helping people in need.

Population: % Increase in Montgomery County, 1970-2000 Frederick Clarke

Loudoun

Warren

Fairfax

Fauquier

Shenandoah

% Ratio to County Increase State Rate Floyd County 43% 0.82 Giles County 0% 0.00 Montgomery County 69% 1.31 Pulaski County 19% 0.35 Roanoke County 23% 0.45

Prince William

Rappahannock

Page Culpeper

Stafford

King George

Rockingham

Madison

Westmorland Orange

Greene Highland

Spotsylvania

Augusta

Louisa Hanover

Fluvanna Goochland Rockbridge

Powatan Buckingham Cumberland Amelia

Botetourt

Appomattox Bedford

Prince Edward

Nottoway

Campbell Roanoke

Giles

King King and William Queen

Middlesex

NorthMathews ampton Gloucester James Henrico City Charles City York Chesterfield Poquoson Newport Hampton Surrey Prince News George Norfolk Isle of Virginia Wight Dinwiddie Beach Sussex

Charlotte

Chesapeake

Lunenburg

Suffolk

Montgomery

Brunswick

1. A fuller treatment of student survey comments can be found in the student survey pages (available online at www. Montva.com and on the cd-rom version of the plan. Additional analysis can be found in the “Listening to Students,” a pdf. report (available for download from both the website and, on the cd-rom, and in the hardcopy versions of the plan distributed to the public libraries. 2. Much of the health and human services data (education, environment, economic, housing, public safety, and transportation) is dealt with in other chapters. The discussion in this chapter covers the basic demographics for Montgomery County and the current Health and Human Service indicators.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Buchanan

Bland

Franklin

Mecklenburg

Wise

Southampton Greenville

Pittsylvania

Floyd

Dickenson

Halifax

Pulaski

Tazewell

Lan caster

New Kent

Nelson

Amherst

Craig

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Albemarle

Bath

Alleghany

State % Increase = 52.5%, 1970-2000

Essex Caroline

Wythe Russell

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick Grayson

Henry

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970, 2000.

1.31 and above: Significantly above state rate 1.11 to 1.30: Moderately above state rate .90 to 1.10: Within range of state rate .70 to .89: Moderately below rate .69 and below: Significantly below state rate Jurisdiction lost population

Health and Human Services

165

Washington Lee

Scott

Age by Gender, 1980-2000

Montgomery County: Population Characteristics, 2000 Ratio of Population, Females to 2000 Census Males 83,629 100:110 Montgomery County Unincorporated Areas 26,109 100: 1.36 Christiansburg 16,947 100:92.7 Blacksburg 39,573 100:127 Elliston-Lafayette 1,241 100:92.4 Shawsville 1,029 100:100.6 Merrimac 1,751 100:82

Unincorporated Areas Christiansburg Blacksburg Elliston-Lafayette Shawsville Merrimac Montgomery

Median Age 26 n/g 35 22 35 34 40

Average Household Size 2.4 2.43 2.35 2.37 2.53 2.39 1.82

African American Native 2 or More White American Indian Races Asian Hawaiian Other 26093 498 70 163 5 90 190 15783 819 36 70 3 81 155 33394 1738 45 3087 22 355 932 1140 50 7 2 2 13 27 990 11 6 1 0 5 16 1652 33 10 34 0 6 16 75270 3055 151 3320 30 526 1277 Total Minority Population Unincorporated Christiansburg Blacksburg Elliston-Lafayette Shawsville Merrimac Montgomery

Minority Population: % of Whole

1016 1164 6179 101 39 99 8359

3.75% 6.87% 15.61% 8.14% 3.79% 5.71% 10.00%

Total Population 27109 16947 39573 1241 1029 1735 83629

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Health and Human Services

166

The students’ biggest area of concern, however, dealt with the belief that the County was not providing them with adequate facilities and programs, both in education and in recreation and entertainment. A number of participants commented on the connection between the lack of youth programs and the likelihood that youth would “get into trouble.” One student suggested “that we put more places for teenagers in so that they can get off the street.” Another wrote, “If I could talk to the Board of Supervisors, I would say that we need more activities to keep kids out of trouble." (1) Historic and Current Conditions and Trends General Population Characteristics In 1980, the population of Montgomery County was 63, 516. Of that population, 48% lived in Blacksburg, 16% lived in Christiansburg, and the remaining 34% lived in the unincorporated areas of county. In 2000, both Blacksburg and the unincorporated areas of Montgomery County saw their percentage of the overall population decline (47% and 32%, respectively). Christiansburg, on the other hand, now houses 20% of the county’s population. Indeed, of the three areas of the county, Christiansburg experienced the highest growth rate, 39%, from 1980 to 2000. While part of the rapid expansion in the population in Christiansburg can be attributed to annexations during the period of time, one need only drive through Christiansburg and look at all of the new development to know that annexation is not the only explanation. Race While Montgomery County is still predominantly White, the minority population has increased from less than 5% in 1980 to slightly less than 10% in 2000. People of Asian ancestry account for much of the increase in the minority population (4% of the population in 2000, up from 1% in 1980). Increases were Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Montgomery County: Median Family (MFI) and Household Income (MHI), Number of Households per Income Group, 2000 Less than $10,000 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$32,330 $32,331-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000 or more Total

# of Households 4,397 2,722 5,230 3,178 846 4,999 5,015 2,398 1,482 321 466 31,054

Program/Income Category Income Sec. 8 Housing: Max. Income (50% of MHI) $16,165 Per Capita Income (2000) $17,077 Poverty Threshold (USCB, 2002, Family of 4) $18,244 Poverty Rate (HHS, 2002, Family of 4) $18,400 Free Lunch Program: (Upper Cutoff, 2002) $23,920 Median Household Income (2000) $32,330 Reduced Lunch Program (Upper Cutoff, 2002) $33,120 Median Family Income (2000) $47,329 $137,500 Median Priced Home, 2002 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 US Census (Factfinder); U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2003; Montgomery County Department of Social Services, 2003; Montgomery County Assessor, 2003.

also seen in the African American and Native American communities. It should be noted that the U.S.Census changed the way they viewed and accounted for race in the 2000 Census. Prior to 2000, respondents were asked to identify themselves based on a single racial designation; in 2000, respondents were asked to designate, if applicable, more than one race. The change in approach has had an effect on the representation of some groups, most notably Native Americans, by expanding the group’s base population through the inclusion of individuals who may only be part Native American. Hispanic Origin In 1980, Hispanics accounted for less than 1% of the population. While their percentage is still very low (2% of the population in 2000), the Hispanic community experienced a 61% growth rate between 1980 and 2000.

Although English is still the primary language, spoken in 93% of the homes in the County, that figure is down from 95.1% in 1980. Of those respondents who identified a different language as their primary “at home” language (including Spanish, Indoeuropean languages, and Asian and Pacific Islander languages), 64% indicated that they speak English “very well.” In terms of government services, the relatively low percentage of Spanish speaking residents has meant that local government program information, including planning information, has been provided, primarily, in English, although this is likely to change as the Hispanic population increases. Age Age still remains one of the most telling features of the Montgomery County population, especially when factoring in the impact of Virginia Tech students on the age distribution

Language Health and Human Services

167

Montgomery County: Family Characteristics, 2000 Number of Households

70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0%

37.5% 45.9%

30.0% 20.0% 10.0%

16.6%

0.0% Unincorporated Areas Christiansburg

% of Households with Children Under 18

Blacksburg

Notes: 1. The statistics for Montgomery County, includes the towns, the unincorporated portion of the County, the villages of Elliston and Shawsville, and the Merrimac community. Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census. Number of Households

% of % of Households Households with Married with Female Couples Householder, no Husband Present

% of Households that are NonFamilies

% of Households with Individual Living Alone

Montgomery County

Christiansburg

Elliston-Lafayette

Unincorporated Areas

Blacksburg

Shawsville

Percentage of Percentage of Households Households with Children with Married Under 18 Couples

Percentage of Households with Female Householder, no Husband Present

Merrimac

Percentage of Households that are NonFamilies

Percentage of Households with Individual Living Alone

Percentage of Households with Individual, 65 or Older, Living Alone

Montgomery County

30,977

25%

45%

44%

25%

Unincorporated Areas

10,742

32%

59%

10%

29%

23%

Christiansburg

7,093

31%

53%

11%

33%

27%

13,162

16%

29%

64%

27%

Elliston-Lafayette

489

34%

50%

15%

29%

24%

10%

Shawsville

431

35%

49%

12%

31%

24%

Merrimac

889

18%

29%

60%

54%

25%

Blacksburg

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Health and Human Services

% of Households with Individual, 65 or Older, Living Alone

168

in the County. Currently, residents between the ages of 18 and 21 make up slightly more than 1/5th (21.6%) of the county’s population. Of this population, 57% are male and 43% are female. The gender disparity in this population is due, primarily, to Virginia Tech. According to Tech, 58% of their students, in the fall of 1999 were males and 42% were females. A similar pattern can be seen in the 22-29 age group, which, presumably, includes the majority of graduate students at Virginia Tech. With the exception of those 65 and older, the population, by gender, is within a four point spread, indicating a reasonably balanced population. This balance, however, disappears within the retirement age population (65 and older), with women far outnumbering men. For those 65 to 79, there is slightly more than an 11 point spread between men and women. For those 80 and older, the spread increases to more than a 36 point spread. Retiree Population While retirees do not represent a large percentage of the population (8.6%), there has been a increase in the retiree population in the past two decades (39.6%). Part of the increase can be attributed to the construction and expansion of both Warm Hearth Village and Wheatland in the past 20 years. Given the size

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

of the Baby Boom Generation (those born between 1944 and 1963 and represented by the 40 to 49 and the 50 to 64 cohorts, the county can expect a far greater increase in the number and percentage of retirees over the next 20 years. Indeed, by 2025, the entire Baby Boom generation will be over the age of 65. Households and Families In 2000, there were 30,977 households in Montgomery County, 34.6% of which (10,742) were located in the unincorporated areas and villages. Between 1990 and 2000, there was an 18.1% increase in the number of households. During the same period of time, the number of housing units increased by 17.1% in the county as a whole, and by 18.4% in the unincorporated areas. Of the occupied housing units (95.3% occupancy rate), 55.2% were owner occupied and 44.8% were renter occupied. Not surprisingly, while the majority of occupied units in Christiansburg and the unincorporated areas were owner occupied (66.9% and 77.6%, respectively), the majority of units in Blacksburg were renter occupied (69.5%), reflecting the presence of a large student population. Household and family composition represents one of the most diverse categories in the U.S. Census data and also clearly illustrate the differences between the two towns and the unincorporated area of the county. While 25% of the households in Montgomery County, as a whole, include children under 18, only 16% in Blacksburg do. Christiansburg and the unincorporated areas of the county (excepting Merrimac where 18% of the households include children) have roughly the same percentages (31% in Christiansburg, 32% in the unincorporated areas). Shawsville has the highest percentage of households with children under 18 present at 35%. The same trends hold true for the percentage of households with married couples: 59% in the unincorporated areas, 53% in Christiansburg, and 29% in Blacksburg. In the unincorporated Health and Human Services

areas, Elliston-Lafayette has the highest percentage of households with married couples, while Merrimac has the lowest (29%). Although the number of households with a female householder with no husband present accounts for a relatively low percentage overall (8%), the percentage varies a great deal, with a low of 5% in Blacksburg and a high of 15% in Elliston Lafayette (15%). A significant portion of the households in the county are “non-family” (44%). The “nonfamily” designation is a misnomer in the sense that it includes individuals living alone (25% of total households), non-traditional families (including unmarried couples), widowed senior citizens living alone (7% of total households), as well as student households most typically associated with universities. Reflecting the presence of students, 64% of Blacksburg’s households are considered “non-families.” In the unincorporated areas, “non-families” account for 29% of the total households. EllistonLafayette has the lowest percentage of nonfamily households (29%), while Merrimac has the highest percentage (60%). Merrimac also has the highest percentage of households in the county with individuals living alone (54%) and individuals over 65 living alone (25%). Inasmuch as the U.S.Census Bureau includes Warm Hearth in the Merrimac area, the higher percentages are not particularly surprising. 169

Child Day Care Capacity (number slots per 1,000 children, ages 0-11, 2002) Virginia Montgomery Co. Floyd Co. Giles Co. Pulaski Co. Radford Roanoke Co. Roanoke Salem Albemarle Co. Charlottesville Augusta Co. Staunton Waynesboro Hanover Co. Rockingham Co. Harrisonburg Spotsylvania Co. Fredericksburg Stafford Co. Notes:

1995 186 235 38 123 116 307 231 274 521 103 611 74 355 193 353 51 144 79 274 127

Montgomery County: Child Care Capacity, 1995-2002

2002 255 303 57 125 143 375 228 487 655 99 1038 153 404 363 418 163 246 147 641 225

Percentage Difference: 1995 to 2002 37.10% 28.94% 50.00% 1.63% 23.28% 22.15% -1.30% 77.74% 25.72% -3.88% 69.89% 106.76% 13.80% 88.08% 18.41% 219.61% 70.83% 86.08% 133.94% 77.17%

1.19 0.22 0.49 0.56 1.47 0.89 1.91 2.57 0.39 4.07 0.60 1.58 1.42 1.64 0.64 0.96 0.58 2.51 0.88

28.7% 37.5%

30.2%

37.4% 4.6% 15.0%

5.7% 14.3% 12.5%

1995 Montgomery Co.

2002 Pulaski Co.

14.2%

Floyd Co.

Radford

Giles Co. Frederick Clarke

Loudoun

Warren

Fairfax

Fauquier

Shenandoah

Comparison of Local to State Rate for Child Care Capacity: 2002

Prince William

Rappahannock

Page Culpeper

Stafford

King George

Rockingham

Madison

Westmorland Orange

Greene Highland

Spotsylvania

Essex Caroline

Augusta

King King and William Queen

Middlesex

Fluvanna Goochland Rockbridge

Cumberland

Amherst

Alleghany

Botetourt

Appomattox

Henrico Charles City

Bedford

Craig

James City

Chesterfield

Amelia Prince Edward

Nottoway

Prince George

Surrey

Gloucester York Newport News

Isle of Wight

Dimwiddie

Campbell Roanoke

Giles

Charlotte Lunenburg

Franklin

Mecklenburg

Tazewell

Wise

Virginia Beach

Suffolk Southampton Greenville

Pittsylvania

Floyd

Dickenson

Halifax

Pulaski

Norfolk

Chesapeake Brunswick

Bland

Poquoson Hampton

Sussex

Montgomery

Buchanan

Northampton

Mathews New Kent

Nelson Buckingham

Lee

Lan caster

Louisa Hanover

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Albemarle

Bath

Powatan

1. The data is point-in-time. 2. The rate reflects only those child care facilities which are regulated by the Virginia Dept. of Social Services. It does not include unregulated facilities, informal childcare arrangements (a neighbor, a family member, etc), or households with at least one stay-at-home parent. 3. As the map to the right indicates, licensed child care facilities are primarily an urban phenomena. While Montgomery and Hanover counties have the highest county rates for non-urban areas, their rates are misleading due to the presence of large towns (Blacksburg and Christiansburg) within the countiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; boundaries. When the urban areas in each county are factored in, Montgomery County has the third lowest rate of comparative counties. Locally, Montgomery County and Radford City have the highest rates of child care capacity, both well above the state rate of 255 positions per 1,000 children ages 0-11.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Regional Share of Child Care Capacity, by Jurisdiction, 1995 and 2002

Ratio to State Rate, 2002

Wythe Russell

Washington

Carroll

Smyth

Patrick

Henry

Grayson

Scott

Sources: Virginia Department of Social Services, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau: 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census.

Health and Human Services

Above 130: Significantly above state average 1.11 to 1.30: Moderately above state average 1.00 State Rate: 255 per 1,000 children, ages 0-11 .90 to 1.10 Within range of state average .70 to .89 Moderately below state average Below .70: Significantly below state average

170

Total Number of Pregnancies, 1995 and 2000

2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250

219

267

484

482

237 185

500

Five Year Infant Mortality Rate per 1000 Live Births

297 184

1219

1991-1995 1996-2000 Virginia 7.7 7.3 Montgomery 2.5 3.4 Floyd 0 5.6 Giles 20.7 6.8 Pulaski 17.4 5.6 Radford 9.2 9

1087

250 0

1995

Virginia Montgomery

2000 Floyd Giles

Pulaski Radford

Percentage Receiving Prenatal Care in 1st Trimester

Birth Rate Per 1000 Population Virginia Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

1995 14.0 10.4 12.6 11.8 11.7 6.5

% Nonmarital births 36.0% 33.0%

1000 750

Natality: Montgomery County, 1995 and 2001

2001 14.0 9.8 11.4 15.2 11.7 10.0

Virginia Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

1995 82.4% 84.8% 87.1% 71.5% 85.4% 82.6%

2001 84.6% 87.7% 81.6% 86.6% 84.9% 88.7%

30.0% 27.0% 24.0% 21.0% 18.0% 15.0%

1995 Virginia Montgomery

Floyd Giles

%Nonmarital births Virginia Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

2001 Pulaski Radford

1995 29.3% 20.7% 16.8% 26.9% 32.0% 29.4%

2001 30.0% 23.8% 24.1% 26.0% 30.4% 33.3%

Childbearing Population, 2002, Rate per 1000

Population: Population: Total No. of Total No. of Population by Age of Mother Females Females Teenage Teenage Ages 10-19, Ages 10-19, Live Births, Pregnancies, Ages 10-19, Ages 10-19, Ages 15-17, Ages 15-17, Ages 18-19, Ages 18-19, 1995 2002 1995 (1) 2001 (1) 1995 2002 1995 2002 1995 2002 Virginia 37.4 31.5 51.1 33.4 59.5 103.6 Montgomery 5,708 6,679 75 150 26.4 22.5 44.8 24.9 37.8 32.6 Floyd 722 838 17 19 31 22.7 50.1 24.4 65 94.9 Giles 1,938 977 40 38 51.5 38.9 62.9 51.8 60.5 140 Pulaski 1,940 1,914 72 66 45 34.5 38.6 42.6 55.9 121.6 Radford 2,264 2,020 24 44 21.6 21.8 74.3 30.9 17.3 24.8 Note: (1) In 1995, the VDH provided the total number of live births; in 2001, the VDH provided the number of teenage pregnancies. There is no way to determine the outcome of the pregnancies. Sources: Virginia Department of Health, 2004; Virginia Primary Care Data Profile, Virginia Primary Care Association, Inc., January, 1998; Virginia Health Statistics, 1995, Center for Health Statistics, Virginia Department of Health, January 1997; Virginia Primary Care Data Profile, Virginia Primary Care Association, Inc. January 2001; Virginia Health Statistics 2000 Annual Report--Volumes 1 & III, Center for Health Statistics, Virginia Department of Health, February 2002.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Health and Human Services

171

Montgomery County: Mortality, 1995 and 2002 Mortality Rate (per 100,000 in population), 1995 and 2002

Montgomery County: 10 Leading Causes of Death, 1995 and 2002

1250 1200 1150 1100 1050 1000 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Heart Disease Cancer Cerebrovascular Disease Chronic Lower Respiratory/COPD (1)

1995

Unintentional Injury Pneumonia/Influenza Diabetes Mellitus Suicide Septicemia 2002

Alzheimers Disease (2)

U.S. Death Rate, 1995 (502.9) U.S. Death Rate, 2002 (872.4) Death From All Causes, 1995 Virginia

Floyd

Giles Montgomery Pulaski

Death From All Causes, 2002

Radford

HIV/AIDS (3)

Notes: 1) Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease includes COPD. 2) Alzheimers was not included in the 1995 list. 3) AIDS/HIV was not included in the 2002 list.

10 Leading Causes of Death (rate per 100,000 in population), 1995 and 2002 United States 1995 2002

Virginia 1995 2002

Floyd 1995 2002

Giles 1995 2002

Montgomery 1995 2002

Pulaski 1995 2002

Radford 1995 2002

Heart Disease

138.2

257.5

137.2

214.7

127.7

237.9

147.6

354.2

143.9

161.4

164.9

318.8

147.4

220.7

Cancer

129.8

20.5

132.7

190.4

72.6

176.8

135.9

216.1

98.6

120.8

120.3

279.0

134.2

220.7

Cerebrovascular Disease

26.7

60.2

29.4

57.6

15.5

72.1

33.2

96.1

32.0

56.2

30.8

79.7

29.0

56.8

Chronic Lower Respiratory/COPD (1)

21.2

44.9

20.5

39.7

13.4

73.2

15.7

120.1

21.2

37.1

21.0

76.9

30.0

50.4

Unintentional Injury

29.2

33.9

27.8

33.3

75.6

93.7

65.8

66.0

24.0

23.9

39.9

59.8

19.2

18.9

Pneumonia/Influenza

13.0

24.3

13.3

21.3

14.8

26.6

12.2

18.0

13.4

17.9

14.0

45.5

0.0

25.2

Diabetes Mellitus

13.2

24.9

11.7

22.0

0.0

25.4

15.0

24.0

18.1

16.7

6.7

51.2

2.7

18.9

Suicide

15.4

10.3

11.4

10.9

7.4

10.3

0.0

36.0

0.0

3.6

2.7

11.4

0.0

25.2

Septicemia

11.0

11.5

11.2

15.5

0.0

9.1

34.6

24.0

10.6

3.6

21.3

14.2

14.3

12.6

Alzheimers Disease (2) HIV/AIDS (3)

17.8 4.1

15.5 6.4

19.4 3.6

42.0 0.0

14.3 4.3

22.8 9.1

12.6 2.7

Sources: Virginia Department of Health, 2004, Center for Disease Control, 1995, 2000, 2001.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Health and Human Services

172

Montgomery County, Distribution of Transfer Payments, 1970-2000 (Number in Thousands) Total Personal Current Transfer Payments, 1970-2000 $250,000,000 $225,000,000 $200,000,000 $175,000,000 $150,000,000

Montgomery + Radford Pulaski Giles Floyd

$125,000,000 $100,000,000 $75,000,000 $50,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 1970

1980

1990

2000

Total personal current transfer receipts Government payments to individuals Retirement and disability insurance benefit payments Medical payments Income maintenance benefit payments Unemployment insurance benefit payments Veterans benefit payments Fed ed. and training assistance payments (excl.vets) Other payments to individuals Payments to nonprofit institutions Federal government payments State and local government payments Business payments Business payments to individuals

Note: Transfer payments refer to payments from a government agency, or in some cases a business, to other government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and individuals. For example, Social Security tranfers government monies to individuals. In 2000, direct government payments to individuals accounted for 90% of total personal current transfer receipts, up slightly from 1970 (88%). The distribution, however of government payments to individuals has shifted dramatically. In 1970, medical payments accounted for 8.8% of the total government payments to individuals and retirement 64.9% of the government payments to individuals, while the remaining 26.3% divided between income maintenance (SSI, family assistance, food stamps, and housing programs), unemployment, and veterans benefits. By 2002, the most recent year available, medical payments accounted for 34.9% of the government payments to individuals, while retirement payments dropped to 47.9% of the total. The remaining 17.2% of the government payments to individuals were distributed between income maintenance, unemployment, and veterans benefit programs. Finally, it should be noted that in the same period of time, family assistance (AFDC and TANF) dropped from 1.26% to .69% of government payments to individuals and food stamps decreased from 1.48% to 1.25%. Only housing and other subsidies (heating, emergency repair, etc.) rose from 1.17% to 4.03%, reflecting the impact of the increased cost of housing. 1970 12893 11417 7414 1010 571 443 1870 108 (L) 854 470 151 233 622

1975 36404 32965 17782 4212 3137 2906 3874 656 398 1578 568 614 396 1861

1980 65243 59751 33822 9705 5348 3081 3970 3815 (L) 3347 1108 1432 807 2145

1985 99305 88905 52387 17985 6794 2492 5261 3968 (L) 4242 1068 1626 1548 6158

1990 138129 125901 69507 31900 9961 2349 5091 7043 50 5887 1443 2716 1728 6341

1995 190446 177258 87055 56826 17290 1091 6413 8460 123 9172 2146 4376 2650 4016

2000 243194 220097 110314 74121 18386 1047 7859 8155 215 11850 2572 5501 3777 11247

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Profiles, 2004. Notes: (L)=Amount is less than $50,000. Other payments to Individuals consist BIA, education exchange, survivor benefits for families of public officers, victim compensation, disaster relief, and other special payments to individuals. State and Local government payments consist of education assistance and other payments to nonprofit organizations. Business payments to individuals consist of personal injury and other business transfer payments.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Health and Human Services

173

Montgomery County: Childhood Poverty, 1993-2003 100

Children Receiving TANF/AFDC (number per 1,000 children) (1) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Virginia 83 83 81 73 46 46 39 32 28 27 Floyd 38 43 45 49 26 26 18 17 15 18 Giles 48 44 43 36 26 26 20 19 15 16 Montgomery 74 70 67 57 44 43 40 31 26 29 Pulaski 76 73 75 67 49 49 40 33 29 31 Radford 90 90 96 84 52 53 47 41 37 37 Notes: 1.Prior to 1996, figures refer to Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which did not have a fixed time frame for subsidies. For 1996 and after, figures refer to Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), which places a 2 year lifetime cap on subsidies.

Fairfax

Fauquier

Page

Prince William

Rappahannock

Stafford

Culpeper King George

Madison

Westmorland Spotsylvania

King King and William Queen

Hanover

Lan caster Middlesex

Fluvanna

Bath

Goochland Gloucester James City Charles City York

Henrico

Powatan Buckingham Cumberland

Amherst

Chesterfield

Amelia Appomattox Bedford

Prince Edward

Nottoway

Prince George

Surrey

Newport News Isle of Wight

Dimwiddie

Campbell

Montgomery

Virginia Beach

Suffolk

Halifax Mecklenburg

Tazewell

Norfolk

Southampton

Brunswick Franklin

Hampton

Chesapeake

Lunenburg

Roanoke

Poquoson

Sussex

Charlotte

Pulaski

Northampton

Mathews

New Kent

Nelson

Botetourt

Accomack

NorthRichmond umberland

Essex Caroline

Albemarle

Louisa

Bland

Buchanan

Warren

Shenandoah

Orange

Giles

Loudoun

Greene

Craig

20 Clarke

Augusta

Alleghany

Frederick

Highland

Rockbridge

Rockingham

Comparison of Local to State Average for Students, K-12, Qualifying for Free or Reduced Lunch: 2002

Greenville

Pittsylvania

Floyd

Dickenson Wythe Wise

Russell

Smyth Carroll

Washington Lee

Patrick

Children Receiving TANF/AFDC (Number per 1,000 Children)

Henry

Grayson

Scott

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Virginia Floyd

Giles Montgomery

Pulaski Radford

Notes: 2. Students from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged no more than 40 cents. $18,244 3. Poverty Threshold (USCB, 2002, Family of 4) Poverty Rate (HHS, 2002, Family of 4) $18,400 Free Lunch Program: (Upper Cutoff, 2002) $23,920 Reduced Lunch Program (Upper Cutoff, 2002) $33,120 4.According to the USCB, 8.8% of families, 12.8% of families with related children under age 18, and 16.6% of families with related children under age 5 were at or below the poverty level.

% of Students Eligible for the Free or Reduced Lunch Program, 1993-2003 Above 130: Significantly above state average 1.11 to 1.30: Moderately above state average 1.00 State Rate: 32% K-12 in 2002 .90 to 1.10 Within range of state average .70 to .89 Moderately below state average Below .70: Significantly below state average

Virginia Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

(2)

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 29% 30% 31% 32% 32% 32% 31% 31% 31% 32% 33% 26% 29% 33% 29% 30% 29% 29% 28% 28% 31% 33% 28% 27% 27% 26% 31% 30% 30% 29% 33% 34% 32% 31% 30% 31% 30% 30% 30% 28% 28% 29% 31% 32% 30% 31% 31% 32% 32% 33% 33% 32% 34% 37% 37% 19% 19% 20% 19% 19% 19% 18% 17% 22% 23% 23%

Sources: Virginia Department of Education, 2004; Virginia Department of Social Services, 2004; Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004; Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2004. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003; U.S Census Bureau, 2003.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Health and Human Services

174

Health and Human Services: Goals HHS 1.0 Sustainable and Livable Communities: Promote development patterns in Montgomery County which enhance the diversity; recognize the interrelatedness of land use, economic development, quality of live, social, health, and environmental issues; and enable the development of a livable and sustainable community for all citizens. (1) HHS 2.0 Quality of Life: Promote a fair and equitable approach to quality of life issues, including housing, jobs, transportation, education, and community amenities. (2) HHS 2.1 Affordable Housing. Montgomery County should promote affordable housing and livable neighborhoods and communities. (3) HHS 2.2 Economic Development. Establish and support an economic development policy that : 1) provides a living wage; 2) encourages diversity and accessibility; 3) increases access to job training and retraining opportunities; and 4) expands opportunities for job advancement and improved quality of life for all citizens.

with a special emphasis on job-related transportation for the disabled and for lower income individuals and families. (4) HHS 2.4 Technical and Vocational Education Facilities and Programs. Expand technical and job related training through a partnership with Virginia Tech, Radford University, New River Community College, and the Montgomery County Public Schools, as well as other public and private vocational and job training programs in Montgomery County through the reuse of abandoned or decommissioned educational facilities and funded through public/ private partnerships. (5) HHS 2.5 Community Facilities. Equitably distribute new cultural and recreational facilities throughout Montgomery County in order to provide greater access to social, cultural, and recreational opportunities to all county residents.

HHS 2.3 Transportation. Provide increased access to and variety of public transportation opportunities for all citizens,

Cross References and Notes: 1. Sustainable and livable communities is also addressed in HSG 1.0: Livable Neighborhoods (pg. 189) and HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 190). 2. While much of this plan deals with improving citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; quality of life, specific references are contained in ECD 1.0: Economic Development, Land Use, and Quality of Life (pg. 99). 3. The work group promoted the following affordable housing strategies: 1) mixed income developments through the implementation of a 25% affordable housing requirement for all new developments such that the units will be interspersed throughout the development rather than encouraging ghettoization (clustering of affordable units in one area); 2) development of smaller housing stock (starter homes) of 1,000-1,500 square feet on smaller lots by providing developers with density bonuses; 3) accessory dwelling development in higher density areas in order to provide greater access to and dispersion of rental units; 4) provision of individual eldercare opportunities for families by allowing accessory dwellings on all lots in the county used for residential purposes; 5) mixed-use developments which allow residential, commercial, institutional, and/or industrial uses within a single development; 6) encourage increased development and density in areas where public utilities and services area available; and 7) establish and enforce a property maintenance in order to address housing standards in Montgomery County.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 4. Public transportation is addressed in TRN 3.0 Mass Transit (pg. 223) and TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation (pg. 224). 5. Education and Technical/Vocational Training are addressed in ECD 2.0: Workforce Development (pg. 100) and EDU 2.1 Technical and Vocational Education (pg.117). 6. The location of community facilities are addressed in PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg.41); PLU 1.7: Villages (pg. 43); and PLU 1.8: Urban Expansion Areas (pg, 45) as well as the chapters covering Cultural Resources, Educational Resources, and Recreational Resources.

Health & Human Resource

175

HHS 3.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration: Promote regional, local, and intergovernmental cooperation in the development and distribution of health and human services, with a special emphasis on public/private cooperation and collaborative efforts. (7) HHS 3.1 Interjurisdictional Cooperation: Work with the NRV Planning District Commission to establish a interjurisdictional task force to assess and monitor health and human service related issues both in Montgomery County and in the New River Valley.

HHS 4.0 Medical and Mental Health: To promote and, when possible, help facilitate the equitable distribution of medical and mental health services and facilities, including hospitals, clinics, special care facilities, and fire and rescue services throughout the county, with a special emphasis on underserved populations or areas of the county. (8) HHS 4.1 Health Care Facilities. Identify and designate areas appropriate and adequate for the location of long- and short-term medical and mental health care facilities, with a special emphasis on the siting of long term eldercare facilities.

HHS 3.1.1 County Office on Cooperation: Establish an office that would provide: 1) linkages between public and nonprofit agencies and between jurisdictions; 2) grantwriting resources for public/nonprofit partnerships; 3) generation of public information for public and nonprofit agencies.

HHS 4.2 Emergency Care Facilities. In conjunction with the Health Department, the Free Clinic, and other public and nonprofit agencies, develop and site an emergency health care clinic in underserved portions of the County, most notably in the ShawsvilleElliston-Lafayette area.

HHS 1.3 Public Information: To facilitate the distribution of public information concerning health and humans service related issues, services, and facilities.

HHS 4.3 Emergency Response Facilities and Staff. Continue to support the development of adequate fire and rescue facilities and ongoing training of fire, rescue, and law enforcement staff throughout Montgomery County.

HHS 1.3.1 County Office on Information. Work with the Montgomery County Public Information Office to develop appropriate and effective approaches to the development and distribution of social and health service related information HHS 1.3.2 Geographic Information System. Create appropriate geographic information system layers which track affordable housing, distribution of social and health services, demographic information (income, commute time, household size, etc. by block, block group, and voting district), and emergency management information.

Cross References and Notes: 7. Montgomery County recognizes the grants are often more successful when they incorporate a regional approach and have the support of local governments and government agencies. In addition, governments can offer certain services, such as GIS, that may be beyond the scope, ability, or budget of social, human, health, and mental health organizations.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 8. The Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities initiative offers one possible solution to the siting of health and human service facilities in the County. Specific discussion of the program is included in PNG 3.1.4 Community Based Schools and Public Facilities Initiative (pg.68) and EDU 1.2: Community Based Schools and Public Facilities (pg.116). Public safety facilities are addressed in SFY 1.3: Future Capital Facilities (pg.197).

Health & Human Resource

176

HHS 5.0 Human Services and Facilities: To promote and, when possible, help facilitate the development and equitable distribution of elder, family, and youth services and facilities throughout the county, with a special emphasis underserved population or areas of the county. (9)

HHS 5.1 Human Service Facilities. Identify and designate areas appropriate and adequate for the location of human service facilities, including group homes; emergency care facilities, such as shelters; transitional care and housing facilities, and rehabilitation facilities. HHS 5.2 Elder Care Facilities. Identify and designate areas appropriate and adequate for the location of elder care facilities, including retirement communities, long-term care facilities,

HHS 5.3 Child and Youth Care Facilities. Identify and designate areas appropriate and adequate for the location of child and youth care facilities, including child care centers, after school centers, child and youth group homes, and other special use facilities specific to the needs of children, youth, and families. HHS 5.4 Location. Explore the design and implementation of a "Trust Program" which would allow landowners, in specific areas of the county, to gift their property to health and human service organization if they so choose in exchange for tax relief. HHS 5.5 Adequate Funding: To promote adequate public and private funding for public health and human services and facilities.

Cross References and Notes. 9. See footnote # 8 (pg. 176).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

adult daycare facilities, and other special use facilities specific to the needs of the senior population.

Health & Human Resource

177

Housing Resources Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Montgomery

Housing: Executive Summary Three key housing related concerns emerged during the community survey process: affordability, quality of life, and livability of neighborhoods. Montgomery County recognizes that the neighborhoods provide the cornerstone for residents’ sense of community, as well as their sense of safety and well-being. The housing chapter focuses on three primary issues: •The provision of affordable housing; •The provision of livable manufactured housing parks; and •The provision of safe and livable neighborhoods and communities.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Housing Resources

179

Housing: Introduction Housing, especially the provision of affordable housing, represents one of the greatest challenges facing Montgomery County and the New River Valley. While housing costs in the county are still reasonably low compared to other areas of the state, there are specific factors in the county which makes affordablity an issues, including low income scale and a large student population. The challenge for the county, over the next 25 years, will be in finding ways to mitigate these factors. COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS Three issues in the Community Survey dealt directly with housing: 1) affordable housing, 2) compact development (neighborhood design); and 3) the quality of mobile home parks. In addition, two of the planning related issues were also connected to housing: 1) concentrating growth where utilities are already provided; and 2) using the zoning ordinance to direct growth or protect property values. Of the five issues, affordable housing and the use of the zoning ordinance to either direct growth or protect property values generated the highest mean scores. Seventy three percent (73%) of respondents identified â&#x20AC;&#x153;affordable housingâ&#x20AC;? as either very important or important. In their written responses, participants' underscored their belief that housing affordability was one of the key issues facing the county. While most included brief references to affordable housing, some were far more specific, especially in terms of housing for low and middle income. As one participant noted, the issue centered on making "homes affordable according to the income of area residents." Another, combining the issues of affordable housing and zoning, suggested Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

that there should be a "revision of zoning to encourage development of affordable houses." A third respondent noted that the County should "provide an incentive for developers to build affordable, sustainable, safe, dependable housing for low and middle low income families in existing small villages." While 55% of respondents identified the issue of manufactured housing and manufactured housing parks as either very important or important, very few of the written responses suggested overwhelming support for the existence of either. As one participant noted, "mobile home growth is out of control in Montgomery County...we are turning into a county-wide trailer park." A few of the

Housing Resources

respondents felt that the county needed to focus on providing affordable housing as an alternative to manufactured housing and manufactured housing parks. Still others suggested that manufactured housing provided "a reasonable alternative to high priced conventional construction" or exemplified "communities-all development should learn from that." In short, respondents did not take a single view on the issue of manufactured housing in Montgomery County. While many of the written responses were negative, the majority of the same respondents recognized the need to upgrade existing facilities and hold developers of new facilities to higher standards, including:

180

• Providing "guidelines for mobile home parks;" • Require that "mobile home developers must conform to the same requirements we expect of neighborhoods... sidewalks, parks, paved roads;" • "Have stricter rules/ laws governing appearance of such parks;" and • “Have stricter rules or laws governing manufactured housing park ownership.”

