Montgomery County, 2025: Montgomery County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan

MontgomeryCounty,2025

-Adopted 12 October 2004

Montgomery County, 2025Montgomery County Comprehensive Plan

Planning Commission

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

Insert photo of 2004 Boardof Supervisors

Insert photo of 2004 PlanningCommission.

Board of Supervisors

James Politis, Chair (District D); Annette Perkins, Vice-Chair (District A); Douglas Marrs (District B); GaryCreed (District C); Steve Spradlin (District E); MaryBiggs (District F); and John Muffo (District G)

The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors acknowledges the participation in the comprehensiveplanning 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 theentire 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 residentof Riner, and as an active participant in community life. She set an example that others can follow.

Montgomery County Administration

Clay Goodman, County AdministratorCarol Edmonds, Assistant County Administrator

Marty McMahon, County Attorney

Montgomery County Department of Planning and GIS Services

Meghan Dorsett Joe PowersKelly Duty Steven Sandy

Brea Hopkins Michael SutherlandRobert Pearsall

Copies of Montgomery County, 2025 online and in cd-rom form. Please contact theMontgomery 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

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

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

Planning and Land UseExecutive Summary.................................................................18Introduction..............................................................................19

Community Survey Results .........................................19Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ............21Existing Land Use Map ...............................................22Population and Land Use Projections..........................23Future Policy Map .......................................................32Critical Features Map ..................................................34

Land Use Policies ....................................................................35

Planning and GovernmentExecutive Summary ................................................................53Introduction .............................................................................54

Community Survey Results .........................................54Current and Historical Conditions and Trends.............56

Planning and Government Goals.............................................66

Cultural ResourcesExecutive Summary ................................................................71Introduction .............................................................................72



Economic ResourcesExecutive Summary ................................................................85Introduction .............................................................................86

Community Survey Results .........................................86Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ........................88Economic Resource Goals.......................................................99

Table of ContentsEducational Resources

Executive Summary ..............................................................104Introduction ...........................................................................105

Community Survey Results .......................................105Current and Historical Conditions and Trends...........106

Educational Resource Goals..................................................116

Environmental Resources

Executive Summary...............................................................119Introduction ...........................................................................120


Environmental Resource Goals .............................................136Environmental Atlas

Soils............................................................................151Geology......................................................................152Surficial Geology .......................................................153Karst Features ............................................................154

Mine Features ........................................................................155Faultlines ...............................................................................156

Threatened and Endangered Species..........................157Natural Hazards.....................................................................158Floodplains ............................................................................159

Land Use and Agriculture/Forestal Districts..............160

Health and Human Resources



Health and Human Service Goals .........................................176

Housing



Housing Goals .......................................................................189

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

Planning and Land UseExecutive Summary.................................................................18Introduction..............................................................................19

Community Survey Results .........................................19Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ............21Existing Land Use Map ...............................................22Population and Land Use Projections..........................23Future Policy Map .......................................................32Critical Features Map ..................................................34

Land Use Policies ....................................................................35

Planning and GovernmentExecutive Summary ................................................................53Introduction .............................................................................54



Cultural ResourcesExecutive Summary ................................................................71Introduction .............................................................................72



Economic ResourcesExecutive Summary ................................................................85Introduction .............................................................................86

Community Survey Results .........................................86Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ........................88Economic Resource Goals.......................................................99

Educational Resources



Educational Resource Goals..................................................116

Environmental Resources

Executive Summary...............................................................119Introduction ...........................................................................120


Environmental Resource Goals .............................................136Environmental Atlas

Soils............................................................................151Geology......................................................................152Surficial Geology .......................................................153Karst Features ............................................................154

Mine Features ........................................................................155Faultlines ...............................................................................156

Threatened and Endangered Species..........................157Natural Hazards.....................................................................158Floodplains ............................................................................159

Land Use and Agriculture/Forestal Districts..............160

Health and Human Resources



Health and Human Service Goals .........................................176

Housing



Housing Goals .......................................................................189

Public SafetyExecutive Summary..............................................................192Introduction...........................................................................193

Community Survey Results .......................................193Current and Historical Conditions and Trends ..........193

Public Safety Goals...............................................................197

Recreational ResourcesExecutive Summary..............................................................200Introduction...........................................................................201

Community Survey Results .......................................201Current and Historical Conditions and Trends .....................203Parks and Recreation Goals ..................................................206

Transportation ResourcesExecutive Summary..............................................................209Introduction...........................................................................210


Transportation Goals.............................................................219

UtilitiesExecutive Summary..............................................................227Introduction...........................................................................228


Utility Goals..........................................................................234

Special Topic Plans

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

Village PlansBelview................................................................................TBAElliston/Lafayette ................................................................TBAPlum Creek ..........................................................................TBAPrices Fork...........................................................................TBARiner ....................................................................................TBAShawsville ...........................................................................TBA

Corridor Plans177 Corridor Plan .................................................................261

Appendices

Glossary ..........................................................................A1Work Group Participants ................................................B1Table of Indicators ..........................................................C1Table of Maps .................................................................D1Index ...............................................................................E1

IntroductionMontgomeryCounty,2025

Adopted October 12, 2004

Introduction: Executive SummaryMontgomery County, 2025 marks a bellwether change in howMontgomery County approaches planning and development, byfocusing on three key features of proactive planning: stewardshipof resources, participatory planning, and regionalism. Thesefeatures are woven throughout the plan and provide the basicframework for planning in the future. This introduction discussesthese features, as well as the legal basis for comprehensive planningin Virginia, the comprehensive planning process, and a briefoverview of implementation and amendment policies.

Keep in mind, as you are reading the documents included in theprint and interactive versions of Montgomery County, 2025, thata plan is, essentially a policy document, designed to guide growthand the decision making process. It is meant to change and bechanged, a living document that provides both a map for the futureand a reference point for current and future land use proposals.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Introduction 2

If you drove from Blacksburg toChristiansburg, in 1970, you would have seenCorning on right and a small strip mall, anchoredby a Cheds store, on the left. While there werehouses edging 460, the majority of the land wasstill agricultural, and the town edges were stillreasonably well defined. Riner and Prices Forkwere small villages, surrounded by farm land,and separated from the more populated areasof the county by narrow two-lane roads andreasonably light traffic. The only golf courseswere located in or near Blacksburg and

Christiansburg. Aside from the Radford Arsenaland Corning, the only major industrial parkswere located in Blacksburg and Christiansburg.Indeed, the economy was defined by the Arsenal,agriculture, and the two universities, (VirginiaTech and Radford University, located in theadjacent city of Radford). Virginia Tech was inthe midst of rapid expansion, following thechange from an all-male military institution toa co-ed university. While there were newsubdivisions being built, most were located inBlacksburg and Christiansburg.

IntroductionIn 1970, the population of Montgomery

County was 47,157. By 2000, the population ofMontgomery County had grown to 83,629, a77% increase. The farmland separatingBlacksburg and Christiansburg vanished,replaced by urban growth patterns. The edgesof the two towns and the villages of Riner andPrices Fork were no longer distinct, changedand obscured by residential growth. Thecommercial centers, once located in thedowntowns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg,shifted to an expanding mall area between thetwo towns, on the northern border ofChristiansburg. The Virginia Department ofTransportation constructed a new bypass fromI-81 to Blacksburg to reroute traffic from theincreasingly congested 460 corridor, whiledeferring other road repairs and expansions.Between 1975 (the first year the records wereavailable) and 2000, the total vehicle miles per24 hour period increased 266%, from 689,580miles to 1,834,637 miles. (1) Finally, the economyand labor market shifted away from the arsenaland increasingly towards retail and commercialenterprises and a growing corporate researchcenter, located at Virginia Tech. Indeed, the onlyconstants were rapid growth, change, and thecontinuing impact of Virginia Tech.

In 1973, Montgomery County adopted thefirst of a series of comprehensive plans, eachmore detailed than the last. Each of thecomprehensive plans focused, to one degree oranother, on the need for ongoing stewardshipof county resources; however the ordinancesand other legal mechanisms designed toimplement the plan did not always accomplishthe intended goals. This problem was, perhaps,most notable in the rapid expansion of


1. Virginia Department of Transportation. (2004) Statisticalinformation is available from the VDoT website. Dataprior to 1975 was not available.

subdivisions into areas of the County wherepublic water and sewer and other county serviceswere either not available or less than adequate,or where the environment was incapable ofhandling the level of demand placed on it. Theresults of this growth also meant more overcrowding in schools, increased impacts to groundand surface water supplies, and increased trafficon substandard roads.

Changes in the Subdivision Ordinance in1994 and the adoption of major amendments tothe Zoning Ordinance in 1999, shiftedMontgomery County’s approach to planning anddevelopment from reactive to proactive.