Issues of zoning and property values, for better or worse, cropped up throughout the responses, most notably in terms of mixedincome developments and the location of manufactured housing and manufactured housing parks. While some of the respondents felt that the county should employ "proper zoning...mobile homes should be zoned together, not mixed in among neighborhoods and highincome homes" and the county should "make plans or regulations on where trailers can be

Housing & Residential Development: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003 4.3 4.2 4.1 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2.9

4.20 4.07

parked...put them in groups not just everywhere they want to put trailers," others saw the issues of zoning, aside from manufactured housing parks, as a way of insuring the "integrity of neighborhoods," which help to underscore "a sense of pride & community." The issue of compact development produced some interesting responses. Only 40% of respondents ranked compact development as either important or very important; however 76% of the same respondents ranked the issue of uncontrolled growth and sprawl as either important or very important, and 79% identified open space preservation as being important or very important. Despite the relatively low percentage, participants' comments suggest a far greater support for concentrating growth near or in the urbanized core and existing villages and increasing the density of growth:

3.93

Mean Score For All Categories = 3.65 3.46 3.40

2.93 Compact Quality of Concentrating Development Manufactured Growth Housing Parks Where Utilities are Provided

Affordable Housing

Sprawl or Unplanned Growth

Zoning Ordinance to Direct Growth

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Housing Resources

• “Balance the preservation of historical, forests, parks, open land spaces and the encouragement of development of industry and communities - which means the development of residential needs to calm down.” • “Densely developed, high-quality villages where all new development is on a grid system if possible and follows neo-traditional design & development ideas. This would preserve open space & contain sprawl while fostering a sense of community.” • “Since the county is an attractive place to live and work, and since it has all the human, intellectual, technological, and physical resources to grow, it will continue to do so, with inevitably less reliance on agriculture and more on research, technology & industry. It is easy to see a time (within the scope of this plan) where the Cburg/Bburg & 181

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Housing Resources

182

Cost of Housing in Montgomery County: Selected Monthly Owner Costs (Mortgaged and Not Mortgaged Owner Occupied Housing) and Gross Rent, 1980-2000 $1000.00

Housing Affordability in Montgomery County, 1980-2000

$900.00 $800.00 $700.00 $600.00 $500.00

Ratio of Local Median House Value, Median Household Money Income, and Per Capita Income to State Median, 2000

$400.00 $300.00 $200.00

1.20

$100.00

1.10

Virginia Median/Per Capita = 1.00

1.00 0.90

$0.00

1980 1990 2000 Median monthly costs, for owner occupied units, with mortgage Median Monthly Costs for owner occupied units, without mortgage

0.80

Median Monthly Gross Rent

0.70 0.60 0.50

1980 1990 2000

0.40

Montgomery Floyd

Giles

Pulaski

Median House Value Median Household Money Income Per Capita Income

Radford

With Mortgage $292.00 $643.00 $912.00

Without Mortgage $91.00 $164.00 $219.00

Note: While the presence of a large student population both in Montgomery County and the City of Radford contribute to the disparity between household income, personal income, and the cost of housing. there are other contributing factors, including a lower pay scale.

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford Roanoke Roanoke City Salem Virginia Median House Value 0.91 0.64 0.55 0.64 0.76 0.94 0.64 0.83 $125,400 Median Household Money Income 0.69 0.68 0.75 0.73 0.53 1.02 0.66 0.84 $46,677 Per Capita Income 0.71 0.68 0.77 0.79 0.60 1.03 0.77 0.84 $23,975

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Gross Rent $198.00 $397.00 $535.00

Housing Resources

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000; US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2003

183

Radford triangle becomes a much more densely populated and commercialized area.” • “I would like to see more concentrated development in the Blacksburg area. I would like to have minimal sprawl as a result of commercial and residential sprawl. I would like to have more concentrated growth in and around Blacksburg to provide closer communities and easier public transportation access.” The results suggest the need to balance a broad range of often conflicting concerns and the need to provide more public information about planning issues, including: 1) the conflict between retaining the rural character of the county; 2) large versus small lot development; and 3) increased urban- and suburbanization. One participant wrote that Montgomery County should "remain [a] small, friendly, [and] agricultural area , " but that "too many areas are ... allotted for subdivisions and other housing growth" that threatening the rural character. Another suggested keeping "residential/urban sprawl to a minimum either by increasing density or by lowering prices for people to own more land to prevent unnecessary development." In addition to the issues included in the survey, respondents raised a number of other concerns, including residential neighborhood designs and quality, the increased need for senior housing, and the need for developers to carry their fair share of the cost of residential growth. Although a few of the respondents felt that the county should continue to rely on and encourage large lot subdivisions, far more suggested that the county should concentrate on creating neighborhoods and villages.

Montgomery County: Cost of Living and Cost of Housing. Cost of Living Index. According to Bestplaces.net, cost of living categories are weighted as follows: housing (30%), good/groceries (15%), transportation (10%), utilities (6%), healthcare (7%) and miscellaneous expenditures, including clothes and services (32%) Town/City Overall Housing Food Transportation Utilities Health Care Misc. National Average 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Blacksburg 96.6 103.5 92.9 94.4 81.8 92.4 96.7 Christiansburg 96.1 101.3 93.0 94.7 81.5 92.3 97.5 Radford 93.2 92.0 93.5 95.4 81.4 93.8 97.1 Pulaski 93.6 92.9 94.6 95.1 82.5 92.4 97.0 Roanoke City 110.9 145.6 94.4 89.1 82.3 95.2 98.8 Salem 111.7 148.0 94.9 88.5 81.7 94.8 99.2 Charlottesville 130.1 191.8 95.0 103.1 109.7 95.4 99.2 Fredericksburg 112.5 107.8 108.7 136.1 102.2 121.9 112.1 Harrisonburg 106.6 121.2 94.6 102.8 109.9 94.7 98.9 Staunton 105.8 119.1 94.4 103.7 109.6 94.9 98.2 Waynesboro 105.1 115.8 95.5 103.0 109.3 95.0 99.4 Cost of Housing Index: According to Bestplaces.net, the cost of housing index is based on home costs, rental costs, and property taxes.

Town/City National Average Blacksburg Christiansburg Radford Pulaski Roanoke City Salem Charlottesville Fredericksburg Harrisonburg Staunton Waynesboro

Median Rate of Property Tax Home Cost House Cost Appreciation Rate per $1,000 Index $146,102 7.8% $16.43 100.0 $120,440 7.0% $11.80 103.0 $117,870 3.0% $11.80 101.3 $107,040 3.6% $11.80 92.0 $108,110 7.1% $11.80 92.9 $169,400 6.2% $12.40 145.6 $172,140 6.1% $12.40 148.0 $223,150 6.3% $12.30 191.8 $125,380 11.7% $11.00 107.8 $141,030 7.1% $7.00 121.2 $138,510 6.9% $11.80 119.1 $134,710 6.9% $11.80 115.8

Sources: Bestplaces.net, 2003. Data based on information from 2000.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Housing Resources

184

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL TRENDS AND CONDITIONS

Montgomery County: Age of Housing Units, 2000 14000

Patterns of Residential Development. 12000

Very few of the residential developments, built since 1990 interconnect with the surrounding area , thus lacking a sense of being integrated into the place in which they were built. Most were designed as discrete subdivisions rather than as part of the broader landscape, neighborhood, or village, and relied heavily on the use of street patterns (cul-de-sacs and circles) that were self-contained within the subdivision rather than providing connection and continuity between the subdivision and the adjacent villages or other subdivisions. In addition, the subdivision designs, while following traditional patterns of large lot suburbanization, provided no alternative interconnectivity, such as sidewalks, bikeways,and walkways. While the large lots were appropriate and often necessary in the outlying, rural portions of Montgomery County, where there is no access to public water

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Blacksburg

Christiansburg

Unincorporated Areas

1939 or earlier

1960 to 1969

1980 to 1989

1940 to 1959

1970 to 1979

1990 to March, 2000

Blacksburg 583 1402 1840 4398 2886 2526

503 1140 822 1474 1669 1800

Unincorporated Areas 1119 1335 1081 2346 2623 2980

13635

7408

11484

1939 or earlier 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1969 1970 to 1979 1980 to 1989 1990 to March, 2000

Christiansburg

Montgomery County 2205 3877 3743 8218 7178 7306 32527

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Affordable Housing: and sewer, they were less appropriate in or near the existing villages and urban core. This is especially true where the lack of interconnectivity and the visual disruption of existing development patterns led to a diminished sense of community and interconnectedness among residents. Families became less a part of adjacent communities and more identified with discrete subdivisions.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Housing Resources

Under the Guidelines established by the Code of Virginia, jurisdictions must address the provision of affordable housing on a local basis while considering the regional needs: "The plan shall include: the designation of areas and implementation of measures for the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of affordable housing, 185

Montgomery County: Types of Housing Stock, 2000

Unincorporated Areas

Blacksburg

Christiansburg

Unincorporated Areas

Blacksburg

Montgomery County

Christiansburg

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census (Table DP-4)

Montgomery County

Single-family detached

7439

3965

4709

16113

Single-family attached

221

1166

647

2034

Single-family attached

Duplexes

226

446

404

1076

Duplexes

Multi-Family

573

7536

907

9016

Multi-Family

3018

522

741

4281

11484

13635

7408

32527

Manufactured Housing Other Total Units 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

SF-Detached Other Mfg Hsg.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Manufactured Housing Other

SF-Detached Other Mfg Hsg.

1990 Blacksburg

90-00 Change (Blacksburg)

3398 7899 560

567 1249 0

1990 Christiansburg

Housing Resources

4086 1369 812

90-00 Change (Christiansburg)

623 589 0

1990 Unincorporated

6048 814 2784

90-00 Change (Unincorporated)

1391 206 241

186

Housing Tenure, 1990 & 2000 Pulaski County, 1990 & 2000

Montgomery County, 1990 & 2000 35000

15000

30000

10000

25000

5000

20000

15000

1990

2000

Giles County, 1990 & 2000

10000

5000

0 1990 Within 1 year

1-5 years

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 & 2000 Census

2000 6 toe years Within 1 year

1 to 5 years

0 1990 11-20 years 6 to10 years

2000 More than 20 years

11-20 years

More than 20 years

Montgomery County

1990 2000

8147 9148

8218 9459

3065 3909

3471 3914

3340 4567

Giles County

1990 2000

785 1015

1330 1435

895 1030

1488 1242

1963 2272

Pulaski County

1990 2000

1961 2215

which is sufficient to meet the current and future needs of residents of all levels of income in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated." (§15.2-2223). In his report, "Housing Affordability in Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

3484 3855

1731 1924

2923 2678

Sander of Bestplaces.net ranked the BlacksburgChristiansburg-Radford MSA 8th among “Emerging U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” with the cost of living index at 85.4. The BlacksburgChristiansburg-Radford MSA ranked well above the other two Virginia locales included in the list: Winchester (ranked 17th), with a cost of living index of 88.2; and Harrisonburg (ranked 18th), with a cost of living index of 95.1. The authors saw the cost of living as one of the positive factors contributing to the area’s overall ranking, however they, like Dr. Koebel, noted that the area was prone to low incomes. It should also be noted that the combine MSA score was significantly lower than individual community scores, suggesting that the surrounding rural areas contribute to the lowering of the overall cost of living in the area. In 1980, the median value of a house was $36,200. By 1990, that figure had climbed to $71,700, representing a 98% increase in the value of single-family housing. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau listed the median value of a house, in Montgomery County, at $114,600. Montgomery County has since gone through a reassessment, and, according to the County Assessor, the median assessed value of a house,

3250 3971

Virginia," Dr. C. Theodore Koebel noted that the New River Valley had cost burdens, related to housing, at or above the national average, although he ascribed the cost burden to low income rather than necessarily high housing prices. In the recently published Cities Ranked and Rated (2004), authors Bert Sperling and Peter Housing Resources

187

as of August 2003, is $137,500, amounting to a 20% increase over the 2000 value, a 92% increase over the 1990 value, and a 280% increase over the 1980 value. The median selected monthly costs of owner occupied housing units in 1980 was $292 for those with a mortgage and $91 with no mortgage. By 2000, those costs had risen to $912 for those with a mortgage (a 212% increase) and $219 for those without a mortgage (a 141% increase). The difference in the increase can be attributed to the construction of larger and more expensive housing stock, which would, presumably generate larger taxation and insurance costs. The increased value of the housing stock (both new and existing) is a double edged sword: while the existing stock also rises in value, so too do the insurance, taxation, and maintenance costs. Age of Housing Stock: Under normal circumstances, as housing ages, it shifts into the affordable price range. However, as the data suggests, Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg are not facing normal circumstances in the provision of affordable housing. In 2000, nearly 70% of the 32,527 housing units in Montgomery County were built since 1970. While multifamily, student housing in Blacksburg accounts for a large proportion of these units, the figures do suggest that there are fewer older affordable single-family houses available. Although there are exceptions, many of the houses in the established neighborhoods in Blacksburg have either not entered the affordable housing market or have become student housing, effectively keeping the values well above the affordability range or removing it from the market. According to bestplaces.net, the cost of housing in Blacksburg was 103.5% of national average, Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

stock in the unincorporated areas of Montgomery County, 10% in Christiansburg, and 3.8% in Blacksburg. When added into the county singlefamily, stick-built, detached and attached dwellings, the percentage of residences which serve single families climbs to 92.7% of all housing. Housing Stock: Tenure.

compared to 101.3% in Christiansburg, 92% in Radford, and 92.9% in Pulaski. Type of Housing Stock: Single-family dwellings (16,113 single-family detached units and 2,034 single-family attached units) account for 56% of the housing units in Montgomery County as a whole. Single-family detached units account for 49.5% of the housing stock in Montgomery County. Multi-family dwellings account for 55.3% of the housing units in Blacksburg, according to the 2000 Census, but only account for 5% of the housing units in the unincorporated portions of the county and 12.2% in Christiansburg. Duplexes, which are somewhat more evenly distributed through out the county in terms of number, account for 3.3% of the total housing units in Blacksburg, 5.4% in Christiansburg, and 2.0% in the unincorporated portions of Montgomery County. There is, however, a second way to look at single-family dwellings. While not generally added in to the single-family statistics, which most often focus on stick-built structures requiring building permits, most manufactured housing serves, in fact, single families. According to the 2000 Census, manufactured housing accounted for 26% of the housing Housing Resources

Initial data would indicate that tenure in housing units is fluid and far more transitory than in neighboring counties. According to the 2000 Census, 60% of householders had moved, at least once, in the period between 1995 and 2000. This compares to 35% of householders in Giles County and 41% in Pulaski County during the same period of time. The much higher rate of transience in Montgomery County can be attributed, in large part, to a significant student and graduate student population. Low, Very Low, and Transitional Housing: Currently, there are four transitional housing units, provided by Community Housing Partners, located in Christiansburg. No other transitional housing is available in Montgomery County, Blacksburg, or Christiansburg. Housing for low and very low income residents is currently supplied through the private and nonprofit sectors. According to the Council of Community Services, there are currently four apartment complexes in Christiansburg and five in Blacksburg which offer subsidized housing. Montgomery County does not, currently, have a housing authority.

188

Housing: Goals HSG 1.1.4 Public/Private Partnerships. Promote the development of public private partnerships to address the needs of moderate, low, and very low income residents. (4)

HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods: Promote affordable, safe, livable neighborhoods for all residents. (1) HSG 1.1 Affordable Housing. Promote affordable, quality housing for all income levels. (2)

HSG 1.1.5 Public Information. Provide public information on programs that encourage the development of housing for moderate, low, and very low income individuals and families and programs that would promote affordable homeownership, including: 1) Below market interest programs; and 2) Homeownership counselling, credit counseling, and savings programs (Individual Development Accounts)

HSG 1.1.1 Regional Housing Study. Work with the New River Valley Planning District Commission and member jurisdictions, including Virginia Tech and Radford Universities to do a comprehensive analysis of current housing conditions, housing affordability, and the impact of a large student presence on the availability of affordable housing in the region, and determine the best approaches to insuring the availability of quality housing across income levels.

(5)

HSG 1.1.6 Very Low Income and Transitional Housing Needs: Conduct a study of housing for very low income and transitional housing in Montgomery County and the Metropolitan Statistical Area

HSG 1.1.2 Adequate Zoning for Future Growth. Conduct a zoning study to determine residential land use requirements for the next 20-25 years, in five year increments, including an evaluation of product type (single family attached and detached, multi-family, and manufactured; own/rent, price/rent categories) and estimated land required for each type of housing; and rezone sufficient lands, in appropriate areas (those areas served by public water and sewer) to accommodate future growth.

HSG 1.1.7 Grants Office. Promote the development of a regional grants office, through the New River Valley Planning District Commission, to develop jointsponsored grants and public/private partnerships to address issues of affordable housing, housing for the very low income, and transitional housing in the region. (6)

HSG 1.1.3 Affordable Housing Incentives. Provide incentives for affordable housing development. (3) Cross References and Notes: 1. Livability, sustainability, and quality of life go hand-in-hand. While the plan implicitly addresses all three, specific references can be found in PNG 4.1.1: Livable Communities (pg. 68); PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 50); ECD 1.0: Economic Development, Land Use, and Quality of Life (pg. 99); HHS 1.0: Livable Communities (pg. 175); HHS 2.0: Quality of Life (pg. 175), and HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 190). 2. The Affordable Housing portion of the plan was based, in part, on recommendations from Wu Li and Dr. T. Koebel of Virginia Tech’s Housing Institute. 3. 1) Reducing pre-development approval times; 2) Reducing the impact of government regulations on building cycle time; 3) Facilitating the development of Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties with access to public water and sewer; 4) Providing density bonuses for developments that include affordable units; and 5) Establishing an ad-hoc advisory committee of for-profit and non-profit developers to advise the county on the impediments they face in developing affordable housing.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 4. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) established new definitions of low and very low income. According to HUD, low income is defined as 80% of the area’s median family income, and very low income is 50% of the area’s median family income.” In 2000, the US Census Bureau established the County’s median family income at $47,239. Given this, the low income designation would start at $37,791 and very low income would begin at $23,619. The HUD definitions are used to establish base eligibility for public housing and Section 8 housing programs. It should be noted, however, that the percentage of median varies based on the size of family and eligibility may be affected by local housing prices and other considerations. 5. General approaches to public information are addressed in PNG 2.2: Informing the Public (pg. 67) and CRS 2.1.3 Libraries: Public Information: Technology (pg. 82). 6. The need for a grants office is also addressed in ENV 3.4.1 Streams and Rivers: Grants (pg. 141) and HHS 3.1.1 County Office on Cooperation (pg. 176).

Housing Resources

189

HSG 1.2 Manufactured Housing and Housing Parks: Actively encourage the development and maintenance of livable manufactured housing parks inorder to facilitate a community ethos.

HSG 1.3 Safe and Livable Neighborhoods. Promote the use of safe and livable neighborhood designs in residential development. (7) HSG 1.3.1 Mixed Use Neighborhoods. Encourage the development of planned, mixed use, pedestrian and transit friendly neighborhoods, which would combine office, commercial, residential, recreational uses into a single development.

HSG 1.2.1 Manufactured Housing Park Standards. Develop prototype standards for improving site design, including landscaping and buffering standards, amenities standards, and public facility standards.

HSG 1.3.2 Public Information: Provide residents and developers information on "safe neighborhood," transitoriented, and traditional neighborhood (TND) design and development.

HSG 1.2.2 Maintenance Standards. Develop maintenance standards for mobile home parks and HUDcode housing units. HSG 1.2.3 Recycling/Salvage Program. Develop a recycling/salvage program for old, obsolete manufactured housing that would encourage replacing occupied, obsolete mobile homes and discourage abandonment and neglect.

HSG 1.3.3 Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation. Encourage intra- and inter-connectivity of roads, bikeways, and walkways in new residential developments in order to promote increased sense of community and safety, while decreasing traffic concentration. Cross References and Notes: 7. The concept of safe and livable neighborhoods is implicitly embedded in the land use policies associated with Villages (PLU 1.7, pg. 43), Village Expansion Areas (PLU 1.6, pg. 41), and Urban Expansion Areas (PLU 1.8, pg. 45), as well as the Community Design policies (PLU 3.0, pg 50; see, also, footnote # 1 (pg 189) for other references.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Housing Resources

190

Public Safety Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Montgomery

Public Safety: Executive Summary The Safety Chapter, encompassing fire and rescue, law enforcement, and animal control facilities and services in Montgomery County, focuses on five key issue in the provision of safety-related services: • Management Structure, including strategic plans, hazard mitigation plans, and GIS support; • Public Involvement, including citizen academies; • Future Capital Facilities, including CIP funding and cash proffers; • New Development, including site plan reviews, 911 addresses, house numbers, and street names; and • Regional Opportunities, including the development of a centralized, regional (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Montgomery County, and Virginia Tech) 911 call center.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Public Safety

192

Public Safety: Introduction COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS The community survey asked participants to rank two issues related to public safety: 1) support of fire and rescue, and 2) police/sheriff services (law enforcement). Not surprisingly, given the events of recent years, both issues ranked very high. Fire and rescue was the number one issue of the forty-one issues raised in the survey (mean ranking of 4.39), with 88% of participants ranking it either important (22%) or very important (66%). Support for fire and rescue was universally strong, regardless of the demographic variations. The same held true for the issue of police/sheriff services, which had a mean score of 4.31. Of those who participated, 86% rated police/sheriff services as either important (22%) or very important (63.8%). Only 4% of respondents felt that police/sheriff services were either minimally important (2%) or not important (2%). As with fire and rescue, police/sheriff services garnered almost universal support, again, regardless of demographic variation, with one notable exception. A higher percentage of women (70%) rated police/sheriff services as very important, compared to 54% of men. The majority of written comments concerning fire and rescue dealt with the need for new facilities (specifically in the Elliston area), paying fire and rescue personnel, increased training, better equipment, public outreach through education, and “involvement in the community.” In terms of police/sheriff services, participants cited a number of specific concerns in their written comments, including the need to enforce existing ordinances (traffic, litter, noise, nuisance, and leash laws), increasing the number of law enforcement officers in the County, and increasing financial support for law enforcement.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Students had far more to say than did their adult counterparts. Again, while it is a reflection, in part, of the events of the last few years; it also reflects, interestingly enough, a broader range of concerns, including the need for more animal shelters, the prevalence of bullies in schools, a concern about automobile accidents, the lack of light at night, too few law enforcement officers, drugs, drinking, and trash. In their letters to the Board of Supervisors, the students had a number of specific suggestions. One student suggested that the County needed to “get police to direct traffic at intersections where there aren’t any traffic lights.” Other students suggested that the “police could clean up pollution,” and “fine people for littering.” One commented that “if police fine

Public Safety

the people that litter the world might not be filled with trash...that would make the world more beautiful place.” The most common comments, however, from the students mirrored their adult counterparts: more police, more fire and rescue personnel, and better pay. It was clear from the written comments, that the majority of students who participated in the survey supported a greater public safety presence, especially in their schools and communities. CURRENT AND HISTORICAL TRENDS AND CONDITIONS Fire and Rescue In 2002, the Montgomery County Board of

193

Supervisors hired the EMSstar Group, LLC to assess current conditions and future fire and rescue needs. In 2002, there were five fire departments with 137 volunteers and four rescue squads, with 184 volunteers. Only Blacksburg and Christiansburg currently have full-time, predominantly administrative, paid staff. In

comparison to other counties in the New River Valley, Montgomery County has the lowest personnel rate of fire department (21.6 per 10,000 in population) and the second lowest personnel rate for rescues squads (18.1per 10,000 in population). For the rescue squads located in the two towns, the County provides partial facilities

Public Safety: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 3.8

Mean Score for all Issues = 3.65

3.6 3.4 3.2 3

Fire & Rescue Services

Fire & Rescue Services Police/Sheriff Services Mean Score for all Issues

Police/Sheriff Services Mean Score 4.39 4.31 3.65

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Public Safety

support, sharing the cost with the towns. The County provides full facilities support for the fire and rescue stations in the unincorporated areas of the County. In addition, the County covers equipment costs for all of the fire and rescue units through annual CIP disbursements. Currently, Montgomery County is in the process of replacing two of the stations: EllistonLafayette and Longshop-McCoy. According to the EMSstar report, there are a number of issues facing the County in terms of the provision of adequate and timely service, including: 1) availability of volunteer personnel between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.; 2) the provision of ALS care; 3) lack of funding oversight and accountability; 4) lack of technical assistance; 5) lack of countywide central dispatching; and 6) no centralized or standardized data collection (response times, staffing levels, and critical vehicle and equipment failures). As the report noted, “the county does not aggregate data and as such cannot adequately look at the total delivery of service for the constituents it serves.” On the positive side, EMSstar noted that “service placement appears to be well distributed for the present population of the county; however, future growth and development will require additional services and stations.” The Blacksburg Comprehensive Plan proposes the creation of a central answering point for public safety agencies within Montgomery County. The center would receive police, fire, and EMS emergency requests from the public through an Enhanced 911 telephone system. In addition, non-emergency calls for these agencies would also be processed by the center. The center’s mission would be to enhance the quality of life of every person in Montgomery County by receiving and processing 911 emergency calls and non-emergency calls in order to dispatch police, fire, and EMS units in a prompt, efficient, courteous, and professional manner. In addition, Blacksburg is currently considering a state-of-the-art training facility for police, fire, and rescue. It would include 194

classrooms with audio/video equipment, a driving range, a firearms range, a rope tower, and a fitness building. The Blacksburg Comprehensive Plan states that this new complex would not only consolidate necessary training facilities, but it would also greatly enhance public safety training for Town staff and its neighboring jurisdictions.

Montgomery County: Fire and Rescue, 2003 155.0 135.0

Sheriff’s Department

115.0 95.0 75.0 55.0 35.0 15.0 Montgomery

Floyd

Giles

Pulaski

Radford Median Age of Equipment 7 1992 13 1997 12 1990 11 1994 9 1988 12 1990 10 1993 8 1999

#of Vehicles Blacksburg FD Blacksburg RS Christiansburg FD Christiansburg RS Elliston-Lafayette FD Longshop-McCoy FD/RS Riner FD Shawsville RS

FD: Rate per 10,000 RS: Rate per 10,000

Sources: 1. EMSstar Report, 2003; New River Valley Alliance, 2000; U.S.Census Bureau, 2000 Census (Table DP-1)

Fire Department Personnel Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

Rescue Squad Personnel

181 110 250 190 36

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

151 45 100 99 17

According to the 2003-2004 Budget, the Sheriff’s Department had 111 fulltime employees and one part-time employee, and accounted for, along with fire and rescue, 21% of the General Fund Budget (the General Fund represents 26.6% of the overall budget). In FY03, the County covered 34.8% of the cost of the Sheriff’s Department, with the rest coming from the State budget. In addition to law enforcement, the sheriff’s department provides support for the , dispatching (including 911 emergency calls), jail operations, emergency services and civil defense, and a significant public outreach program. The Sheriff’s Department’s public outreach and community based program, most specifically their citizen academy, based on an English model, provides a useful model for future academies in other areas. Other communitybased and citizen response initiatives include: Project Lifesaver, D.A.R.E, School Resource Officers, Crime Prevention Officers, Class Action instructors, and a Domestic Violence Coordinator.

FD: Rate per RS: Rate per Population 10,000 10,000 21.6 79.3 150.1 54.1 22.7

18.1 32.4 60.0 28.2 10.7

Public Safety

83629 13874 16657 35127 15859

195

Montgomery County: Fire and Rescue Facilities, 2004

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Public Safety

196

Public Safety: Goals SFY 1.0 Public Safety Goal: Promote and facilitate the provision of superior law enforcement and emergency services (fire and rescue) in order to insure that people have a safe and secure community in which to live, work and raise their families.

SFY 1.1.4 NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan: Review the draft NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by NRV Planning District Commission staff for adoption by the County in order to satisfy FEMA requirements for a hazard mitigation plan. (5)

SFY 1.1 Management Structure: Establish a single clear management structure for planning and policy setting while striving to achieve consensus among fire, EMS and other health and safety related constituency groups in formulating public policy, procedures and protocols. (1)

SFY 1.1.5 GIS Support: Continue County GIS support for both law enforcement and emergency services activities especially in order to provide compatible and readily available geodata in support of law enforcement and emergency services activities throughout the County.

SFY 1.1.1 Advisory Board: The "Fire and Rescue Task Force "should be formally commissioned by the Board of Supervisors as an advisory board working with the Emergency Services Office and reporting regularly to the Board of Supervisors. Moreover, the new Advisory Board should be broadened to include law enforcement representation. (2)

SFY 1.2 Public Involvement: Recognize and support the role of citizen volunteers in the delivery of law enforcement and emergency services throughout Montgomery County. Moreover, promote a better understanding of law enforcement and emergency services issues by all County residents. SFY 1.2.1 Fire and Rescue Involvement: Support the vital role of volunteers in the delivery of emergency services (fire and rescue) throughout Montgomery County.

SFY 1.1.2 Fire and Rescue Strategic Plan: Develop and ratify a comprehensive strategic plan for fire and EMS services in Montgomery County. This plan should be based on sound demographic and other data. Funding decisions should be made based upon this plan and upon compliance with other requirements established by the Board. (3)

SFY 1.2.2 Law Enforcement Involvement: Support programs that increase public involvement and understanding of the law enforcement process such as the Sheriffs Citizen Academy and Neighborhood Watch Program. (6)

SFY 1.1.3 Response Performance Goals: Establish response performance goals and such other fire and EMS performance goals as may be desired using input from the fire and EMS agencies, county staff, the medical community and the public. (4) Cross References and Notes Note: the EMSSTAR report (2003) is available, upon request, from the Montgomery County Public Information Office. 1. See EMSSTAR Recommendations 2.1.1, 2.2.1, . 2. See EMSSTAR Recommendations 2.1.1, 3.1.3. 3. See EMSSTAR Recommendations 3.2.3. When completed, portions of the Fire and Rescue Strategic Plan recommendations should be reviewed and adopted into this plan. 4. See EMSSTAR Recommendations 3.1.3 and 3.3.3

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

SFY 1.3 Future Capital Facilities: Use the response performance goals, the future land use policies/map from the Comprehensive Plan, projections for future traffic and road improvements from the MPO, and other pertinent data to develop a plan to locate and fund future law enforcement and emergency services facilities that are necessitated by a growing County population. (7)

Cross References and Notes: 5. The New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan is also addressed in ENV 4.3 Floodplains: Public Safety (pg.144) and UTL 4.2: Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg.143). 6. Citizen academies are also addressed in PNG 2.2.3: Citizen Academies (Pg. 67). 7. See EMSSTAR Recommendation 3..6.

Public Safety

197

signs) and Building Inspectors (house numbers) to insure that new structures can be easily located in the field by emergency and law enforcement personnel.

SFY 1.3.1 Cash Proffers: Develop a cash proffer guideline to address County capital facility needs for law enforcement and emergency services facilities.

SFY 1.3.3. Animal Shelter: Provide adequate, humane animal control services and facilities.

SFY 1.5 Regional Opportunities: On selected issues, a regional approach may provide services more efficiently and effectively. In some cases this may involve the County working cooperatively with Blacksburg, Christiansburg and Virginia Tech. In other cases this may involve the County working cooperatively with other New River Valley governments and possibly local governments in the Roanoke Valley.

SFY 1.4 New Development: Proactively consider public safety issues in the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s review and approval of new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developments.

SFY 1.5.1 Regional Swift Water Rescue Team: Evaluate the feasibility of County support for a regional swift water rescue team.

SFY 1.4.1 Site Plan Review: Involve the Emergency Services Coordinator in the site plan review process for major residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developments proposed for the unincorporated portions of the county.

SFY 1.5.2 MERIT Emergency Communications Center: Evaluate the feasibility of County participation in a Montgomery Emergency Response Information Team (MERIT) Emergency Communications Center serving the county, Blacksburg, Christiansburg and Virginia Tech.

SFY 1.3.2 Capital Facilities and Funding: Continue to work, annually, through Capital Improvements Program to identify future capital facility needs and the means for funding them.

SFY 1.4.2 Street Signs and House Numbers: Work with county departments e.g. General Services (street Cross References and Notes: 8. Cash proffers and guidelines are more fully addressed in PLU 2.2: Proffer Guidelines (pg.48). 9. The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is addressed in the implementation portion of the Introduction, as well as in PNG 7.1.2 Capital Improvements Program (pg.69 ); EDU 1.1.3 Facilities Renewal Program (pg. 116) and PRC 2.1.2 Recreational Priorities and Funding (pg. 207).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Public Safety

SFY 1.5.3 Regional Training Facility: Evaluate the feasibility of County participation in the development of a regional training facility for use by fire, rescue and law enforcement personnel.

198

Recreational Resources Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Parks and Recreation: Executive Summary Montgomery County recognizes that parks, trails, and a wide variety of recreation opportunities contribute significantly to residents’ quality of life. The Parks and Recreation chapter focuses on two key areas of interest: • Local and regional approaches to the provision of parks and recreational opportunities, with an emphasis on regional collaboration and cooperation; and • The provision of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and programs, to better serve all residents of Montgomery County, including the expansion of the county’s Heritage Trail system and the development of the recreational facilities included in the Outdoor Facilities Master Plan.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Recreational Resources

200

Parks and Recreation: Introduction As the introduction to the County’s Outdoor Facilities Master Plan indicates, parks and recreational opportunities are major contributors to the County’s quality of life. In Montgomery County, the natural setting provides a wide range of recreational opportunities: hiking in the Jefferson National Forest, fishing in the county’s streams and rivers, tubing on the New River, and bird-watching near Pandapas Pond. The two universities, Virginia Tech in Blacksburg and Radford University in the City of Radford, contribute to the cultural recreation (plays, art exhibits, concerts, and guest speakers). Indeed, many of the recreational opportunities available in Montgomery County are provided by agencies and individual organizations than the County government.