The Nature of Plans

Comprehensive plans are written to addressthe long-range development of a community, acounty, or a region. They focus primarily onland use and land quality issues: where to locateindustrial, commercial, or residential growth;how to protect the physical and historicalenvironments; and where to site the nuts andbolts infrastructure (schools, roads, water andsewer lines, parks, and other communityfacilities). The key, however, to understandingand guiding long-range development is tounderstand the terms “development” and "long-range."

Development can be defined in two ways--as growth and as change. How growth andchange are accomplished can be either positiveor negative, proactive or reactive, ongoing orstatic, and managed or unmanaged. Long rangeplans are meant to provide a guide for theongoing, proactive management of future growthand change in order to guarantee positiveconditions and create and maintain a livableand sustainable community, for current andfuture residents.

“Long range” planning means that ajurisdiction and its residents are looking atchange and development as it impacts multiplegenerations. Each generation covers roughly atwenty to twenty-five year span. High schoolstudents in 2004 will be raising their ownfamilies in twenty years; their parents will eitherbe retirement age or in their final years ofemployment; their younger siblings will beentering the job market; and their children willbe populating the schools. A "long-range" planis a roadmap for the development of a place, acommunity, a county from one generation tothe next. It defines the kind of place in whichwe want to live and of which we want to passon to the next generation preparing the nextplan.

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 workswith the communities to provide high qualitydevelopment opportunities while managing andmaintaining current and future built and naturalresources; and 2) that the County adopt andmaintain planning tools which facilitate theimplementation of the plan over the long term.

Proactive planning provides clear guidelinesfor managing the county’s resources in such away as to make them available now and wellinto the future. It also means that the Countymust continually maintain and revise not only

the comprehensive plan but also the tools whichimplement the plan. As noted in the discussionof the legal basis for comprehensive planning,later in this chapter, state law provides thecounty with a number of legal mechanisms forimplementing Montgomery County, 2025,including: zoning ordinance, subdivisionordinance, the capital improvements program,and the 2232 review process. However, the planand the tools must be created and maintainedin tandem.

Proactive planning requires rethinking notonly the mechanisms of planning, but the processof planning as well. The process of planning isessentially the approach to planning: in short,how planning is accomplished in communityterms. Montgomery County, 2025 embodies afocused growth approach to planning, whichgoes beyond merely focusing growth in certain


Photo by Robert Parker

Photo by C. Lindstrom

portions of the County, most notably in theVillages, Village Expansion Areas, and theUrban Expansion Areas. It also means focusingplanning efforts on the stewardship of built andnatural resources, on participatory planning,and on finding, where possible and appropriate,regional approaches and solutions to planningrelated issues.

Stewardship of Resources

Resources are defined as the natural andbuilt (man-made) assets which help to createand maintain the quality of life in MontgomeryCounty, including: cultural and historical sitesand facilities; jobs, businesses, and industries;schools and educational opportunities; land, air,and water quality; agriculture and forestry;housing, neighborhoods, and villages; medicaland mental health facilities; human and socialservices; parks and recreational opportunities;

2. Each of these types of assets is reflected in differentchapters in this plan. Land use based assets, includingVillages, Village Expansion, Urban Expansion, andResource Stewardship areas are included in the Planningand Land Use Chapter. Different types of assets are dealtwith in the remaining chapters, including Governmentand Planning Resources, Cultural Resources, EducationalResources, Economic Resources, EnvironmentalResources, Health and Human Resources, HousingResources, Parks and Recreational Resources, PublicSafety Resources, Transportation Resources, and UtilityResources.3. As noted later in this chapter, there are a number oflegal mechanisms, provided under the Code of Virginia,to help jurisdictions manage and maintain assets: thecapital improvements program for community assets,including schools and other public facilities; and thezoning and subdivision ordinance for the creation andlong-term management of new developments, smallcommunities, villages, and urbanized areas, as well asthe County as a whole.

public safety; roads and alternative modes oftransportation; and solid waste disposal andpublic water and sewer. Indeed, the wealth ofthe County is in its assets. (2)

Stewardship is the long range creation,use, management, and conservation of theCounty’s assets. Resource stewardship is amanagement approach which requires lookingat the use of resources both in the short term(five years or ten years), and in the long term(twenty, thirty, or fifty years), acknowledgingthat what is done now will have significantand long term impacts, costs, and benefits. (3)

Participatory Planning

Participatory planning assumes, first, thatplanning is never done in a vacuum. Planningdecisions, whether the location of newdevelopment, the design of a neighborhood,or the construction of public infrastructure(roads, sewer, water, and so forth), have veryreal impacts beyond the immediatedevelopment. A new subdivision, for example,may create additional traffic on a road, addnew students to an already overcrowdedschool, or place additional stress on other

public facilities. The removal of a communityfacility, such as a park or a school, can underminethe sense of community within a village, justas the addition of a community facility can spurthe development of a more cohesive sense ofplace.

Second, participatory planning assumes thatplanning is best accomplished when thestakeholders (those who are either directly orindirectly impacted by change) both understandwhat is at issue and have a say in the outcome.Participatory planning relies on public outreachand education (4) on the one hand and publicparticipation (5) on the other. It encouragescitizens to become actively involved in theirneighborhoods, their communities, and theircounty, and requires that the County createongoing opportunities for education andparticipation.

4. Montgomery County, 2025 provides a wide variety ofpublic outreach and education mechanisms, includingtraditional (newsletters, public service announcements,press releases, and information data sheets), nontraditional(websites, broadcast of public hearings, and other e-government opportunities), and interactive (Planner in thePublic Schools program, public workshops and citizenacademies) approaches. While references to theseapproaches are mentioned in many of the chapters, thesubject is covered, most prominently, in the Planning andGovernment.5. Traditionally, public participation has been limited totwo primary approaches: community meetings and publichearings. While both of these approaches are maintainedin this plan, other public participation mechanisms are alsoincluded, including the introduction of village and thecontinuation of corridor planning, the communityfacilitators program, community/citizen advisorycommittees (CACs), and e-government-based participationopportunities (email and web-based surveys). As withcommunity outreach and education, communityparticipation is included in most of the chapters, althoughthe primary references are included in Planning andGovernment.


7. The NRVPDC defines Montgomery County as part ofa geographic region (including the towns of Blacksburgand Christiansburg, the city of Radford, and the countiesof Pulaski, Floyd, and Giles) based its proximity to theNew River and the reach of its economic, social, andcultural impact. Following the 2000 Census, the federalgovernment designated Montgomery County as part of aMetropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), based on economicpatterns, and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),based on transportation patterns. The MSA also includesBlacksburg, Christiansburg, the city of Radford, and Pulaskiand Giles Counties. Other examples of regional definitions,imposed by external organizations, include state and federalvoting districts, state economic development and tourismregions, and various environmental and agricultural regions(Extension District, National Forest District, ConservationDistricts, and Recreation Districts). Finally, the County isdefined, at least in part, by regions imposed by naturalfeatures (mountain ranges, valleys, and watersheds) andby transportation corridors (U.S. 460/Rt. 11, I-81, Rt. 8,and Rt. 114).

Regionalism

In 1941, the Radford Arsenal was built inMontgomery and Pulaski Counties, on farmlandon the banks of the New River. Not only did thelocation of the Arsenal remove a significantportion of farmland from production, farmlandwas also lost in both Montgomery and PulaskiCounties to the housing developments necessaryto accommodate new workers and their families.The placement of the Arsenal increased trafficin both counties; required expansion of thehousing stock in Radford, Fairlawn, and AirportAcres in Blacksburg, as well as the areaimmediately surrounding the plant. In addition,it increased the need for goods and services inthe city of Radford and in Pulaski andMontgomery Counties.

While not always the case, the impact ofdevelopment decisions often crosses jurisdictionalboundaries. Choices made in Blacksburg andChristiansburg are felt in the County; choices bythe County are felt within the two towns, inRadford, and in surrounding counties. This isespecially true when the decisions involveeconomic development, utilities, or naturalresources, such as watersheds.

Although regionalism is nothing new toMontgomery County (6), as evidenced by the

6. In addition to the NRVPDC, Montgomery County hasparticipated in a number of cooperative planning effortswith surrounding jurisdictions, including: theTelecommunications Tower Agreement (with Blacksburg,Christiansburg, Radford, and Pulaski County), the Rt..177 Corridor Plan (with Radford), New River CommunityCollege (with Radford and the counties of Pulaski, Floyd,and Giles), the New River Airport, solid waste disposal,and economic development initiatives. The HuckleberryTrail (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and MontgomeryCounty) exemplifies more localized cooperative planningefforts.