35 and above, less likely to be involved in scheduled group or team activities, and preferred unscheduled recreational opportunities; and 2) participants were more likely to view trails and bikeways, specifically, as alternative transportation locations and as a means of access to nature. Citizen comments underscored the connection between trails and the desire to have easier access to nature and natural areas. As one participant suggested, Montgomery County needed to “construct more nature preserves for observation of wildlife & vegetation & outdoor exercise.” Others suggested that the parks in rural areas should be focusing on providing opportunities for hiking, biking, and picnicking and providing

residents with increased access to “natural areas.” Many of the participants who encouraged the expansion of the trail system in Montgomery County, also expressed an interest in seeing the trail system connected to other existing systems in neighboring jurisdictions (Bissett park trails in Radford, the New River Valley Trail in Pulaski County, and the National Forest trails near Pandapas Pond) or expanded to provide access to the New and Little Rivers as well as the villages (Riner, Shawsville, Elliston, Plum Creek, and Prices Fork). Traditional parks had a mean score of 3.47, with 56% of participants rating them either as important or very important. Despite the fact that slightly more than half the participants rated

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS: Community survey participants were asked about four park and recreation-related issues: 1) individual recreational opportunities, including bikeways, walkways, and nature and heritage trails; 2) traditional parks (playgrounds, picnic areas, ballfields, etc.); 3) river access (boating, fishing, and tubing); and 4) special use facilities (golf courses, skateboard parks, etc.). Of the four issues, individual recreational opportunities scored the highest, although none of the issues scored at or above the mean score for all issues. Both in terms of overall mean score (3.58) and in terms of citizen comments, individual recreational opportunities proved to be the most popular recreation issue with community survey participants. Of those who participated, 61% rated the provision of individual recreational opportunities, including trails and bikeways, as either important or very important. Two factors may account for participant interest in individual recreational opportunities: 1) the majority of participants in the community survey were age Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Recreational Resources

201

traditional parks fairly high, the subject generated very few specific comments, although a few participants did note the need for an increased number of ball and soccer fields. River access and special use facilities ranked significantly lower than either individual recreational opportunities or traditional parks. Of those who participated in the community

survey, 44% rated river access as important or very important and 29% rated special use facilities, most notably golf courses, as either important or very important. These numbers, however, may be misleading, especially in terms of the issue of river access. Citizen comments about trails and bikeways and access to natural areas centered on, among other issues, increased

Parks and Recreation: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2.9 2.8 2.7 Individual Recreational Opportunities

Traditional Parks

River Access

Special Use Facilities

Mean Score

Individual Recreational Opportunities (Trails, Bikeways, etc.) Traditional Parks River Access Special Use Facilities (Golf Courses, Skate Parks, etc.) Mean Score for All Issues

Mean Score 3.58 3.47 3.17 2.76 3.65

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Recreational Resources

bicycle access to the New River. The river access issue was presented as a sportsmanrelated issue (increased opportunities for boating and fishing), which may have led participants who want to be able to bike or walk along the river to give the issue a lower score than they might have if the issue had been less narrowly framed. Special use facilities had one of the lowest mean scores on the survey (2.76) and was one of the few issues where more respondents rated it as “not important” (11%) than as “very important” (9%). In addition, the comments suggested virtually no support for publicly provided golf courses. It should be noted, however, that special use facilities, especially skateparks, were one of the significantly divergent issues between the community and student survey responses and may well reflect generational differences in the definition of recreation. The student surveys suggested fairly strong support for increased recreational opportunities, special use facilities (such as pools, skateparks, paintball facilities, and climbing walls), and a broader range and greater number of county supported sport and non-sport related activities. The most common complaint registered in the student surveys was that there was “nothing to do” in Montgomery County. Respondents felt there was a very real need for more activities and opportunities for youth. This was especially true for students in the outlying areas, including Riner, Prices Fork, Elliston, Belview, and Shawsville. It should be noted that students were not the only respondents who felt that youth activities were lacking and that there needed to be a greater emphasis on all sorts of recreation in Montgomery County. As one citizen survey respondent noted, there is “Nothing -Nothing - Nothing for 13-20 year old to do socially on weekends, if not involved in sports... Lived here 30 years--always been a problem.” Another wrote that the county “needs more recreational and educational development for children under 202

Distribution of Park and Recreation Facilities, 2003 Type of Park / Recreational Facility

Number/Size

Location

Overall Amount of Park/Recreational Land

143 acres 291 acres 11 acres n/a 5 miles 27 miles 1 mile

Montgomery County (MC) Blacksburg (B) Christiansburg (C) MC Public Schools (MCPS) Montgomery County Blacksburg Christiansburg

Number of Undeveloped/Developing Parks

3 3 4

Blacksburg Christiansburg Montgomery County

Arboretum Basketball Court Baseball/Soccer/Multi-purpose Fields Disc Golf Course Gardens Golf Course Horseshoe pits Indoor Nature Center Inline Hockey Area Model Airplane Field Nature Trail Picnic Shelter Playgrounds Recreation Center/Activities Buildings Restrooms Skate Park Swimming Pool Tennis Courts Volleyball Courts Walking/Jogging Trail

1 34 63 1 2 1 15 1 1 1 1 mile 16 42 3 5 1 2 29 1 8

B B,MCPS,C,MC B,MCPS,C,MC MC B,MC B B,C,MC B B MC B B,MCPS,C,MC B,MCPS,C,MC B,C,MC B,MC B B B,MCPS B B,C, MC

Linear Miles of Trails

Source: Montgomery County Parks and Recreation Department, Outdoor Facility Master Plan, January,2003 Draft.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Recreational Resources

school age.” A third felt that town and county officials needed to “promote youth events.” A number of the respondents broadened the discussion by suggesting the County place a greater emphasis on recreational opportunities and facilities for families. Regardless of focus, however, the community survey and the student survey respondents felt that the county needed to do far more to provide a broader range of recreational opportunities and facilities than had been done to date. CURRENT AND HISTORICAL TRENDS AND CONDITIONS There is very little argument that Montgomery County is well below the level of services and facilities recommended by the Virginia Outdoor Plan. What is arguable, however, is why. As noted in the introduction to this chapter, Montgomery County has significant National Forest recreational opportunities (most notably at Pandapas Pond), privately owned recreational opportunities and facilities, (New River Junction and the publicly available hiking opportunities on the Nature Conservancy Lands), and a broad range of activities offered through Virginia Tech and non-profit organizations like the YMCA. In addition, the majority of the population lives in the two towns, both of which provide access to recreational opportunities to their residents, as well as to residents outside of the towns’ limits for a fee. Because of these outside resources, Montgomery County has not had to provide as much in terms of recreational programs and facilities as might otherwise be the case. In the past, limited fiscal and capital resources, have meant that the county has had to concentrate their facilities in the center portion of the county, accessible to the largest percentage of residents, most notably at Mid-County Park. In recent years, however, the county has significantly increased the number of parks in the county, as well as diversifying the types of parks. In the past 15 years, the County has added 203

Montgomery County: Federal Lands, Parks, and Private Conservation Easements, 2004

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Recreational Resources

204

the Huckleberry Trail and the Coal Mining Heritage Park and Science Center (under development), as well as three traditional parks (two in Plum Creek and one in McCoy). In addition, Montgomery County has undeveloped park land in the Mt Tabor district (AEP Property near Blacksburg), Christiansburg (adjacent to the County Courthouse), and Elliston (adjacent to the south fork of the Roanoke River). The County also provides significant outdoor recreational opportunities through multi-use agreements with the Montgomery County Public Schools, including community access to ballfields, tennis courts, and playgrounds. In 2003, the Montgomery County Department of Parks and Recreation developed the Montgomery County Outdoor Facilities Master Plan. The plan made recommendations for the development of the countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s park system based on level of service standards, established by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and on a needs assessment conducted by the DCR in conjunction with the 2002 Virginia Outdoor Plan. Facility needs were based on three criteria: standards, demand, and resources. The goals included in Montgomery County, 2025 reflect not only the facility recommendations from the Outdoor Facilities Master Plan, but also public comment and concerns from the Community Survey.

Montgomery County Outdoor Recreational Facilities Levels of Service (LOS), 2003 DCR Recommended Levels of Service (LOS)

Facility

Current LOS in Montgomery County

Recommended LOS included in 2003 Outdoor Facility Master Plan

Parkland

10 acres per 1000 residents (836.3 acres)

5.3 acres--all jurisdictions; (5.2 acres (unincorporated areas)

Suggested increase, but no specific numeric recommendations

Archery Range

1 per 50,000 residents

0 (0)

1 range

Baseball Fields (Youth)

1 per 6,000 (13.9 fields --all jurisdictions; 5.5 in unincorporated areas.

25 (14)

13 additional

Basketball Courts

1 per 5,000 (16.7 courts--all jurisdictions; 15 in unincorporated areas.

33 (15)

Suggested increase, but no specific recommendation.

Football/Soccer Fields

1 per 10,000 (8.3 fields-all jurisdictions; 3 in unincorporated areas)

28 (6)

12 additional

Golf

9 holes per 25,000/18 holes per 50,000 (30 holes--all jurisdictions; 9.87 holes in unincorporated areas)

1 public course-9 Add additional 9 hole hole; 1 private Public Course 9 hole; 2 private courses 18 hole (54)

Horseshoes

1 per 10,000 (8.3 lanes-all jurisdictions; 3 in unincorporated areas

15 (2)

Not included

Skateboard Park

1 per 25,000 (3.3--all jurisdictions; 1 in unincorporated areas

1 (0)

6 additional

Tennis Courts

1 per 2,000 (41.8--all jurisdictions; 13.7 in unincorporated areas

29 (16)

12 additional

Playgrounds Note: This represents a partial list from the Outdoor Master Plan needs assessment. State LOS standards can be found at http://www.dcr.state.va.us/prr/docs/vop2002.pdf--Virginia Outdoor Plan, pgs 379-382.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Recreational Resources

205

Recreational Resources: Goals PRC 1.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration: To encourage the multi-use of existing facilities, while encouraging regional approaches to new recreation opportunities, which provide the broadest range of recreational experiences to all residents of Montgomery County, including those who live in Christiansburg and Blacksburg. (1).

PRC 1.1 Local Cooperation: Continue to work with the Towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg and with county schools to develop regional policies, facilities, and programs for the benefit of all residents of Montgomery County. PRC 1.1.1 Joint Meetings: Initiate regular meetings between town and county recreation directors followed by joint meetings of the three recreation commissions. PRC 1.1.2 Large Town Policies: Investigate recreational policies of other Virginia counties with large towns in order to evaluate alternative plans of action for county recreation. PRC 1.1.3 Regional Master Plan: Develop a â&#x20AC;&#x153;regional master planâ&#x20AC;? to avoid duplication of similar facilities and programs between towns and county. PRC 1.1.4 Facility Sharing: Coordinate facility sharing and "program-sharing" between the county, the county schools and the towns through cooperative agreements and/or a uniform policy on the use of recreational facilities. (2)

PRC 1.2 Private / Non-Profit: Work with private and nonprofit civic clubs to develop new and enhance existing sport leagues throughout the County (e.g., New River United Soccer Association). PRC 1.2.1 Sports Needs: Determine the needs and desires of existing sport leagues in the county and the appropriate role of the county in meeting these needs. PRC 1.2.2 Public/Private Partnership Facilities: Develop clear policies for the future use of facilities that are constructed and/or maintained with funding from non-profit groups. PRC 1.3 Cooperative Agreement: Work to establish cooperative agreements with Virginia Tech, Radford University and the City of Radford for facility sharing that will benefit all citizens of Montgomery County. PRC 1.3.1 Kentland Farms: Work with Virginia Tech to open the 4+ miles of New River frontage to recreational use by both students and county residents. PRC 1.3.2 Trail Linkage: Develop a trail system that will link to the City of Radford and the two universities to better meet the needs of the student population and city residents (e.g. Kentland Farms river access and Dedmon Center & Bissett Park).

PRC 1.1.5 Regional Parks Authority: Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a Regional Parks Authority. PRC 1.1.6 Special Events. Work with neighboring jurisdictions and local organizations to organize and sponsor special events, including festivals and concerts. Cross References and Notes: 1. Local and Regional Cooperation are a central theme to this plan. Additional references to cooperative and collaborative approaches is addressed in PNG 1.0: Local and Regional Cooperation (pg.66) and footnote. 2. Facility Sharing is incorporated under the heading of multi-use and is addressed in PNG 3.0 Access (pg. 67).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Recreational Resources

206

PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs . To provide a broad variety of recreational opportunities and traditional and special use facilities for all citizens of Montgomery County, with special attention to the recreational needs of youth, young adults, and senior citizens.

PRC 2.2.1 Facility Location: Develop major facilities in areas that are accessible by major roads thereby providing the opportunity for existing and/or future bus services.

(3)

PRC 2.1 Outdoor Facility Master Plan (OFMP): Revise, formally adopt, and use the Outdoor Facility Master Plan as a guide for the development of new parks and recreational facilities, including pocket, neighborhood, village, and regional parks, as well as special use facilities, trails, and heritage parks.

PRC 2.2.2 Facility Accessibility: Develop a plan to ensure that existing and new facilities are accessible to all Montgomery County residents, with special attention to the needs of differently-abled residents, by meeting the accessibility standards established under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

PRC 2.1.1 Recreational Priorities and Funding: Decide on the top projects in the OFMP and develop funding strategies for them including incorporation into the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), use of grant funds and other sources of funding.

PRC 2.3 Trails: Provide a high quality trail network, based on a series of trails and activity or education nodes, throughout the county, which offers both increased individual and family recreational opportunities and alternative transportation routes between jurisdictions and outlying villages. (6)

PRC 2.1.2 Cash Proffers: Evaluate cash proffers as a funding tool for recreation facilities identified in the OFMP that are necessary to meet the recreational needs of an increasing county population.

PRC 2.3.1 New River Trail Linkage: Support New River Valley Planning District Commission efforts to develop a multi-jurisdictional plan for linking the Huckleberry Trail to the New River Trail via Christiansburg and Radford.

PRC 2.1.3 Operational and maintenance needs: Broaden the OFMP to better address indoor facilities as well as operational and maintenance needs.

PRC 2.3.2 Business/Industrial Park Trail: Develop bikeway/walkway trails in existing and proposed business/industrial parks.

PRC 2.1.4 Village Plans: Work with residents in each of the villages to address recreational needs in their Village Plans, including community, neighborhood, pocket, and tot parks and walkway/bikeway facilities.

PRC 2.3.3 Trails and Nodes: Develop recreation facilities in collaboration with the County and Towns master plans for trails (including bikeways and walkways).

(5)

PRC 2.2 Accessibility: Make existing recreational facilities accessible to all county residents, both in terms of how the facilities are accessed and used.

Cross References and Notes: 3. Recreational facilities include traditional regional parks, multi-use sports facilities (developed in conjunction with the public schools), community and neighborhood parks, Heritage Parks and Trails, pocket parks, and tot parks, as well as special use facilities. 4. Cash proffers are more fully addressed in PLU 2.2: Proffer Guidelines (pg. 48). 5. Villages and Village planning are addressed in PLU 1.7: Villages (pg.43); PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg.41); and PNG 4.0 Villages and Small Communities (pg.68).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

PRC 2.4 Commercial Recreational Facilities: Encourage the development of for-profit, privately-owned recreational facilities in the County when they are sited in appropriate locations. PRC 2.5 Planning Review: Involve the Parks & Recreation Commission in the review of rezoning and special use permit requests for recreation facilities desiring to locate in the unincorporated areas of the County.

Cross References and Notes: 6. Trails are also addressed in CRS 3.2 Heritage Parks and Trails System (pg.83) and TRN 4.2 Bikeways, Walkways, and Trails (pg. 224).

Recreational Resources

207

Transportation Resources Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Montgomery

Transportation Resources: Executive Summary The transportation component of Montgomery County, 2025 focuses on four primary goals: 1) Land Use and Transportation, 2) Highway Systems, 3) Mass Transit, and 4) Alternative Transportation. Additional transportation goals and objectives are include in the other sections of Montgomery County, 2025, most notably in connection with the following areas of interest: Neighborhood Designs (Government and Planning) Corridor Planning (Government and Planning, Cultural Resources, Economic Development) Bikeways, Walkways, and Heritage Trails (Cultural Resources , Parks and Recreation, and Environment) Traffic Safety (Public Safety)

Photos by Bill Edmonds

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Transportation Resources

209

Transportation Resources: Introduction COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS Participants were asked to rank four transportation related issues: new roads, existing roads, public transportation, and traffic congestion. Not surprising, existing roads and traffic congestion ranked highest (3.79) of the four transportation related issues. Of special concern, judging from the written comments, was the need to maintain and, in some cases, upgrade the secondary road network in Montgomery County. A number of participants cited specific roads, or portions of roads, as being of some concern, whether it was flood damage on Falling Branch, speed on Riner Road, the blind curves of Pilot Road, or the narrowness of Brush Creek Road and Coal Bank Hollow. For roads in the more urban areas of Montgomery County, participants concerns changed from the condition of road beds to the level of traffic congestion and safety concerns. Many of the participants noted problems with Rt. 114, the Rt 114/U.S. 460 interchange, and, what one participant refer to as the spaghetti mess--the interchanges connected to the new 460 bypass (3A). Safety concerns ranged from overcrowding of roads, speed limits on rural roads, the lack of law enforcement personnel, and the lack of enforcement of traffic laws, especially in neighborhoods and other residential areas, most notably along Rt. 8. New roads ranked the lowest of all of the transportation issues, with a mean score of 3.05, in part because of participants reactions to the Smart Road and the ongoing construction of 3A and the interchanges at South Main Street and North Franklin. Participants comments concerning the two roadways indicated dissatisfaction on the part of respondents towards the two road projects. One participant went so far as to suggest that Montgomery County create a board game, based on the 3A interchanges, Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

and market it to raise money to fund reengineering in the future. The future of the Route 8, Route 114, and Route 11/460 corridors were among the concerns expressed by participants in the 2003 Community Survey. In addition to wanting to see better corridor planning, respondents stressed the need for maintaining and upgrading existing roads, broadening public transit opportunities, and expanding the existing bikeway, walkway, and Heritage Trail system. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the construction of the new bypass and the Smart Road,

respondents voiced limited support for new road construction (41% rated new roads as either important or very important). Public transportation, which received a mean score of 3.62, was cited as one of the primary means of reducing traffic congestion and the need for new roads. One participant wrote: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Work on regional cooperation to provide more extensive public transportation such as bus and passenger railroad service to ease traffic congestion. Also buses could use new technology to be less polluting.â&#x20AC;?

Photo by Bill Edmonds

Transportation Resources

210

Another noted that the county should “Expand public transportation to relieve congestion decrease pollution & allow more funds for maintenance of existing roads.” A number of the participants noted specific changes to the current public transportation offerings, including expanding or changing bus routes, Still others felt that the modes of public transportation should be expanded, including building more bikeways and trails and adding a light rail system in the more populated areas.

Finally, in their written responses to the question, "What would you like to see in Montgomery County in 2025?," respondents suggested they wanted a county with an adequate public transportation system, access to intermodal transportation options (rail, bikeways, walkways, etc.), safer traffic control and conditions, and better overall transportation planning (including active participation in the Metropolitan Planning Organization).

Transportation Resource Issues: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3

Mean Score for all Issues = 3.65

Existing Roads

Traffic Congestion Public Transportation

Transportation Resource Issues Existing Roads Traffic Congestion Public Transportation New Roads

New Roads

Mean Score 3.79 3.79 3.62 3.05

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Transportation Resources

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL TRENDS AND CONDITIONS In the past fifty years, Montgomery County residents have seen the county shift from relatively isolation, connected to the rest of the country by the parallel rails of the Norfolk & Western and the Virginian Railroads and the two lanes each of US 460 and US 11, to a county crossed by the mainline of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad; by Interstate 81 (a heavily traveled, four- to six-lane, north-south interstate, linking Montgomery County to both the upper East Coast and to the upper South and the Southwest); and an expanded US 460 (providing direct access to I-77 and the upper Midwest). As the transportation facilities changed and expanded, so too did the economic conditions and character of Montgomery County. In 1950, the economy was based on agriculture, education, and manufacturing. The construction of I-81, in the 1960s and 1970s, brought Roanoke and the rest of Virginia closer, at least psychologically, by significantly decreasing the driving time required to reach Woodrum Field (Roanoke Regional Airport) and the eastern and northern portions of Virginia, including Richmond. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) added two additional lanes to US 460 through Giles County to what would become the West Virginia Turnpike (subsequently I-77), and I-81 was extended further south and west. The changes in I-81 and US 460 both effectively decreased the isolation of Montgomery County and the outlying areas, while increasing Montgomery County's viability as a regional center. By the early 1970s, Montgomery County's economy was being defined by the rapid growth of Virginia Tech and nearly 20 years of industrial expansion (including Electro Tec, Poly-Scientific, and Corning). By the 1980s, growth in the retail and commercial sectors not only transformed the economic landscape, but also forever changed the physical landscape in the mid-county area. The development of the New River Valley Mall 211

of the county, including Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Cohesive planning, both in terms of transportation and land use, is and will be necessary to address the issues created by an expanding population and by expanding needs both in and outside of Montgomery County. As with the changes created by the expansion of highway systems in the past, new expansions are likely to spawn changes in development patterns and increase development pressures in areas of Montgomery County which have been, heretofore, left reasonably untouched. This is especially true along the I-81, Mudpike, and US 11 corridors between Christiansburg and Radford; the US 460/11 and I-81 corridors through Elliston/Lafayette, Ironto, and Shawsville; and the Route 8 corridor through Riner area and the southwestern portions of Montgomery County. The latter of these three corridors creates the greatest amount of concern because the development pressure will, most likely, originate outside of Montgomery County. As Floyd County develops, there is likely to be increased pressure to provide that county with a more direct, higher speed link to I-81 and the employment, educational, cultural, and commercial opportunities offered in the urbanized center of Montgomery County. in the late-1970s signaled a significant shift in the regional economic patterns--a shift made possible, in large part, by changes in the highway transportation system. Today, Montgomery County is the regional employment, education, retail, and service center for the New River Valley, a fact underscored by the U.S. Census Bureau's recent designation of Montgomery County and Radford (as well as Giles and Pulaski Counties) as a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the 2003 formation of the federally mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), an organization charged with transportation planning in the urbanized portion Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Montgomery County Road Network, 2003 Road Classification Interstate Other Principal Arterials Minor Arterials Major Collectors Minor Collectors Local Roads

Number of Miles 20.94 miles 7.17 miles 21.98 miles 111.91 miles 12.93 miles 348.70 miles

Percentage of Road Miles 4.00% 1.37% 4.20% 21.37% 2.47% 66.59%

Virginia Department of Transportation, 2003

Transportation Resources

212

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO):

Total Vehicle Miles Per 24 Hours: Interstate, Arterial, and Primary Roads, 1975-2001

A new Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) consisting of Blacksburg, Christiansburg and urbanizing portions of Montgomery County was required by the Federal Highway Administration after the 2000 Census found the Blacksburg / Christiansburg area had an urbanized population greater than 50,000. The MPO is required to develop and maintain a comprehensive transportation plan and process for this area and receives federal funding to carry out these planning functions. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed in 2003 between Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Montgomery County, and VDoT to establish the MPO. This memorandum provides for a Technical Committee for general review, guidance, and coordination of the continuing planning process and a Policy Board with representatives from elected boards to assure coordination between the several elected boards and the MPO operations.

2,000,000

1,834,637 tvm 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000

1,192,351 tvm 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1975

1980

Montgomery County

1985

1990

Floyd County

1995

Giles County

2001

Note: Between 1975 and 2001, there was a 266% increase in the total vehicle miles per 24 hours in Montgomery County. Of the 1,834,637 miles logged per day, in 2001, 800,346 (or 44%) were on the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arterial and primary routes; the remaining 1,034,291 miles, per day, were on I-81. Prior to 1995, more vehicle miles were logged per day on the primary and arterial routes than on I-81. This has changed in the past seven years. The difference in the Interstate Total Vehicle Miles between Montgomery and Pulaski Counties can be accounted for by traffic from Virginia Tech and from vehicles using US460 as a connection between I-77 and I-81. 1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2001

Montgomery County

689,580

823,708

980,671

1,135,443

1,438,176

1,834,637

Floyd County

114,229

126,357

146,100

172,980

164,637

289,771

Giles County

249,576

281,390

346,614

389,491

457,242

516,263

Pulaski County

421,721

501,121

574,678

695,626

806,106

1,192,351

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, 2004

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Primary and Secondary Highway System:

Pulaski County

Transportation Resources

Montgomery County has six primary categories of roads: 1) Interstate 81; 2) principal arterials, including US 460; 3) minor arterials, including Rts 8, 11, 114, 177, and the northern portion of US 460; 4) major collectors, including US 460/11 between Roanoke County and Christiansburg, Rts 8, 11, and 114, and a number of secondary roads (e.g. Prices Fork Road); 5) minor collectors, including Rts 693 and 603S; and local roads. Since 1975, Montgomery County has witnessed a dramatic increase in the amount of traffic on the countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s road system. The total vehicle miles, per 24 hour period, has increased 266% (1975-2001) and the traffic 213

Montgomery County: Primary and Secondary Roads, 2004

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Transportation Resources

214

density, defined as the average traffic per mile of road during a 24 hour period, has increased 248% in the same period of time. Until very recently, Montgomery County ranked either 10th or 11th in Virginia in the average density per mile. In the past seven years, however, the traffic in areas on or near I-95 has increased and Montgomery Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s statewide ranking dropped to 24th in 2001. In October, 2003, the Board of Supervisors specified a list of secondary road projects for the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDoT) Six-Year Improvement Program list, including projects on Yellow Sulphur Road, Craig Creek Road, Thomas Lane, and many others.,. In addition, VDoT has provided some funding for primary road projects, including slating work for I-81, Rt 114, US 460, IVHS (Intelligent Vehicle Highway System), and the Smart Road.

22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000

24 11 27

Photo by Bill Edmonds

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

State ranking for county is included on each bar.

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, 2004

Montgomery County

1975

Commuting Patterns. There are a number of ways to look at workrelated commuting: 1) as incommuting (the number of people who commute to Montgomery County for work); 2) as outcommuting (the number of people who commute from Montgomery to other locales for work; and 3) as commuting time (the average time required

Montgomery County Pulaski County

1980

Montgomery & Pulaski Counties: Average Traffic, Per Mile of Road, in 24 hours, 1975-2001

1985 1975 8,700 7,782

1990

1995

1980 10,644 9,447

to commute to work). While the majority of Montgomery County residents (79.1% or 29,589) both live and work in the county, slightly more than a fifth (20.9%) commute to other jurisdictions to work (outcommuting), including 5% to Pulaski County, 4.9% to Radford, and 9.1% to the Roanoke Valley. The same trends hold true for those who work in Montgomery County. Better than a quarter of the Montgomery County workforce (25.9%) commutes from other jurisdictions, including 5.6% from Pulaski County, 4.8% from Giles County, 4.5% from the City of Radford, 3.1% from Floyd County, and 3% from the Roanoke Valley. The ratio of incommuters to outcommuters approximately 5 to 4 (1.18:1). Despite the number of residents who work outside of Montgomery County, the majority of residents spend less than a half an hour commuting to work (79%) and 42% spend Transportation Resources

2001 1985 12,846 10,834

Pulaski County

1990 15,789 13,442

1995 19,922 15,698

2001 21,623 19,109

less than 15 minutes. The relatively short commute times is, in large part, due to the concentration of population (residences) and economic enterprises in Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Mass and Alternative Transportation: Mass transit has the potential to produce substantial mobility for all and provide environmental benefits by attracting large numbers of individual trips that otherwise would be made by private automobile. Mass transit can provide support to communities, the economy, and the environment by decreasing auto-related transportation on existing highway network and connecting people with alternative modes of transportation. It would be ideal to transport a large number of people to their 215

Commuting Patterns: Montgomery County, 2003

225 3384 (Roanoke Valley)

Giles 1933

1242

Montgomery

1785 1840

1252

Radford

Pulaski

2248

1872 249 Source: New River Valley Planning District Commission, 2003

Floyd

74.1% of the people who work in Montgomery County, also reside in the County. 25.9% commute from neighboring locations. Of the people who live in Montgomery County, 79.1% work in the county. The remaining 20.9% commute to other jurisdictions, including the Roanoke Valley and Pulaski.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Transportation Resources

desired destination without them ever having to set foot in a private automobile, which could be achieved by providing connectivity to various existing network modes. While alternative and mass modes of transportation have long existed in Montgomery County, their scope and range of network have generally been both limited and isolated. Longtime residents of Merrimac, a small mining community between Blacksburg and Christiansburg, can still remember riding the Huckleberry rail line into the two towns. Residents of Elliston, in the eastern portion of the county, still speak of catching the train into Roanoke. Although there is a significant move afoot to bring rail transportation back to Montgomery County, evidenced by the New River Valley Regional Rail Corridor Plan, Phase II (1997) and the Trans Dominion Express initiative, current mass transportation in Montgomery County is limited to the services provided by Blacksburg Transit, including the Two-Town Trolley, which runs between Blacksburg and Christiansburg. A pending proposal form the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (Valley Metro) would provide bus service between Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Montgomery County, and the Roanoke Valley. Bikeway, Walkway, Trail System Alternative transportation refers to the provision of a system of bikeways, walkways, and heritage trails in Montgomery County. The current system of trails and other pedestrian and bicycle friendly transportation routes was established in the 1990 Montgomery County Bikeway/Walkway Plan, which described a system of shared roads (roads with lighter traffic counts), bike lanes adjacent to roads with higher traffic counts, and paved, ADA compliant trails. In the years since the passage of the 1990 plan, bike lanes have been added along Rt 723 between Lusters Gate and Ellett and along Rt 685 between Blacksburg and Prices Fork. In addition, Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and 216

Montgomery County Commuters: Time They Leave For Work, 1990-2000 7000 6500

1990

6000

2000

5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

12:00am 5:00am 5:30am 6:00am 6:30am 7:00am 7:30am 8:00am 8:30am 9:00am 10:00am11:00am12:00pm 4:00pm 1990 2000

12:00am 5:00am 5:30am 6:00am 6:30am 7:00am 7:30am 8:00am 8:30am 9:00am 10:00am 11:00am 12:00pm 4:00pm 657 472 700 1973 2561 4686 5972 4215 1816 2170 1132 518 2898 3043 985 667 937 2072 2977 4756 6856 4141 2694 2689 1220 514 3533 3138

Regional Commuting Patterns, 2001 Montgomery County Floyd County Giles County Pulaski County Radford (City) Roanoke County Roanoke City

Number (%) Working & Living in Same County 29,589 (77%) 2,824 (43%) 3,914 (54%) 16,183 (65%) 3,651 (52%) 14,425 (33%) 27,069 (62%)

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Number (%) Outcommuting

8,741 (33%) 3,746 (57%) 3,381 (46%) 5,592 (35%) 3,317 (48%) 28,994 (67%) 16,625 (38%)

Number (%) of Outcommuters to Montgomery County n/a 1,252 (33%) 1,933 (57%) 2,248 (40%) 1,785 (54%) 534 (02%) 492 (03%)

Number (%) of Number Incommuters Incommuting Commuting from Montgomery County 10,319 n/a 640 249 (39%) 2,148 225 (11%) 6,443 1,872 (29%) 5,128 1,840 (36%) 20,247 1,036 (05%) 42,478 1,199 (2.8%)

Transportation Resources

Source: New River Valley Planning District Commission, 2003

217

Christiansburg worked the Friends of the Huckleberry to build the Huckleberry Trail, a rails-to-trails project, which extends from the Blacksburg branch of the Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library in downtown Blacksburg, through Merrimac, to the New River Valley Mall in Christiansburg. Plans to extend the Huckleberry south into Christiansburg and north to the Jefferson National forest are under development.

approach facilities. A parallel taxiway is currently provided as well as a newly constructed terminal building, parking area, hangar space, and apron area. The Virginia Tech / Montgomery Regional Airport Authority was formed in 2001 by Blacksburg, Montgomery County and Virginia Tech to administer the airport under a long-term lease from Virginia Tech. New River Valley Airport:

Air and Rail Transportation. This facility, adjoining the New River Valley Virginia Tech / Montgomery Executive Airport: Commerce Park, has an ample supply of available and affordable land for expansion and This airport, located beside the Virginia Tech installation of shipping terminals. The NRV campus, currently houses approximately 35 aircraft airport has one of the longest runways in the on site, and serves 39,000 flights annually. The western portion of Virginia with a 6,201' x 150' airport sits on 280 acres and uses a non-precision asphalt runway. There is open space around the localizer approach. A primary runway of 4,550 facility for both fixed facility improvements feet in length accommodates corporate and private and runway improvements. This airport is well jets. The runway is also lighted for night flight positioned to serve all domestic and foreign operations and is complemented by instrument markets. It is the Montgomery County's closest

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Transportation Resources

inland port authority. Montgomery County is a member of the New River Valley Airport Authority Roanoke Regional Airport: This facility provides full-service passenger and freight air service and is the primary airport serving southwestern Virginia. The airport has approximately 90 scheduled passenger flight arrivals and departures per day, accessing twelve major cities with nonstop service. A five-member commission that includes representatives of the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County governs the airports operations. The airport has made major improvements in recent years to ensure its competitiveness, such as a new terminal and runway extension. A new tower is planned along with other improvements. Project Nexus is a regional project to increase the airports competitiveness by promoting low-fare, daily express service between Roanoke Regional Airport and Dulles International Airport.

218

Transportation Resources: Goals TRN 1.0 Land Use and Transportation Goal: Coordinate land use planning with transportation planning in order to reduce traffic congestion and to balance development needs with the desire for livable communities. (1)

Information: Provide an annually updated Montgomery County Transportation Map, legibly labeled, which would include all road names, route numbers, walkway/ bikeway routes, public transit stops, park and ride lots, airports, and other transportation information generated by Montgomery County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). (4)

TRN 1.1 Public Information and Outreach: Actively promote public participation in the transportation planning and decisionmaking processes and public use of transportation opportunities in Montgomery County by: 1) providing for public input opportunities; 2) maintaining and publicly distributing transportation-related GIS data in order to track changes in land use and transportation opportunities; and 3) providing access to a broad range of transportation related information to increase public understanding and awareness and promote public use of the transportation modes offered in Montgomery County. (2)

TRN 1.1.3 Transportation Related Public Information: Provide broad-based public access to print and electronic based transportation-related information, including Montgomery County Transportation Map, annually updated; Montgomery County GIS data and online mapping service; Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) data, meeting minutes, and reports; roadway maintenance problems and directions for notifying the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) when maintenance problems arise; Park and Ride facilities and information; and bikeway, walkway, and Heritage Trail information.

TRN 1.1.1 Transportation Related Public Involvement: Increase public involvement in transportation-related decisions, including: 1) work with the MPO and other local jurisdictions to develop a policy to encourage significant public input and involvement in transportation and corridor planning; and 2) work with local organizations to encourage significant public input and involvement in local corridor and village planning initiatives. (3)

TRN 1.2 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): Provide ongoing, long-term support of and assistance to the Metropolitan Planning Organization. TRN 1.2.1 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan: Provide input on County land use issues into the MPOs ongoing transportation planning process and the MPOs preparation of the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan, which will address: 1) future road improvements for arterial and collector roads, including flexible, context-sensitive road design standards; 2) mass transit; and 3) Heritage Trails, bikeways, and walkways. (5)

TRN 1.1.2 Transportation Map (GIS) and Public Cross References and Notes: 1. Specific transportation land use policies are include in the Planning and Land Use chapter, including Resource Stewardship Areas (PLU 1.2.3 [c][d])(pg. 36); Rural Areas (PLU 1.3.3 [c][d](pg. 37); Rural Communities (PLU 1.4.2 (b) and PLU 1.4.3 [c][d](pg. 39); Residential Transition Areas (PLU 1.5.3 [c])(pg. 40); Village Expansion Areas (PLU 1.6.4 [c][f] and PLU 1.6.5 [c])(pg. 42); Villages (PLU 1.7.4 [d][e] and PLU 1.7.5 [c][d](pg. 44-5); and Urban Expansion Areas, including corridor planning (PLU 1.8.2, PLU 1.8.3 [c], and PLU 1.8.5 [c](pg. 45-46). Additional provisions for Road Access (PLU 2.1 [c]), Interparcel Access [PLU 2.1 [e]) and Pedestrian Access (PLU 2.1[f]) (pg. 48) are included under the land use policies for new development. Street considerations are included in the traditional neighborhood design (PLU 3.0 [b-i-vii, pg. 50). Safe Neighborhoods are addressed in HSG 1.3.3: Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation (pg. 190). 2. The provision of public information is one of the central themes of Montgomery County, 2025. Additional information on the planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach to public information is included in PNG 2.2: Informing the Public (pg. 67). 3. Corridor planning is addressed in PLU 1.8.2: Corridor Planning (pg. 45).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 4. The Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Geographic Information System (GIS) provides both County staff and County residents with a powerful analytic tool. Additional information on the GIS system is included in Cultural Resources (CRS 1.2.2, pg. 81), Environmental Resources (ENV 1.3, pg. 136), Public Safety (SFY 1.1.5, pg. 197), and Utilities (UTL 1.4.3, pg. 235). 5. The Heritage Trail system, bikeways, and walkways are addressed in TRN 4.2 Walkway/Bikeway Update (pg. 224); CRS 1.1.3: Heritage Parks and Trails System (pg. 81); HSG 1.3.3: Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation (pg. 190); PRC 1.3.2: Trail Linkages (pg. 206); and PRC2.3: Trails (pg. 207).

Transportation Resources

219

TRN 1.2.2 Cooperative Review: Develop a cooperative review policy/ agreement whereby Montgomery County would include the MPO, along with other local jurisdictions, and vise versa in addressing transportation issues for new, major developments. TRN 1.3 Subdivisions: Proactively review, on a regular basis, the Subdivision Ordinance with respect to those issues that involve both land use and transportation. By regularly reviewing the subdivision ordinance, the county can establish proactive policies which address land use and transportation issues, including cul-de-sacs, street continuation and connectivity, and right-of-way standards. (6) TRN 1.3.1 Cul-de-sac: Review the Subdivision Ordinance requirement limiting the number of lots permitted on a dead end cul-de-sac rather than limiting the linear feet of the cul-de-sac.

context sensitive street designs in Villages and urbanized areas. (8) TRN 1.3.5 Pedestrian Oriented Facilities. Require the provision of pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, walkways, trails, etc.) in new developments in the Village, Village Expansion, Residential Transition, and Urban Expansion Areas. (9) TRN 1.4 Connectivity and Access Management: Provide for the safe, orderly, and efficient flow of traffic along roads classified as major and minor arterials by 1) incorporating access management strategies in the review of development proposals; and 2) asking the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to assist in evaluating ingress, egress, and connectivity requirements. This requirement would limit the burdening of any one road with only one ingress and egress and encourage connectivity. Presently such a requirement exists only for the 177 Corridor Planning Area.

TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity: Require that the arrangement of streets in new subdivisions: 1) make provisions for connectivity and for the continuation of existing streets into adjoining areas; and 2) delineate future street extensions on subdivision plats in order that lot purchasers are aware that the streets in their subdivisions are likely to be extended to adjoining properties. (7) TRN 1.3.3 Right-of-Way Standards: Require new lots, created by subdivision, abut streets meeting VDoT right-of-way standards. This requirement leads to the dedication of additional right-of-way when lots are platted along existing streets with substandard rightof-way widths. Exceptions are made for family subdivisions and lots with private access easements. TRN 1.3.4 Context Sensitive Street Designs. Work with VDoT to develop road standards which allow for Cross References and Notes: 6.See footnote #1 (pg. 219). 7. Street continuation and connectivity are central themes in the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach to transportation planning. Additional references can be found in the Planning and Land Use chapter (see note #1 for specific references); and HSG 1.3.3 Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation (pg. 190), as well as other portions of this chapter.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

TRN 1.4.1 Strip Development: Discourage strip development, particularly of commercial properties, along important transportation corridors by designating areas that can be zoned to serve as compact centers for development, including village and urban centers and major road intersections. TRN 1.4.2 Commercial Access: Require that high volume/ high turnover commercial establishments (drive-thru restaurants and convenience stores for example) locate within other commercial development where access to the facility is from the development, not from the major thoroughfare. Cross References and Notes: 8. The need for a flexible, contextual approach to road standards is especially important in the Villages and Rural Communities where historic patterns of development differ from existing state road standards and where the historic fabric of the community could be disrupted or destroyed if current standards were strictly applied. Additional information on transportation issues and contextual road standards as they apply to rural communities and villages can be found in PLU 1.4.2[b], 1.4.3 [c][d], 1.7.4[d][e], and 1.7./5 [c][d] (pgs 39, 44-45). In addition, street sensitive design is also addressed in the Proposed Revision Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements (published in the Virginia Register on May 3, 2004) and Draft Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Design Guide (Appendix B of the Road Design Manual) dated 12/19/2003 9. Pedestrian-oriented development is addressed in PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 41), PLU 1.7: Villages (pg. 43), and PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 50).

Transportation Resources

220

TRN 1.4.3 Shared Access: Encourage shared access for roads classified as major and minor arterials and major and minor collectors.

TRN 2.0 Highway System: Manage, enhance, and maintain the current network of transportation in order to maximize safety and efficiency and facilitate economic development, while reducing natural and built environmental impacts.

TRN 1.5 Road Standards: Encourage flexibility in the application of road design standards. The application of any standards should consider a roads context and setting and the impact of the proposed design upon the community and the environment.

TRN 2.1 Maintenance: Encourage the Virginia Department of Transportation and Montgomery County to approach efficient and effective maintenance of existing public roads as a first priority, in order to extend roadway surface life, minimize traffic congestion, and increase public safety during all seasons and under all weather conditions. It is important to maintain current transportation routes as the most cost effective alternative to building new roads. Maintenance of our roads will provide a safe travel surface, eliminate hazards to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and protect the financial investment in the roadway system by preventing progressive deterioration of the pavement and shoulders.

TRN 1.6 Cash Proffers: Evaluate the development a Cash Proffer System, in partnership with Blacksburg and Christiansburg, to address the impact of new development on the transportation system and provide funding to alleviate future problems. (10) TRN 1.7 Comprehensive Plan Compliance. Actively review all transportation and land use projects and proposals to determine compliance with the applicable sections of the comprehensive plan and land use policies.

TRN 2.2 Safety: Encourage law enforcement to enforce speed limits, stoplights, and all other traffic laws in order to effectively protect: 1) the public health, safety, and welfare; 2) residents' quality of life; and 3) the fluidity and efficiency of both our vehicular and our pedestrian transportation systems. (11) TRN 2.2.1 Law Enforcement Personnel: Encourage local and regional jurisdictions to increase the number of law enforcement personnel, in order to more effectively enforce the law and provide a higher quality of life and a safer atmosphere to the Montgomery County citizens. TRN 2.3 Alleviating Traffic Congestion and Accidents. Identify congestion and accident prone routes and intersections and adopt policies to alleviate congestion, increase safety, and decrease car trips. TRN 2.3.1 Problem Intersections and Routes: Identify problematic intersections and routes in Montgomery County, and work with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations and The Transportation Safety Commission to find solutions.

Cross References and Notes: 10. Proffers are addressed, more fully, in PLU 2.2: Proffer Guidelines (pg. 48).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 11. Public Safety considerations are also addressed in SFY 1.0: Public Safety (pg. 197). In addition, public safety considerations are central to the design of safe neighborhoods, addressed in HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 190).

Transportation Resources

221

TRN 2.3.2 Park-and-Ride: Work with the MPO to develop a regional park-and-ride lot strategic plan which would : 1) provide facilities in outlying areas of Montgomery County and adjacent jurisdictions; 2) evaluate existing, under utilized parking lots for park and ride opportunities; and 3) establish a public awareness program to encourage increased usage of park-and-ride facilities.

TRN 2.5.2 Scenic Beauty: Encourage green medians and discourage soundwalls in order to maintain scenic beauty throughout the corridor. (14) TRN 2.5.3 Rail Alternatives: Require a detailed study and serious consideration of passenger (Trans Dominion) and freight rail service alone the entire Interstate 81 corridor, including possible improvements in adjacent states. (15)

TRN 2.4 Access Management: Encourage the practice of access management both in Montgomery County and regionally, which will deter expensive road improvements, allow safer driving conditions while decreasing traffic congestion, and increase safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

TRN 2.5.4 Toll Free Local Traffic: Structure toll policies to exempt local traffic: 1) within the Blacksburg MSA (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford) and 2) between the adjoining Blacksburg MSA and the Roanoke MSA.

TRN 2.4.1 Corridor Planning and Access Management: In cooperation with the New River Valley Planning District Commission, develop a regional approach to the corridor planning process (e.g. The 177 Corridor Plan) which incorporates access management techniques, (12)

TRN 2.5.5 Toll Facility: Location Locate toll facilities where they will not have an adverse impact on local highways. For example, the Fluor proposal locates a toll facility at mile marker 116 thereby dumping significant traffic onto the local streets of Christiansburg.

TRN 2.5 Interstate 81 Corridor Improvements: Support the multi-year Environmental Process currently being conducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the corridor improvements identified in the 1998 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) study to meet the future needs county residents and those passing through the county on Interstate 81. (13) Any proposal for improvements to the Interstate 81 corridor must address the following eight issues of significance to Montgomery County: TRN 2.5.1 Smart Road: The future Smart Road interchange should be evaluated and incorporated into the design and construction of any improvements. Cross References and Notes: 12. Corridor planning is also addressed in PLU 1.8.2: Corridor Planning (pg. 45). Additional considerations are also included in PLU 3.0: Community Design (pg.50) 13. Montgomery County is concerned (Board resolution of October 27, 2003) with the two private proposals (Fluor and Star Solutions) for improvements to the Interstate 81 corridor submitted under the Public Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPTA). The two proposals are vastly different from each other and neither proposal corresponds to the concept study for Interstate 81 corridor improvements developed for VDoT in 1998. Moreover VDoT is beginning a multi-year Environmental Process to determine the purpose, need, and scope of corridor improvements. Therefore, any proposal decision should not be made until the Environmental Process is complete.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

TRN 2.5.6 Stormwater Management: Encourage VDoT to work with appropriate local governments in the design and construction of regional stormwater management facilities along the corridor. (16) TRN 2.5.7 Agricultural & Forestal Districts (AFDs): Discourage expansion of right-of-ways beyond what was identified in VDoT's 1998 concept study in order to minimize the impact on Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFDs) in Montgomery County. (17) Cross References and Notes: 14. Scenic beauty, in the form of viewsheds, is a significant advertising resource for Montgomery County. The I-81 corridor functions as both an introduction to and an invitation to travellers to stop and explore the County. The preservation of access to viewsheds and the scenic beauty the County has to offer is address in CRS 1.1: Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors (pg. 81); CRS 1.3: Historic Preservation and Tourism (pg. 82); ENV1.0: Open Space (pg. 136); and ENV 2.3: Viewsheds (pg. 137). 15. Rail transportation is covered in TRN 5.0: Multi-Modal Transportation (pg. 225) 16. Stormwater Management is also addressed in UTL 4.0: Stormwater Management (pg. 237); ENV 6.5: Stormwater Management (pg. 147); and ENV 7.0: Stormwater and Erosion Control (pg. 148). 17. Agricultural and Forestal districts are addressed in ENV 2.1.3: Agricultural and Forestal Districts (pg. 139) and ENV 3.1.6: Agricultural and Forestal Districts (pg. 139).

Transportation Resources

222

TRN 2.5.8 Rest Areas: Encourage the construction of adequate rest areas, which provide separate facilities for cars and trucks, through out the corridor.

TRN 3.0 Mass Transit: Create a better mass transit system (rail, bus, trolley, carpool) that allows for mobility of all citizens. (18) TRN 3.1 Existing Service: To maintain and enhance the existing Blacksburg Transit (BT) transit service in order to maximize safety and efficiency while minimizing environmental degradation.

TRN 2.6 Virginia Scenic Byways: Virginia Byways are existing roads with significant aesthetic and cultural values, leading to or lying within an area of historical, natural or recreational significance. Montgomery County, in conjunction with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), will work to identify, evaluate and designate roads in the county that have important and unique scenic value and experiences, provide diverse landscape experiences, provide linkages and access, provide leisurely motoring experiences, and are regionally significant.

TRN 3.1.1 Efficient Transit: Encourage BT to provide more efficient and well-planned service routes, with "safe" bus stops and "safe" access to those bus stops, including: 1) well-planned service routes to decrease time spent waiting for the bus; 2) lit and well marked bus stops; and 3) and sidewalks or walkways/ bikeways to access bus stops safely rather than walking on the shoulder of a busy road. TRN 3.1.2 Transit Service Extension: Request that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) evaluate mass transit extensions as part of the 2030 long-range transportation plan including the extension of the Two Town Trolley service between Blacksburg and Christiansburg to include Radford. (19) TRN 3.2 Future Service: Encourage the provision of a mass transit service in commercial areas and between jurisdictions (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford) and between MSAs (Blacksburg and Roanoke) to alleviate congestion and decrease the number of personal car trips. TRN 3.2.1 Micro-shuttle: Ask the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to evaluate micro-shuttle service to area businesses within the core shopping area. This study would evaluate cost, demand, efficiency, and transit route tie-ins. A shuttle service would simply be a small-localized loop within the core shopping area, whereas the transit relay would serve a larger area. Possible funding sources could be businesses that would have a shuttle stop in front of their store, the jurisdictions served by the commercial area, and Chamber of Cross References and Notes: 18. Park and Ride facilities for outlying areas and public awareness programs for carpooling are addressed in TRN 2.3.2 (pg. 222) 19. Public transit services provide transportation for lower income and disabled commuters to travel to work and to the commercial areas in the County, as suggested in HHS 2.3: Transportation (pg. 175).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Transportation Resources

223

Commerce. Ideally, the micro-shuttle would be operated by BT and would tie into existing bus routes. TRN 3.2.2 Valley Metro Service: Establish clear benchmarks to measure the success or failure of Valley Metro's demonstration project for express bus service between Blacksburg and downtown Roanoke. TRN 3.2.3 Alternate Transit Transfer Site: Encourage Blacksburg Transit and Virginia Tech to evaluate an alternative to the existing transit transfer area on campus at Burress Hall. While Burress Hall serves the Virginia Tech population well, it does not purposefully serve other users of the BT transit system. The idea is to make mass transit more usable by all citizens; therefore finding an additional off-campus transit transfer site would be very beneficial.

TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation: Support viable alternative modes of transportation (walking/ biking trails) and provide connectivity to existing transportation networks. Walking and biking trails are an important alternative mode of transportation that can reduce congestion from the use of private cars. By managing the existing trails network and providing connectivity to other modes of transportation, the County can develop a comprehensive transportation network that balances safety, mobility, cost, and environmental impact. When walkway and bikeways interconnect, people are more likely to use them to get to and from work, shopping, etc. The Huckleberry Trail, Mid-County Park Market Place Connection, and New River Trails are walkways/ bikeways that should be linked with other local and regional walkway/ bikeway systems. (20) TRN 4.1 Commercial/ Public Use: Evaluate sidewalk and bike rack requirements for commercial and public use developments in order to encourage the use of alternative transportation and alleviate congestion.

TRN 3.3: Villages and Public Transportation: Evaluate the provision of public transportation between the six villages (Belview, Elliston-Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville) and the urban centers (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford).

TRN 4.2 Bikeways, Walkways, and Trails: Encourage coordination between the County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and regional jurisdictions in order to provide connectivity of all bikeways, walkways and Trails. TRN 4.2.1 Bikeways, Walkways, and Trails Coordination: Use the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) framework to create coordination committee to study the connectivity of the bikeway, walkway, sidewalk, and heritage trail network.. TRN 4.2.2 Walkway/ Bikeway Update: Work with the Metropolitan Planning Organization to review and update the Bikeway, Walkway, and Heritage Trails Plan. Cross References and Notes: 20. The provision of pedestrian-oriented transportation facilities (bikeways, walkways, sidewalks, and Heritage Trails) are at the core of a number of different provisions in this plan. They are central to the establishment of safe neighborhoods (HSG 1.3.1, pg. 190); provide connectivity in rural communities (PLU 1.4.2[b], pg. 39), villages (PLU 1.7.3[a], 1.7.4[d], and 1.7.5[d], pgs. 44-45), village expansion areas (PLU 1.6.5[c] and1.6.5[c], pg.42) and urban expansion areas (PLU 1.8.4[c], pg. 46); are encouraged in new developments [PLU 2.1[f], pg. 48) and in neighborhood and community design (PLU 3.1.1[b][i-v], pg. 50), provide recreational opportunities (PRC1.3.2 and 2.3, pgs. 206-7 ), and provide additional commuting opportunities to the large scale economic and industrial areas (PRC 2.3.2, pg. 207).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Transportation Resources

224

TRN 5.0 Multi-Modal Transportation Goal. Encourage, maintain, and enhance air and rail transportation service in Montgomery County and the New River Valley. The New River Valley provides Virginia with a rich resource of educational institutions. With those institutions come high technology industries and businesses. Public transportation rail and air links between southwest Virginia, the State Capital, and Washington, D.C. are essential for the continued growth and prosperity of the New River Valley and would help spawn new economic growth in the more rural western sections of the state. New corporations and high tech industries would take a more favorable look at locating in Virginia with this type of statewide transportation initiative.

TRN 5.2 Rail Transportation: Maintain and enhance Norfolk Southern rail service to businesses, industries, and people in Montgomery County. TRN 5.2.1 Industrial Rail Spurs : Support increased rail service and spurs to the industrial areas and parks in the county. (21) TRN 5.2.2 Interstate 81 Freight Diversion Strategy: Support state efforts to promote rail alternatives to through truck traffic on Interstate 81. This will necessitate consideration of rail improvements in nearby states in conjunction with improvements to â&#x20AC;&#x153;bottlenecksâ&#x20AC;? in Virginia in order to provide competitive, long haul rail service.

TRN 5.1 Air Transportation: Maintain and enhance the complementary roles of the three airports serving Montgomery County: 1) Virginia Tech / Montgomery Executive Airport for corporate and general aviation needs; 2 New River Valley Airport for air freight needs, and 3) Roanoke Regional Airport for full-service air passenger needs. TRN 5.1.1 Low Cost Carrier Strategy: Support Virginia Tech's efforts to attract a low cost air carrier to the Roanoke Regional Airport.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

TRN 5.2.3 Trans Dominion Express Strategy: Support state efforts to promote high speed passenger rail service for southwestern Virginia. Cross References and Notes: 21. The Corning Rail Spur is one example.

Transportation Resources

225

Utilities Montgomery County, 2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Utilities: Executive Summary The Utilities Chapter of Montgomery County 2025 covers four distinct areas of concern: 1) public and private water and sewer; 2) electric, telecommunications, and gas utilities; 3) solid waste; and 4) stormwater management. The goals included in this chapter focus on: • Increased cooperation between jurisdictions; • Maintaining environmental quality; • Increased public awareness and involvement; • Increased public and private responsibility; and • The effective and efficient provision of public, quasi-public, and private utilities.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Utility Resources

227

Utilities: Introduction COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS The survey asked participants to rank four utility-related issues: 1) public water and sewer, 2) concentrating growth where utilities are already provided, 3) concern over old or failing septic systems, and 4) trash collection facilities. Of the 815 county residents who responded to the Community Survey (1), 56% felt that it was either “ important” or “very important” to concentrate growth where utilities we already provided. An additional 25% felt it was “moderately important.” Only 3% (25 respondents) felt it was “not important.” In most cases, those who suggest concentrating growth also express a concern for either agricultural or open space preservation. As one participant noted, Montgomery County should, in the future, see that" large contiguous areas of farm and forest lands are protected by conservation easements" while "development is concentrated in growth areas served by public water, sewer." In addition, those who noted the need for the provision of quality public utilities, also emphasized open space and/or ample outdoor activities and opportunities. As with other areas, there was a strong emphasis on interjurisdictional cooperation. Of the 815 respondents to the citizen survey, 69% rated the provision of public water and sewer as either “important” or “very important.” Only 23 respondents (3%) felt that public water and sewer was “not important.” Some of the respondents who included utility comments in their future statement suggested that they wanted to see increased cooperation between the towns, county, and, in some cases, Virginia Tech,

especially in terms of the provision of public water, sewer, and trash collection. Others, on the other hand wanted to see the expansion of existing town water and sewer either extended into the county or see the merging of the individual public service providers into one organization. Regardless of how each respondent defined the method of distribution or the provider, the majority of respondents, in one way or another, expressed an interest in the effective and efficient provision of public service. In addition to concerns about the provision of public water and sewer, participants also expressed a concern about private water and

sewer systems (wells and septic systems) and their impact on groundwater and surface water quality. More than half of the respondents (57%) felt that concern over old or failing septic systems was either “important” or “very important,” while a combined 86% of respondents rated groundwater and surface water protection as being “important” (19%) or “very important” (67%). As one respondent noted, "there are too many septic systems for the geology,” while another observed that "we must protect groundwater and limit the number of homes or businesses drawing water from underground resources since it is difficult to determine how much water is there."

Notes: 1. The Community Survey generated 826 responses; however, 11 responses were received well after the deadline. The written comments from these surveys were included in the results, the quantitative data was not.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Utility Resources

228

Many of the comments focused on trash and waste management, most specifically in terms of expanded opportunities for recycling and the location and distribution of public services. Both in the utilities chapter and in the housing chapter, respondents appeared concerned with not only the extent of services and the concentration of development near existing services, but also who was ultimately responsible for providing those services. While many of the comments suggested that the county needed to both control growth near existing infrastructure and expand

infrastructure in designated areas to provide for future needs, some also noted that developers have a responsibility to provide infrastructure (including utilities) to serve developments and lessen the fiscal impact of developments on existing residents. A number of respondents suggested that the county explore the use of decentralized sewer systems in areas where the provision of public utilities might not be either physically or financially feasible. The emphasis on decentralized sewer systems goes hand-in-hand

Utility Issues: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003 3.9 3.85 3.8 3.75 3.7 3.65

Mean Score for all Issues = 3.65

3.6 3.55

with concerns over the impact of septic systems on groundwater quality (comments related to failing septic systems are included in the environmental portion of this report). While telecommunication towers were only mentioned a couple of times, many of the comments in the environmental portion of the community survey suggest that respondents are concerned about the adverse impacts of development in rural and scenic areas, most specifically in terms of ridgelines. In addition, comments related to light pollution and the visual impact of development suggest support for controlling the dispersal of towers in Montgomery County. The issue of trash was not limited to recycling, the location and management of collection sites, or the potential for house by house pickup. A number of respondents also noted the problem of junk cars and litter in the county. As one respondent noted, "the county is now evolving into not only the dumping grounds for dead automobiles but dead mobile homes are starting to litter the county landscape on Ellett Road in Ellett Valley, on Fairview Church Rd, on Rt 615 toward Pilot." HISTORIC AND CURRENT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS

Public Water and Sewer

Trash Collection Facilities Mean Score

Public Water and Sewer Trash Collection Facilities Mean Score for All Issues

3.87 3.58 3.65

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Utility Resources

Public Water and Sewer. Blacksburg provides water services through its membership in the Blacksburg, Christiansburg, & VPI Water Authority and sewer services through its membership in the Blacksburg-VPI Sanitation Authority. Christiansburg provides water service through its membership in the Blacksburg, Christiansburg, & VPI Water Authority and sewer service through its operation of the Crab Creek Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). In selected areas of the County, outside the towns, public water is provided by the Public Service Authority (PSA), which operates several well systems but mostly buys water from 229

Montgomery County: Location of Utilities, 2004

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Utility Resources

230

per day (mgd) RAAP treatment plant could be upgraded to 4.5 mgd. There is also the 20 mgd RAAP treatment plant for non-potable water that could be upgraded to provide potable water. Public Service Authority

neighboring jurisdictions (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford) and the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP). All 3 water treatment plants (BC&VPI Water Authority, RAAP, and Radford City) withdraw water from the New River. For Montgomery County, water is provided from 3 water treatment plants (Radford, RAAP and the Blacksburg Christiansburg & VPI Water Authority), none of which is controlled by the County. Wastewater is handled at 3 large sewage treatment plants (stp) and several small stps. The cost to operate these plants is increasing along with growing state and federal regulations and testing requirements. Virginia Senate Bill 1221 (approved and signed into law) calls for a comprehensive water supply planning process to (1) ensure that adequate and safe drinking water is available; (2) encourage and protect all beneficial uses; and (3) encourage, promote, and develop incentives for alternative water sources. The network of individual water distribution lines and service areas is growing closer together. The ability of the various water systems to back each other up would provide reliability benefits and could possibly reduce the daily coast of operation. Roanoke/Salem/Roanoke County provide a nearby example of the long-term advantages to be gained by interconnecting water systems. The existing 2.5 million gallons Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

The PSA provides for wastewater service through County membership in the Pepper's Ferry Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority; through capacity agreements with the Blacksburg VPI Sanitation Authority (Stroubles Creek STP) and Christiansburg (Crab Creek STP); and through the operation of small sewage treatment plants in Riner, Shawsville, and Elliston. In addition, there are several privately owned water and sewer systems serving specific subdivisions (for example, Blacksburg Country Club Estates), and numerous individual wells and septic systems. The Peppers Ferry Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority recently changed from a capacity approach (where each member locality owned a specified portion of the authority's total treatment capacity) to a "put and pay" approach (where each member locality paid depending on their actual sewage throughput). This institutional change has given the authority greater flexibility in providing service to member

localities and planning for future treatment needs. In 1993, the County commissioned the "Countywide Study Water and Wastewater Facilities Montgomery County, Virginia". This study updated a previous water and wastewater study prepared in 1986. Using the 1993 Countywide Study, 39 water and sewer projects were evaluated and 24 of them were added to the Comprehensive Plan by amendment in 1999. An additional 2 projects were added by amendment in 2002 in support of the Prices Fork Water Project. Four of these projects have been completed or are nearing completion: • Sewer Riner Expansion; • Water Prices Mountain/Oilwell Rd, Merrimac Loop Merrimac-Prices Fork. The remaining projects need to be carefully evaluated with regard to the projects’ compatibility with the comprehensive plan and factors such as economic and engineering feasibility. A preliminary review by the Utilities Working Group found little basis for several of the remaining projects in terms of current or potential health problems or growth areas. The

Utility Resources

231

corrosivity (because of the potential to raise dissolved copper and lead levels in water), sodium bacteria, and to a lesser extent nitrate. Forty-eight percent of the samples undergoing bacteriological analysis tested positive for total coliform and 27% for fecal coliform bacteria. In these positive cases, participants were advised of ways to improve well conditions and encouraged to pursue retesting for coliform bacteria. In the cases of corrosivity and sodium, conditions were likely made worse due to the installation of commercial water softeners on drinking water lines." (2)

PSA has completed improvements and extensions to its water system supplying the Prices Fork and Merrimac communities with water from the RAAP. Now is the time for the County to consider full membership in the Water Authority. For this to become a reality, the county and the two towns will need to develop coordinated land uses strategies for adjacent areas and include them within the respective Comprehensive Plans. Private Water and Sewer In 1992, the Extension Service household water quality educational program tested 461 household water supplies in the county. The study concluded: "Considering the results from both the raw and tap water sample groups, and the influence of water treatment devices, the major remaining household water quality problem in Montgomery County, from a nuisance standpoint, was hardness. The major health-related concerns were 2. Virginia Extension Service (April 1993). "Evaluation of Household Water Quality in Montgomery County, Virginia"

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Privately owned water and sewer systems sometimes suffer from inadequate service, inadequate capital infrastructure, poor financial management and/or excessive service rates. In such cases it may be in the public interest for the systems to be acquired and operated by the PSA. Cost-sharing by homeowners, who would benefit from the acquisition, may be required to make such acquisitions financially feasible to the PSA. While in general it is more cost effective to cluster growth in areas that already have public water and sewer lines, it will not always be in the public interest to do so. To maintain the distinct character of "villages" in the County, it may be necessary to deny access to service lines which run through areas not designated for growth. Communities with health problems should not be forced to choose between poor water or rampant growth.

any of these services, the impact upon the natural environment must be mitigated. Examples include overhead power lines in residential subdivisions and telecommunication towers in important viewsheds or environmentally sensitive areas. Telecommunications Towers At the request of the Board of Supervisors, County staff worked with Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford and Pulaski County representatives to develop a regional approach to: • Uniform definition and approach to colocation; • Uniform and consistent notification procedures; • Uniform approach to siting of new towers; • Uniform mapping of tower sites; and • Consistent use of consultants to assist

Telecommunications, Electricity. and Natural Gas These utilities are provided by the private sector. The provision of electric and telecommunication services are basic to any development occurring in the County. The provision of high speed fiber optics service and natural gas are important to the development of designated growth areas and their higher residential densities. However, when providing Utility Resources

232

jurisdictions in review of requests. This approach was adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on May 14, 2001. Solid Waste Collections In 1991 the County, along with Blacksburg, Christiansburg and Virginia Tech completed and adopted the Montgomery County Solid Waste Management Plan, as required by the State of Virginia. In implementation of the plan, the County joined with the two towns and university in 1995 to form the Montgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA). Subsequently, the County's Mid-County Landfill was closed and replaced by MRSWAs recycling processing facility and transfer station where County solid waste is received for processing and subsequent hauling to the Cloyds Mountain Landfill in Pulaski County. This Cloyds Mountain Landfill is operated by the New River Resource Authority (NRRA). NRRA members

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

include MRSWA along with Pulaski County and Radford. The County operates a solid waste collection system composed of 9 manned, consolidated collection sites around the County to receive household wastes and recyclables and 2 unmanned green box sites. Recycling

stormwater regulations enforced by the county are minimum standard #19 of the state erosion & sediment control regulations, “Stormwater Management,” which controls the volume and peak rate but not the frequency of stormwater runoff from developed properties. (3)

Recycling a significant part of the waste stream is required by law (currently 25%) and is cost effective. Education can improve both the quality and quantity of recyclables, thus reducing costs. Recycling also encourages County residents to care for the environment, and obtain satisfaction from doing so. As the regions largest employer and largest landlord, Virginia Tech has the responsibility to serve a role model for recycling efforts. The volume of recyclables Virginia Tech chooses to collect directly impacts the finances of MRSWA recycling operations. (Currently MRSWA recycling is operating at 50% of its capacity of 80 tons/day.) Moreover, Virginia Tech can pave the way for new recycling efforts e.g. "e-waste" recycling of computers, monitors and electronic equipment.

Localities must now have an adopted hazard mitigation plan in order to receive funding to recover from any presidential declared disasters such as the flooding of February, 2003. Rather than each locality prepare such a plan on its own, the NRVPDC is leading the effort to prepare a regional hazard mitigation plan. A more detailed discussion of natural hazards in Montgomery County is included in the introduction to the Environmental Resources chapter.

Storm Water Management Under the Virginia Code and subsequent regulations, “all land disturbing activities undertaken on private and public lands in the Commonwealth of Virginia must meet the 19 “minimum standards” for erosion and sediment control” which are spelled out in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (§4VAC50-30-40). Presently, the only

Utility Resources

Hazard Mitigation

3. The State’s minimum standards cover 19 issues: 1) soil stabilization, 2) soil stockpile stabilization, 3) permanent stabilization, 4) sediment basins and traps, 5) stabilization of earthen structures, 6) sediment traps and sediment basins, 7) cut and fill slopes design and construction, 8) concentrated runoff down slopes, 9) slope maintenance, 10) storm sewer inlet protection, 11) stormwater conveyance protection, 12) work in live watercourse, 13) crossing live watercourse, 14) regulation of watercourse crossing; 15) stabilization of watercourse, 16) underground utility line installation, 17) vehicular sediment tracking, 18) removal of temporary measures, and 19) stormwater management. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (2003). “Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations: Minimum Standards Section 4VAC50-3040. Pamphlet. Available at: http://222.dcr.state.va.us/sw/docs/MSPamphlet.PDF. 4. Additional information on environmental hazards and mitigation are included in the introduction to the Environmental Resources chapter of this plan.

233

Utilities: Goals UTL 1.0 Water & Sewer Goal: Provide a planning framework for the provision of public and private water and sewer, so that the water and sewer projects are consistent with the County's land use policies while ensuring adequate, safe drinking water and proper, environmentally safe disposal of wastewater/sewage for all County residents.

UTL 1.1.4 Institutional Arrangements: Evaluate existing authorities, service areas and jurisdictional agreements with regards to greater regional cooperation involving the Blacksburg, Christiansburg & VPI Water Authority, RAAP/Montgomery County and the City of Radford.

UTL 1.1 Regional Cooperation: Approach the provision of public water and sewer from a regional perspective in order to provide these services more efficiently and effectively and to provide alternative sources in the event of individual system failures. (1)

UTL 1.1.5 Regional Wastewater Authority: Continue County membership in the Peppers Ferry Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority. Evaluate the feasibility of a regional approach to wastewater treatment involving the Peppers Ferry Authority, the Blacksburg VPI Sanitation Authority and the Crab Creek STP operated by Christiansburg.

UTL 1.1.1 Regional Water Authority: Work to obtain full membership for Montgomery County in the Blacksburg, Christiansburg & VPI Water Authority.

UTL 1.2 Public Systems: Continue to provide safe and reliable water and sewer utilities at reasonable cost through the Public Service Authority (PSA) and through line extensions from the towns and Radford. Provide for the orderly extension of public water and sewer service to designated growth areas and to areas with designated public health problems. (4)

UTL 1.1.2 Water Supply Study: Work through the New River Valley Planning District Commission (NRVPDC) to study the long-term water needs (supply & demand) of local users in the county and the district. (2)

UTL 1.2.1 Water Supply: Study the feasibility of developing an independent and reliable source of safe drinking water for County residents by continuing to work with the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP).

UTL 1.1.3 System Interconnect: Evaluate the feasibility of interconnecting the major public water systems in Montgomery County and Radford, including the land use implications. (3) Cross References and Notes: 1. Regional cooperation is one of the linchpins of Montgomery County, 2025. Specific information on regional approaches is included in the Introduction and in PNG 1.0: Local and Regional Cooperation (pg. 66). Regional cooperation and efforts are also addressed in other portions of this chapter, most notably in terms of Public Water and Sewer Systems (UTL 1.2, pg. 234), Telecommunication Towers (UTL 2.2, pg. 236), Solid Waste Management (UTL 3.1, pg. 237), and Stormwater Management (UTL 4.0, pg. 237). 2. Surface and groundwater quality are addressed in ENV 3.0: Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 141); ENV 5.0: Groundwater (pg. 144); ENV 5.3: Groundwater Quality Protection Programs (pg.145); ENV 5.4 Well-Head Protection (pg.145); ENV 6.0 Karst (pg.147); and ENV 7.0: Stormwater and Erosion Control (pg.148). 3. Policies governing the provision of public utilities are included in the following Land Use Policies: PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Areas (pg. 36); PLU 1.3.3 Rural Areas (pg. 37); PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities (pg. 39); PLU 1.5.3 Residential Transition Areas (pg 40); PLU 1.6.5 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 42); PLU 1.7.5 Villages (pg. 45); PLU 1.8.5 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 46); PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination/Cooperation (pg. 47); and PLU 2.1(b) Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications--Public Utilities (pg. 48).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

UTL 1.2.2 Project Priorities: Work with the Public Service Authority (PSA) to evaluate and prioritize the 22 outstanding water and sewer projects added to the Comprehensive Plan by amendments in 1999 and 2002. Among the factors to consider in establishing priorities are: engineering feasibility, financing feasibility, Cross References and Notes: 4. Specific policies addressing the provision and extension of public utilities in the seven land use policy areas are included in the Planning and Land Use Chapter: PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Areas (pg. 36); PLU 1.3.3 Rural Areas (pg. 37); PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities (pg. 39); PLU 1.5.3 Residential Transition Areas (pg. 40); PLU 1.6.5 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 42); PLU 1.7.5 Villages (pg. 45); PLU 1.8.5 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 46); PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination/Cooperation (pg. 47); and PLU 2.1(b) Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications--Public Utilities (pg 48).

Utility Resources

234

compatibility with established service areas and compatibility with identified Comprehensive Plan growth areas, designated health problem areas, and the interest of current homeowners in having PSA water and/or sewer.

UTL 1.4 Individual Systems Objective: Support the proper use of individual wells and private septic systems in areas of the County that do not have public water and sewer and are not expected to have public water and sewer in the foreseeable future. (6)

UTL 1.2.3 Financing: Work with the PSA to develop a proactive funding plan for implementation of the top ranked projects. (5)

UTL 1.4.1 Public Information: Provide residents with information on the proper (health and environmentally safe) use of individual wells and septic systems. (7)

UTL 1.2.4 Acquisition: Upon the request of a private utility or of a significant proportion of the homeowners in a subdivision, evaluate the feasibility of the PSA acquiring and operating the private water or sewer system, which serves the subdivision. Cost sharing by homeowners may be required when a private water or sewer system is acquired by the PSA at the homeowners request.

UTL 1.4.2 Well Testing: Work with the Extension Service to periodically repeat their successful 1992 household water quality educational program for individual well users. (8) UTL 1.4.3 Utility Database and Geographic Information System (GIS): Work with the Health Department and other sources of information to map the location of current individual wells, septic systems and potential hazards to groundwater, in order to be better able to predict and prevent future health problems.

UTL 1.2.5 Growth Boundary Strategy: In compliance and coordination with the County's land use policies, restrict public water and sewer access to future development outside designated growth areas even though the lines may be present in the area. UTL 1.3 Private Systems: Evaluate the construction and operation of private systems for selected areas outside of designated growth areas on a case by case basis. UTL 1.3.1 Alternative Wastewater Systems: Evaluate the feasibility of using alternative wastewater systems in selected areas of the County instead of extending public sewer lines. Determine the long-term responsibilities of public and private interests in order to insure that regular maintenance is performed on alternative systems. UTL 1.3.2 Private System Standards: Require any private systems to be constructed to Health Department and/or PSA specifications.

Cross References and Notes: 5. This should be done in conjunction with UTL 1.2.2: Project Priorities (pg. 234).

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 6. Individual systems are also addressed in ENV 3.3: Individual Septic Systems (pg. 142); ENV 5.1: Septic System and Well Water Testing (pg. 144); ENV 5.2: Education (pg. 145); and ENV 5.3: Groundwater Quality Protection Programs and Policies (pg. 145). 7. Public information is also addressed in ENV 5.2: Education (pg. 145). 8. Well testing is addressed in ENV 5.1.2 Septic System/Well Testing with Real Estate Transactions (pg. 144); ENV 5.4: Well-Head Protection (pg. 145); and ENV 5.7.2: Well Testing (pg. 146).

Utility Resources

235

UTL 2.0 Electric, Telecommunication and Gas Utilities Goal: Provide for the orderly extension of electric service, telecommunication service (land line, wireless and/or cable) and natural gas service in a manner that supports growth and development without negatively impacting the natural environment.

Village Expansion, and Villages); D.High density residential lands (Urban Expansion, Village Expansion, and Villages); E. Non-ridge, wooded lands (Rural/Resource Stewardship); F. Non-ridge, open lands (Rural/Resource Stewardship); G.Medium density residential lands (Village Expansion and Villages; H. Medium density residential lands (Residential Transition); I. Medium density residential lands (Rural and Rural Communities); J. Low density residential lands (Resource Stewardship); K. Ridgeline Lands (Resource Stewardship) L. Historic Lands/Districts (Villages) (10)

UTL 2.1 Underground Lines: Require underground utility lines and utility easements in new subdivisions. UTL 2.2 Telecommunication Towers: Retain the Regional Approach to Telecommunication Towers amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in 2001. (9) UTL 2.2.1 Co-location: Support the siting of new antennae, microwave dishes, etc. on existing structures such as existing communication towers, tall buildings, water tanks, electric transmission towers, signs, etc. This allows for the "highest and best" use of existing structures and sites that could eliminate the need for construction of a new tower structure in an inappropriate area. UTL 2.2.2 Uniform Approach to Siting of New Towers: (10) Siting of new communication towers in a jurisdiction should be reviewed for their potential effects on surrounding jurisdictions as well as the jurisdiction in which the structure is to be located. Newly constructed towers should be built in locations that will provide the lease negative impact to the citizens of each jurisdiction. Montgomery County encourages the use of monopole and/or "stealth towers" for new sites that require new construction or "new builds". The following locations are listed from most to least preferable when considering the siting of communication towers: A.Industrial parks (Urban Expansion, Village Expansion, and Villages); B.Industrial zoned lands (Urban Expansion, Village Expansion, and Villages); C.Commercially zoned lands (Urban Expansion, Cross References and Notes: 9. The 2001 Regional Approach to Telecommunications Towers amendment to the 1990 Comprehensive Plan has been carried over to Montgomery County, 2025 and is included at the end of this chapter.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

UTL 2.3 Broadband/Fiber Optic Networks: Provide greater access to broadband capabilities the Urban and Village Expansion Areas, and Villages in Montgomery County. (11) UTL 2.3.1 NRV Telecommunications Plan: Review and Adopt the New River Valley Telecommunications Plan (2004). UTL 2.3.2 Open-Access Service Network: Work with the New River Valley Planning District Commission and regional jurisdictions to establish a regional three tier (inter-county, intracounty, and local access) fiber-optic open-access service network, designed to deliver Open Access TCP/IP transport services, in the New River Valley. The network and phasing of the project would be based on the New River Valley Planning District Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Proposed Fiber-Optic Network (2004).