County’s participation in New River ValleyPlanning District Commission (NRVPDC), theofficial recognition of Montgomery County aspart of multiple regions is recent. The designationof Montgomery County as part of a MetropolitanPlanning Organization (MPO) and aMetropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), followingthe 2000 Census, marks federal recognition ofthe County as part of a transportation regionand an economic impact region.

Montgomery County’s regional connectionsand the potential for cooperative efforts doesnot stop with the New River Valley. Highereducation, transportation, tourism and economicdevelopment, and environmental concerns havecreated significant ties between MontgomeryCounty 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; and2) there is strength in numbers. Some issues,such as telecommunications towers, utilities(drinking water, solid waste, sewerage),transportation, and housing are more likely tobe successfully addressed on a regional basisthan by individual jurisdictions. In addition,regional and cooperative approaches are morelikely to be successfully funded through grantsand other external funding sources. Incorporatinga regional approach to planning in MontgomeryCounty enables the County to seek, whereappropriate, regional approaches and solutionsto issues and opportunities.


Legal Basis for Comprehensive PlanningPurpose of the Comprehensive Plan

According to the Code of Virginia,"comprehensive plan shall be made with thepurpose of guiding and accomplishing acoordinated, adjusted and harmoniousdevelopment of the territory which will, inaccordance with present and probable futureneeds and resources, best promote the health,safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperityand general welfare of the inhabitants." (§15.2-2223). Generally, county comprehensive plansapply only to the unincorporated areas of thecounty, although state law does allow countiesto include planning of incorporated towns inthe county plan if the planning commissiondetermines that it is related to planning forunincorporated areas or the county as a whole...[The plan, however,] is not considered acomprehensive plan for the town unless adoptedby the town's governing body." (§15.2-2231).The reverse is true, as well. For an example ofan "extraterritorial" chapter, see the BlacksburgComprehensive Plan. The Blacksburg chapterdoes not, however, function as a comprehensiveplan for the extraterritorial areas in the County,because the chapter was not adopted by theMontgomery County Board of Supervisors.

As was noted in the 1990 ComprehensivePlan, the plan serves a number of specificfunctions:

Statement of County Policy: The plan isa statement of the community's goals, or"what the community wants." It offers avision of what might be. It also identifiesshorter-term policies and strategies thatwill lead to achievement of the goals.

Guide to Decision Making: The plan is ameans of guiding and influencing a varietyof public and private decisions thateventually create the future county. The

regular ongoing public decision makingprocess included land use cases (rezoning,special use permits, subdivisions, etc.),capital improvement programming,specific capital expenditures and otherdecisions. These decisions can be madeon an ad hoc basis or they can be made inlight of the comprehensive plan. A moreeffective, efficient, and attractive countywill result when a plan is carefullydeveloped and used to guide decisionmaking.

Long Range Perspective: The orientationof this comprehensive plan is 23 years intothe future. A long-range plan allowsdecision-makers to look at current decisionsin light of their long-term consequencesand in terms of their impacts on otherrelated systems. The county will live withtoday's decisions for many years into thefuture.

Promoting the Public Interest: The plan isbased upon facts and conclusionsdeveloped through background studies anddiscussions. The comprehensive planningprocess is open to all residents of thecounty. This helps promote the interest ofall persons rather than the interest ofindividuals or special interest groups.Decisions based on a plan are less likelyto be made in an arbitrary or capriciousmanner.

Technical Expertise and Advise: Thecomprehensive plan provides policymakers such as the Board of Supervisorswith the opportunity to receive the counselof its advisors in a coherent, unified form.The coordination of technical studies andadvice with the political decision makingprocess is necessary to bring about the

desired growth and development inaccordance with the plan an in the mostefficient and economic manner.

Communication: Through thecomprehensive plan, the Board ofSupervisors presents a unified picture ofits long range goals, policies, and strategiesto all those concerned with the county'sgrowth and development. That audienceincludes county departments,commissions, and agencies, neighboringjurisdictions, the private developmentcommunity, civic organizations, and thegeneral public. The plan enables the actorsin the development process to anticipatedecisions of the Board and to developprojects supportive of the plan rather thanin conflict with it.

Education: The plan is educational for allactors in the development process andanyone who reads it. It should arouseinterest in community affairs and offerinformation on both present conditionsand probable future trends. It shouldencourage participation in thecomprehensive planning process.

Legal Document: In recent years, courtdecisions have strengthened greatly theimportance of the plan as a legal document.Planning has become central to questionsof growth and development from thestandpoint of both the courts and policy-making bodies.

Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan

Under the Code of Virginia, local governingbodies (the Montgomery County Board ofSupervisors) are required to adopt acomprehensive plan for the physical


development of jurisdiction. The preparationof the comprehensive plan, however, falls tothe local planning commission and, by extension,the planning office. The state statute governingthe preparation and adoption specifies a numberof specific activities related the comprehensiveplanning process, including:

The planning commission is charged withsurveying and studying a broad range oftopics in the preparation of thecomprehensive plan, including:

1. Land use2. Agricultural and forestal preservation3. Production of food and fiber4. Characteristics and conditions of existing

development5. Trends of growth or changes6. Natural resources7. Historic areas8. Ground water9. Surface water10.Geologic factors11.Population factors12.Employment13.Environmental and economic factors,14.Existing public facilities15.Drainage16.Flood control and flood damage

prevention measures17.Transportation facilities18.The Need for affordable housing in both

the Locality and the planning districtwithin which it is situated (New RiverValley)

19.Additional matters related to the subjectmatter and general purposes of thecomprehensive plan

Both historic resources and mineralresources carry additional requirements. If the jurisdiction chooses not to study either or bothin the preparation of the comprehensive plan,then the available surveys from the applicablestate departments must be included in the

comprehensive plan. In addition, all plansadopted after January 1, 1981 must include astudy of the production of food and fiber.

The Code of Virginia explicitly lays the state’sexpectations and requirements for a locality’scomprehensive plan:

"The comprehensive plan shall be generalin nature, in that it shall designate the generalor approximate location, character, andextent of each feature shown on the planand shall indicate where existing lands orfacilities are proposed to be extended,widened, removed, relocated, vacated,narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use asthe case may be.

The plan, with the accompanying maps,plats, charts, and descriptive matter, shallshow the locality's long-rangerecommendations for the generaldevelopment of the territory covered by theplan. It may include, but need not be limitedto:

1. The designation of areas for various typesof public and private development anduse, such as different kinds of residential,business, industrial, agricultural, mineralresources, conservation, recreation, publicservice, flood plain and drainage, andother areas;

2. The designation of a system oftransportation 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 communityservice facilities such as parks, forests,schools, playgrounds, public buildingsand institutions, hospitals, communitycenters, waterworks, sewage disposal orwaste disposal areas, and the like;

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

5. The designation of areas for theimplementation of reasonable groundwater protection measures;

6. An official map, a capital improvementsprogram, a subdivision ordinance, azoning ordinance and zoning district maps,mineral resource district maps andagricultural and forestal district maps,where applicable;

7. The location of existing or proposedrecycling centers; and

8. The designation of areas for theimplementation of measures to promotethe construction and maintenance ofaffordable housing, sufficient to meet thecurrent and future needs of residents ofall levels of income in the locality whileconsidering the current and future needsof the planning district within which thelocality is situated." (15.2-2223)

Adopting the Comprehensive Plan--PublicHearing Requirements:

In order to adopt the new comprehensiveplan, both the Planning Commission and theBoard of Supervisors must hold a public hearingprior to adoption (or for the meeting whereadoption is likely to occur). A legal notice mustbe published in newspapers with local circulationonce a week for the two successive weeks priorto the meeting. The notice needs to contain adescriptive summary of the proposed action and"a reference to the place or places within thelocality 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 anew Comprehensive Plan, which was meant toguide growth for the final decade of the 20thcentury. Some of the goals, objectives, andpolicies included in the 1990 ComprehensivePlan reflected those included in the two previousComprehensive Plans (1977 and 1983) and arecontinued in Montgomery County, 2025,including issues of affordable housing,environmental protection, and preservation ofagriculture and agricultural lands.

As Montgomery County has grown from29,780 in 1950 to 47,157 in 1970 to 83,629 in2000, the issues Montgomery County has facedhave also grown, both in number and complexity.The challenges for those who live and work inMontgomery County are: how do we define theissues we face; how do we frame the goals,objectives, and policies to address these issues;and to what degree can we come together inorder to produce a Comprehensive Planreflective of our common values.

In 2000, Montgomery County started theprocess of preparing a new comprehensiveplan. The changes over the previous 25 yearsrequired that the comprehensive plan be more

than a simple update. The population, on thewhole, is far more diverse, and the issues facingthe County are far more complex than theywere in 1975 when the county first startedthinking in terms of long range planning. Ratherthan repeating the processes used in 1977, 1983,and 1990, the Planning Commission and thePlanning Department embarked on a wholenew approach, an approach that relied heavilyon the provision of public information andencouraging public participation and input.Indeed, Montgomery County, 2025 is acommunity-driven comprehensive plan.

Phase I: Community Meetings and PublicInformation

Phase I of the comprehensive planningprocess involved the use of traditional

community meetings and a community surveyto define the parameters of the debate and theuse of the Planning Commission newsletter,News and Notes, to explain the process and theissues facing the County.

Community Meetings and the CommunitySurvey

Community meetings were held in each ofthe four planning districts: Shawsville(Shawsville Middle School), Riner (AuburnHigh School), Mt. Tabor (Slusher’s Chapel),and Prices Fork (Prices Fork Grange). Inaddition, a community survey was publishedin both the Roanoke Times and the MontgomeryNew Messenger, and printed copies of the surveywere distributed at the County’s solid wastecollection facilities. Participants in the

2001 Community Meetings and Community SurveyLocation/ Response Type Number of

Participants

Mount Tabor--Slushers Chapel--Community Meeting 34Shawsville Middle School--Community Meeting 11Riner--Auburn High School--Community Meeting 28Prices Fork--Prices Fork Grange--Community Meeting 10Mail-In Community Survey 48

Total Participants 131

Top 3 Responses, by Question

Question Top Response 2nd Response 3rd Response

Likes Natural Environment Character of Place Quality of LifeDislikes Transportation Planning/Zoning Sprawl/OverdevelopmentIssues Open Space/Farmland Growth / Development Transportation / Traffic

Protection

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


Community Meetings, 2002: Herd Planning & DesignDate / Subject / Location Number of

Participants

4/25/02 - Community and Public Facilities/ County Government Center 496/27/02 - Interjurisdictional Planning: Opportunities and Issues/

County Government Center 359/10/02 - Agriculture and Open Space Preservation/ 2 Meetings-Prices

Fork Grange and Auburn High School (Riner) 50Total Number of Participants 134


Participants






Protection


community meetings and on the surveys wereasked the same four questions:

1) What do you like about MontgomeryCounty?2) What do you dislike aboutMontgomery County?3) What are the three most importantissues Montgomery County faces?4) What are some possible solutions tothese issues?

In the four meetings, participants were separatedinto groups and worked with a facilitator togenerate lists of responses to each question.Their responses were analyzed using contentanalysis which catalogued individual responses(through the examination of keywords andphrases) into subject groups.

While public participation in the communitymeetings and the initial survey was a bit thin,the responses provided the County with astarting point for the comprehensive planningprocess. (7)

Public Outreach: News and Notes

Coinsiding with the community meetings,the Planning Department began publishing aseries of articles on comprehensive planning,planning issues (agriculture), and planning tools(capital improvements program) in order toprovide information to the public and help spurpublic interest in and understanding of thecomprehensive planning process.

Phase II: Working with a Consultant

In 2001, Montgomery County contractedwith Herd Planning and Design to provideplanning assistance during the comprehensiveplanning process. Herd Planning and Design

7. Complete survey results, analysis or results, and theraw data from the surveys and the community meetingsare available, upon request, from the Montgomery CountyPlanning Department.

was already familiar with Montgomery County,having previously worked on the zoningordinance the County adopted in 1999. (8)

Between 2001 and 2003, Herd Planning andDesign produced five reports for MontgomeryCounty: 1) Review of Montgomery CountyPlanning Documents; 2) Review andCoordination of Other Local ComprehensivePlans; 3) Report on 15.2-2232 Reviews; 4)Review and Evaluation of Cash Proffers; and5) Review and Evaluation of Land ConservationTools. (9)

A series of three community meetings wereheld in conjunction with these reports to discussby Herd Planning and Design: 1) public andcommunity facilities; 2) cooperative planningopportunities and challenges facing MontgomeryCounty, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg; and3) agricultural and open space preservation.

Phase III: Examining the Application ofIndicators

Montgomery County wanted to examinethe use of indicators, connected to thecomprehensive plan, to allow the County totrack progress and changes, while also providing

updated baseline data for planning decisions.To this end, the graduate Environmental PlanningStudio in the Urban Affairs and PlanningProgram at Virginia Tech developed a “test”chapter covering agriculture, open space, andwater related concerns, along with a list ofpossible indicators, including data sources andan update schedule. Their finished work waspresented to the Planning Commission inDecember, 2002. (10)

10. The Virginia Tech project final report is available inpdf format, upon request, from the Montgomery CountyPlanning Department.


8. The consulting team included Milt Herd, Herd Planningand Design; Karen Gavrilovic, Paradigm Design; andMartha Mason Semmes, Town Planner/ZoningAdministrator, Middleburg,, Virginia.9. Copies of the newsletter are available in pdf format,upon request, from the Montgomery County PlanningDepartment


Participants





Participants






Protection


Phase IV: The Community FacilitatorsInitiative and Community Survey (11)

Planning for the Community FacilitatorsInitiative & Community Survey comprehensiveplanning process started in September, 2002,while implementation of the project began inJanuary, 2003. The Community Facilitator'sInitiative was introduced to address the needfor broad based community participation.Although hampered by bad weather, theinitiative did receive support from the differentcommunities in Montgomery County.

The initiative relied on the redefinition ofcommunity from the more traditional definitionbased on geography to one based on residentinteractions and connections (social, civic,political, religious, cultural, community, andcommercial organizations) within the broader

11. The Community Facilitators Initiative & CommunitySurvey were successful because of the all of the membersof the community and all of the community groups whowere involved. Special acknowledgment, however, needsto be made to certain individuals for reaching out tomultiple groups and encouraging a broad range ofinvolvement in their communities. The MontgomeryCounty Planning Department wishes to thank all of theparticipants and volunteers, including: Ellen and GaryHarkrader; Mr. Fred Morton, Dr. Kitty Rogers, theMontgomery County School Board and the faculty, staff, and students of the Montgomery County Public Schools;Beth Obenshain of the New River Valley Land Trust; MikeEwing (for web survey advice); the Ruritan; Penny Franklinand the Community Group; Fred Lawson; and John Moore.While the weather did not particularly cooperate (a largenumber of winter storms discouraged greater participationin the Community Survey), the Initiative garnered 826community survey responses to date and responses arestill trickling in. The student survey generated an additional512 responses. An additional 27 letters, addressing someof the issues, but not attached to a survey, were submitted,as were 13 group survey flipcharts. In addition, we wishto thank Dr. Diane Zahm and her Land Use Planning Class(Urban Affairs & Planning Department, Virginia Tech) forcrunching all of the map data. Finally, a special thank youto Carol Lindstrom, a volunteer from Echostar, who inputall of the quantitative and qualitative data into SPSS(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and spentmore than a few days creating mounds of charts, graphs,and frequency tables.

12. Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. ed. J.P.Mayer. Garden City, NJ. 1969 pg. 515.

13. A full list of the participating organizations is includedin the final report for the Community Facilitators Initiativeand Community Survey, available in pdf format from theMontgomery County Planning Department.14. This effort was recognized by the Virginia Chapter ofthe American Planning Association, which awarded theCounty the VAPA Public Awareness award in April, 2004.15. Because the results from the Community FacilitatorsInitiative and Community Survey are included in theopening introductions for individual chapters, an overviewof 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.


community, not just their particularneighborhood. Part of the impetus for thisapproach was a recognition of the validity ofAlexis de Tocqueville's observation of theAmerican character: "Americans of all ages,all stations in life, and all types of dispositionsare forever forming associations." (12) Lowturnouts at prior comprehensive plan communitymeetings suggested that few MontgomeryCounty residents were either engaged in orinterested in issues surrounding Countyplanning.

Staff from the Planning Departmentcontacted community organizations and pitchedgreater community participation in thecomprehensive planning process. Eachorganization was asked to provide one memberwho would be willing to function as acommunity facilitator, someone who couldfacilitate a comprehensive plan input sessionduring one of the organizations regularlyscheduled meetings during January andFebruary, 2003. The survey was designed withthese input sessions in mind. The facilitator

would distribute the survey to the members, atthe meeting, would help members fill out thesurvey and a group response flip chart, collectthe materials at the end of the meeting, andreturn the materials to the Planning Departmentwithin a specific timeframe.