Cross References and Notes: 10. The uniform approach to the siting of new towers was referenced in the decision from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the Court found in favor of Montgomery County. USCOC of Virginia RSA#3 Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Supervisors, 343 F3d 262, 2003 U.S. Appeals LEXIS 18682 (4th Circuit 2003) 11. The New River Valley Telecommunications Plan (2004) is available from the New River Valley Planning District Commission and can be accessed at: http://www.nrvpdc.org/NRVTelecomPlan/NRVTelecomPlan.html.

Utility Resources

236

UTL 3.0 Solid Waste: Provide for the collection, recycling and disposal of solid waste to satisfy the needs of the County and to provide for the well being of County residents and the environment.

UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management: Effectively manage stormwater runoff and erosion in order to protect properties, surface water quality and aquatic habitat to maintain and enhance human health and safety.

UTL 3.1 Solid Waste Management: Continue to provide a comprehensive solid waste management program to address the immediate and long-term solid waste recycling and disposal needs of the County.

UTL 4.1 Watershed Approach: In cooperation with Blacksburg and Christiansburg, develop a regional stormwater management initiative, based on watershed boundaries, to effectively manage stormwater runoff. UTL 4.1.1 Stormwater Ordinance: Consider for adoption of a local stormwater management program to manage both the quantity and quality of runoff. Such programs are permitted as a local option under Virginia Stormwater Management Law. Coordinate with, and encourage, Blacksburg and Christiansburg to adopt similar ordinances.

UTL 3.1.1 Regional Cooperation: Continue to participate in and support the operation of the Montgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA) and the New River Resource Authority (NRRA). UTL 3.1.2 Recycling Education: Encourage increased quality and quantity of recycling through education in cooperation with MRSWA.

UTL 4.1.2 Regional Stormwater Facilities: Within the watershed approach, evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of fewer, larger detention facilities with more stringent maintenance responsibilities.

UTL 3.1.3 Virginia Tech: Encourage Virginia Tech to fully fund the on-campus recycling program including the recycling of white office paper.

UTL 4.1.3 User Fees: Consider, in cooperation with Blacksburg and Christiansburg, a stormwater utility approach or an impervious surface fee approach or other types of user fees to pay for the development and maintenance of regional stormwater facilities.

UTL 3.2 Collection System: Provide for the orderly collection of solid waste and recyclables in the County. UTL 3.2.1 Consolidated Collection Sites: Increase the number of manned consolidated sites in the County after first determining, from a countywide perspective, the best locations for additional manned sites that most efficiently and effectively meet the needs of county residents. After expanding the system, close down the remaining 2 unmanned green box sites.

UTL 4.2 Village Planning and Stormwater Management. Work with the County Engineer to develop a stormwater management plans in tandem with each of the six village plans (Belview, Elliston-Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville). UTL 4.3 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: Review and adopt the regional hazard mitigation plan currently being developed by the New River Valley Planning District Commission (NRVPDC) along with the participation of local jurisdictions. (14)

UTL 3.2.2 Curbside Pickup: Continue to allow private companies to provide for curbside pickup of household trash in residential areas of the County. UTL 3.2.3 Volunteer: Continue to support volunteer cleanup efforts including the spring cleanup of roadside trash through the Bloominâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and Broominâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; program. UTL 3.2.4 Brush-to-Mulch Strategy: Continue to provide for brush-to-mulch recycling at the old MidCounty Landfill Site.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 12. Stormwater management is discussed in greater detail in ENV 7.0, including a stormwater management program (ENV 7.1, pg. 148), a stormwater utility (ENV 7.2, pg. 149), and erosion and sedimentation control compliance (ENV 7.3, pg. 149). 13. UTL 4.2 is cross-listed as ENV 7.1.1 (pg. 148). 14. The NRV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is also addressed under ENV 4.3: Public Safety (pg. 144) and SFY 1.1.4: NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 197). Specific strategies included in ENV 4.0: Floodplains (pg. 143) and SFY1.5: Regional Opportunities (pg. 198) reflect specific suggestions included in the NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Utility Resources

237

Special Subject Plans Montgomery County, 2025 1990 Bikeway/ Walkway Plan Adopted: 10/12/04

1990 Bikeway/Walkway Plan Purpose This plan was written to serve as a guide to the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors in the development of county biking/walking routes. Due to unsafe conditions, many routes discussed in this plan are currently not designated as routes. It is anticipated that this plan will encourage the funding of lanes and trails where they are needed. History In previous years, bike planning for Montgomery County has been on a limited basis. While Montgomery County was included in the 1974 regional bike plan prepared by the New River Valley Planning District Commission, the county itself did not initiate bike planning until 1989. In 1976, for the nation's bicentennial, the TransAmerican Bike Trail was developed. Montgomery County was fortunate to have part of this prominent route running from the northeast to the southwest of the County. This was the first designated bike route in the unincorporated part of Montgomery County. In 1989, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors approved the funding of 3.9 miles of bike lanes along Lusters Gate Road (St Rte 723) to be completed when the road is widened and improved by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Following the approval of this project, the Board requested that a county-wide bike plan be prepared as part of the revision of the Comprehensive Plan.

recreational bicycling can easily be accommodated in the rural portions of the County, residents who are interested in safely traveling between Blacksburg, Christiansburg, or Radford by foot discover that this is no longer possible. A good bicycle/pedestrian plan works to encourage the development of lanes and trails where they are needed to provide safe routes for non-motorized travel. While providing safe routes is one of the most important goals of a bikeway/walkway plan, there are also several other reasons. The encouragement of commuting to work by bicycle reduces traffic along overcrowded roads, reduces air and noise pollution, and helps save natural resources. A plan can foster cooperation with other localities by extending existing town routes into the County and can encourage economic development by promoting regional "bike rides". And lastly, a major purpose of a bike plan is to save county money. By encouraging lanes and trails only where they are needed and by taking into account alternative funding sources, a bike plan guides decision makers in the efficient funding and development of biking/walking routes.

Justification There are numerous reasons to justify the writing of a county bikeway/walkway plan. With a growing emphasis on fitness and health, more and more people have begun exercising regularly (According to a survey, the Bicycle Federation has estimated that in 1984 more than 75 million Americans rode bicycles and 1.6 million commuted to work by bicycle). Montgomery County, with its natural beauty and rural character provides an almost ideal location for bicyclists. Due to the County's growing population and increased commercial growth however, many citizens are finding that some roads have become too dangerous from increased traffic. While

All photos included in the 1990 Bikeway/Walkway Plan are by Bill Edmonds.

Note: This plan has been carried over from the 1990 Comprehensive Plan without update or change.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

239

Goals This plan seeks: • To encourage a lesser dependency on cars as a form of transportation and to increase bicycle use as a mode of transportation. • To help preserve the natural and scenic environment of the County. To take full advantage of all available grant money. • To provide safe connecting routes between Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and other localities. • To help educate the public on safe bicycling practices and on courtesy among drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. • To help promote coordination and cooperation among local governments. • To expand the County's recreational facilities by providing on and off road hiking and biking trails. • To provide safe biking/walking lanes where they are appropriate such as to schools, population centers, or parks. Process Funding Sources In April 1989, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution requesting that a bike plan be written as part of the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. A committee of county citizens and representatives from related groups was formed and began meeting in September 1989. Any interested citizen was welcome to participate in this group. Some active members included representatives from: the Town of Christiansburg, the Blacksburg Bikeway/Walkway Committee, the Virginia Tech Civil Engineering Society, and the Montgomery County Parks and Recreation Commission. The committee met approximately twice a month for several months developing the county bike map. The plan was written with a ten year time span but it was recommended that it be reviewed every five years. The plan was also written with a regional perspective. Recommendations from the Blacksburg plan were included and several routes designated in Montgomery County could easily be extended into neighboring counties. Input was also received from the Mountain Valleys Bike Path Committee which is studying a bike link between Roanoke's Explore Project and Montgomery County.. To publicize the plan and to receive citizen input, the Bikeway/Walkway Draft Map was presented and discussed at four county comprehensive plan citizen meetings held in February of 1990. During these meetings comments were received on the plan and were brought back to the full committee for review. Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

In developing and prioritizing proposed bike routes, the Bikeway/Walkway Committee carefully considered the costs involved. It was felt that if the plan's recommendations were expensive, they would not be funded. Therefore, many of the proposed routes are designated as "shared roads". For these routes, the committee felt that the current road was safe for cyclists and that it should only be marked with signs to designate the road as a bike route (the State would possibly fund these signs). Other proposed routes were designated as either "lanes" or "trails". All roads recommended for lanes were coordinated with the Virginia Department of Transportation's Six-Year Road Plan with the intention that bike lanes would be constructed when regular road improvements occurred. This is the most cost effective way to fund bike lanes and can be done incrementally as roads are improved. It is estimated that lanes developed independent of VDOT road improvements cost approximately twice as much as projects completed when road improvements occur. The funding of trails (off road routes) was only recommended where lanes were not feasible. These routes were only proposed near existing or future parks so that state grants would apply. The following grants apply to bikeways/walkways:

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

240

Development of Routes

Commuter Links:

The following factors for bikeway/walkway routes were considered:

Montgomery County currently has two major commuter links between Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford. US Route 460 between Blacksburg and Christiansburg is the most direct route for travel between these two towns. This strip of road also provides access to the New River Valley mall, the Market Place Shopping Center, Mid-county Park, and various other businesses. Route 114 between Christiansburg and the Montgomery County Line has also experienced development and growth. This road serves subdivisions, mobile home parks, one elementary school, and a growing number of businesses. This road also serves as a direct link between Christiansburg and Radford. Both of these roads suffer from a lack of good shoulders, high-speeding cars, and congestion. These dangerous conditions make these popular roads inaccessible to walkers and bikers.

Population Centers: According to the Center for Public Service Montgomery County is the fastest growing locality in Southwest Virginia. Between 1980 and 1988, Montgomery County grew by 3,715 people while Roanoke County's population increased by only 2,555 people. A population increase also results in an increase of new housing units, subdivisions, mobile home parks, and services needed to accommodate the population. Traffic also increases and roads become dangerous for non-motorized travel. To serve this increasing population, county growth areas were identified as locations that should be served by biking/walking routes. These locations have experienced an increase in housing through subdivisions, mobile home parks, or by a large number of single family homes. Areas considered to be "growth centers" included: Bethel, Ellett Valley, Elliston/Lafayette, Ironto, Laurel Ridge, Mt. Tabor Road, Plum Creek, Preston Forest, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville.

Parks: Recreational facilities should be easily accessible by foot or bicycle. Existing parks addressed in this study included: Mid-County Park located off US Route 460, Plum Creek Park located off of Radford Rd (Rt 11), the '76 Bikeway, McCoy

Bikeway/Walkway Grant Programs Type of Grant

Source

Program Description

Qualifying Route

VA Outdoors Grant

Department of Conservation & Recreation

50% grants for parks involving water and/or projects with a county-wide focus

Huckleberry Trail (promote as a linear park)

Recreational Access Roads

Department of Conservation & Recreation

Funds to construct, maintain, & improve access roads & bike trails in historical or recreational areas

Huckleberry Trail, 114 to proposed New River Park, connector Trail from Huckleberry to MidCounty Park

Virginiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Orphaned Land Program

Department of Mines, Minerals, & Energy

For reclamation of land which is hazardous or an attractive nuisance due to surface mining

Huckleberry Trail in the Merrimac area

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

241

motorized vehicles. It usually contains a separate right-of-way from those facilities used by other modes of transportation. The path should have a minimum width of five feet and should be paved. (Example: Huckleberry Trail in Blacksburg) Lane: A portion of the roadway that has been designated for the exclusive use of bicycle travel with a minimum width of four feet. (Example: bike lanes in Blacksburg) Shared Road: This is a bike path that shares the right-of-way with motor vehicles, or where a bicycle path is not designated except by signs. (Example: current '76 bike path) #1 Project: Refers to the abandoned Huckleberry railroad bed. Due to the ideal location of this route (paralleling Rt 460 between Blacksburg and Christiansburg) and since most of the route is owned by the County, this is recommended to be cleared and paved as a trail. This project is also the #1 recommendation of the Blacksburg Bike Plan. High Priority: A project that is recommended to be completed within the next one to five years. Medium Priority: A project that is recommended to be completed within the next five to nine years. Future Routes: A Project that is recommended to be completed beyond ten years.

Falls, Pandapas Pond, and the nearby Blue Ridge Parkway. Proposed Parks considered in this study included: New River Park located at Peppers Ferry on Route 114 and Little River Park in the southwestern portion of the county. Other Recommendations from the Blacksburg Bikeway/Walkway Plan were considered and where appropriate included into the County Plan. Popular, scenic biking routes throughout the County were also evaluated and considered for inclusion in the plan. Definitions Trail: A separate path which is for the exclusive use of non-

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

242

Summary of Routes St. Rt/Name

Designation

Priority

Justification

Huckleberry Line

Trail

#1 Project

Mid County Park/ Park Connections Lusters Gate Road (Rte 723 to Rte 603) Prices Fork Road (Rte 685)

Lane/Trail

High

Lane

High

Lane

High

Coal Hollow Road (Rte 705)

Lane

High

North Fork Road (Rte 603)

Medium

Yellow Sulphur Rd. (Rte 643)

Lane

Medium

Ellett Rd. (Rte 723 from 603 to

Lane

Medium

Mt. Tabor Rd. (Rte 624 to Rte 628) Lane

Medium

Peppers Ferry Rd. (Rte 114)

Medium

Co-owned right-of-way, good commuter route, also #1 Blacksburg project. Link Mid County Park to Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Huckleberry Trail. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;76 Bike Route, VDoT 6-Year Plan: August 1990, & serve growing area of County. VDOT 6-Year Plan: June 1991 & link from Blacksburg to Coal Hollow Road. VDoT 6-Year Plan: December 1994 & link from Prices Fork Rd. to Peppers Ferry Rd. VDoT 6-Year Plan:? Scenic popular biking route, waiting on road recommendations. VDoT 6-Year Plan: November 1996 & link between Blacksburg and Christiansburg. VDoT 6-Year Plan: January 1997 and link between Blacksburg and Christiansburg VDoT 6-Year Plan: January 1999, Scenic & Popular Bike Route Link from Coal Hollow Road to proposed New River Park, traffic conditions require off-road trail.

Trail

Future Routes St. Rt/Name

Designation

Priority

Justification

Pandapas Pond Rd. (US 460)

Trail

Future

Craig Creek Rd. (Rte 621)

Lane

Future

Thomas Lane (Rte 737)

Lane

Future

Pilot Rd. (Rte 615)

Lane

Future

Nellies Cave Rd. (Rte 681)

Lane

Future

Recommendation in Blacksburg Plan, serve Pandapas Pond Serve Northern portion of County including the Jefferson National Forest VDoT 6-Year Plan: 1999, serve growing subdivisions and link to Prices Fork Rd. Pave with lanes as road is widened to link Christiansburg to designated shared roadway. Pave with lanes when road is paved. Provides a direct link from Ellett Valley to Blacksburg.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

243

Detailed Description of Routes The following list of routes are addressed in detail in this plan. It is recommended that these routes be funded as Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) road improvements occur. Proposed lanes should be constructed to VDOT standards. While specific costs have not been addressed in this plan, it is estimated that one mile of paved lanes would cost $30,000 if completed when road improvements occur. This figure would increase to approximately $50,000 per mile if completed independent of VDOT improvements.

Shared Roads Due to low traffic counts and the rural nature of these roads, the following have been recommended as shared roads (map is included with plan): Alleghany Spring Road (St Rte 637) Big Falls Road (St Rte 635) Bradshaw Road (St Rte 629) Catawba Road (St Rte 809) Childress Road (St Rte 693) Dry Run Road (St Rte 787) Fairview Church Road (St Rte 669) Fire Tower Road (St Rte 600) Glade Road (St Rte 693) Graysontown Road (St Rte 693) High Rock Hill Road (St Rte 612) Indian Valley Road (St Rte 787) Lick Run Road (St Rte 781) Lovely Mount Drive (St Rte 664) McCoy Road (St Rte 652) Merrimac Road (St Rte 657) Mt. Tabor Road (St Rte 624) to Dry Run Road (St Rte 628) Mt. Zion Road (St Rte 655) Mud Pike (St Rte 666) Norris Run Road (St Rte 708) North Fork Road (St Rte 603) Old Pike Road (St Rte 615) Pilot Road (St Rte 615) Piney Woods Road (St Rte 600) Riner Road (St Rte 8) Roanoke Road (US Rte 11/460) Tyler Road (St Rte 177) Union Valley Road (St Rte 669) Walton Road (St Rte 663) Wintergreen Drive (St Rte 787) Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

244

Huckleberry Trail PRIORITY: #1 Project DESIGNATION: Trail Description: Beginning near the entrance to Warm Hearth Retirement Village, and extending to the corporate limits of Christiansburg, this project would convert the county-owned, abandoned Norfolk and Western railroad line to an off-road trail. Funding Source: If promoted as a linear park, this trail would qualify for Virginia Outdoors Grant funding. Since the land is currently owned by the County, land acquisition is unnecessary, making this project economically feasible. Various civic organizations have also volunteered their services to help clear the right-of-way. Traffic Counts: 32,925 along South Main Street (US Rte 460, 1988 figures). Justification: The Huckleberry Trail is a historic, abandoned railroad right-of-way that originally extended between Blacksburg and Christiansburg. This trail would follow the old railroad line and would create a linear park parallel to US 460. The route would serve as a commuter link between Blacksburg and Christiansburg and would provide access to Mid-County Park . While the County's portion of this route would end at the town limits of Christiansburg, it is recommended that Christiansburg investigate continuing this trail to the New River Valley Mall. The Blacksburg Bikeway Plan also ranks this project as #1 and recommends that it be extended from Blacksburg to the County.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

245

Mid-County Park Connection: PRIORITY: High DESIGNATION: Paved Lanes, Trails DESCRIPTION: This system of bike lanes and trails will provide bicycle/pedestrian access to the Montgomery County Park from Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and the Huckleberry Trail. This system consists of several segments (listed below) that will be incorporated into the design and construction of the future Route 460 Bypass (Route 3A). Bike lanes along the 3A Service Road from the entrance to the Montgomery County Park north to Jennelle Road; Bike lanes along the revised alignments of Yellow Sulphur and Hightop Roads; A bike trail on VDOT right-ofway to connect the bike lanes on the service road (above) and those on the realigned portion of Yellow Sulphur Road; A bikeway/walkway bridge across Route 3A; A bikeway/walkway connection between the bridge over Route 3A and Route 460 via Pear Street (bike lanes), and existing public right-of-way (trail), and a strip of land owned by Montgomery County (trail); A bike trail between the bridge over Route 3A and Arbor Drive; Bike lanes along Hightop Road from the realigned portion to the intersection with the Huckleberry Trail. FUNDING SOURCES: All but the last segment will be incorporated into the construction cost for Route 3A. The bike lanes along Hightop Road from the realigned portion to the Huckleberry Trail will be funded through VDOT's Recreational Access program. JUSTIFICATION: Without these facilities, access to the park by bicycle or foot travel will be very difficult and potentially dangerous. This system will also provide a bicycle route from Blacksburg to the Marketplace shopping area.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

246

Lusters Gate Road PRIORITY: High DESIGNATION: Paved Lanes DESCRIPTION: Lusters Gate Road (St Rte 723) beginning at intersection with Catawba Road (St Rte 785) and ending at intersection with North Fork Road (St Rte 603). FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled to be widened by Virginia Department of Transportation on August 1990. State will fund 100% of cost if done when road is widened. TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 477 average daily traffic to 1,375 average daily traffic (1987 figures). JUSTIFICATION: This will serve a growing number of residential subdivisions (including Woodland Hills, Deercroft, and Blacksburg Country Club Estates) in the county. This route is also part of the '76 Bicentennial TransAmerica Trail and serves as a link between Blacksburg and Christiansburg.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

247

Prices Fork Road PRIORITY: High DESIGNATION: Paved Lanes DESCRIPTION: Prices Fork Road (St Rte 685) beginning at the town limits of Blacksburg and extending 1.68 miles to Tucker Road (St Rte 736). FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled to be widened by the Virginia Department of Transportation in June 1991. The State will fund 50% of the cost if work is done when the road is widened. TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 7,047 average daily traffic to 4,663 average daily traffic (1987 figures). JUSTIFICATION: This route will serve a growing number of subdivisions (Montgomery Farms, Phillips Acres, and the proposed Sterling manor) in the county. This route also serves Prices Fork Elementary School, provides the most direct link between Blacksburg and Radford and is a popular biking route between Blacksburg and the New River. This road currently receives a large volume of high speed traffic which makes walking or biking very dangerous and almost impossible. The town of Blacksburg currently has bike lanes extending to the town limits. These proposed lanes would be a logical extension into the County.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

248

Coal Hollow Road (Prices Fork/ Peppers Ferry Connector): PRIORITY: High DESIGNATION: Paved Lanes DESCRIPTION: Coal Hollow Road (St Rte 705) beginning at Peppers Ferry Road (St Rte 114) and extending 1.95 miles to Prices Fork Road (St Rte 659). FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled to be widened by the Virginia Department of Transportation in December 1994. The State will fund 50% of the cost if work is done when the road is improved. TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 97 average daily traffic to 93 average daily traffic (1987 figures). JUSTIFICATION: This route will connect the "Prices Fork Route" (discussed on page 16) to Peppers Ferry Road. Prices Fork Road near the intersection with Peppers Ferry Road is currently hilly, narrow, curvy, and too dangerous for bicyclists. There are also no plans to widen or improve this section of the road. The placement of lanes along Coal Hollow Road would allow for cyclists to have a safe route to travel between Blacksburg and Peppers Ferry Road. This would help promote non-motorized travel for commuting purposes. Improvements to this road will greatly increase traffic (and development) along this road - making lanes even more necessary.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

249

North Fork Rd.: PRIORITY: Medium DESIGNATION: No Designation DESCRIPTION: North Fork/Den Hill Road (St Rte 603) beginning at intersection with Lusters Gate Road (St Rte 723) and extending to Roanoke Road (US Rte 11/460). FUNDING SOURCE: The State would fund 50% of this route when the road is improved and widened. TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 674 average daily traffic to 1,002 average daily traffic (1987 figures). JUSTIFICATION This is a very popular biking route that would connect to Ellett Valley Route #1 and Ellett Valley Route #2. This route would provide a safe, easy connector from Blacksburg and Christiansburg close to the Roanoke County Line. To date, the status of this road is questionable due to the proposed Blacksburg to Roanoke link. If this road were to remain undisturbed, the route could continue as a shared roadway. If however, the road were widened, improved lanes or trails would then be necessary along this road.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

250

Yellow Sulphur Springs: ROUTE NAME: Yellow Sulphur Route PRIORITY: Medium DESIGNATION: Paved Lanes DESCRIPTION: Yellow Sulphur road (St Rte 643) beginning one mile north of the corporate limits of the town of Christiansburg to the intersection with Jenelle Road (St Rte 642). FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled to be widened and improved by the Virginia Department of Transportation in November 1996. State will fund 50% of the cost if done when road improvements occur. TRAFFIC COUNTS: 145 average daily traffic (1987 figures). JUSTIFICATION: This road serves a growing area of Montgomery County. It is also a direct link between the towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Yellow Sulphur Road is a winding, curvy road which is not safe for bikers or walkers without lanes. Improvements to this road will greatly increase traffic , making lanes even more necessary.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

251

Ellett Rd.: PRIORITY: Medium DESIGNATION: Paved Lanes FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled to be widened by the Virginia Department of Transportation in January 1997. State will fund 100% of the cost if done when road is widened. TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 1,229 average daily traffic to 641 average daily traffic (1987 figures). JUSTIFICATION: This route is part of the '76 Bicentennial TransAmerica Trail and connects "Ellett Valley Route #1" (discussed on page 15 of this report) to the corporate limits of Christiansburg. This route is both a scenic, popular bike ride and also a good commuter link between Blacksburg and Christiansburg.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

252

Mt. Tabor Rd.: PRIORITY: Medium DESIGNATION: Paved Lanes DESCRIPTION: Mt. Tabor Road (St Rte 624) beginning from the corporate limits of Blacksburg and extending one mile east of Preston Forest Drive (St Rte 806). FUNDING SOURCE: This road is scheduled to be widened and improved by the Virginia Department of Transportation in January 1999. The State would fund 50% of these lanes if the work is completed when the road is improved. TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 513 average daily traffic to 1,056 average daily traffic (1987 figures). JUSTIFICATION: This bike route would serve several subdivisions (Indian Run, Preston Forest, Mt. Tabor Village, Blacksburg's Woodbine) and a large school/day care facility. Currently, the narrow, windy road is dangerous for bikers or walkers because of the heavy traffic generated from the subdivisions. These paved lanes would extend beyond Preston Forest serving the heavily populated area of the road but the route would continue beyond this as a shared roadway. This bike route is a popular route that extends into Roanoke County.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

253

Peppers Ferry Rd.: PRIORITY: Medium DESIGNATION: Trail DESCRIPTION: Located parallel to Peppers Ferry Road (Rte 114) beginning at intersection with Coal Hollow Road (St Rte 705) and extending to proposed New River park at Montgomery County line. FUNDING SOURCE: This route would connect an established biking/walking route (Prices Fork Route and Prices Fork/Peppers Ferry Connector) to New River park, qualifying it for State Recreational Access Funds. TRAFFIC COUNTS: 10,645 average daily traffic (1988 figures). JUSTIFICATION: This trail would connect a proposed bike route (Prices Fork Route and Prices Fork/Peppers Ferry Connector) to New River park and would also serve as a commuter link from Blacksburg to Radford. Currently, Peppers Ferry Road is too dangerous for nonmotorized travel. Future plans indicate that this road may be widened to four lanes making biking or walking impossible along Peppers Ferry Road without an off-road trail.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

254

Recommendations To pursue and implement successful bikeways in Montgomery County, the following actions should occur: 1. The recommended routes discussed in section X of this plan should be funded and implemented as VDOT road improvements occur. If the funding for road improvements changes, the timing of the bikeways/walkways should also change to correspond. 2. The recommended trails discussed in section X of this plan should be funded in a timely manner. It is suggested that grant money be pursued as soon as possible. 3. The proposed county shared roads should be marked with signs. These could possibly be funded by the state. 4. A regional committee should be appointed to coordinate and implement bikeways. Members on this group could include representatives from Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford, and interested civic organizations (Virginia Tech's Civil Engineering Society). This group would coordinate the development of new routes and trails; promote bicycling in the area; pursue funding options; update the bike plan; and undertake any other function to promote and develop bikeways/walkways in Montgomery County and the New River Valley.

6. Bike safety programs - both for children and adults, bikers and drivers - should be supported and encouraged. This could be accomplished through the schools (including local universities), through recreational programs, or through drivers education.

5. A county or regional bicycle map should be developed. This map would illustrate and discuss various routes for biking in the county. Items that could be included on this map would be the different types of routes, points of interest along each route, the route's degree of difficulty, eating and lodging establishments, and other related information. This pamphlet could be distributed to chambers of commerce or bicycle clubs around the state and could promote this area for regional bicycling.

8. To ensure that this plan remains current, this document should be reviewed and updated at least once every five years.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

7. A maintenance program needs to be developed to address the upkeep of bikeways/walkways. Often bike lanes become depositories for snow, leaves, litter, or other debris. To ensure safe bike paths, these routes need to be regularly cleaned and maintained.

9. Investigate revising the subdivision ordinance to require the dedication and development of biking/walking trails in large subdivisions.

255

Bibliography Bicycle Compatible Roadways - Planning and Design Guidelines. New Jersey Department of Transportation. 1982.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning with Safety Considerations. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council. Washington, D.C. 1987.

Bicycle Facilities: Control and use of Right-of-Way and Adjacent Lands. Virginia Department of Transportation. 1981.

Proposed Blacksburg Bicycle and Walkway Master Plan 1989. Blacksburg, Virginia. 1989.

Bicycle Facilities: General Guide Lines for Bicycle Lanes and Paths. Virginia Department of Transportation. 1983.

Recreational Access: Law, Policy and Procedure. Secondary Roads Division, Virginia Department of Transportation. 1986.

Bicycling on Virginia Roads Laws and Safety Tips. Virginia Department of Transportation and Division of Parks & Recreation. 1988.

Regional Bicycle Plan. Richmond Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization. 1982.

Bikeway Plan. New River Valley Planning District Commission. 1975.

Regional Bicycle Facilities Plan. Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1980.

Bicycle Transportation. Nina Dougherty. Office of Planning and Evaluation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. December 1974.

Status Report-Capital Area Greenway, Raleigh Parks, Recreation, and Greenway Advisory Board. 1987.

Effective Cycling A Handbook for Safe, Fast Bike Travel. John Forrester. Custom Cycle Fitments. 1980.

What is a Walkway? An Introduction to the Walkways at Your Doorstep Program. The Walkways Center. Washington, D.C.

Evaluation of the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan. City of Eugene, Oregon. 1979.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Bikeway/Walkway Plan

256

Special Subject Plans Montgomery County, 2025 Regional Approach to Telecommunications Towers

Draft-8/12/04

Regional Approach to Telecommunication Towers Introduction

The key items that are addressed in this proposal include:

On July 24, 2000 the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution requesting that the planning staff work with the Towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg to develop a consistent approach towards analyzing and processing telecommunication tower siting requests from a land use perspective. The staff committee, consisting of staff members from Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford, Pulaski and Montgomery Counties met on several occasions and discussed how to develop a regional approach to the telecommunication towers issues. The committee has put together the following items for consideration by the respective Planning Commissions and governing bodies for inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. While each jurisdiction is unique in its makeup and citizens, the committee agreed that the following items are consistent with the each jurisdiction's goals to help develop a uniform approach toward analyzing and processing telecommunication tower siting requests from a land use perspective.

1. Uniform definition and approach to co-location 2. Uniform and consistent notification procedures 3. Uniform approach to siting of new towers 4. Uniform mapping of tower sites 5. Consistent use of consultants to assist jurisdiction in review of requests 1. Uniform Definition and Approach to Co-Location Co-location refers to the siting of new antennae, microwave dishes, etc. on existing structures. This allows for the "highest and best" use of existing structures and sites that could eliminate the need for construction of a new tower structure in an inappropriate area. Potential sites that provide co-location possibilities include but are not limited to, the following: A. Existing communication towers B. Buildings (schools, police stations, fire departments, businesses, etc.) C. Water tanks, sewer and water treatment facilities D. Electric transmission towers E. Signs (including pylons, billboards, etc.) F. Parks and ball fields G. Industrial parks The Counties of Montgomery and Pulaski, City of Radford and Towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg encourage the above type of colocation efforts when placing wireless communication devices in their localities. 2. Uniform and Consistent Notification Procedures

Note: This plan has been carried over from the 1990 Comprehensive Plan without update or change.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Notification of intent to construct a communication facility refers to the written notification required for public hearings pursuant to Section 15.2-2204 of the VA Code. In addition, the Counties of Montgomery and Pulaski, City of Radford and Towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg have agreed to provide written notification to the Planning Commission of each jurisdiction upon receipt of a request for a new communication facility to allow for review and input from neighboring jurisdictions. Comments received from each jurisdiction

Regional Approach to Telecommunication Towers

258

will be considered by the jurisdiction having authority over the request during their public hearing process. 3. Uniform approach to siting of new towers Siting of new communication towers in a jurisdiction should be reviewed for their potential effects on surrounding jurisdictions as well as the jurisdiction in which the structure is to be located. Newly constructed towers should be built in locations that will provide the least negative impact to the citizens of each jurisdiction. Montgomery County encourages the use of monopole and/or "stealth towers" for new sites that require new construction or "new builds". The following locations are listed from most to least preferable when considering the siting of communication towers: A. Industrial parks B. Industrial zoned lands C. Commercially zoned lands D. High density residential lands E. Agriculture/Conservation zoned lands - non-ridge, wooded F. Agriculture/Conservation zoned lands - non-ridge, open G. Medium density residential lands H. Agriculture/Conservation zoned lands - ridgeline I. Low density residential lands

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

4. Uniform mapping of tower sites Regional Map - Each jurisdiction has agreed to contribute information necessary to compile a regional map showing all tower/antennae sites and providers using those sites within each jurisdiction. This will allow each jurisdiction access to existing tower information and assess the possibility of alternative sites. This map may also include all government owned property that may be available for co-location opportunities. 5. Consistent use of consultants to assist jurisdiction in review of requests Consultants may be used from time to time by the jurisdictions to evaluate the possible alternatives and potential impacts of the request on the jurisdiction and the surrounding areas. Wherever possible, the jurisdictions will share resources and collaborate on the request to provide the most beneficial and economically feasible use of a consultant.

Regional Approach to Telecommunication Towers

259

Corridor Plans Montgomery County, 2025 Joint Comprehensive Plan for the VA 177/ Tyler Avenue Corridor Area Adopted: 10/12/04

Montgomery

Joint Comprehensive Plan For The VA 177 / Tyler Avenue Corridor Area Adopted pursuant to Section 6.3(a) of the Route 177 Corridor Agreement between the City of Radford, Virginia; Montgomery County, Virginia and Montgomery County Public Service Authority dated March 1, 1993. Introduction In 1991, Montgomery County and the City of Radford jointly asked the New River Valley Planning District Commission (NRVPDC) to study the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area. The study area covered approximately 2,700 acres in Montgomery County and the City of Radford located primarily in the upper Connellys Run watershed. The Corridor Area is shown on the Future Land Use Map (attached Figure 1). The Corridor Study Area involved landowners, planners, economic development leaders, utility providers and the general public. It recognizes the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area as a growth area where the extension of public utilities will provide important economic opportunities. The Corridor Area Study provides a framework for future development that allows existing uses to continue and allows the expansion of residential and commercial uses without encroachment on one another. It also uses the open and highly visible character of the Corridor Area to its advantage while preserving key features and insuring that buffers are established between incompatible uses. The Corridor Area Study was completed in June 1992, and presented to Montgomery County and the City of Radford. A comprehensive agreement was entered into, entitled Haute 177 Corridor Agreement dated March 1, 1993, which incorporates the Corridor Area Study. The Route 177 Corridor Agreement took full force and effect on June 30, 1993. Pursuant to Section 6.3(a) of the Agreement, this Joint Comprehensive Plan was adopted by Montgomery County and the City of Radford. The VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area is one area where there is a clear need for multiple land uses to exist harmoniously. Today, VA 177 / Tyler Avenue is an increasingly heavily traveled highway that passes through pastureland, by single-family homes, and individual

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

business. Ready access to Interstate 81, proximity to industries and institutions in the City of Radford, and commuting patterns make the VA 177 / Tyler Avenue Corridor Area a desirable business location. These same qualities, plus the area's scenic appeal make it a desirable location for residences. As the City and County grow, there will be considerable pressure from both residential and commercial development in the Corridor. It is important to realize that development pressure exists in the Corridor today. Several highway- oriented businesses have been built or expanded in the last several years at Interchange 109. Several subdivisions have been platted for single-family home development in this same period. A church and a hospital have proposed locating in the Corridor. The results of the Virginia 177 /Tyler Avenue Corridor Effort have been incorporated into the following Goals and Objectives. Shared Future Land Use Map Two maps from the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Study are made a part of this joint comprehensive plan. The Future Land Use Map (attached Figure 1) illustrates the mix of land uses anticipated in the corridor area. The changes required to achieve this [and use pattern will not occur overnight, but rather will take place over time as public improvements and private investment compliment each other in the corridor. Necessary public improvements include the extension of utility lines, road improvements, storm water management and other future projects. The Entrance Plan (attached Figure 2) limits entrance locations onto VA 177 to those shown on the plan map except where a variance is approved for a special entrance situation. Frequent curb cuts for individual residential and commercial entrances slow traffic. Fewer planned entrance locations allow the large acreage tracts found along VA 177 to fully develop without impeding traffic flow along this important arterial road. Both the Future Land Use Map and the Entrance Plan assume the following:

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

262

Future Land Use Map (Figure 1)

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

263

• Anticipate commercial development at Interchange 109 and along nearby sections of VA 177 and Lovely Mount Drive. This growth should take place through planned developments that consist of more than stripping of the existing road frontage. • Recognize three areas that are suitable for high intensity developments. High intensity uses permitted with a special use permit include light industry, residential development over four (4) dwelling unit per acre, hospitals and health care complexes. • Incorporate an entrance and intersection plan for the corridor frontage parcels • Recognize that residential development in this area should be through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District and Cluster Development rather than conventional subdivisions. Therefore, implementation will necessitate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Joint Review Both the City and County must provide for joint review of zoning issues and development plans by a joint Site Review Committee (County) / Development Committee (City). This activity was specified in the Route 177 Corridor Agreement. Joint review is central to the effective implementation of the remaining recommendations, and achievement of the future land use patterns illustrated in the attached figures. The City of Radford’s Goals for the Corridor Achieving the successful implementation of the cooperative planning effort initiated by the City and Montgomery County in the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area will require the City of Radford to undertake the following. Future Land Use Plan - Modify the Future Land Use Plan in the City's portion of the Corridor to reflect the central concepts agreed upon by the City and County, like the location of commercial and residential development, the need for measures to reduce the number of future entrances constructed in the Corridor, and application of the planned Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

264

unit development concept in the Corridor setting. Public Infrastructure - Take necessary steps to provide water and sewer capacity to the County portions of the Corridor. Storm water management in the Corridor should be pursued jointly through the following specific actions:

adequate internal circulation and interconnect with adjacent developments. The Subdivision Ordinance should provide for duster subdivisions. The City of Radford should review the effectiveness of the actions taken to meet these goals. Where, the measures taken can be applied to other portions of the City and achieve desired impacts, the City should consider doing so.