Montgomery County experienced one of theworst winters in many years. Schools were notthe only ones affected by the weather. Meetingswere canceled, churches closed, and much ofthe normal routine for a great many people wasdisrupted. The organizations that did meet oftenhad smaller than expected attendance. Despitethe weather, 68 different organizations(geographic, educational, civic, cultural, social,commercial, and religious), representing a broadcross section of the county population,participated. Surveys were also distributed tothe different realty companies and mailed outto the members of the Chamber ofCommerce.(13)

In addition, the County made a special effortto reach out to minority organizations andunderrepresented populations, including AfricanAmerican churches and organizations, as wellas other minority, senior, and youthorganizations. By the end of the process, theCommunity Facilitators Initiative andCommunity Survey generated 826 adultsurveys, 512 student surveys, 13 group surveys,27 letters, and 10,200 written comments. Ofthose who completed the survey, 75% were firsttime participants in the comprehensive planningprocess. (14) (15)


Participants




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 volunteeredas community facilitators also volunteered forthe citizen work groups. In addition, citizens withspecial knowledge of or interest in particularissues also volunteered. (17) Finally, individual

Planning Commission and Board of ZoningAppeal members were assigned to each workgroup to help facilitate the meetings.

An initial list of goals for each chapter, based,primarily on citizen comments included in thesurvey responses, was provided to each workgroup. A total of nine groups, covering 12topics, met multiple times between May andAugust, to review and revise the individualchapters included in this plan.

Phase VI: Planning Commission WorkSessions.

From September to December, the individualwork groups presented their initial list of goals,objectives, and policies to the PlanningCommission, during work sessions, for feedbackand further discussion. Individual chapters wererevised following each session, and the PlanningCommission 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 thechapters for a second time, along with thepreliminary drafts of the chapter introductions.The first full draft of the plan was presented to

16. A full list of the work group participants is includedin the appendix.17. The citizen participants in the work groups brought awide range of expertise to the process. Three members ofthe Montgomery County School Board served on thecultural facilities and education work group, as did aspecialist in historic preservation and tourism; theEconomic Development Commission participated in thedevelopment of the economic resources chapter;representatives from the local caving organization and anemployee of the U.S. Forest Service served on theenvironmental work group; the parks and recreation chapterwas generated by citizens and members of the Parks andRecreation Commission; members of the developmentcommunity served on the government and planning workgroup, as well as the Utilities Committee, the Fire andRescue Task Force worked with citizens on the publicsafety work group, and members of the Public ServiceAuthority participated in the utilities work group.


the Planning Commission in May, 2004 and tothe Board of Supervisors in June, 2004. ThePlanning Commission held a public hearing onthe draft plan on June 30, 2004. The PlanningCommission recommended the plan to the Boardof Supervisors on August 11, 2004. The Boardof Supervisors held a public hearing onSeptember 27, 2004. On October 12, 2004, theBoard of Supervisors unanimously adopted thenew comprehensive plan without amendment.

Implementing the Comprehensive PlanAccording to the Code of Virginia, “the

comprehensive plan shall recommend methodsof implementation and shall include a currentmap of the area covered by the comprehensiveplan” (§15.2-2224). In addition, the Code listsa variety of tools Montgomery County can useto implement the new comprehensive plan,including: “a capital improvements program, asubdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance andzoning district maps” (§15,2-2224).

Primary Implementation Methods

The Capital Improvements Program

According to §15.2-2239 of the Code ofVirginia:

“A local planning commission may, and atthe direction of the governing body shall,prepare and revise annually a capitalimprovement program based on thecomprehensive plan of the locality for aperiod not to exceed the ensuing five years.The commission shall submit the program

annually to the governing body, or to thechief administrative officer or other officialcharged with preparation of the budget forthe locality, at such time as it or he shalldirect. The capital improvement programshall include the commission'srecommendations, and estimates of cost ofthe facilities and the means of financingthem, to be undertaken in the ensuing fiscalyear and in a period not to exceed the nextfour years, as the basis of the capital budgetfor the locality. In the preparation of itscapital budget recommendations, thecommission shall consult with the chiefadministrative officer or other executivehead of the government of the locality, theheads of departments and interested citizensand organizations and shall hold such publichearings as it deems necessary.”

Montgomery County currently has a capitalimprovements program (CIP), however theprogram will need to be reviewed and revisedin order to bring it into compliance both withthe Code of Virginia and with the newcomprehensive plan. (18)

The Subdivision Ordinance:

As noted in the introduction to this section,the subdivision ordinance is cited as one of thefour primary methods of implementing thecomprehensive plan. The current MontgomeryCounty Subdivision Ordinance was revised in1994 and, as with the CIP, will need to bereviewed and revised to bring it into compliancewith the provisions in the new comprehensiveplan.

A Zoning Ordinance and Zoning District Maps

Under the Code of Virginia, the zoning ordinanceis one of the primary planning tools used toimplement the comprehensive plan. Accordingto the Code, the purpose of zoning ordinancesis to promote “the health, safety or generalwelfare of the public” (§15.2-2283) and “toimprove the public health, safety, convenienceand welfare of its citizens and to plan for thefuture development of communities to the endthat transportation systems be carefully planned;that new community centers be developed withadequate highway, utility, health, educational,and recreational facilities; that the need formineral resources and the needs of agriculture,industry and business be recognized in futuregrowth; that residential areas be provided withhealthy surroundings for family life; thatagricultural and forestal land be preserved;and that the growth of the community beconsonant with the efficient and economicaluse of public funds” (§15.2-2200) In addition,the Code of Virginia states that zoningordinances shall consider, where appropriate,the following::

(i) to provide for adequate light, air,convenience of access, and safety fromfire, flood, crime and other dangers;

(ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in thepublic streets;

(iii) to facilitate the creation of aconvenient, attractive and harmoniouscommunity;

(iv) to facilitate the provision of adequatepolice and fire protection, disasterevacuation, civil defense,transportation, water, sewerage, floodprotection, schools, parks, forests,playgrounds, recreational facilities,airports and other public requirements;

(v) to protect against destruction of or18. The 15.2-2232 Review process, discussed at the endof this section, would help strengthen the current CIPprocess by establishing a project’s compliance early on.


A-1 C-1 R-R R1 R2 R3 RM-1 PMR CB GB

Resource Stewardship

Rural

Rural Communities

Residential Transition (1)

Village Expansion

Villages

Urban Expansion

Preliminary Comparison of Comprehensive Plan Designations and Current Zoning Districts

encroachment upon historic areas;(vi) to protect against one or more of the

following: overcrowding of land, unduedensity of population in relation to thecommunity facilities existing oravailable, obstruction of light and air,danger and congestion in travel andtransportation, or loss of life, health,or property from fire, flood, panic orother dangers;

(vii) to encourage economic developmentactivities that provide desirableemployment and enlarge the tax base;

(viii) to provide for the preservation ofagricultural and forestal lands and otherlands of significance for the protectionof the natural environment;

(ix) to protect approach slopes and othersafety areas of licensed airports,including United States governmentand military air facilities; and

(x) to promote the creation and preservationof affordable housing suitable formeeting the current and future needsof the locality as well as a reasonableproportion of the current and futureneeds of the planning district withinwhich the locality is situated. Suchordinance may also include reasonable

provisions, not inconsistent withapplicable state water qualitystandards, to protect surface water andground water as defined in § 62.1-255. (§15.2-2283)

Many of the provisions in the Code of Virginiaare reflected both in this comprehensive planand in the existing zoning ordinance, adoptedin 1999. In addition, the land use designationsincluded in Montgomery County, 2025 fitreasonably well with the zoning districts in theexisting ordinance. This said, the County willneed to review and revise the existing zoningordinance to bring it into compliance with thenew plan and provide mechanism forimplementing portions of the new plan.

Additional Implementation Tools

The Community Indicators Program

Community indicators are generally definedas a set of qualitative and quantitative measures,some objective and others subjective, whichprovide localities with the means of trackingquality of life, plan implementation, andprogress. They can be used to measure the well-being in the community, be it economic,

environmental, social, or cultural. Incomprehensive planning, community indicatorsprovide a mechanism for tracking the success,or failure, of programs and policies. For example,if the goal is to retain open space, possibleindicators of success might include the numberof acres in agricultural and forestal districts,acres placed under conservation easements, orthe number of acres of farmland taken out ofproduction. If the goal is to improve waterquality, indicators might include annual TotalMaximum Daily Load (TMDL) data for specific streams or the number of old or failing septicsystems within a specific watershed in any givenyear. If the goal is to increase civic involvement,indicators might include public hearing or voterparticipation rates.

While indicator programs are generally tiedto comprehensive plans and managed throughplanning and development departments, theyrequire annual participation across departmentlines, especially in data collection andapplication. A formal, GIS-based, indicatorsprogram could aid the County in determiningcritical needs and priorities, while also providingthe public with an annual assessment of the bothplan implementation and quality of life.

A preliminary list of indicators has beenincluded in the subject chapters of this plan (19);

W&SW&S

Notes:1. Higher density residential (R1, R2)is allowed in Residential Transitionareas if the proposed site is served bypublic water and sewer.2. The M-1, M-L, PIN, PUD-RES, andPUD-COM districts in the ZoningOrdinance will need to be modified toreflect the Villages, Village Expansion,and Urban Expansion areas.