• Formation of a joint board of City and County officials to address storm water issues.

Montgomery County’s Goals for the Corridor

• A detailed engineering analysis should be undertaken of the regional storm water management alternatives, set priority of regional construction projects, and determine what specific on-site storm water containment requirements are appropriate.

Achieving the successful implementation of the cooperative planning effort initiated by the City of Radford and Montgomery County in the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area will require the Montgomery County to undertake the following.

The process of developing public works projects should involve the public and be accomplished in an efficient and attractive manner. Public projects should meet or exceed the standards set for private development and public projects should act as models for landscaping, adherence to the planning process, environmental awareness, and fiscal responsibility. Zoning Ordinance - Modify the Zoning Ordinance to include districts that include the provisions outlined in the Expansion Overlay and Planned Unit Development Districts. Recognize that planned unit development will be the structure through which ultimate development under the Future Land Use Plan will be achieved along VA 177 / Tyler Avenue and in other portions of the City and take appropriate steps to insure that the City is able to adequately guide and facilitate such developments. The Zoning Ordinance should be modified to incorporate provisions for acceptance of voluntary proffers by developers including off-site improvements. Such proffers should reflect City objectives; in the Tyler Avenue Corridor these would be: a. b. c. d.

Management of storm water. Safe and efficient traffic flow. Reservation of areas suitable for public facilities. Development of water distribution and sewer collection capacity.

Subdivision Ordinance - The Subdivision Ordinance should promote Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Public Infrastructure - The expansion of public water and sewer services in the corridor area by the PSA will be in accordance with the terms of the Route 177 Corridor Agreement between Radford, Montgomery County and the PSA. Storm water management for the corridor area also requires a coordinated approach. Potential actions for consideration by Radford and Montgomery County include: • Formation of a joint city/county board to address storm water issues on Connellys Run including both the east branch and the west branch. • Undertake a detailed engineering analysis of the watershed to evaluate storm water management alternatives (such as higher on-site retention/infiltration standards, in-stream measures, regional detention, etc.), to set priorities for regional construction projects and to determine what specific on-site storm water containment requirements are appropriate. Expansion Area Overlay District- Develop an overlay district in the Zoning Ordinance that would apply to the entire 177 Corridor Urban Expansion Area. This urban expansion area covers approximately 2,200 acre in the county. The overlay district would establish specific development standards relating to: • Entrance and Street Design - Limit entrance locations onto VA 177 in accordance with the Entrance Plan (Figure 34) in

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

265

order to preserve effective traffic flow. Provide a variance procedure for special entrance situations. Establish minimum right-of-way widths and construction standards for collector streets off of VA 177. • Protection of Steep Slopes and Water Features - Provide special consideration in the development process for areas with a slope of 25 percent or greater and areas within 50' of free flowing streams and impoundments.

• Designate lands on the zoning map for future development as pud's. However, existing low intensity uses like agriculture and family subdivisions would continue by right. Cluster Development - Revise the existing Cluster Development overlay district in the Zoning Ordinance in order to provide sufficient retention of open areas for both passive and active use to insure that the residents and the community benefits. Recommendations

• Landscaping Plans - Provide landscaping within the front setback and buffer yard areas. • Outdoor Lighting - Limit lighting during hours a business is closed to that necessary for site security.

Guided by the information gathered, including citizen input, the Committee makes the following recommendations concerning the Virginia 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor: Emergency Services

• Signage - Integrate signage into the site and the site landscaping. • Utility Placement - Locate utilities underground with certain exceptions. The intent of the overlay district is both to establish flexible standards and to establish a plan review process through which the developer works with the county to maintain the quality of the corridor area. Similarly, it is expected that county projects will also meet or exceed the standards set for private development. Public projects should act as models for landscaping, signage, and adherence to the planning process, environmental awareness and fiscal responsibility. Planned Unit Development District (PUD)- Zoning Ordinance that would apply in the 177 Corridor Urban Expansion Area. The PUD concept would allow the negotiation of site-specific standards in exchange for the use of measures that mix land uses, insure adequate open space and maintain community amenities. The PUD approach would: • Create a new zoning district that encompasses residential, commercial or light industrial development. • Provide for the use of the PUD concept on smaller size parcels. Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Since no written mutual aid agreement exists between Montgomery County and the City of Radford and citizens are very concerned about the timely provision of fire and rescue services in the Corridor, the Committee has already recommended that "the two governing bodies take immediate action to initiate development of a mutual aid agreement concerning fire and rescue services." Due to the importance of this issue, an interim resolution was passed by the Committee on March 16 2000, and given to the two governing bodies. (See Appendix 10 for the resolution.) More specifically, the Committee recommends that the two localities develop a first-responder's agreement so that each part of the Corridor would be served by the emergency service agency that can reach it first. Water and Sewer Service First, given the disparities in data concerning water and sewer flows in the Corridor, the Committee recommends that the County PSA and the City continue cooperative efforts to establish a baseline of data on existing flows- If these efforts should be unsuccessful, an alternative proposed by the Committee is to have an independent third party measure sewer and water flows to determine daily and peak flows. Third party involvement would be undertaken under a separate agreement. Development of accurate flow data will contribute significantly

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

266

to the effort to insure that maximum peak flows and per-day limits are not exceeded. It will also allow for more accurate future projections. A third party could also be used to assist in implementing the utility services policy recommended below when and if significant disparity exists between the PSA and the City Utility numbers. Ideally, a third party would have continuously recording meters in place. Secondly, the Committee recommends that the critical flow concerns be a focus of attention. For example, one critical flow concern is the rapid nature of the high volume outflow from the Carilion New River Valley Medical Center. This is apparently caused by the settings on the hospital pump, which were required by the Virginia Department of Health- The Carilion New River Valley Medical Center and any other large user present or future, should try to find ways of leveling its outflow, so that the public sewer system is not overwhelmed with dramatic peak flows. The hospital administration should continue working with the Montgomery County PSA and the Virginia Department of Health to identify helpful options. The Committee recommends that the methodology for assessing peak flows be reevaluated. Given the information provided by the Peppers Ferry Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority (PFRWTA), the Committee recommends that the PFRWTA be encouraged to explore and evaluate alternatives for providing adequate system capacity. The Committee also recommends that Montgomery County purchase the required capacity in the PFRWTA's Radford and New River pump stations. The Committee recommends that the two jurisdictions undertake a storm water management-study of the Corridor. This was recommended in the original 1992 study and has not been undertaken. The PFRWTA has requested a 20-year estimate of future water and sewer capacity needs for the Corridor. It is recommended that, once the current flows are established, future projections be made by the Montgomery County PSA and City of Radford Utility staffs based on the future land use map. Lastly, the Committee recommends that the City provide service to an area of the Corridor in the County which is adjacent to the City but outside the Corridor Agreement utility service areas, under a separate agreement. Bicycle Routes/Facilities Citizens provided significant input concerning bicycle facilities along Rt. 177 as well as a route between the City and Radford Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

University's Selu Conservancy located across 1-81 in Montgomery County. As a result, the Committee recommends the following changes to local bicycle plans: • The County and City should amend their respective bicycle plans to show Wintergreen Drive (County and City portions) and Lovely Mount Drive (Bike Rt. 76 portion in County) as bike lane facilities with bike lanes to be added at some point in the future. • The County should add the segment of Dry Valley Road from Lovely Mount Drive to the Selu Conservancy entrance (approx. 1.3 miles) to its bicycle plan as a bike lane facility with bike lanes to be added at some point in the future. • The County should amend its bicycle plan to change Tyler Road (Rt. 177) from a shared road designation to a bike lane facility with the bike lanes to be added at some point in the future. Land Use Regulation: Open Space The current Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance for the Route 177 Corridor Overlay District includes a lot requirement, which specifies a maximum lot coverage (i.e., by buildings and paved areas) of 50 percent for all underlying base zoning districts. As noted in the Ordinance, the Route 177 Corridor Overlay regulations are intended to protect the essential characteristics of the Corridor while allowing well-planned development. The lot coverage requirement was designed to preserve open space in the corridor. While the original 1992 Corridor Study did not recommend a lot coverage maximum, it did recognize the concept of Rt. 177 as a "gateway entrance," The original study also acknowledged the role of appearance and image in such a gateway. In carrying out its work, the Committee heard from several corridor land owners who expressed concern that the County's 50 percent lot coverage maximum placed a hardship on those who developed or intended to develop property for business/commercial use. The Committee recognizes that there may be alternatives available which allow the creation/maintenance of an attractive gateway along Rt. 177, while permitting a lot coverage/open space requirement for business/commercial development, which is less restrictive than the

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

267

current regulation. The Committee recommends the following:

• That new development be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map.

• For underlying residential zoning districts in the County portion of the corridor, the maximum lot coverage percentages should be made consistent with those of like residential zoning districts in the County outside the corridor. • Given the complexity of the maximum lot coverage/open space issue involving business/commercial-zoned parcels, the Committee does not recommend a specific change. However, the Committee recommends that planning staff from the two localities, along with New River Valley Planning District Commission staff, work to identify alternatives for consideration by the County and City Planning Commissions, The alternatives identified through this effort should be aimed at maintaining an attractive gateway along Rt. 177, while providing more flexibility to commercial property owners.

Cellular and other communication towers are an emerging issue in the Corridor and for localities throughout Virginia. The Committee recognizes that cellular and other communication towers, regardless of ownership, constitute land uses, which are subject to local zoning and development regulations. Development of cellular and other communication towers in the Corridor is subject to the existing joint review process earned out by Montgomery County and the City of Radford, as guided by the Joint Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map for the Corridor, Approval decisions are made based on the underlying zoning district regulations, A multi-jurisdictional task force in the region is examining issues and options related to siting of communication towers. The Committee urges that pertinent recommendations of the task force for dealing with communication tower development be incorporated into the two localities' development regulations and joint review process. Land Use Planning

Future Land Use Process Future land use is specifically directed by local policies and ordinances, such as zoning and subdivision ordinances. The following recommendations are made concerning the future land use process: • That any new development requires site plan review, • That a Utility Services Policy (see next section) be Implemented to require a Test for Adequate Facilities before approval is given to any site plan or rezoning (to limit development to that which can be supported by existing or planned water and sewer infrastructure). This would be enacted through changes in the zoning ordinances for the Corridor. A copy of any submitted plan or rezoning application would go to the County PSA and City Utility staffs for review and comments. In implementing the Adequate Facilities Test, when the County PSA and City Utility measurements of flows would result in different test outcomes, an option is to call upon an independent third party to provide flow numbers.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Future land use is guided by the Comprehensive Plan, which in turn shapes the Future Land Use Map. The following section is recommended to be adopted into the Joint Comprehensive Plan by the City of Radford and Montgomery County This recommends and acknowledges the Utility Services Policy, proposed changes to the zoning ordinance, and a Future Land Use Map. The Utility Services Policy should be adopted as a stand-alone policy, implemented through ordinance changes. The Committee also recommends that the planning commissions periodically call upon the County PSA the City's Water and Wastewater Utility to update water and sewer flow levels. Finally, the Committee recommends that the City of Radford and Montgomery County jointly conduct a feasibility analysis of the highdensity Planned Unit Development areas for suitability for joint industrial development.

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

268

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY/CITY OF RADFORD JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (JOINT REVIEW section), TO PROVIDE THAT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE 177 CORRIDOR REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND THAT ALL SITE PLANS AND REZONINGS (INCLUDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS) ARE SUBJECT TO LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY, TO REQUIRE THAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE REVIEW INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF ANY CAPACITY PREVIOUSLY PURCHASE OR EARMARKED AND ANY SITE PLANS ALREADY APPROVED; AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN EXEMPTION TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS WHERE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WILL HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON WATER AND SEWER SERVICES. VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area Utility Services (Level of Service) Policy BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County and the Council of the City of Radford, that their Joint Comprehensive Plan (Joint Review provisions) be amended as follows: Joint Review Both the City and the County must provide for joint review of zoning issues and development plans by a joint Development Committee (County) / Zoning Committee (City). This activity was specified in the Route 177 Corridor Agreement- Joint review is central to the effective implementation of the Corridor recommendations, and achievement of the future Sand use patterns illustrated in the attached figures. Montgomery County and the City of Radford have previously established a number of documents and policies related to planning and land use in the Corridor. These include The Virginia 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Study (1992), the Future Land Use Map for the Corridor (1992), and this Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Virginia 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area (1993) and the update of these documents (2000). The governing bodies, planning commissions, and county and city staffs rely extensively on these policies in making decisions on all land use matters, including rezonings, conditional use permits, preliminary subdivision plans, preliminary site plans, and Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

street closures. Under Virginia law, the existing zoning for a piece of property is presumed to be valid, and the burden is on the applicant to show that the existing zoning is unreasonable and should be changed. The attached -amendment (Attachment A) should be added to the Zoning Ordinance; it sets out the factors, which should be addressed in deciding whether a proposed rezoning of a piece of property should be approved. The first factor listed is whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Many applicants refer only to the Land Use Plan/Map to argue that their proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan shows the anticipated ultimate development of the Corridor when it is fully built out. It does not provide policies or standards on whether the property should be rezoned. Those policies and standards are provided in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies for Evaluating Site Plans and Rezoning Requests. Four key policies should be used in evaluating the appropriateness of site plans and rezoning requests: 1. Require that site plans, rezoning and use permit applications which would bring more intense uses to properties either demonstrate that existing services and infrastructure would not be adversely affected by the new uses, or proffer improvements that would directly satisfy the service and infrastructure demands which the new uses would create. 2. Support developments and improvements, which strengthen and fulfill the vision for the Corridor, Recognize that Rt. 177 serves as a gateway to the City of Radford and Radford University. 3. Evaluate and act upon site plan, rezoning and use permit applications on the basis of their timeliness that is, whether the uses proposed are compatible with the surrounding community as it now exists, even if the proposed uses are projected by the Plan as an ultimate development, and whether the introduction of the new uses at a particular time would cause deterioration of the surrounding community instead of strengthening the community in its transition to its ultimate projected character. 4. Discourage developments and rezonings to more intense uses which will increase demand on limited water and sewer capacity, unless the necessary improvements are within

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

269

local or state improvement plans, or unless the developer provides improvements which will directly meet the demands created by the development, Related Implementation Policies 1. The policies from the Comprehensive Plan, as listed above, will be followed to the maximum extent possible. Level of Service (LOS) standards are to be applied throughout the Tyler Avenue/177 Corridor (see map) to all site plans and rezoning applications, including rezoning for planned unit developments (see "Tests for Adequate Facilities.") Such LOS standards are intended to provide an objective standard for determining whether public facilities are adequate to meet the demands created by new development and proposed rezonings. This standard will be applied consistently to all site plans and rezoning applications to determine their timeliness. The implementation of the Test for Adequate Facilities requires calculation of present water and sewer usage levels (see Definitions below). Note that once the current flows are determined, they should be utilized as a baseline for future calculations. The existing water/sewer capacities are determined by the Route 177 Corridor Agreement (1993). PSA and City Utility staff should conduct an ongoing assessment of flow and usage levels. A copy of each we plan and rezoning application should be submitted to the Montgomery County Public Service Authority (PSA), the City Utility staff, and the Peppers Ferry Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority, which will then provide their findings and recommendations to the Planning Commission. If the Montgomery County PSA and the City Utility flow numbers are different enough to impact the outcome of the Test of Adequate Facilities, an option is to call upon an independent third party to determine flows for the Test.

overlay area are exempt from the Level of Service test (no mandatory hook-up to public water and sewer.) Parcels in the County but adjacent to the City and not in the PUD overlay area, may petition the City of Radford for utility service without being subjected to the Level of Service test. 3. Infrastructure extensions by Peppers Ferry Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority, the Montgomery County PSA and other agencies will be reviewed by the Planning Commission for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with state law The section of the Comprehensive Plan related to Public utilities is hereby strengthened to indicate that major sewer line extensions will be directed into areas where the governing bodies would like to channel growth and will not be approved for areas where the Plan discourages growth. Definitions: 1. Existing water/sewer capacity Existing water/sewer capacity shall mean the maximum public water/sewer capacity available under the Route 177 Corridor Agreement. 2. Usage level Usage level is the sum of the average daily flow for the previous 12 months (as agreed to by the Montgomery County PSA and City of Radford Utility Office, or as measured by an independent third party if significant disparity exists between the PSA and City), any amount previously purchased or earmarked for specific future uses, and the amount projected to be used for currently approved site plans. Usage level shall be tabulated on an ongoing basis by the PSA and the City Utility staffs.

2. The Board/Council specify as part of their zoning policy for this Corridor that any parcel rezoned to a more intense use or in any PUD overlay area must meet the Level of Service test. Low-density (defined as 1 housing unit per 1.5 acres or larger) not in a PUD Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

270

b. In certain instances, the Joint Review process, Board/City Council and Planning Commission may consider such factors as the degree of fiscal impact to the localities, potential employment, and the degree to which the proposal will achieve the County/City's Economic Development goals.

Adequate Facilities Policy A,Sewer Facilities 1. Test for Adequate Sewer Facilities a. All site plan reviews and rezoning applications are required to pass the test for Adequate Sewer Facilities. 1. It will pass the test for Adequate Sewer Facilities if it does not anticipate sewer usage levels above the 80 percent capacity level. 2. For one that would anticipate the sewer usage level between 80 and 90 percent to pass the test for Adequate Sewer Facilities, there must be a plan to expand sewer capacity. 3. For one that would anticipate the usage level at 90 percent or above to pass the test for Adequate Sewer Facilities, there must be a commitment of funds to cover planned sewer expansion.

All residential site plan or rezoning requests which would allow for the creation of not more than five (5) lots for single-family dwellings, excluding ail multi-family developments, are exempt from the LOS test for Adequate Sewer Facilities. The number of lots that can be created shall be determined on the basis of development criteria in the local zoning and subdivision ordinances. B. Water Facilities 1. Test for Adequate Water Facilities a. All site plan reviews and rezoning applications are required to pass the test for Adequate Water Facilities. 1. It will pass the test for Adequate Water Facilities if it does not anticipate water usage levels above the 80 percent capacity level. 2. For one that would anticipate The water usage level between 80 and 90 percent to pass the test for Adequate Water Facilities, there must be a plan to expand water capacity. 3. For one that would anticipate the usage level at 90 percent or above to pass the test for Adequate Water Facilities, there must be a commitment of funds to cover planned water expansion.

b. If the site plan or rezoning application does not pass the test for Adequate Sewer Facilities, the Joint Review should result in recommended denial of the application. 2. Conditions for Modifications a. Where a public sewer system improvement project is scheduled to be completed within one year of the date that the Board/Council is expected to consider a site plan or rezoning request which will improve the LOS of the sewer system, giving full consideration to the future impact of development of vacant lots, the plan or proposed rezoning will pass the test for Adequate Sewer Facilities. The sewer improvement project may be a state or local project, or the applicant may offer voluntarily to provide such improvements. Appropriate public utility representatives shall make the determination of whether or not the sewer improvements will be completed within one year of the date consideration is scheduled for the subject site plan or rezoning application. Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

b. If the site plan or proposed rezoning does not pass the test for Adequate Water Facilities, the Joint Review should result in recommended denial of the application. 2. Conditions for Modifications a. Where a public water system improvement project is scheduled to be completed within one year of the date that the Board/Council is expected to consider a site plan or rezoning request which will improve

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

271

the LOS of the sewer system, giving full consideration to the future impact of development of vacant lots, the proposed rezoning will pass the test for Adequate Water Facilities- The water improvement project may be a state or local project, or the applicant may offer voluntarily to provide such improvements. Appropriate public utility representatives shall make the determination of whether or not the water improvements will be completed within one year of the date consideration is scheduled for the subject site plan or rezoning application. b. In certain instances, the Joint Review process, the Board/City Council and Planning Commission may consider such factors as the degree of fiscal impact to the localities, potential employment, and the degree to which the proposal will achieve the County/City's Economic Development goals. c. All residential site plans or rezoning requests which would allow for the creation of not more than five (5) lots for single-family dwellings, excluding all multifamily developments, are exempt from the LOS test for Adequate Water Facilities, The number of lots which can be created shall be determined on the basis of development criteria in the local zoning and subdivision ordinances.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04

Attachment A Recommended Revision to the Montgomery County/City of Radford ZONING ORDINANCE for Expansion Area Overlay District (177 Corridor) If the application is for a reclassification of property to a different zoning district classification (a rezoning, including rezoning for a Planned Unit Development), the report of the Planning Commission should contain findings on Level of Service (Tests of Adequate Facilities) and the following matters, as appropriate: a. Whether and in what respect the proposed zoning district classification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. b. Whether and in what respect there are any changed or changing conditions in the area affected that make the proposed rezoning necessary. c. Whether and in what respect the range of uses in the proposed zoning district classifications are compatible with the uses permitted on other properly in the immediate vicinity. d. Whether and in what respect adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided to service the uses that would be permitted on the property if it were rezoned.

Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan

272

Montgomery County, 2025 Handbook Montgomery

Adopted: 10/12/04

Montgomery County, 2025 Montgomery County Comprehensive Plan Adopted: 12 October 2004 The Montgomery County, 2025 Handbook consists of the critical features map, the future land use map, and the goals, objectives, and strategies from the adopted comprehensive plan. It is provided as a reference and is not meant to take the place of the full comprehensive plan. Page Nos.: Page Nos.: Handbook MC2025 1 35 2 36 3 37 4 38 5 39 6 40 7 41 8 42 9 43 10 44 11 45 12 46 13 47 14 48 15 49 16 50 17 51 18 66 19 67 20 68 21 69 22 81

START PLU 1.0 PLU 1.2.2 PLU 1.3 PLU 1.4 PLU 1.4.2 PLU 1.5 PLU 1.6 PLU 1.6.4 PLU 1.7 PLU 1.7.2 PLU 1.7.5 PLU 1.8.4 PLU 1.8.6 PLU 2.0 PLU 2.3 PLU 3.0 PLU 3.1.1 PNG 1.0 PNG 2.1.5 PNG 3.1.4 PNG 4.1.2 CRS 1.0

Page Nos.: Page Nos.: Handbook MC2025 END PLU 1.2.1 23 82 PLU 1.2.3 24 83 PLU 1.3.3 25 99 PLU 1.4.1 26 100 PLU 1.4.3 27 101 PLU 1.5.3 28 102 PLU 1.6.3 29 116 PLU 1.6.5 30 117 PLU 1.7.1 31 136 PLU 1.7.4 32 137 PLU 1.8.3 33 138 PLU 1.8.5 34 139 PLU 1.9 35 140 PLU 2.2.1 36 141 PLU 2.4 37 142 PLU 3.1.1 38 143 39 144 PNG 2.1.4 40 145 PNG 3.1.3 41 146 PNG 4.1.1 42 147 PNG 7.3 43 148 CRS 1.2.3 44 149

START CRS 1.2.4 CRS 3.0 ECD 1.0 ECD 2.0 ECD 3.0 ECD 4.0 EDU 1.0 EDU 2.0 ENV 1.0 ENV 1.4 ENV 2.4 ENV 2.1.1 ENV 2.1.8 ENV 3.0 ENV 3.2.4 ENV 3.5 ENV 4.3 ENV 5.2 ENV 5.5.3 ENV 6.0 ENV 6.6 ENV 7.1.5

Page Nos.: Page Nos.: Handbook MC2025 START END CRS 2.1.4 45 175 HHS 1.0 CRS 3.2.3 46 176 HHS 3.0 ECD 1.4 47 177 HHS 5.0 ECD 2.2.3 48 189 HSG 1.0 ECD 3.2.3 49 190 HSG 1.2 ECD 4.3 50 197 SFY 1.0 EDU 1.2.2 51 198 SFY 1.3.1 EDU 2.2.4 52 206 PRC 1.0 ENV 1.3.5 53 207 PRC 2.0 ENV 2.3 54 219 TRN 1.0 ENV 2.8.2 55 220 TRN 1.2.2 ENV 2.1.7 56 221 TRN 1.4.3 ENV 2.1.12 57 222 TRN 2.3.2 ENV 3.2.3 58 223 TRN 2.6 ENV 3.4.6 59 224 TRN 3.2.2 ENV 4.2.2 60 225 TRN 5.0 ENV 5.1.3 61 234 UTL 1.0 ENV 5.5.2 62 235 UTL 1.2.3 ENV 5.7.2 63 236 UTL 2.0 ENV 6.5.3 64 237 UTL 3.0 ENV 7.1.4 ENV 7.3.3

END HHS 2.5 HHS 4.3 HHS 5.5 HSG 1.1.7 HSG 1.3.3 SFY 1.3 SFY 1.5.3 PRC 1.3.2 PRC 2.5 TRN 1.2.1 TRN 1.4.2 TRN 2.3.1 TRN 2.5.8 TRN 3.2.1 TRN 4.2.2 TRN 5.2.3 UTL 1.2.2 UTL 1.4.3 UTL 2.3.2 UTL 4.3

Land Use Policies PLU 1.2.1 Resource Stewardship Area Land Uses:

PLU Goal 1.0 Balanced Growth: The County will maintain a balance between urban and rural areas by planning for orderly growth to occur in areas with adequate resources and services to support growth.

a. The preferred land uses for Resource Stewardship Areas include agriculture, forest uses, outdoor recreational uses, other natural resource based uses and accessory uses directly related to the support of the preferred land uses.

b. Low-density residential development will be permitted, but not encouraged, as a secondary use in Resource Stewardship Areas. c. Private and public conservation efforts and farmland retention programs, such as agricultural and forestal districts, should be focused in Resource Stewardship Areas. (4)

PLU 1.1.1 Policy Area Designations: Develop a policy for the periodic consideration by the county of landowner requests to change policy area designations in the Comprehensive Plan.

d. Non-residential uses, except those incidental to and supportive of agriculture, forest, outdoor recreational or other preferred land uses, will be discouraged in Resource Stewardship Areas.

PLU 1.2 Resource Stewardship Areas: Resource Stewardship Areas are generally defined as rural areas of the County that have high resource value based on soil types, or that are environmentally sensitive due to topography or unique land characteristics. These areas include national forest land, state lands, private preserves, undeveloped prime agricultural soils and soils of local importance, agricultural and forestal districts, land that is subject to private conservation easements and conservation zoning and areas of predominantly 25% slope or greater. This planning policy area is the least densely developed of all of the planning areas and includes many largely undeveloped areas of the County. (3) Cross References and Notes: 3. While resource stewardship is a theme which runs throughout this plan, specific references to the resource stewardship areas are also included in the Environmental Resource Chapter, including: ENV 1.0 Natural Environmental Resources (pg. 31); ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resource (pg. 32); ENV 2.1.1-11 Approaches to Open Space and Agricultural Preservation (pg. 34); ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 36); ENV 3.2 Vegetation and Soil (pg. 36); ENV 4.0 Floodplains (pg. 38), ENV 6.0 Karst (pg. 42). References to Historic Preservation can be found in CRS 1.1 (pg. 22).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

e. Rezoning to allow higher intensity uses in Resource Stewardship Areas will be discouraged. f. The County may permit new non-agriculturally related institutional uses by special use permit provided the use is compatible in scale and intensity with agricultural and rural residential uses, poses no threat to public health, safety and welfare, and if the use helps preserve farmland, open space or historic, scenic or natural resources.

Cross References and Notes: 4. For approaches to conservation, see also ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources (pg. 32); ENV 2.1.1-11 Approaches to Open Space and Agricultural Preservation (pg. 34); and ENV 6.4 Conservation (pg. 42).

Land Use Policies

PLU 1.2.2 Resource Stewardship Area Community Design: a. Development densities in Resource Stewardship Areas are based on a sliding scale approach and range from .05 to 1.0 dwelling units per acre. (5) b. New residential development proposed in Resource Stewardship Areas should be clustered, or exhibit other conservation design principles, to preserve on-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space or environmental resources. (6) c. The County will vigorously support "Right to Farm" policies in Resource Stewardship Areas to protect existing farms and farmers from nuisance complaints from neighboring rural residents. Plats for new residential lots located in the Resource Stewardship Area shall disclose that the preferred land use in the immediate vicinity of the new lot is agriculture, forestry, and related uses. (7)

b. With the exception of public parks and outdoor recreation facilities, Resource Stewardship Areas will not be a preferred location for new community facilities. c. Transportation access and improvements in Resource Stewardship Areas will be limited to what is necessary to serve very low-density development. New rural residential subdivisions should be served by internal streets that connect to existing rural roads to avoid strip development and to minimize individual driveway access along existing public roads. d. The use of private roads will generally be discouraged in Resource Stewardship Areas.

PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Area Community Facilities and Utilities: a. Future sewer and water service extensions to Resource Stewardship Areas will be discouraged except to resolve existing public health threats or to interconnect existing individual systems. (8)

Cross References and Notes: 5. The sliding scale was included in the new zoning ordinance, adopted in 1999. Additional references to the sliding scale can be found in ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources (pg. 32) and ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning (pg. 34) 6. Additional references to cluster development can be found in ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources (pg. 32) and ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning (pg. 34). 7. References to Agriculture can be found in ENV 1.2 Resource Management (pg. 31); ENV 2.5 Agriculture (pg. 33); ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts (pg. 34); ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives (pg. 34); and ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment (pg. 35). 8. Limits on the expansion of utilities into the resource stewardship areas are addressed in UTL 1.2.5 Growth Boundary (pg. 62).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Land Use Policies

and intensity with agricultural and rural residential uses and poses no threat to public health, safety and welfare. (12)

PLU 1.3 Rural Areas: Rural Areas are generally defined as areas of the County, not generally served by public utilities, where agricultural and rural residential uses are predominant and should be preserved and stabilized. These areas include low-density rural residential subdivisions and active agriculture on secondary agricultural soils. Agricultural uses in these areas are often fragmented and subject to encroaching rural residential development.

f. The County may permit new non-agriculturally related institutional uses by special exception provided the use is compatible in scale and intensity with agricultural and rural residential uses and poses no threat to public health, safety and welfare.

PLU 1.3.1 Rural Area Land Uses: PLU 1.3.2. Rural Area Community Design: a. The preferred land uses in Rural Areas are rural residential development and agriculture. Rather than promoting new rural residential development in Rural Areas, the County seeks to maintain the rural character of existing rural residential developments. The County also seeks to maintain existing agricultural uses in Rural Areas.

a. New development in Rural Areas shall not exceed 0.75 dwelling unit per acre. b. New residential development proposed in Rural Areas should be clustered, or exhibit other conservation design principles, to preserve on-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space or environmental resources. (13)

b. The County will continue to promote farmland retention programs, such as agricultural and forestal districts, in Rural Areas. (9)

PLU 1.3.3. Rural Area Community Facilities and Utilities:

c. New low-density rural residential development will be permitted, but not encouraged, in Rural Areas. Where such development does occur, the County will encourage compact or clustered development to preserve open space and natural resources. (10) d. Rezonings to allow higher intensity uses in Rural Areas will be discouraged. (11) e. New non-agriculturally based industrial and commercial uses will generally be discouraged in Rural Areas, unless the use is compatible in scale Cross References and Notes: 9. Farmland retention is also addressed in ENV 2.0: Open Space and Natural Resources (pg. 32); ENV 2.5: Agriculture (pg. 33); and ENV 2.1.3: Agricultural and Forestal Districts (pg. 34). 10. Rural residential cluster development is addressed in ENV 2.1.5: Rural Cluster Development (pg. 34). 11. Controlling rural density is addressed in ENV 2.1.9: Urban Growth Boundaries-Urban and Village Expansion (pg. 35).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

a. Future sewer and water service extensions to Rural Areas will be discouraged except to resolve existing public health threats or to interconnect existing individual systems. (14)

Cross References and Notes: 12. Development and growth of sustainable agriculture is addressed in ENV 2.1.7: Rural Development Initiatives (pg. 34). 13. The preservation of open space, agricultural lands, and the rural character are discussed in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 22); ENV 1.4: Wildlife Corridors (pg. 32); ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources (pg. 32); ENV 2.1: Private Open Space (pg. 32); ENV 2.3 Viewsheds (pg. 32); ENV 2.4 Forest Lands (pg. 33); ENV 2.5 Agriculture (pg. 33); ENV 2.1.5: Rural Cluster Zoning (pg. 34); ENV 3.1.3: Environmental Quality Corridors (pg. 36); ENV 3.2.6: Preservation of Natural Landscapes (pg. 37); ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features (142); and ENV 5.4 Wellhead Protection (pg. 40). 14. Additional references on utilities in rural areas can be found in ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries--Urban and Village Expansion Areas (pg. 35), UTL 1.2.5 Growth Boundaries (pg. 62); and UTL 1.3 Private Systems (pg. 62).

Land Use Policies

b. With the exception of public parks, recreation facilities, and solid waste collection facilities, Rural Areas will not be a preferred location for new community facilities c. Transportation access is via existing collector highways. New rural residential subdivisions should be served by internal streets that connect to existing rural roads to avoid strip development and to minimize individual driveway access along existing collector highways. (15)

PLU 1.4.1 Rural Communities Land Uses: a. The preferred land use in Rural Communities is residential infill in a traditional small lot pattern, consistent with existing residential development. (17)

d. The use of private roads will generally be discouraged in Rural Areas.

b. Small-scale, civic, institutional and employment uses may be permitted in rural communities in locations that enhance the compact nature of these communities, provided they do not pose a threat to public health, safety, or welfare, and provided they are compatible with adjacent land uses. c. Rezonings to allow higher intensity uses at the edge of Rural Communities will be discouraged. Rezonings may be considered for residential or non-residential infill development that enhances the community fabric by augmenting the core of the Rural Community, provided the proposed development is compatible with adjacent uses and can be supported by existing or improved roads and planned or existing utilities.

Cross References and Notes: 15. Issues connected to subdivision road systems can be found in TRN 1.3 Subdivisions (pg. 55) and TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity (pg. 55).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 16. Currently, Montgomery County has 18 rural communities: Alleghany Springs, Ironto, Denhill, Piedmont, Otey, Reesedale, Ellett, Lusters Gate, McCoy, Wake Forest, Longshop, Vicker, Walton, Graysontown, Childress, Rogers, Pilot, and Sugar Grove. Although some of these communities are primarily crossroads, most have had, at one time a commercial district, many have existing historical structures included in the Montgomery County Survey of Historical Sites, and all have been places people identify themselves as â&#x20AC;&#x153;being from.â&#x20AC;? A few places already have access to limited public water or sewer, such as Alleghany Springs. However, most are not currently served by either. 17. Rural community development is addressed in ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning (pg. 34); PNG 4.0 Village and Rural Communities (pg. 20); and PNG 4.1.3 Planning for Rural Communities (pg. 21).

Land Use Policies

PLU 1.4.2 Rural Communities Community Design:

a. New residential development in Rural Communities should be predominately single family residential. Appropriate development densities in Rural Areas should be determined on a case by case basis, depending on existing zoning. In the case of a rezoning, the proposal must demonstrate that development densities will be of an intensity that is similar to or compatible with surrounding existing development.

(19)

c. Transportation access is via existing collector highways. New development in Rural Communities will be designed to access existing roads. Road improvements may be necessary to ensure safe ingress and egress. Street design must be compatible with the historic character of the local roads, in terms of pavement width, building setbacks, etc.

(20)

c. New structures should be of a scale and type that are consistent with existing structures. d. New residential development proposed in Rural Communities should exhibit conservation design principles, to preserve on-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space or environmental resources. PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities Community Facilities and Utilities: a. Future sewer and water service extensions to Rural Communities will be discouraged except to resolve existing public health threats or to interconnect existing individual systems. (18)

Cross References and Notes: 18. Private and individual sewerage systems are addressed in UTL 1.3 Private Systems (pg. 62) and UTL1.4 Individual Systems (pg. 62).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 19. The placement of park and recreational facilities are discussed in PRC 2.5 Plan Review (pg. 53). 20. See TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity (pg. 55) for a discussion of transportation considerations in subdivisions and developments.

Land Use Policies

shall not exceed 1 dwelling unit per acre, with the exception of developments served by both public water and sewer. b. New development proposed in Residential Transition Areas should be clustered, or exhibit other conservation design principles to preserve on-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space, or environmental resources. (22)

PLU 1.5.1 Residential Transition Area Land Uses:

c. New development in Residential Transition Areas should be designed to be compatible with existing neighborhoods and subdivisions.

a. The predominant and preferred land use in Residential Transition areas is residential. The type of residential developments depends upon the location of the residential transition area and may include singlefamily detached homes or manufactured home parks.

PLU 1.5.3 Residential Transition Area Facilities and Utilities: (23) a. Future sewer and water service extensions to Residential Transition Areas will be discouraged except to resolve existing public health threats or to interconnect existing individual systems or when provided by private developers

b. With the exception of public parks, recreation facilities, and solid waste collection facilities, Residential Transition Areas will not be a preferred location for new community facilities. However, the County does encourage the maintenance, enhancement and where appropriate, the expansion of existing community facilities that serve a regional need.

c. The County should evaluate portions of the Residential Transition areas that have built out at development levels that are lower than what would be permitted by zoning to determine if there is any benefit to rezone these areas to be consistent with actual development. PLU 1.5.2 Residential Transition Area Community Design: a. New development in Residential Transition Areas Cross References and Notes: 21. As with rural communities, new development will be evaluated on a case-bycase basis. Manufactured Housing developments are addressed in HSG 1.2: Manufactured Housing and Housing Parks (pg. 49). Subdivision development is addressed in HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods (pg. 48); HSG 1.3 Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 49); and TRN 1.3 Subdivisions (pg. 55).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 22. The preservation of open space, agricultural lands, and the rural character are discussed in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 22); ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources (pg. 32); ENV 3.1.3: Environmental Quality Corridors (pg. 36); ENV 3.2.6: Preservation of Natural Landscapes (pg. 37); and ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features (pg. 37). 23. Information on the location public facilities are included in PRC 2.5 Planning Review (pg. 53), SFY 1.4 New Development (pg. 51), and UTL 1.2 Public Systems (pg. 61); and UTL 3.2.1 Consolidated Collection Sites (pg. 64).

Land Use Policies

PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas: These are "areas of interest" associated with the designated Villages. These are natural expansion areas for the Villages that may potentially be served by future public sewer and water extensions. Preliminary boundaries should be set based on utility service areas, physical and natural features that define the "area of interest" and existing zoning. Local community planning efforts should determine final boundaries. PLU 1.6.1 Village Expansion Areas Planning Process. The County will develop a planning process to work jointly with residents of each village and surrounding area to define a specific village expansion boundary and to prepare a village plan to guide future development. Upon completion, each village plan should be adopted as an amendment to the countywide Comprehensive Plan. (24) PLU 1.6.2 Village and Village Expansion Zoning Amendments. Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance to create mixed use, "traditional neighborhood design" development options that will facilitate compact traditional design of new projects in Villages and Village Expansion areas. (25) PLU 1.6.3 Village Expansion Area Land Use: a. Village Expansion Areas are intended to provide an alternative to scattered rural residential development and to provide an opportunity to enhance the vitality of existing villages by providing for compatible expansions of residential and employment uses. Village expansion areas are adjacent to existing

Cross References and Notes: 24. Village Planning is addressed in PNG 4.0: Villages and Rural Communities (pg. 20); PNG 4.1.1: Livable Communities (pg. 20); PNG 4.1.2 Planning for Villages (pg. 21); and PNG 4.2: Public Facilities (pg. 21). 25. Mixed use and traditional neighborhood design (TND) options are addressed in PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 16); PNG 4.1.1 Livable Communities (pg. 20); HHS 1.0 Livable Communities (pg. 45); HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods (pg. 48); and HSG 1.3 HSG Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 49).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Land Use Policies

villages where appropriate new development can be accommodated while retaining the viability and character of the historic village core.

parking, and parking lots and garages located behind buildings. d. Development in Village Expansion Areas should be designed to preserve critical historic resources.

b. A mix of appropriately scaled residential, nonresidential and community uses are anticipated in Village Expansion Areas.

(27)

e. Development in Village Expansion Areas should be designed to preserve critical natural, open space, scenic landscape resources. (28)

c. Specific land use recommendations will be developed as Village Plans and Village Expansion Area plans are developed and adopted.

f. Street design must be compatible with the historic character of the local roads, in terms of pavement width, building setbacks, etc.

PLU 1.6.4 Village Expansion Area Community Design: a. From an area wide or large-scale project perspective, gross densities in Village Expansion Areas may range up to 2.0 dwelling units per acre.

PLU 1.6.5 Village Expansion Area Facilities and Utilities: a. Extensions of sewer and water lines from existing villages into Village Expansion Areas will be permitted in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment for each village.

b. Compact development and a range of housing types are encouraged in Village Expansion Areas as long as new development is sensitive to existing village character and design. (26) c. Development in Village Expansion Areas should be designed to complement and augment the historic character and development pattern of the adjacent existing village by becoming a natural "extension" of the existing village. New development in the expansion areas should relate closely to the existing village and should be an "organic" continuation of the historic fabric of the village. Design element should include a generally interconnected street network, define open spaces that serve as "exterior rooms," multiple uses within a single building, multiple uses adjacent to one another, building fronts set close to the street, comfortable and safe pedestrian access between sites and along sidewalks, on-street Cross References and Notes: 26. Compact development and Traditional Neighborhood Designs are addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design (pg. 16); PNG 4.1.1 Livable Communities (pg. 20); HHS 2.1: Affordable Housing (pg. 45); HSG 1.1: Affordable Housing (pg. 48).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

(29)

b. Village Expansion Areas are a preferred location for public investments in community facilities. (30) Cross References and Notes: 27. Historic preservation is addressed in CRS 1.1: Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors (pg. 22). 28. Environmental and open space preservation is addressed, more specifically, in ENV 2.0: Open Space and Natural Resources (pg. 32); ENV 2.2 Public Open Space (pg. 32); ENV 3.1.3 Environmental Quality Corridors (pg. 36); ENV 3.2.6 Preservation of Natural Landscapes (pg. 37); ENV 3.2.7: Protection of Riparian Features (pg. 37); and ENV 4.2: Floodplain Programs and Policies (pg. 38). 29. Growth boundaries are addressed in ENV 2.1.9: Urban Growth Boundaries-Urban and Village Expansion Areas (pg. 35); and UTL 1.2.5: Growth Boundaries (pg. 62). 30. The location of public and community facilities is addressed in PNG 3.1.4 Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities (pg. 20); PNG 4.0: Villages and Small Communities (pg. 20); CRS 2.1.4 Library-Based Community Space (pg. 23); CRS 3.1: Cultural Facilities, Programs, and Events (pg. 24); EDU 1.2.1: Local and Neighborhood Facilities (pg. 29); HHS 2.5 Community Facilities (pg. 45); PRC 2.5: Planning Review (pg. 53); SFY 1.3 Future Capital Facilities (pg. 50); and UTL 3.2.1 Consolidated Collection Sites (pg. 64).

Land Use Policies

PLU 1.7. Villages: These are larger rural communities where limited mixed-use development activity has historically occurred and public utilities are available. They are separate and distinct from each other and from nearby towns. Villages usually have a higher density, identifiable core that includes a mix of residential, business, industrial, and institutional use in a traditional development pattern. Villages have served as, and will continue to serve as, focal points for surrounding rural areas. (32) These include: Belview, Elliston-Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner and Shawsville. (33) PLU 1.7.1 Village Planning Process. The County will develop a planning process to work jointly with residents of each village and the surrounding area to define a specific village expansion boundary and to prepare a village plan to guide future development. Upon completion, each village plan should be adopted as an amendment to the countywide Comprehensive Plan. (34)

Cross References and Notes: 31. Transportation is addressed in TRN 1.3 Subdivisions (pg. 55) and TRN 1.4 Connectivity and Access Management (pg. 55).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 32. Maintaining current community assets (schools, fire and rescue stations, parks, and collections facilities) and developing new community assets helps maintain both the sense of community within the Villages and strengthens the Villagesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; role as a focal point for surrounding communities. The importance of community assets is also addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design (pg. 16); PNG 3.1.1 Multi-use of Facilities (pg. 19); PNG 3.1.4 Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities (pg. 20); PNG 4.0 Villages and Rural Communities (pg. 20); PNG 4.2: Public Facilities (pg. 21); EDU 1.2.1 Local and Neighborhood Facilities (pg. 29); HHS 1.0 Livable Communities (pg. 45); HHS 4.2 Emergency Care Facilities (pg. 46); HHS 4.3 Emergency Response Facilities and Staff (pg. 46); HHS 5.0 Human Services and Facilities (pg. 170); PRC 2.1.4 Village Plans (pg. 53); SFY 1.3 Future Capital Facilities (pg. 50); TRN 3.3 Villages and Transportation Needs (pg. 59); and UTL 2.3: Broadband/Fiber-optic Networks (pg. 63). 33. In the focused growth approach, Villages and Village Expansion Areas (PLU 1.6), Urban Expansion Areas (PLU 1.7), and Municipalities (Blacksburg and Christiansburg) represent the primary targeted areas for future development. It should be noted, however, that not all types of growth and development are appropriate for all focused growth areas and projects will continue to be evaluated on a case by case basis in accord with the stated land use policies and subsequent village plans. 34. The Village planning process is also addressed in PNG 4.0: Villages and Rural Communities (pg. 20).

Land Use Policies

preservation of historic structures and preservation of the historic pattern of developed and undeveloped areas that define the village and its boundaries. (38)

PLU 1.7.3 Village Area Land Use: a. Villages should be predominately residential but may include a "downtown" area of business, commercial and institutional uses at densities higher than found in surrounding rural areas. New smallscale business, commercial, and employment uses may be appropriate in villages provided they are small-scale buildings with a pedestrian oriented street front.

c. A mix of housing types may be appropriate in villages provided new development is compatible in scale and character with existing structures. Alternative housing types such as "granny flats" and live-work units shall be encouraged in villages to expand the range of housing options available to County residents. (39) d. New development in the Village Areas shall conform to future Village Plans that will be adopted as part of the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Comprehensive Plan. Until such specific plans are adopted, all new development within the village shall related closely to the existing, historic fabric of the village. Design elements should include a generally interconnected street network, defined opens spaces that serve as "exterior rooms", multiple uses within a single building, multiple uses adjacent to one another, building fronts set close to the street, comfortable and safe pedestrian access between sites and along sidewalks, on-street parking, and parking lots and garages located behind buildings.

b. New small-scale industrial and employment uses may be appropriate in villages provided they are located adjacent to similar uses and are designed to minimize any negative impact on the existing village through limitations in scale, height, bulk and operations, as well as provision of buffers. (36) c. Specific land use recommendations will be developed as Village /Village Expansion Area Plans are developed and adopted. (37) PLU 1.7.4 Village Area Community Design: a. The viability and historic character of existing villages shall be maintained by encouraging Cross References and Notes: 35. Additional information and guidelines for community design and traditional neighborhood designs (TND) are addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design (pg. 16). 36.Small business development is addressed in CRS 1.3: Historic Preservation and Tourism (pg. 23); ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy (pg. 28); and ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives (pg. 34). 37. Village planning is also addressed in PNG 4.0. Villages and Rural Communities (pg. 20).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

e. Street design must be compatible with the historic character of the local roads, in terms of pavement width, building setbacks, etc. (40) Cross References and Notes: 38. Historic Preservation is also addressed in CRS 1.1: Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors (pg. 22) and CRS 1.1.3: Villages and Rural Communities (pg. 22). 39. Compact design and other forms of traditional neighborhood design are addressed in PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 16). 40. Context-sensitive street designs and standards is addressed in TRN1.3.4 (pg. 55).

Land Use Policies

PLU 1.7.5 Village Area Facilities and Utilities:

a. Villages are served by public sewer and water facilities. The extension of utilities to surrounding areas may be permitted in accordance with individual Village and Village Expansion Plans. (41) b. Villages are a preferred location for new community facilities and public investments. Additionally, the County supports the maintenance, enhancement and where appropriate, the expansion of existing community facilities located in villages. (42)

PLU 1.8.1 Industrial and Business Location Study: The County Planning Department should work with the Department of Economic Development to identify locations for new industrial and businesses parks and/or the expansion of existing parks in Urban Expansion Areas. (46)

c. Transportation access to Villages is usually via existing major collector or minor arterial highways, with a network of smaller streets serving the village center. New development in or adjacent to Villages must connect to and reinforce the traditional village road network. (43)

d. New roads and road improvements within a Village Areas should be designed to accommodate pedestrians as well as motor vehicles, rather than allowing motor vehicles to cause an unsafe and unpleasant pedestrian environment. (44) e. Stormwater management plans for new development should consider the impact of the developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s storm water on the Village and Village Expansion Area as a whole and provide adequate storm water management facilities which work with the Villageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall stormwater management plan and requirements. (45) Cross References and Notes: 41. The provision of utilities is also discussed in UTL 1.0 Water and Sewer (pg. 61). 42. See footnote 30 (pg. 8) for specific community facility references. 413. Street design standards are discussed in PLU 3.1.1(b) (pg. 16). See, also, TRN 1.3.4: Context-Sensitive Street Design (pg. 55). 44. Street design standards are discussed in PLU 3.1.1(b) (pg. 16).See HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 49); TRN 1.3.4: Context-Sensitive Street Design (pg. 55); and TRN 1.3.5 Pedestrian Transportation Facilities (pg. 55). 45. Stormwater Management is addressed in ENV 6.5: Stormwater Management (pg. 42); ENV 7.0 Stormwater and Erosion Control (pg. 43); and UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management (pg. 64).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

PLU 1.8.3 Urban Expansion Area Land Use: a. Urban Expansion Areas are the preferred location for new residential and non-residential development occurring in unincorporated areas of Montgomery County.

Cross References and Notes: 46. Economic development siting and facility requirements are addressed in ECD 1.3 Future Land Use Requirements (pg. 25); ECD 3.0: Location and Land Use (pg. 27). 47. The majority of major corridors, in Montgomery County pass through Villages and/or other jurisdictions: 1) US 460/Rt 11 passes through the Villages of Elliston/Lafayette and Shawsville before entering the eastern end of Christiansburg; 2) US 460. passes through Christiansburg, Blacksburg, and Montgomery County; 3) Rt. 114 passes through Belview; 4) Rt. 11 passes through Plum Creek; and Rt.8 passes through Riner. Corridor plans are meant to address development along the stretches of road between the two towns and villages and to work, in tandem, with the comprehensive plans of the two towns and the Village Plans. They are not meant to supersede existing town or village plans.

Land Use Policies

b. Urban Expansions Areas will accommodate a full range of residential unit types and densities. c. Major employment and commercial uses should be located in Urban Expansion Areas, in proximity to major transportation corridors. The Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s major industrial parks located in Urban Expansion Areas should be expanded. (48) PLU 1.8.4 Urban Expansion Area Community Design: (49) a. From an area wide or large-scale project perspective, gross densities in Urban Expansion Areas may range up to 2.5 dwelling units per acre.

e. Development in Urban Expansion Areas will be compatible with and complimentary to development within corporate limits.

PLU 1.8.5 Urban Expansion Area Facilities and Utilities: a. Urban Expansion Areas are or will be served by public sewer and water service provided by the County or by the towns and the City, by mutual agreement. b. Urban Expansion Areas will be the primary focus for public facility investments occurring outside the towns, the City, or the Villages. Urban Expansion Areas will be the preferred location for new community facilities that cannot be located in towns, the City, or the Villages. (50)

Cross References and Notes: 48. Economic development siting and land use requirements are addressed in ECD 3.0: Location and Land Use (pg. 27). 49. Additional policies governing new development are addressed in PLU 2.0: New Development (pg. .48); and guidelines for community design are addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design (pg. 16). See, also, footnote #46 (pg. 11).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

c. Transportation improvements within the Urban Expansion Area will be designed to tie into the existing street network serving the City and the towns. (51) Cross References and Notes: 50. Public facilities include parks and other recreational facilities (PRC2.0, pg. 207); schools (EDU 1.1, pg. 116); solid waste collection facilities (UTL 3.0 pg. 237); health and human service facilities (HHS 4.0, pg. 176, and HHS 5.0, pg 147); fire, rescue, and law enforcement facilities (SFY 1.3, pg. 197); public water and sewer facilities (UTL 1.2, pg 234), and other facilities related to the provision of utilities (UTL 2.0, pg 236). 51. See, also, TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity (pg. 55).

Land Use Policies

PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination/Cooperation. The County will work with the municipalities (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford) to identify areas of existing development that are accessed by municipal roads, served by municipal utilities and that can best be served by municipal services (law enforcement, trash collection, etc. ). Additionally, the County and the municipalities will identify undeveloped areas within the Urban Expansion Area that are likely to have similar characteristics once they are developed. The County will promote the orderly inclusion of such areas into the municipalities through utility agreements and mutually acceptable boundary line adjustments. In turn, the municipalities will use cash proffers or other revenue sharing agreements to insure that new development in such areas pays its â&#x20AC;&#x153;fair shareâ&#x20AC;? of the cost of providing county facilities and services associated with new growth. Presently the County cooperates with each municipality in the review of proposed developments located close to municipal boundaries. The County will work with the municipalities to coordinate comprehensive planning for areas located close to municipal boundaries. (52)

1.9 Focused Growth Targets: In order to maintain a balance between urban and rural areas, the County targets 80% or more of future development within the unincorporated areas to occur within the Expansion Areas, Villages, Village Expansion Areas, and the Residential Transition Areas. Conversely, the County targets 20% or less of future development within the unincorporated areas to occur within the Rural Communities, Rural Areas, and the Resource Stewardship Area.

Cross References and Notes: 52. Opportunities for cooperation between Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and the City of Radford are built into many of the subject specific chapters, including: PNG 1.0 Local and Regional Cooperation (pg. 18); CRS 1.1 Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors (pg. 22); ECD 1.1 Montgomery County Regional Indicators Program (pg. 25); ECD 2.1.1 Community Technical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force (pg. 100); ECD 3.3 Downtown Revitalization (pg. 27); ENV3.5: Government Cooperation (pg. 38); ENV 4.1 Floodplains: Partnership and Regional Cooperation (pg. 38); ENV 7.0 Stormwater and Erosion Control (pg. 43); HHS 3.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration (pg. 46); HSG 1.1 Affordable Housing (pg. 48); PRC 1.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration (pg. 52); SFY 1.5 Regional Opportunities (pg. 51); TRN 1.2 Metropolitan Planning Organization (pg. 54); TRN 3.0 Mass Transit (pg. 58); TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation (pg. 59); UTL 1.1 Water and Sewer: Regional Cooperation (pg. 61); UTL 2.2: Telecommunications Towers (pg. 63); UTL 2.3: Broadband/Fiber-optic Networks (pg. 63); UTL 3.1.1 Solid Waste Management: Regional Cooperation (pg. 64); and UTL 4.0: Stormwater Management (pg. 64).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Land Use Policies

PLU 2.0 New Development: The County will promote sound fiscal planning and good design principles by applying consistent standards to evaluate the design and impact of proposed development.

provisions for pedestrian mobility within the site and safe and convenient connections for pedestrian traffic to adjacent sites and adjacent public roadways and trails.

PLU 2.1 Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications: All residential rezoning requests will be evaluated using the following minimum criteria:

g. Buffers. Landscaped buffers must be provided at all edges of the site that abut existing or planned uses of lower intensities.

a. Location. The property must be located within a Village, Village Expansion Area or Urban Expansion Area, with the exception of Rural Residential zoning.

PLU 2.2. Proffer Guidelines: The County will work with the development community to develop a framework for proffer guidelines to be used in the evaluation of rezoning applications.

b. Public Utilities. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed development will be served by public sewer (preferably both public water and public sewer), and that such service is either currently available or is planned and approved by the County and scheduled for construction to the site within a defined time period consistent with the other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; with any necessary extensions to be funded by the applicant.

PLU 2.2.1 Proffer Guideline Principles: The County will consider the following principles in evaluating and developing capital facility proffer guidelines to be used in conjunction with conditional zoning (rezoning) applications:

c. Road Access. The property must have adequate and safe road access, with any necessary improvements provided by the applicant. Entrances onto existing public roads must be adequately spaced to provide safe access and maintain adequate capacity of the existing roadway. The applicant must dedicate any right-of-way necessary for future widening of such existing road. d. Public Facilities and Amenities. The applicant must provide a concept development plan of the entire property, showing future land uses, roads, walkways and trails, open spaces, public facility sites and the like. e. Interparcel Access. The concept plan must show one or more street connections to all adjoining properties that are not blocked by natural barriers. The applicant must construct these connections at the time such portion of the concept plan is developed. Interparcel access will not be required if the adjacent property is located in a Rural Area or a Rural Stewardship/Conservation area unless such a connection is identified on a Countywide or regional transportation plan. f. Pedestrian Access. The rezoning proposal must include Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Land Use Policies

a. Percentage of Capital Costs: Proffers for public facilities and amenities will be encouraged for each residential rezoning, and are expected to have a total value that is sufficient to represent a significant "down payment" on the cost of the various capital facilities that will be constructed to serve the new residents. b. Calculation of Capital Costs: At the County's discretion, residential capital facility costs may be estimated on the basis of capital costs for the average unit overall, or on the basis of costs per unit type, differentiating between detached, attached, manufactured ("mobile") and multi-family units. School costs may also be estimated separately. c. Direct Public Benefit: To qualify as a capital facility proffer the land, facility or fund must be dedicated or deeded to the County or to another regional, state or federal agency which will ensure that it is used for the benefit of County citizens at large and must have a measurable value that can be quantified. d. Capital Facilities Proffer Principles: To ensure that the proffer process is reasonable, effective and manageable, any proffer guidelines development by 14

the County should be based on the following principles: i. Consistency of content. Proffers should be negotiated and accepted on a consistent basis from one project to another. Uniform standards for capital facilities, based upon the Comprehensive Plan and CIP should be followed in determining appropriate proffers for a particular project. ii. Consistency of format. The County should develop a consistent format for proffer statements with consistent style and terminology so that proffers are comparable.

ii.Cash contributions for capital facilities; and iii.Construction of public facilities. g. Other Types of Proffers: The County proffer guidelines should also allow for a variety of other types of proffers that will enhance the quality of development in the County including: i. Reservation of sites for private, non-profit community facilities; ii. Phasing of development iii. Impact mitigation;

iii.Rational Nexus. All proffers should have a direct and rational relationship to needs created by the project itself. To the maximum extent feasible, proffers should be built or otherwise allocated so as to directly benefit the particular project. iv. Coordination. Proffers from neighboring or adjacent developments should be coordinated to the maximum extent possible in order to ensure compatibility and consistency, and to avoid redundancy and conflict. e. Transportation Proffers: Proffers for roads and road improvements are considered a separate item, not included within the guideline due to the States responsibility for public roads. Road proffers should be based upon the specific needs of the site and its surrounding road network. f. Types of Capital Facilities Proffers: The County's proffer guidelines should be comprehensive and may include the following types of proffers as appropriate and as permitted by State law:

iv. Preservation of special environmental, natural, open space or historic features; and v. Special design criteria and features. PLU 2.3 Critical Features: All development requests will be evaluated with respect to their impact on the critical, sensitive, special, and historical resources delineated on the Critical Features Map. PLU 2.4 2232 Review Policy: Develop a policy for the review by the county, in accordance with Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, of proposed new community facilities and expansion of existing community facilities. Such construction and expansions require careful consideration by local decision makers to assure that the needs and interests of the community are fulfilled in the most appropriate manner. The policy should include (1) a definition of public facility, (2) a list of what types of facilities are exempt from 2232 review, (3) application requirements for agencies and individuals submitting projects/proposals subject to 2232 applications, and (4) an outline of how the County will process 2232 applications, including how administrative determinations will be made regarding features shown.

i.Dedication of land for public facilities;

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Land Use Policies

PLU Goal 3.0 Community Design: To maintain and enhance quality of life, the County will promote design principles for new development that are based on the traditional development patterns that created many treasured communities in Montgomery County. PLU 3.1 Traditional Neighborhood Design: The County will develop traditional residential development options to be included in the County's Zoning Ordinance. PLU 3.1.1 Traditional Neighborhood Design Zoning Ordinance Amendments: The County will develop zoning districts based on the following key principles of Traditional Neighborhood Developments: a. Organization and Structure: i. The organizing framework of a TND is an area of land that constitutes a five minute walk, or a circle of about one-quarter mile radius (about 150 acres). Commercial and higher density residential uses should be focused within such a core area. ii. The neighborhood has a discernible center, often a square or a green, a busy or memorable street corner, and/or a prominent civic building (a transit stop can be located at this center). The center may be surrounded by a mixed-use retail/office core area. iii.Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the neighborhood center, an average of roughly 1,500 feet, producing a total area of approximately 150 acres. iv.Small playgrounds or "pocket parks" are located within 500 feet of every dwelling. v. To the extent possible, an elementary school is close enough so that most children can walk from their home.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Handbook--Land Use Policies

vi. Development is located in environmentally suitable areas, designed to preserve important environmental and cultural resources reinforced through a system of parks and public and institutional uses and, a formal neighborhood governance association to decide and/or advise on matters of maintenance, security and physical change (taxation remains the responsibility of the County). b. Streets i. The neighborhood is served by many transportation modes, including motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle and transit; motor vehicles and parking lots do not dominate. ii. The neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s streets form a connected network, providing a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes to any destination, which disperses traffic. (The streets are laid out generally in a "grid" pattern, forming blocks of about 1,200 feet in perimeter length each). Culde-sacs should be avoided; small "eyebrows" (short road loops with just a few houses) protruding from the main street should be used instead. iii.The circulation network includes streets, alleys, sidewalks and paths. iv.The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees, often with on-street parking, which slows traffic, creating an environment suitable for pedestrians and bicycles. v. Buildings in the neighborhood center are placed close to the street, creating a feeling of "human scale" and a strong sense of place. vi.Parking lots and garage doors rarely front the street; parking is at the rear of buildings, usually 16

accessed by alleyways. vii.Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings that provide sites for community meetings, education, religious or cultural activities. c. Land Uses i. The neighborhood has a mix of uses so that residents have opportunities to live, recreate, learn, worship, and even work and shop in their neighborhood

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Land Use Policies

ii. There is a variety of dwelling types, densities and costs - single family houses, townhouses, apartments and accessory units -- for all kinds of people, including younger, older, singles, families, lower income, upper income, etc. iii.There are a variety of shops and offices at the core or the edge of the neighborhood to supply the weekly needs of a household. iv.A small ancillary building is permitted within the backyard of each house, which may be used as a rental unit, an "in-law" suite, or place to work (e.g. office or craft workshop).

Cross References and Notes : 1. Local and regional cooperation are built into the full extent of this plan. Significant sections addressing local and regional cooperation are included the following: PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination & Cooperation (pg. 13) CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 22); CRS 3.0 Cultural Facilities and Fine Arts (pg. 24); ECD 2.0 Workforce Development (pg. 100); ECD 3.0 Location and Land Use (pg. 27); EDU 2.0 Livelong Learning Goal (pg. 30); ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 36); ENV 4.0 Floodplains (pg. 38); HHS 3.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration (pg. 46); HSG 1.1 Affordable Housing (pg. 48); PRC 1.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration (pg. 52); SFY 1.5 Regional Opportunities (pg. 51); TRN 1.2 Metropolitan Planning Organization (pg. 54); TRN 2.0 Highway System (pg. 56); TRN 3.0 Mass Transit (pg. 58), TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation (pg. 59); UTL 1.1 Regional Cooperation (pg. 61), UTL 2.2 Telecommunications Towers (pg. 63); UTL 3.0 Solid Waste Management (pg. 64); UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management (pg. 64); and UTL 4.2 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 64)

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 2. As with local and regional cooperation, public participation is one of the keystones of Montgomery County, 2025. Public participation is divided into two subcategories: public involvement (input) and public information (outreach). 3. Beyond the outreach methods incorporated under this goal, the plan includes a number of other methods in the introduction, planning, and subject specific chapters. These include: PLU 1.7.1 Village Planning Process (pg. 9); CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 22); CRS 3.0 Cultural Facilities and Fine Arts (pg. 24); ECD 1.1 Montgomery County Regional Indicators Program (pg. ); ECD 2.0 Workforce Development (pg. 100); EDU 2.0 Lifelong Learning Goal (pg. 30); ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 36); ENV 5.0 Groundwater (pg. 39); HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods (pg. 48); SFY1.0 Public Safety (pg. 50); TRN 1.0 Land Use and Transportation (pg. 54); and UTL 3.0 Solid Waste (pg. 64).

Planning & Government

PNG 2.1.5 Public Hearings. Hold joint public hearings with the Blacksburg Planning Commission or the Christiansburg Planning Commission on projects impacting both the county and the town.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 7. Multi-use of public facilities recognizes that the public’s ability to use public facilities in a variety of fashions contains long-term costs while providing the public with greater opportunity, whether it is adult education and job training classes being held in the public library, schools making use of outdoor lab facilities in public parks, or parks and recreation programs utilizing school facilities. Multi-use of facilities is addressed in CRS 2.0 Montgomery Floyd Regional Library (pg. 23); EDU 1.1.2 Facilities Renewal Program (pg. 29); EDU 1.2.2 New Facilities (pg. 29); and EDU 2.2 Nontraditional Educational Facilities (pg. 30).

Planning & Government

(8)

Cross References and Notes: 8. The Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities Initiative is also addressed in the Educational Resources Chapter (EDU 1.2, pg. 116).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 9. Montgomery County, 2025 includes six designated villages: Belview, Elliston/Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville. The village plans will become part of the this plan as they are adopted. Village planning is also addressed in PLU 1.7.1: Village Planning Process (pg. 9). Other village and rural community issues are included in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 22); EDU 1.1.1 Local and Neighborhood Facilities (pg. 29); and PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs (pg. 53). 10. Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) standards are addressed, in greater detail, in PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 19) 11. Livable neighborhoods and communities are central to residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; quality of life. Potential ideas for consideration include: 1. Maintain a clear edge with the countryside (delineate gateways, consider open space buffers, encourage infill development), 2. Build livable communities (compact form encourages walking, reassess zoning standards regarding setbacks and mixed uses), 3. Preserve historic resources (find new uses for old buildings), 4. Respect local character in new construction (ask franchises and chain stores to fit in, landscape commercial areas, control signs, disguise communication towers), and 5. Reduce the impact of the car (design streets for healthy neighborhoods, build trails and greenways, reassess road standards). Source: "Better Models for Development in Virginia" by Edward T. McMahon. Livable neighborhoods and communities area also addressed in HHS 1.0 Livable Communities (pg. 46); HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg. 45); and HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods (pg. 48).

Planning & Government

(12)

PNG 7.3 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO): Support state legislative efforts to allow local governments to approve APFOs. Cross References and Notes: 12. See footnote #8 for additional references. 13. Examples of rural communities in the county are Alleghany Springs, Ellett, Long Shop, Lusters Gate, McCoy, Pilot, Graysontown, etc. Planning and Rural Communities is addressed in PLU 1.3 (pg. 3). 14. Corridor Planning is also addressed in PLU 1.8.1 Corridor Planning (pg. 11), and TRN 2.4 Access Management (pg. 57).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 15. Preliminary proffer guidelines are addressed in PLU 2.2 (pg. 14) 16. Capital Improvements Program is also addressed in the Implementation Strategies portion of the Introduction to the full plan; EDU 1.1.3 Facilities Renewal Program (pg. 29); PRC 2.1.2 Recreational Priorities and Funding (pg. 53); and SFY 1.3.2 Capital Facilities and Funding (pg. 51).

Planning & Government

CRS 1.2 Preservation of Individual Properties. Promote the historic preservation of individual structures by providing local technical assistance to local landowners and developers.

Cross References and Notes: 1. Issues surrounding historic preservation are also addressed in the Planning and Land Use Policies (pages 35-50), specifically PLU 1.2.1 (f), PLU 1.3.2(b), PLU 1.4.2(d), PLU 1.5.2(b), PLU 1.6.4(d), PLU 1.7.4(a), and PLU 1.8.4(d). Flexible road standards is addressed in TRN 1.5 (pg. 56). 2. The Certified Local Governments Program, established under the Federal Historic Preservation Act (1966) is administered by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). Program requirements and benefits are available from the DHR. 3. State provisions for historic markers are included in sections 10.1-2209 and 10.12210 of the Code of Virginia.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

CRS 1.2.3 Public Information. Provide public information on historic preservation and historic preservation easements to individual landowners and developers, including access to forms and a list of local preservation and easement specialists. Cross References and Notes: 4. Land use policies for rural communities, villages, and village expansion areas are included in PLU 1.4: Rural Communities (pg. 4), PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 7); and PLU 1.7: Villages (pg. 9). 5. Gibson and Charlotte Worsham conducted the initial survey of historic resources in Montgomery County in 1986. The survey culminated in the designation of 10 historic districts throughout Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg, including four village districts in the unincorporated portions of the County. The survey has not been updated since the initial survey. The initial database would be based on the Worsham survey.

Cultural Resources

Cross References and Notes: 6. Tourism is supported by ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy (pg. 28). Eco- and Agri-tourism are addressed in ENV 2.1.7 (Rural Development Initiatives (pg. 34).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 7. The Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library is also addressed in PNG 3.1: MultiUse of Public Facilities (pg. 19), PNG 3.1.4: Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities Initiative (pg. 20); EDU 1.2: Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities (pg. 29) and EDU 2.2.4: Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library (pg. 30)

Cultural Resources

CRS 3.2.3 Farm Heritage Park. Create a master plan for the development of a Farm Heritage Park in Riner, in partnership with Radford University, Virginia Tech, the Friends of Riner, Montgomery County Museum, agricultural and farm organization, and the Agricultural Extension Service. Cross References and Notes: 8. Heritage parks are also addressed in EDU 2.2: Non-traditional Educational Facilities (pg. 30) and PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs (pg. 53).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cultural Resources

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 3.. Additional references to mixed use development are included in: PNG 4.0 Villages and Rural Communities (pg. 20); PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 7); PLU 1.7 Villages (pg. 9); PLU 1.8 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 11); HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg. 45); HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods (pg. 48); and PRC 2.3 Trails (pg. 53) 4. The work group cited specific sections of the Economic Development Strategic Plan for four subjects: a) Workforce (Join forces with a regional-wide workforce development task force; survey target industries to assess labor market demand; Develop an action plan to increase the available IT skilled workforce; Advocate for a Comprehensive Vocational Training Facility to serve the County; Connect vocational training with the needs of existing targeted industries). b) Development (Expand the main industrial parks available industrial property; Develop new shell building in Christiansburg; Develop minimum investment criteria for locating in Montgomery County’s available industrial parks; Identify sites with the greatest marketing potential/appeal and focus resources; Establish viable real estate development partnerships to encourage speculative building on sites; Educate communities about Economic Development Department’s marketing and client management strategies). c) Program (Mobilize community resources to support local business development; Cooperate with Blacksburg and Christiansburg to interview and profile local businesses; Develop local industry database, with linkages, as a marketing tool; Encourage local participation in regional initiatives; Publish inventory of local resources; Promote business retention and expansion programs). d) Marketing and Recruitment (Create a technology zone; Enroll local business leaders in target marketing efforts; Restructure incentives in ways that favor the development of industries in target sectors and the creation of primary and/or family wage jobs.

Economic Resource

Cross References and Notes 5. Workforce development is also addressed in EDU 2.1 Job and Vocational Education (pg. 30) and HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg. 45). Issues surrounding diversity, living wage, accessibility, and expanded opportunities are addressed in HHS 2.2: Economic Development (pg. 45). 6. The task force should be made up of members from the Montgomery County Public Schools, the New River Community College, Virginia Tech, Radford University, local businesses, the Montgomery County Economic Development Department, the Montgomery County Economic Development Commission, and the Board of Supervisors, and representatives from Blacksburg and Christiansburg. The Community Technical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force is cross listed as EDU 2.1.1 (pg. 30)

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Economic Resource

ECD 3.1.6 Research & Development Zoning: Review and revise the County Zoning Ordinance to allow research & development uses in the M-1 Manufacturing zoning district.

ECD 3.1.2 Partnership Agreements: Work cooperatively with other localities in the development of regional business and industrial parks.

ECD 3.2 Zoning. Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow for innovative approaches to the design and organization of industrial, light industrial, and business parks and business districts.

(10)

ECD 3.2.3 Fiber Optics: Extend fiber optic capabilities in downtown areas. (11)

ECD 3.2.1 Campus Settings: Promote mixed use approaches (campus settings) mixing commercial, industrial, academic, and residential land uses, to the development of future business parks.

ECD 3.2.3 Downtown Courthouse: Maintain County Courthouse in downtown Christiansburg.

Cross References and Notes 7. Issues surrounding business location and land use are also addressed in the Land Use Policies, included in the Government and Land Use Chapter. For more specific information, see PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 7); PLU 1.7 Villages (pg. 9); and PLU 1.8 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 11). Additional references to the siting of business and industrial areas is included the Environmental Resources chapter, including ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 36); ENV 5.0 Groundwater (pg. 39); and ENV 6.0 Karst (pg. 42). Transportation related issues are addressed in TRN 1.4 Connectivity and Access Management (pg. 55).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes 8. The Zoning Ordinance defines flex industrial as Light industrial activities that occur in buildings of no more than two stories in height, with one or more loading docks, and not more than half of the gross floor area used for offices. 9. Downtown revitalization, as it relates to historic preservation, is included in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 22). 10. Technology infrastructure, including telecommunications towers, is also addressed in UTL 2.0 Electric, Telecommunications, and Gas Utilities (pg. 63). 11. Fiber-optic networks are also addressed in UTL 2.3: Broadband/Fiber-optic Networks (pg. 63).

Economic Resource

ECD 4.1 Internal Focus: Encourage the growth of new and existing businesses and industries presently located in the county.

ECD 4.2.2 Rail Transportation: Support passenger rail service to Christiansburg and improved freight rail service along the Interstate 81 corridor. (14)

ECD 4.2.3 Retail Quality: Recognize that the presence of upscale retailers is an important consideration for many locational decisions. Therefore support development of a quality regional mall.