W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

W&S

however, the County may need to appoint acitizens advisory committee (CAC), workingwith staff and elected and appointed officials,to establish a more formal indicators programfor the County.

Comprehensive Plan Citizens AdvisoryCommittee

Under the Code of Virginia (15.2-2221[8]),the Planning Commission shall “if deemedadvisable, establish an advisory committee orcommittees.” Montgomery County has a historyof using citizen advisory committees, made upof a combination of citizens (stakeholders),appointed and elected officials, and Countystaff. Depending on the needs of the county,the Comprehensive Plan Citizens AdvisoryCommittee, in conjunction with the PlanningCommission, could be charged with overseeingthe implementation process, (preliminary annualwork program recommendations), establishingthe indicators program, and/or assessing theCounty’s progress. In order to establish aComprehensive Plan Citizens AdvisoryCommittee, the County will need to: 1) clearlyestablish the purpose and responsibilities of thecommittee; 2) establish specific guidelines forthe committee’s tasks; and 3) appoint acommittee that represents the County’s broadrange of stakeholders.

Annual “State of the Plan” Report.

According to the Code of Virginia (§15.2-2221[5-6]), the Planning Commission “shallprepare, publish and distribute reports,ordinances and other materials related to itsactivities” [6] and “make recommendations andan annual report to the governing bodyconcerning the operation of the commission andthe status of planning within its jurisdiction”[5].

Annual reports on the comprehensive plantake a number of different forms: a checklist ofthe previous year’s goals and accomplishments,a newsletter, an annual databook, or a narrativesummary. In general, annual reports could toaccomplish three things: 1) provide an annualassessment of planning and planimplementation; 2) provide an annual strategicplan for implementation; and 3) if an indicatorprogram is established, provide an annualassessment of the jurisdiction’s quality of lifein the form of a databook. Annual reports needto provide an honest assessment of progress inorder to maintain citizens’ faith in the process.

The Planning Commission’s annual report,News and Notes, could be expanded to providespace for additional implementation informationand indicator data.

15.2-2232 Reviews.

One method of establishing the County’scompliance with the Comprehensive Plan is the2232 Review Process. Under the Code ofVirginia:

Whenever a local planning commission

recommends a comprehensive plan or partthereof for the locality and such plan hasbeen approved and adopted by thegoverning body, it shall control the generalor approximate location, character andextent of each feature shown on the plan.Thereafter, unless a feature is alreadyshown on the adopted master plan or partthereof or is deemed so under subsectionD, no street or connection to an existingstreet, park or other public area, publicbuilding or public structure, public utilityfacility or public service corporationfacility other than railroad facility,whether publicly or privately owned, shallbe constructed, established or authorized,unless and until the general location orapproximate location, character, and extentthereof has been submitted to and approvedby the commission as being substantiallyin accord with the adopted comprehensiveplan or part thereof.

2232 Reviews are an important tool fordetermining the compliance of public projects,especially those included in the County’s CapitalImprovements Program (CIP). The 2232 Reviewmechanism provides an important analyticaltool for the Planning Commission and the Countyin the planning and budgeting processes andcould be incorporated into the CIP applicationprocess.

Comprehensive plans are not and should not


19. The indicators are incorporated into the introductionsfor each chapter and a table is included in the Appendix A.

Amending and Updating the Comprehensive Planbe static documents. The amendment andrevision of the plan, given the importance ofthe document and the time consuming natureof the process, should not be done in a piecemealfashion or for the convenience of a few at thedetriment of the larger goals or the commongood. Changes produce impacts, and thoseimpacts should be carefully considered prior toamending or updating the plan. This said, plansshould not be considered written in stone, norfixed in time or policy. As the County changes,so too should the plan. Policies which do notaccomplish what they need to should berethought and changed. Objectives reachedshould be replaced by new objectives. TheCounty must keep an eye on the long-term goalswhile assessing the impact of current, and oftenrapidly changing, conditions. In short, thecomprehensive plan should be considered aliving document that can and should be revisedwhen necessary and appropriate.

Amending the Comprehensive Plan

According to the Code of Virginia, once thecomprehensive plan is adopted, the Board ofSupervisors must recommend, approve, andadopt any amendments or changes to the Plan,only after directing “the local planningcommission to prepare an amendment andsubmit it to public hearing within sixty days”of the Board of Supervisors request (15.2-2229).In addition, both the Planning Commission andthe Board of Supervisors are required to publish,two weeks in advance of public hearings, the

proposed changes and the purpose of theproposed changes. Additional requirementsapply if the proposed changes are adjacent toother jurisdictions.

The Board of Supervisors, in consultationwith the Planning Commission, should establishan amendment process that considers PlanningCommission and staff resources and considersthe impact of amendments on the overallcomprehensive plan and the County’s adoptedgoals.

Updating the Comprehensive Plan

Under the guidelines set forth in the StateCode, jurisdictions must review theircomprehensive plans at least once every fiveyears. The timeframe for review can be shorter(i.e. yearly, every two years, three years, orfour years), but it can not extend beyond fiveyears. The mandatory review provision is meantto insure that comprehensive plans continue tohave some currency and are not just shelvedupon completion. In addition to reviewing thecomprehensive plan, the Planning Commissionmay choose to "make a study of the publicfacilities, including existing facilities such as[water and sewer facilities, schools, publicsafety facilities, streets, and highways], whichwould be needed if the plan were fullyimplemented" (§15/2/2230.1).

Rather than adopt a fixed-five year reviewschedule, this comprehensive plan is designedto use a staggered review schedule. While theoverall goals are meant to cover the next twenty

years, the objectives, strategies, and policiesare not. Specific strategies and policies aremeant to be reviewed on a two year revolvingbasis; objectives should be reviewed and revised,at a minimum, every four years. As with theamendment process, the Board of Supervisors,in consultation with the Planning Commission,should establish a process of updating thecomprehensive plan


Montgomery County 2025—Revised June 13, 2011 Planning & Land Use 23

Looking across US 460 towards Virginia Tech. Photo by Bill Edmonds Revised - 6/13/2011


Planning & Land Use: Executive Summary

The Planning and Land Use chapter covers three main goals: 1) balanced growth, includ-ing 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 tar-geted 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 tar-geted for the Rural Communities, Rural Areas, and Resource Stewardship Areas.

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


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 im-portant (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 unin-corporated 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 con-sistency, 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 in-

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

ed, others felt that the county should encour-age the development of mixed-use neighbor-hoods 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

Planning and Land Use: Introduction

Photo by Chris Valluzzo


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 un-incorporated 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 com-mercial and residential growth. Their sugges-tions included "limiting the amount of land that can be developed with a specific time peri-od,” “ 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 dif-fering 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 al-ready 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


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 modu-lar 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 appro-priate areas.” One chided the county for “subsidizing development” through the provi-sion of utilities “outside the areas near the towns.” Others, however, had a more expan-sive view of the connection between infra-structure and growth, by including transporta-tion, schools, and other public facilities. As one participant wrote:

“Before development is allowed

in an area look at future needs for

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 plan-ning 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 juris-

dictions; • Increased public/private cooperation; • Commercial and industrial develop-

ment; • Environmental concerns; the connec-

tion 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 Mont-

gomery 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.

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 subdivi-sions through a process of plat approval, elimi-nated 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 Photo by Chris Valluzzo

West of Shawsville. Photo by Chris Valluzzo


the County to take a more proactive approach to planning.

Special Plans:

In addition to the passage of two signifi-

cant 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 compre-hensive plan, the Rt. 177 Corridor Plan, and a Regional Approach to Telecommunications Towers plan These three plans are incorpo-rated 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 Devel-

opment Areas in their comprehensive plans by

July 1, 2011 (counties) and July 1, 2012 (cities

and towns). Designated Urban Development Ar-

eas (“UDA”) are to be areas of reasonably com-

pact development that can accommodate 10 to 20

years of projected growth. In 2010, the legislation

was amended to establish density and design cri-

teria for UDAs and to improve the coordination

between transportation and land use.

The UDA legislation defines high growth locali-

ties 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 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 re-

quired 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 townhous-

es, or 12 apartments, condominium units, or co-

operative 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 agri-cultural and wooded areas throughout the County (green), development along the road-ways 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.


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 charita-ble (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 deter-mines the public facilities and services a county will need to provide. From a private sector perspective, the current and anticipated popu-lation 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 de-veloped. 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 Mont-gomery County with a total population of

13,228. By the year 1900, the County's popula-tion had only risen to 15,852. Between 1900 and 1960 the County's population slowly dou-bled 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 in-

crease in Montgomery County has consistently exceeded those of all surrounding jurisdictions. Montgomery County increases of 10,000+ persons (1980-1990) followed by 9,000+ per-sons (1990-2000) exceeded Roanoke County increases of 6,000+ persons (1980-1990) and 6,000+ persons (1990-2000).

Moreover, population increases in Mont-gomery 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 County’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 unin-corporated area of the County.

Population Forecasts Several population forecasts for Mont-

gomery 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 Commis-sion (VEC), a state agency. The VEC regularly develops population projections for each city and county throughout the state. These projec-tions 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 fol-lowing average annual growth rates for Mont-gomery County as a whole:

2000-2010 0.86% 2010-2020 0.78% 2020-2030 0.73%

Applying the VEC growth rates for Mont-gomery 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 Coun-cil 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 be-tween the years 2001 and 2010 slowly increas-ing enrollment to 30,783 by 2010 and thereaf-ter remaining at this enrollment level. It as-sumes 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 projec-tions in the Town are solely attributed to non-student residential growth based on the expan-sion and success of the Corporate Research Center, Industrial Park, and improved inter-state access. The Town population will contin-ue to grow at an increasingly slower rate until population growth levels off to about 5% per decade by 2046. It also assumes that the per-centage of total student enrollment living in Blacksburg (on- and off-campus) will stay con-sistent 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%

Applying the BCP growth rates to Chris-tiansburg and the unincorporated area of Montgomery County, in addition to Blacks-burg, produce the following population projec-tions:

Population Projections based on 1980-2000 Growth Trend:

The final set of projections is based on a continuation of the steady growth trend exhib-ited by Montgomery County during the 1980-


2000 time period. Each decade during this pe-riod saw a population increase for the county of approximately 10,000 persons. A continua-tion 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


Applying these growth rates for Mont-gomery 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 devel-oped for Montgomery County to the year 2030. Each is based on differing growth as-sumptions. 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 as-sume that the growth rate of the unincorpo-rated 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 approx-imately 2/3rd’s will continue to be located in the two towns of Blacksburg and Christians-burg.

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 per-sons 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


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 Em-ployment 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 un-incorporated 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 house-

hold = 3,900 dwelling units High population projection (1980-2000


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 Montgom-ery 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, Chris-tiansburg and Radford and within the six Vil-lage/Village Expansion Areas of Belview, El-liston/Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville.

In particular, a range of 3,000-4,200 dwell-ing units is needed in the unincorporated area of Montgomery County to the year 2030. The designated Urban Expansion Areas and Vil-lage/Village Expansion Areas can accommo-date 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


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 commer-cial growth shall be based on official estimates of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Ser-vice of the University of Virginia or official projections of the Virginia Employment Com-mission 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 pro-mote orderly and efficient development of their region and states that “if a town has es-tablished 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 develop-ment 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 compli-ance 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 addi-tion, none of the official sources cited in the

Table 1 - Population Projections * VEC AAGR **

Locality 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2010-2020 2020-2030

Montgomery

County VEC

Projections

73,913 83,629 91,363 96,782 103,24

0.58% 0.65%

Montgomery

County Cen-

sus 2010 Re-

vised Total

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

Unincorpo-

rated 2010

Revised Total

23,589 27,109 30,731 32,554 34,727

* VEC - State Demographer Projections have not yet been updated following the release of the 2010 Cen-

sus 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 peri-

od 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 popu-

lation 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.

Table 1. Population Estimates and Forecasts


legislation address population growth projec-tions 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 estab-lish 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 peri-od 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 in-cludes 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 1 summarizes the population esti-mates based on average annual growth rates derived from the latest VEC projections.

Table 2 summarizes the population projec-tions for the unincorporated areas of the coun-ty, which are considered for UDA designation.

Locality 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Montgomery Coun-

ty Unincorporated 23,589 27,109 30,731 32,554 34,727

Table 2. Population Projections for Unincorporated Areas of Montgomery County

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 ap-

proximately 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 ap-

proximately 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-

Alleghany Springs Road. Photo by C. Valluzzo. Riner Historic District, Riner, Virginia. Photo by staff.


Montgomery County’s vision for the Urban Development Areas is one of connected, self-sustaining communities that offer a mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses; a full complement of public services and facili-ties; 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 Tra-ditional Neighborhood Design. The County, in collaboration with other governmental agen-cies and the private sector, is committed to ensuring that all public spaces in residential and commercial areas within the Urban Devel-opment Areas become increasingly pedestrian friendly through a variety of measures. These measures may include the construction, im-provement, and maintenance of public squares, parks and pedestrian connections, and the attention to street design details such as landscaping, lighting, and provision of attrac-tive street furniture. Residential, office, civic and commercial areas in the Urban Develop-ment Area should have convenient access by foot, bicycle, and transit.

Growth will be directed toward the Urban Development Areas through a variety of in-centives. Such incentives may include but not be limited to density bonuses, reduced applica-tion 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 invest-ment and to support community design in keeping with the traditional design principles outlined in the UDA legislation. Additionally,

public investment in utilities and capital facili-ties may be focused in UDA areas as appropri-ate to promote compact development and to encourage, attract and leverage private invest-ments. Offering such incentives only or pri-marily within Urban Development Areas, in-creases 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 are-as 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 bounda-ries. Transportation improvements within Ur-ban 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 complimen-tary to development within corporate limits. Land Use Policies governing Urban Expansion Areas are found under PLU 1.8.

Villages:

Villages should be predominately residen-tial 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 communi-ties where limited mixed-use development ac-tivity has historically occurred and public utili-ties are available. They are separate and distinct from each other and from nearby towns. Vil-lages have served as and will continue to serve as focal point for surrounding rural areas. Land Use Policies governing Villages are found un-der PLU 1.7.

Village Expansion Areas:

Village Expansion Areas are intended to provide an alternative to scattered rural resi-dential development and to provide an oppor-tunity to enhance the vitality of existing villag-es by providing for compatible expansions of residential and employment uses. Village Ex-

Yellow Sulphur Springs. Photo by C. Valluzzo


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 sew-er and water extensions. Development in Vil-lage 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 develop-ment 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 par-cels 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 com-mercial and/or industrial development:- Fall-ing 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. Ex-


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 Expan-sion Areas or areas of higher density residen-tial 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 tradi-tionally functioned as community focal points. The existing development pattern in these are-as should be preserved. Land Use Policies gov-erning 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 un-

der PLU 1.3 Resource Stewardship Areas:

Resource Stewardship Areas are rural are-

as 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 Stew-ardship Areas are found under PLU 1.2.

FUTURE LAND USE SUMMARY

The primary land use goal in this Compre-

hensive Plan is for "focused growth." This goal directly reflects the comments and recom-mendations 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 recom-mendations from the community survey, the concepts described by "focused growth" were actively debated by several of the citizen work-ing 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, charac-

ter and community focus, and with the basic public utilities and facilities to support future growth. Government & Planning also dis-cussed 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 re-sources that would benefit both current land-owners and future generations.

The next step in the process was taken by Herd Planning & Design. The planning con-sultant considered the comments and recom-mendations and concepts that had been devel-oped to date and shaped a specific set of fu-ture policy area designations for Montgomery County. The Herd report also called for devel-opment of a countywide natural resource over-lay 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 develop-ment 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 densi-ty development. These areas generally include undeveloped properties and infill properties

Cross References and Notes: 2. Please see “Land Use Policies/Designations.”

Herd Planning & Design, 2003. The report is available, upon request, from the Montgomery County Planning Department.


around Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford, and the larger Villages.

The Future Policy Map incorporates sev-eral important assumptions and targets regard-ing future development. They are summarized below:

1. Blacksburg and Christiansburg will continue to accommodate 2/3rd’s of the Future Development with-in 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 resi-dential development will continue to be ac-commodated in the unincorporated areas while the remaining 2/3rd’s will continue to be accommodated in the two towns.

2. Urban Development Areas, Urban Expansion Areas and Village/Village Expansion Areas have the potential to accommodate the 1/3rd of Future De-velopment within Montgomery County that is antici-pated to occur in the Unincorporated Areas:

Urban Expansion Areas including the des-ignated 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 cen-tral 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 re-spective municipalities on the planning and

development of these areas. The six Village/Village Expansion Areas

of Belview, Elliston/Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville are also im-portant to the County’s future. They are sepa-rate 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 facili-ties, and the application of traditional develop-ment 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 vil-lage plan to guide future development.

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 com-pact, mixed use development at urban devel-opment densities and intensities. They are in-tended 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 de-signed to accommodate pedestrian and vehicu-lar 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-

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 Mont-gomery County to accommodate future devel-opment 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 Devel-opment Areas, Urban Expansion Areas, Village/Village Expansion Areas, and Residential Transition Areas.