ECD 4.2.4 College Graduates Data: Include college students that have graduated or are going to graduate in labor market figures.

ECD 4.1.3 Visitation Program: Continue visitation program with existing businesses.

Cross References and Notes 12. Small business development issues are also addressed in the Environmental Resources and Cultural Resources chapters of this plan. For additional references on Agriculture-related economic development, see ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives (pg. 34). Cultural and historic tourism and historic tourism corridors are addressed in CRS 1.3 Historic Preservation and Tourism (pg. 23). Recreational tourism and enterprises are addressed in PRC 2.4 Commercial Recreational Facilities (pg. 53).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

ECD 4.3 Local Tax Structure: Evaluate the implications of state changes to the local tax structure and the impact on current and future economic development. (15)

Cross References and Notes 13. Air transportation is addressed in TRN 5.1 Air Transportation (pg. 60). 14. Rail transportation is addressed in TRN 5.2 Rail Transportation (pg. 60). 15. Issues surrounding the local tax structure are addressed in PNG 6.0 Tax Structure and Legislative Changes and Priorities (pg. 21). Issues related to public funding sources, including cash proffers, are addressed in PNG 7.0 Growth Impact (pg. 21); PLU 2.2 Proffer Guidelines (pg. 14); PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs (pg. 53); and SFY 1.3 Future Capital Facilities (pg. 50).

Economic Resource

Educational Resources: Goals EDU 1.1.4 Landbanking: Land bank sufficient land for future educational uses, including the expansion of existing facilities and the construction of new facilities.

EDU 1.0 Educational Facilities and Opportunities: Provide high quality, lifelong educational opportunities and facilities throughout Montgomery County.

EDU 1.1.2 Facility Standards. Develop and adopt a mutually acceptable planning standard for school facilities, including renovation standards and a mobile classroom policy. EDU 1.1.3 Facilities Renewal Program: Design and incorporate a Facilities Renewal Program into the Montgomery County Capital Improvements Program, which would allow for large scale renewal, renovation, and expansion of existing facilities to meet future needs, including: physical upgrade, systemic upgrades (i.e. electrical, hvac, roofs), and facility changes for programmic upgrades (renewal/rehabilitation of science, vocational and technological facilities), while recognizing the need for multi-use facilities. (3) Cross References and Notes: 2. The retention of Village-based facilities underscores the observation that â&#x20AC;&#x153;Villages have served as, and will continue to serve as focal points, for surrounding rural areasâ&#x20AC;? (PLU 1.7, pg 43). Village Area Facilities and Utilities are addressed in PLU 1.7.5 (pg. 11). Additional information on Villages (PLU 1.6, pg. 41) and Village Expansion Areas (PLU 1.7, pg. 43) can be found in the Planning and Land Use chapter. 3. The capital improvements program is also addressed in the plan implementation portion of the Introduction; PNG 7.2 Capital Improvements Program (pg. 21); PRC 2.1.2 Recreational Priorities and Funding (pg. 53); and SFY 1.3.2 Public Safety Facilities and Funding (pg. 51).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 4. Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities are also addressed in PNG 3.1.4 (pg. 20). 5. Issues of access and multi-use of facilities are addressed in PNG 3.0: Access (pg. 19); PNG 3.1: Multi-use of Facilities (pg. 19); CRS 2.1.4: Library-Based Community Space (pg. 23); and PRC 1.1.4 Facility Sharing (pg. 52).

Educational Resource

EDU 2.2.1 Coal Mining Heritage Park Educational Facilities . Continue to develop the historic and scientific educational facilities and programs in the Coal Mining Heritage Park, (8)

Cross References and Notes: 6. Technical and Vocational Training is also addressed in: ECD 2.0 Workforce Development (pg. 26) and HHS 2.4 Technical and Vocational Education Facilities and Programs (pg. 45). 7. EDU 2.1.2 is cross listed as ECD 2.1.1: Community Technical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force (pg. 26).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

(9)

EDU 2.2.4 Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library. Provide continuing support for the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library, including the development of new facilities, the revitalization of existing facilities, and the expansion of the technical infrastructure in support of adult educational opportunities. (10) Cross References and Notes: 8. Heritage Parks are also addressed in CRS 3.2: Heritage Parks and Trail System (pg. 24) and PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs (pg. 53). 9. Although the Christiansburg Institute and the Christiansburg Community Center, located, respectively, west of Franklin Street and next to Schaffer Memorial on High Street in Christiansburg, are outside of the jurisdiction of this plan, the work performed benefits all Montgomery County residents. In the past, Montgomery County has been asked to support and lend expertise to the development process of both institutions. Participants in the Cultural and Educational Facilities workgroup felt strongly that this support should be recognized and continued. 10. The Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library is also addressed, in greater detail, in CRS 2.0 (pg. 23).

Educational Resources

ENV 1.3.1 Environmental GIS Program: Initiated a mapping program to produce large-scale maps optimal for environmental planning for the entire county. Maps should be produced at a scale of 1:2,400 with a 5-foot contour interval for the fast growth areas Cross References and Notes: 9. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are also encouraged in other sections of the Environmental Resource Goals, including: ENV 1.5: Water Quality (pg. 32); ENV 3.1 Agricultural Programs and Practices (pg. 36); ENV 5.5.2 Groundwater: Best Management Practices (pg. 40); ENV 6.5.3 Karst: Erosion and Sediment Control (pg. 42); ENV 6.6 Karst: Best Management Practices (pg. 43); and ENV 7.1.5 Stormwater and Erosion Best Management Practices (pg. 44). 10. The environmental layers are part of a larger GIS system which Montgomery County is currently developing. GIS strategies are also include in Cultural Resources (CRS 1.2.2, pg. 22), Health and Human Services (HHS 3.2.2, pg. 46), Public Safety (SFY 1.1.5, pg. 50), Transportation (TRN 1.1.2, pg. 54), and Utilities (UTL 1.4.3, pg. 63)

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

ENV 1.3.5 Floodplain Mapping: Improve and update existing floodplain mapping data through continued requests to FEMA, while utilizing the resources of educational institutions, to re-delineate County floodplain boundaries. (13) Cross References and Notes: 11. Well and Septic Systems are also addressed in ENV 3.3: Individual Septic Systems (pg. 37); ENV 5.1: Septic Systems and Well Water Testing (pg. 39); ENV 5.2.1 Septic System Maintenance (pg. 40); ENV 5.2.2: Alternative Wastewater Processing Systems (pg. 40); ENV 5.3 Groundwater Quality Protection Programs and Policies (pg. 40); ENV 5.5.3: Wastewater/water Recycling and Reclamation Programs (pg. 41); ENV 5.7.2 Well Testing (pg. 41); UTL 1.3 Private Systems (pg. 62); and UTL 1.4 Individual Systems (pg. 62). 12. Issues surrounding Karst are covered in greater detail in ENV 6.0: Karst (pg. 42). 13. Floodplains are addressed in greater detail in ENV 4.0 (pg. 38).

Environmental Resources

ENV 1.6 Air Quality: Routinely monitor air quality in the County to determine if air quality is declining.

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and Village Expansion Areas] ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways

ENV 2.2 Public Open Space: Encourage the acquisition and development of additional active and passive parklands and open space with the cooperation of Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Virginia Tech, and other related entities. ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition Program ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways ENV 2.3 Viewsheds: Develop and enact a plan of action for the protection and preservation of the scenic byways and transportation corridors, rivers, tributaries, and ridgelines. (17) ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities Cross References and Notes: 14. Groundwater concerns are addressed in ENV 5.0 (pg. 39) and ENV 6.0: Karst (pg. 42). Surface water concerns are addressed in ENV 3.0: Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 36) and ENV 4.0 Floodplains (pg. 38). 15. Mass Transit is also addressed in HHS 2.3 Transportation (pg. 45) and TRN 3.0: Mass Transit (pg. 46).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and Village Expansion Areas] ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition Program ENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational Distribution Program ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways ENV 2.7 Land Trust Support Objective: Support, through policy and funding measures, land trusts for the New River Valley that coordinate conservation easement programs and other land conservation transactions, such as the donation and purchase of easements. Develop a program for the County to hold interest in conservation easements. ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements ENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational Distribution Program ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia Scenic Byways ENV 2.8 Inter-Authority Planning Cooperation: Initiate cooperation among Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford, Virginia Tech, Radford University, as well as surrounding counties to coordinate their plans to prevent gaps in rivershed and viewshed protection projects and stretch open space protection budgets by pooling talents and resources. ENV 2.8.1 Representative County Planning Group: Create a team of county representatives responsible for bringing county interests to the attention of the Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford planning agencies. ENV 2.8.2 Cooperative Area Plans: Create and implement action plans for those areas identified in Objective 8, Milton Herds 2002 report, as well as those

areas identified by the Representative County Planning Groups. ENV 2.1.1-12 Approaches to Open Space and Agricultural Preservation: (18) ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts: Special Service Districts (SSDs) are created by passage of an ordinance by the Board of Supervisors. They require an organized plan and dedicated board to carry out the goals, which could be tailored to open space preservation. SSDs can be used to preserve open space by allowing a designated board to purchase development rights with the money raised from special real estate taxes. ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities: Community Development Authorities (CDAs) are very similar to Special Service Districts but are allowed specifically to raise funds to purchase easements and development rights. The other key difference is that Authorities can take on long-term debt allowing them to issue revenue-generating bonds as a means of producing income. ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts: Agricultural/Forestal Districts are rural zones that have been reserved for the production of agricultural products and timber. Established as a local planning tool in the 1970s by the General Assembly, they are established according to state guidelines with the approval of the local governing body. A district constitutes a voluntary agreement between landowners and the government that no new, non-agricultural uses will take place in the district. An agricultural/forestal district provides much stronger protection for farmers and farmland than does traditional zoning, because it assures that the Use Value Assessment will continue to be available to landowners within the district. Participation in an agricultural/forestal district can also provide protection from local nuisance ordinances. To encourage agricultural/forestal district participation and to reflect the 8-year commitment by landowners, the County should consider local tax Cross References and Notes: 18. Development in the agricultural and forested areas of the County are discussed in greater detail in PLU 1.2: Resource Stewardship Areas (pg. 1) and PLU 1.3: Rural Areas (pg. 3). 19. Land Use Assessment is currently used in Montgomery County.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

(24)

Cross References and Notes: 23. Overall approaches to public information is addressed in PNG 2.2: Informing the Public (pg. 19). 24. Scenic Byways is also referenced in TRN 2.6 (pg. 58)

Environmental Resources

ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters: The county is committed to working to maintain and to enhance the quality of its many streams and rivers for human health, habitat vitality, and safe recreational opportunities. Furthermore, the county is committed to ensuring that the problems such as flooding, erosion, and sedimentation will be minimized. (25) ENV 3.1 Agricultural Program and Policy: Encourage farmers and landowners to work with existing government agencies, such as Skyline Soil and Water District, and programs and to learn about and use Best Management Practices (BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) to protect surface water qualities. ENV 3.1.1 Floodplain Ordinance: Enhance the floodplain ordinance to require that riparian buffers remain undisturbed at a specified distance from the edge of all streams with a designated floodplain (e.g. minimum of 100 feet). (26) ENV 3.1.2 Water Quality Protection Ordinance: Develop a water quality protection ordinance that includes provisions to preserve the natural forested vegetation along the corridors of all perennial streams and rivers. ENV 3.1.3 Environmental Quality Corridors: Develop an Environmental Quality Corridor (or Water Quality Corridor or Creek Overlay District like Blacksburg) that requires the preservation of riparian buffers as a foundational component. ENV 3.1.4 Agricultural Best Management Practices: Work with farmers to locate and obtain grant funding from resources such as the Virginia Agricultural Best Management Practices Cost Share or the USDAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Environmental Quality Incentives Program. These incentives encourage the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) including riparian buffers, fencing of livestock, and providing alternative watering sources for livestock. Cross References and Notes: 25. Floodplains are addressed in ENV 4.0: Floodplains (pg. 38). Erosion and Sediment Control is addressed in ENV 7.0: Stormwater and Erosion Control (pg. 43) and UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management (pg. 64). 26. Riparian buffer easements are addressed in ENV 7.3.3 Tax Incentives for Riparian Buffer Easements (pg. 44). Riparian areas are addressed in ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features (pg. 37).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

Cross References and Notes: 27. Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (2000 Edition) Section R401.4 Soil Tests (effective October 1, 2003)

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

continue implementation of the Save Our Streams Program, including develop training sessions and monitoring kits for interested county volunteer monitors and schools.

ENV 4.0 Floodplains: Montgomery County seeks to maintain and enhance the integrity of its floodplains through improved public education, public safety, governmental cooperation, ordinances, and data.

ENV 4.1 Partnership and Regional Cooperation: Continue to build partnerships with public agencies to preserve and enhance floodplains in the County.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

ENV 4.3 Public Safety: Reduce and/or eliminate the longterm risks to human life and property from flooding and its effects through the use of timely data. (28)

Cross References and Notes. 28 Hazard Mitigation and the New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan are also addressed in SFY 1.1.4: NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 50) and UTL 4.2: Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 64). A copy of the NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan is available from the New River Valley Planning District Commission.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

Cross References and Notes: 30. Stormwater Management is also addressed in UTL 4.0: Stormwater Management (pg. 64). Stormwater management plans for Villages are addressed in PLU1.7.5e Stormwater Management Plans (pg. 11).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Environmental Resources

HHS 2.3 Transportation. Provide increased access to and variety of public transportation opportunities for all citizens,

Cross References and Notes: 1. Sustainable and livable communities is also addressed in HSG 1.0: Livable Neighborhoods (pg. 48) and HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 49). 2. While much of this plan deals with improving citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; quality of life, specific references are contained in ECD 1.0: Economic Development, Land Use, and Quality of Life (pg. 25). 3. The work group promoted the following affordable housing strategies: 1) mixed income developments through the implementation of a 25% affordable housing requirement for all new developments such that the units will be interspersed throughout the development rather than encouraging ghettoization (clustering of affordable units in one area); 2) development of smaller housing stock (starter homes) of 1,000-1,500 square feet on smaller lots by providing developers with density bonuses; 3) accessory dwelling development in higher density areas in order to provide greater access to and dispersion of rental units; 4) provision of individual eldercare opportunities for families by allowing accessory dwellings on all lots in the county used for residential purposes; 5) mixed-use developments which allow residential, commercial, institutional, and/or industrial uses within a single development; 6) encourage increased development and density in areas where public utilities and services area available; and 7) establish and enforce a property maintenance in order to address housing standards in Montgomery County.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 4. Public transportation is addressed in TRN 3.0 Mass Transit (pg. 58) and TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation (pg. 59). 5. Education and Technical/Vocational Training are addressed in ECD 2.0: Workforce Development (pg. 26) and EDU 2.1 Technical and Vocational Education (pg. 30). 6. The location of community facilities are addressed in PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 7); PLU 1.7: Villages (pg. 9); and PLU 1.8: Urban Expansion Areas (pg, 45) as well as the chapters covering Cultural Resources, Educational Resources, and Recreational Resources.

Health & Human Resource

HHS 1.3 Public Information: To facilitate the distribution of public information concerning health and humans service related issues, services, and facilities.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 8. The Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities initiative offers one possible solution to the siting of health and human service facilities in the County. Specific discussion of the program is included in PNG 3.1.4 Community Based Schools and Public Facilities Initiative (pg. 20) and EDU 1.2: Community Based Schools and Public Facilities (pg. 29). Public safety facilities are addressed in SFY 1.3: Future Capital Facilities (pg. 50).

Health & Human Resource

Cross References and Notes. 9. See footnote # 8 (pg. 46).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

adult daycare facilities, and other special use facilities specific to the needs of the senior population.

Health & Human Resource

Housing: Goals HSG 1.1.4 Public/Private Partnerships. Promote the development of public private partnerships to address the needs of moderate, low, and very low income residents. (4)

HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods: Promote affordable, safe, livable neighborhoods for all residents. (1) HSG 1.1 Affordable Housing. Promote affordable, quality housing for all income levels. (2)

(5)

HSG 1.1.6 Very Low Income and Transitional Housing Needs: Conduct a study of housing for very low income and transitional housing in Montgomery County and the Metropolitan Statistical Area

HSG 1.1.3 Affordable Housing Incentives. Provide incentives for affordable housing development. (3) Cross References and Notes: 1. Livability, sustainability, and quality of life go hand-in-hand. While the plan implicitly addresses all three, specific references can be found in PNG 4.1.1: Livable Communities (pg. 20); PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 16); ECD 1.0: Economic Development, Land Use, and Quality of Life (pg. 25); HHS 1.0: Livable Communities (pg. 45); HHS 2.0: Quality of Life (pg. 45), and HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 49). 2. The Affordable Housing portion of the plan was based, in part, on recommendations from Wu Li and Dr. T. Koebel of Virginia Tech’s Housing Institute. 3. 1) Reducing pre-development approval times; 2) Reducing the impact of government regulations on building cycle time; 3) Facilitating the development of Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties with access to public water and sewer; 4) Providing density bonuses for developments that include affordable units; and 5) Establishing an ad-hoc advisory committee of for-profit and non-profit developers to advise the county on the impediments they face in developing affordable housing.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 4. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) established new definitions of low and very low income. According to HUD, low income is defined as 80% of the area’s median family income, and very low income is 50% of the area’s median family income.” In 2000, the US Census Bureau established the County’s median family income at $47,239. Given this, the low income designation would start at $37,791 and very low income would begin at $23,619. The HUD definitions are used to establish base eligibility for public housing and Section 8 housing programs. It should be noted, however, that the percentage of median varies based on the size of family and eligibility may be affected by local housing prices and other considerations. 5. General approaches to public information are addressed in PNG 2.2: Informing the Public (pg. 19) and CRS 2.1.3 Libraries: Public Information: Technology (pg. 23). 6. The need for a grants office is also addressed in ENV 3.4.1 Streams and Rivers: Grants (pg. 36) and HHS 3.1.1 County Office on Cooperation (pg. 46).

Housing Resources

HSG 1.2 Manufactured Housing and Housing Parks: Actively encourage the development and maintenance of livable manufactured housing parks inorder to facilitate a community ethos.

HSG 1.3.2 Public Information: Provide residents and developers information on "safe neighborhood," transitoriented, and traditional neighborhood (TND) design and development.

HSG 1.3.3 Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation. Encourage intra- and inter-connectivity of roads, bikeways, and walkways in new residential developments in order to promote increased sense of community and safety, while decreasing traffic concentration. Cross References and Notes: 7. The concept of safe and livable neighborhoods is implicitly embedded in the land use policies associated with Villages (PLU 1.7, pg. 9), Village Expansion Areas (PLU 1.6, pg. 7), and Urban Expansion Areas (PLU 1.8, pg. 11), as well as the Community Design policies (PLU 3.0, pg 16; see, also, footnote # 1 (pg 48) for other references.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Housing Resources

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 5. The New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan is also addressed in ENV 4.3 Floodplains: Public Safety (pg. 39) and UTL 4.2: Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 38). 6. Citizen academies are also addressed in PNG 2.2.3: Citizen Academies (pg. 19). 7. See EMSSTAR Recommendation 3..6.

Public Safety

signs) and Building Inspectors (house numbers) to insure that new structures can be easily located in the field by emergency and law enforcement personnel.

SFY 1.3.1 Cash Proffers: Develop a cash proffer guideline to address County capital facility needs for law enforcement and emergency services facilities.

SFY 1.3.3. Animal Shelter: Provide adequate, humane animal control services and facilities.

SFY 1.4 New Development: Proactively consider public safety issues in the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s review and approval of new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developments.

SFY 1.5.1 Regional Swift Water Rescue Team: Evaluate the feasibility of County support for a regional swift water rescue team.

SFY 1.3.2 Capital Facilities and Funding: Continue to work, annually, through Capital Improvements Program to identify future capital facility needs and the means for funding them.

SFY 1.4.2 Street Signs and House Numbers: Work with county departments e.g. General Services (street Cross References and Notes: 8. Cash proffers and guidelines are more fully addressed in PLU 2.2: Proffer Guidelines (pg. 14). 9. The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is addressed in the implementation portion of the Introduction, as well as in PNG 7.1.2 Capital Improvements Program (pg. 69 ); EDU 1.1.3 Facilities Renewal Program (pg. 29) and PRC 2.1.2 Recreational Priorities and Funding (pg. 53).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Public Safety

SFY 1.5.3 Regional Training Facility: Evaluate the feasibility of County participation in the development of a regional training facility for use by fire, rescue and law enforcement personnel.

PRC 1.1.5 Regional Parks Authority: Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a Regional Parks Authority. PRC 1.1.6 Special Events. Work with neighboring jurisdictions and local organizations to organize and sponsor special events, including festivals and concerts. Cross References and Notes: 1. Local and Regional Cooperation are a central theme to this plan. Additional references to cooperative and collaborative approaches is addressed in PNG 1.0: Local and Regional Cooperation (pg. 18) and footnote. 2. Facility Sharing is incorporated under the heading of multi-use and is addressed in PNG 3.0 Access (pg. 19).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Recreational Resources

PRC 2.2.1 Facility Location: Develop major facilities in areas that are accessible by major roads thereby providing the opportunity for existing and/or future bus services.

(3)

PRC 2.1.3 Operational and maintenance needs: Broaden the OFMP to better address indoor facilities as well as operational and maintenance needs.

PRC 2.3.2 Business/Industrial Park Trail: Develop bikeway/walkway trails in existing and proposed business/industrial parks.

PRC 2.3.3 Trails and Nodes: Develop recreation facilities in collaboration with the County and Towns master plans for trails (including bikeways and walkways).

(5)

PRC 2.2 Accessibility: Make existing recreational facilities accessible to all county residents, both in terms of how the facilities are accessed and used.

Cross References and Notes: 3. Recreational facilities include traditional regional parks, multi-use sports facilities (developed in conjunction with the public schools), community and neighborhood parks, Heritage Parks and Trails, pocket parks, and tot parks, as well as special use facilities. 4. Cash proffers are more fully addressed in PLU 2.2: Proffer Guidelines (pg. 14). 5. Villages and Village planning are addressed in PLU 1.7: Villages (pg. 9); PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 7); and PNG 4.0 Villages and Small Communities (pg. 20).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 6. Trails are also addressed in CRS 3.2 Heritage Parks and Trails System (pg. 24) and TRN 4.2 Bikeways, Walkways, and Trails (pg. 59).

Recreational Resources

TRN 1.1.2 Transportation Map (GIS) and Public Cross References and Notes: 1. Specific transportation land use policies are include in the Planning and Land Use chapter, including Resource Stewardship Areas (PLU 1.2.3 [c][d])(pg. 2); Rural Areas (PLU 1.3.3 [c][d](pg. 3); Rural Communities (PLU 1.4.2 (b) and PLU 1.4.3 [c][d](pg. 5); Residential Transition Areas (PLU 1.5.3 [c])(pg. 6); Village Expansion Areas (PLU 1.6.4 [c][f] and PLU 1.6.5 [c])(pg. 8); Villages (PLU 1.7.4 [d][e] and PLU 1.7.5 [c][d](pg. 44-5); and Urban Expansion Areas, including corridor planning (PLU 1.8.2, PLU 1.8.3 [c], and PLU 1.8.5 [c](pg. 45-46). Additional provisions for Road Access (PLU 2.1 [c]), Interparcel Access [PLU 2.1 [e]) and Pedestrian Access (PLU 2.1[f]) (pg. 14) are included under the land use policies for new development. Street considerations are included in the traditional neighborhood design (PLU 3.0 [b-i-vii, pg. 50). Safe Neighborhoods are addressed in HSG 1.3.3: Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation (pg. 49). 2. The provision of public information is one of the central themes of Montgomery County, 2025. Additional information on the planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach to public information is included in PNG 2.2: Informing the Public (pg. 19). 3. Corridor planning is addressed in PLU 1.8.2: Corridor Planning (pg. 11).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 4. The Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Geographic Information System (GIS) provides both County staff and County residents with a powerful analytic tool. Additional information on the GIS system is included in Cultural Resources (CRS 1.2.2, pg. 22), Environmental Resources (ENV 1.3, pg. 31), Public Safety (SFY 1.1.5, pg. 50), and Utilities (UTL 1.4.3, pg. 62). 5. The Heritage Trail system, bikeways, and walkways are addressed in TRN 4.2 Walkway/Bikeway Update (pg. 59); CRS 1.1.3: Heritage Parks and Trails System (pg. 22); HSG 1.3.3: Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation (pg. 49); PRC 1.3.2: Trail Linkages (pg. 52); and PRC2.3: Trails (pg. 53).

Transportation Resources

TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity: Require that the arrangement of streets in new subdivisions: 1) make provisions for connectivity and for the continuation of existing streets into adjoining areas; and 2) delineate future street extensions on subdivision plats in order that lot purchasers are aware that the streets in their subdivisions are likely to be extended to adjoining properties. (7) TRN 1.3.3 Right-of-Way Standards: Require new lots, created by subdivision, abut streets meeting VDoT right-of-way standards. This requirement leads to the dedication of additional right-of-way when lots are platted along existing streets with substandard rightof-way widths. Exceptions are made for family subdivisions and lots with private access easements. TRN 1.3.4 Context Sensitive Street Designs. Work with VDoT to develop road standards which allow for Cross References and Notes: 6.See footnote #1 (pg. 54). 7. Street continuation and connectivity are central themes in the Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach to transportation planning. Additional references can be found in the Planning and Land Use chapter (see note #1 for specific references); and HSG 1.3.3 Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation (pg. 49), as well as other portions of this chapter.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

TRN 1.4.1 Strip Development: Discourage strip development, particularly of commercial properties, along important transportation corridors by designating areas that can be zoned to serve as compact centers for development, including village and urban centers and major road intersections. TRN 1.4.2 Commercial Access: Require that high volume/ high turnover commercial establishments (drive-thru restaurants and convenience stores for example) locate within other commercial development where access to the facility is from the development, not from the major thoroughfare. Cross References and Notes: 8. The need for a flexible, contextual approach to road standards is especially important in the Villages and Rural Communities where historic patterns of development differ from existing state road standards and where the historic fabric of the community could be disrupted or destroyed if current standards were strictly applied. Additional information on transportation issues and contextual road standards as they apply to rural communities and villages can be found in PLU 1.4.2[b], 1.4.3 [c][d], 1.7.4[d][e], and 1.7./5 [c][d] (pgs 5, 10-11). In addition, street sensitive design is also addressed in the Proposed Revision Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements (published in the Virginia Register on May 3, 2004) and Draft Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Design Guide (Appendix B of the Road Design Manual) dated 12/19/2003 9. Pedestrian-oriented development is addressed in PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 7), PLU 1.7: Villages (pg. 9), and PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 16).

Transportation Resources

TRN 1.4.3 Shared Access: Encourage shared access for roads classified as major and minor arterials and major and minor collectors.

Cross References and Notes: 10. Proffers are addressed, more fully, in PLU 2.2: Proffer Guidelines (pg. 14).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 11. Public Safety considerations are also addressed in SFY 1.0: Public Safety (pg. 50). In addition, public safety considerations are central to the design of safe neighborhoods, addressed in HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 49).

Transportation Resources

TRN 2.5 Interstate 81 Corridor Improvements: Support the multi-year Environmental Process currently being conducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the corridor improvements identified in the 1998 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) study to meet the future needs county residents and those passing through the county on Interstate 81. (13) Any proposal for improvements to the Interstate 81 corridor must address the following eight issues of significance to Montgomery County: TRN 2.5.1 Smart Road: The future Smart Road interchange should be evaluated and incorporated into the design and construction of any improvements. Cross References and Notes: 12. Corridor planning is also addressed in PLU 1.8.2: Corridor Planning (pg. 11). Additional considerations are also included in PLU 3.0: Community Design (pg. 16) 13. Montgomery County is concerned (Board resolution of October 27, 2003) with the two private proposals (Fluor and Star Solutions) for improvements to the Interstate 81 corridor submitted under the Public Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPTA). The two proposals are vastly different from each other and neither proposal corresponds to the concept study for Interstate 81 corridor improvements developed for VDoT in 1998. Moreover VDoT is beginning a multi-year Environmental Process to determine the purpose, need, and scope of corridor improvements. Therefore, any proposal decision should not be made until the Environmental Process is complete.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

TRN 2.5.6 Stormwater Management: Encourage VDoT to work with appropriate local governments in the design and construction of regional stormwater management facilities along the corridor. (16) TRN 2.5.7 Agricultural & Forestal Districts (AFDs): Discourage expansion of right-of-ways beyond what was identified in VDoT's 1998 concept study in order to minimize the impact on Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFDs) in Montgomery County. (17) Cross References and Notes: 14. Scenic beauty, in the form of viewsheds, is a significant advertising resource for Montgomery County. The I-81 corridor functions as both an introduction to and an invitation to travellers to stop and explore the County. The preservation of access to viewsheds and the scenic beauty the County has to offer is address in CRS 1.1: Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors (pg. 22); CRS 1.3: Historic Preservation and Tourism (pg. 23); ENV1.0: Open Space (pg. 31); and ENV 2.3: Viewsheds (pg. 32). 15. Rail transportation is covered in TRN 5.0: Multi-Modal Transportation (pg. 60) 16. Stormwater Management is also addressed in UTL 4.0: Stormwater Management (pg. 64); ENV 6.5: Stormwater Management (pg. 42); and ENV 7.0: Stormwater and Erosion Control (pg. 148). 17. Agricultural and Forestal districts are addressed in ENV 2.1.3: Agricultural and Forestal Districts (pg. 34) and ENV 3.1.6: Agricultural and Forestal Districts (pg. 34).

Transportation Resources

TRN 2.5.8 Rest Areas: Encourage the construction of adequate rest areas, which provide separate facilities for cars and trucks, through out the corridor.

TRN 3.1.1 Efficient Transit: Encourage BT to provide more efficient and well-planned service routes, with "safe" bus stops and "safe" access to those bus stops, including: 1) well-planned service routes to decrease time spent waiting for the bus; 2) lit and well marked bus stops; and 3) and sidewalks or walkways/ bikeways to access bus stops safely rather than walking on the shoulder of a busy road. TRN 3.1.2 Transit Service Extension: Request that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) evaluate mass transit extensions as part of the 2030 long-range transportation plan including the extension of the Two Town Trolley service between Blacksburg and Christiansburg to include Radford. (19) TRN 3.2 Future Service: Encourage the provision of a mass transit service in commercial areas and between jurisdictions (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford) and between MSAs (Blacksburg and Roanoke) to alleviate congestion and decrease the number of personal car trips. TRN 3.2.1 Micro-shuttle: Ask the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to evaluate micro-shuttle service to area businesses within the core shopping area. This study would evaluate cost, demand, efficiency, and transit route tie-ins. A shuttle service would simply be a small-localized loop within the core shopping area, whereas the transit relay would serve a larger area. Possible funding sources could be businesses that would have a shuttle stop in front of their store, the jurisdictions served by the commercial area, and Chamber of Cross References and Notes: 18. Park and Ride facilities for outlying areas and public awareness programs for carpooling are addressed in TRN 2.3.2 (pg. 57) 19. Public transit services provide transportation for lower income and disabled commuters to travel to work and to the commercial areas in the County, as suggested in HHS 2.3: Transportation (pg. 45).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Transportation Resources

TRN 4.2 Bikeways, Walkways, and Trails: Encourage coordination between the County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and regional jurisdictions in order to provide connectivity of all bikeways, walkways and Trails. TRN 4.2.1 Bikeways, Walkways, and Trails Coordination: Use the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) framework to create coordination committee to study the connectivity of the bikeway, walkway, sidewalk, and heritage trail network.. TRN 4.2.2 Walkway/ Bikeway Update: Work with the Metropolitan Planning Organization to review and update the Bikeway, Walkway, and Heritage Trails Plan. Cross References and Notes: 20. The provision of pedestrian-oriented transportation facilities (bikeways, walkways, sidewalks, and Heritage Trails) are at the core of a number of different provisions in this plan. They are central to the establishment of safe neighborhoods (HSG 1.3.1, pg. 49); provide connectivity in rural communities (PLU 1.4.2[b], pg. 5), villages (PLU 1.7.3[a], 1.7.4[d], and 1.7.5[d], pgs. 10-11), village expansion areas (PLU 1.6.5[c] and1.6.5[c], pg. 8) and urban expansion areas (PLU 1.8.4[c], pg. 12); are encouraged in new developments [PLU 2.1[f], pg. 14) and in neighborhood and community design (PLU 3.1.1[b][i-v], pg. 16), provide recreational opportunities (PRC1.3.2 and 2.3, pgs.52-53), and provide additional commuting opportunities to the large scale economic and industrial areas (PRC 2.3.2, pg. 53).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Transportation Resources

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Transportation Resources

UTL 1.1.1 Regional Water Authority: Work to obtain full membership for Montgomery County in the Blacksburg, Christiansburg & VPI Water Authority.

UTL 1.1.3 System Interconnect: Evaluate the feasibility of interconnecting the major public water systems in Montgomery County and Radford, including the land use implications. (3) Cross References and Notes: 1. Regional cooperation is one of the linchpins of Montgomery County, 2025. Specific information on regional approaches is included in the Introduction and in PNG 1.0: Local and Regional Cooperation (pg. 18). Regional cooperation and efforts are also addressed in other portions of this chapter, most notably in terms of Public Water and Sewer Systems (UTL 1.2, pg. 61), Telecommunication Towers (UTL 2.2, pg. 63), Solid Waste Management (UTL 3.1, pg. 64), and Stormwater Management (UTL 4.0, pg. 64). 2. Surface and groundwater quality are addressed in ENV 3.0: Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 36); ENV 5.0: Groundwater (pg. 39); ENV 5.3: Groundwater Quality Protection Programs (pg. 40); ENV 5.4 Well-Head Protection (pg. 40); ENV 6.0 Karst (pg. 42); and ENV 7.0: Stormwater and Erosion Control (pg. 43). 3. Policies governing the provision of public utilities are included in the following Land Use Policies: PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Areas (pg. 2); PLU 1.3.3 Rural Areas (pg. 3); PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities (pg. 5); PLU 1.5.3 Residential Transition Areas (pg 40); PLU 1.6.5 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 8); PLU 1.7.5 Villages (pg. 11); PLU 1.8.5 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 12); PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination/Cooperation (pg. 13); and PLU 2.1(b) Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications--Public Utilities (pg. 14).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

UTL 1.2.2 Project Priorities: Work with the Public Service Authority (PSA) to evaluate and prioritize the 22 outstanding water and sewer projects added to the Comprehensive Plan by amendments in 1999 and 2002. Among the factors to consider in establishing priorities are: engineering feasibility, financing feasibility, Cross References and Notes: 4. Specific policies addressing the provision and extension of public utilities in the seven land use policy areas are included in the Planning and Land Use Chapter: PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Areas (pg. 2); PLU 1.3.3 Rural Areas (pg. 3); PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities (pg. 5); PLU 1.5.3 Residential Transition Areas (pg. 6); PLU 1.6.5 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 8); PLU 1.7.5 Villages (pg. 11); PLU 1.8.5 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 12); PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination/Cooperation (pg. 13); and PLU 2.1(b) Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications--Public Utilities (pg. 14).

Utility Resources

UTL 1.2.3 Financing: Work with the PSA to develop a proactive funding plan for implementation of the top ranked projects. (5)

UTL 1.4.1 Public Information: Provide residents with information on the proper (health and environmentally safe) use of individual wells and septic systems. (7)

Cross References and Notes: 5. This should be done in conjunction with UTL 1.2.2: Project Priorities (pg. 61).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 6. Individual systems are also addressed in ENV 3.3: Individual Septic Systems (pg. 37); ENV 5.1: Septic System and Well Water Testing (pg. 39); ENV 5.2: Education (pg. 40); and ENV 5.3: Groundwater Quality Protection Programs and Policies (pg. 40). 7. Public information is also addressed in ENV 5.2: Education (pg. 40). 8. Well testing is addressed in ENV 5.1.2 Septic System/Well Testing with Real Estate Transactions (pg. 39); ENV 5.4: Well-Head Protection (pg. 40); and ENV 5.7.2: Well Testing (pg. 41).

Utility Resources

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Utility Resources

UTL 3.0 Solid Waste: Provide for the collection, recycling and disposal of solid waste to satisfy the needs of the County and to provide for the well being of County residents and the environment.

UTL 3.1 Solid Waste Management: Continue to provide a comprehensive solid waste management program to address the immediate and long-term solid waste recycling and disposal needs of the County.

UTL 3.1.3 Virginia Tech: Encourage Virginia Tech to fully fund the on-campus recycling program including the recycling of white office paper.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Cross References and Notes: 12. Stormwater management is discussed in greater detail in ENV 7.0, including a stormwater management program (ENV 7.1, pg. 43), a stormwater utility (ENV 7.2, pg. 44), and erosion and sedimentation control compliance (ENV 7.3, pg. 44). 13. UTL 4.2 is cross-listed as ENV 7.1.1 (pg. 43). 14. The NRV Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is also addressed under ENV 4.3: Public Safety (pg. 39) and SFY 1.1.4: NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 50). Specific strategies included in ENV 4.0: Floodplains (pg. 38) and SFY1.5: Regional Opportunities (pg. 51) reflect specific suggestions included in the NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Utility Resources

Critical Features

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Utility Resources

Future Land Use

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04

Utility Resources