Urban Development Areas, Urban Expan-sion Areas and Village/Village Expansion Are-as can be provided with the necessary infra-structure, such as utilities, roads, and public facilities, to accommodate future growth and development. Going forward, this will necessi-tate coordination and cooperation between county government, municipalities, residents, and land developers.

5. 20% or less of Future Development within the Un-incorporated Areas is targeted for the Rural Communi-ties, 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 Steward-


ship Areas are a continuation of agriculture, forest uses, outdoor recreational uses, and oth-er natural resource based uses. This continua-tion can only be successful if most develop-ment is successfully accommodated elsewhere.

The County has significant natural features that present constraints to development but that also offer opportunities to develop a sys-

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 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.

PLU 1.1 Planning Policy Areas: Establish boundaries for dis-tinct urban and rural planning policy areas and identify pre-ferred development patterns for each planning area to (i) pro-mote growth where it can be supported by infrastructure im-provements; (ii) maintain existing community character; and (iii) preserve agriculture, forestry, and related uses where most ap-propriate based on natural resources and where existing devel-opment and land use patterns support the continuation of these uses.

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

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 envi-ronmentally sensitive due to topography or unique land charac-teristics. 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)

PLU 1.2.1 Resource Stewardship Area Land Uses:

a. The preferred land uses for Resource Stewardship Areas include agriculture, forest uses, outdoor rec-reational 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 per-mitted, but not encouraged, as a secondary use in Resource Stewardship Areas.

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

d. Non-residential uses, except those incidental to and supportive of agriculture, forest, outdoor recrea-tional or other preferred land uses, will be discour-aged 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 pro-vided the use is compatible in scale and intensity with agricultural and rural residential uses, poses no

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 in-cluded in the Environmental Resource Chapter, including: ENV 1.0 Natural Environ-mental Resources; ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resources; ENV 2.1.1-11 Ap-proaches 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.

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 .


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

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 Re-source 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)

PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Area Community Facilities and Utilities:

a. Future sewer and water service extensions to Re-source Stewardship Areas will be discouraged ex-

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.

c. Transportation access and improvements in Re-source 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 discour-aged in Resource Stewardship Areas.

Cross References and Notes: 5. The sliding scale was included in the new zoning ordi-nance, 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.

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.


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.

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 develop-ments. The County also seeks to maintain existing agricultural uses in Rural Areas.

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

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 com-mercial uses will generally be discouraged in Rural Areas, unless the use is compatible in scale and in-tensity with agricultural and rural residential uses and poses no threat to public health, safety and welfare. (12)

f. The County may permit new non-agriculturally re-lated institutional uses by special exception provid-ed 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 1.3.2. Rural Area Community Design:

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 conser-vation design principles, to preserve on-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space or environ-mental resources. (13)

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: 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 De-velopment. 11. Controlling rural density is addressed in ENV 2.1.9: Urban Growth Boundaries--Urban and Village Expansion.

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 dis-cussed 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 Land-scapes; 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 Bounda-ries; and UTL 1.3 Private Systems.


public health threats or to interconnect existing individual systems. (14)

b. With the exception of public parks, recreation facil-ities, and solid waste collection facilities, Rural Are-as will not be a preferred location for new commu-nity facilities

c. Transportation access is via existing collector high-ways. New rural residential subdivisions should be served by internal streets that connect to existing rural roads to avoid strip development and to mini-mize individual driveway access along existing col-lector highways. (15)

d. The use of private roads will generally be discour-aged in Rural Areas.

PLU 1.4 Rural Communities: Rural Communities are general-ly defined as scattered, small-scale, stable rural residential com-munities of local historic significance. These communities, often located at crossroads, have specific place names and have tradi-tionally 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 com-munities also have limited public sewer and/or water service. The existing development pattern in these areas should be pre-served. (16)

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)

b. Small-scale, civic, institutional and employment uses may be permitted in rural communities in loca-tions 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. Rezon-

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 .

Cross References and Notes: 16. Currently, Montgomery County has 18 rural commu-nities: 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 “being from.” 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 Communi-ties.


ings 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 develop-ment is compatible with adjacent uses and can be supported by existing or improved roads and planned or existing utilities.

PLU 1.4.2 Rural Communities Community Design:

a. New residential development in Rural Communi-ties should be predominately single family residen-tial. Appropriate development densities in Rural Areas should be determined on a case by case ba-sis, depending on existing zoning. In the case of a rezoning, the proposal must demonstrate that de-velopment densities will be of an intensity that is similar to or compatible with surrounding existing development.

b. New development proposed in Rural Communities should be designed to relate to existing community elements and provide logical connections to exist-ing streets, sidewalks and other features. Design elements should includes a generally interconnect-ed 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, his-

toric, scenic, open space or environmental re-sources.

PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities Community Facili-ties 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)

b. With the exception of public parks, recreation facil-ities, 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 com-munity facilities that serve a regional need. (19)

c. Transportation access is via existing collector high-ways. New development in Rural Communities will be designed to access existing roads. Road im-provements 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)

Cross References and Notes:18. Private and individual sewerage systems are ad-dressed 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 Re-view. 20. See TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity for a discussion of transporta-tion considerations in subdivisions and developments.


PLU 1.5. Residential Transition Areas: Residential Transi-tion 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 Com-munities, 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 1.5.1 Residential Transition Area Land Uses:

a. The predominant and preferred land use in Resi-dential Transition areas is residential. The type of residential developments depends upon the loca-tion of the residential transition area and may in-clude single-family detached homes or manufac-tured home parks.

b. The County anticipates residential development of infill properties in existing subdivisions and of un-developed properties with existing residential zon-ing. 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 Resi-dential Transition areas that have built out at devel-opment 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 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 Transi-tion Areas should be clustered, or exhibit other conservation design principles to preserve on-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space, or environmental resources. (22)

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)

a. Future sewer and water service extensions to Resi-dential Transition Areas will be discouraged except to resolve existing public health threats or to inter-connect existing individual systems or when pro-vided by private developers

b. With the exception of public parks, recreation facil-ities, 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: 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 ad-dressed in HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods; HSG 1.3 Safe Neighborhoods; and TRN 1.3 Subdivisions.

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 Re-view, SFY 1.4 New Development, UTL 1.2 Public Systems; and UTL 3.2.1 Consolidat-ed Collection Sites.


does encourage the maintenance, enhancement and where appropriate, the expansion of existing com-munity 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 improve-ments that may affect Residential Transition Areas should be designed to minimize and/or mitigate potential negative impacts on these areas.

PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas: These are "areas of inter-est" 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 bound-aries 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 Pro-cess. The County will develop a planning process to work jointly with residents of each village and sur-rounding 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 Ordi-nance to create mixed use, "traditional neighborhood design" development options that will facilitate com-pact 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 develop-ment and to provide an opportunity to enhance the vitality of existing villages by providing for compat-ible 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 Com-munities; HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods; and HSG 1.3 HSG Safe Neighborhoods.


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

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

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

PLU 1.6.4 Village Expansion Area Community De-sign:

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

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 his-toric character and development pattern of the ad-jacent existing village by becoming a natural "extension" of the existing village. New develop-ment in the expansion areas should relate closely to the existing village and should be an "organic" con-tinuation of the historic fabric of the village. De-sign element should include a generally intercon-nected street network, define open spaces that

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

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

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

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

PLU 1.6.5 Village Expansion Area Facilities and Utilities:

a. Extensions of sewer and water lines from existing villages into Village Expansion Areas will be per-mitted in accordance with the adopted Comprehen-sive Plan Amendment for each village. (29)

Cross References and Notes: 26. Compact development and Traditional Neighbor-hood Designs are addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design; PNG 4.1.1 Livable Com-munities; HHS 2.1: Affordable Housing; HSG 1.1: Affordable Housing.

Cross References and Notes:27. Historic preservation is addressed in CRS 1.1: Histor-ic 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 Envi-ronmental 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.


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

c. Roads serving new development in Village Expan-sion Areas should be designed to tie into and en-hance the existing street network serving the adja-cent village. New roads and road improvements and should be designed to accommodate pedestri-ans as well as motor vehicles, rather than allowing motor vehicles to cause and unsafe and unpleasant pedestrian environment. (31)

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 residen-tial, business, industrial, and institutional use in a traditional de-velopment 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 resi-dents 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 com-pletion, each village plan should be adopted as an amendment to the countywide Comprehensive Plan. (34)

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: Vil-lages 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 Facili-ties; 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.

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 Villages’ role as a focal point for surrounding communities. The importance of com-munity 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 Neighbor-hood 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 Facil-ities; 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, howev-er, 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 Com-munities.


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 fa-cilitate compact traditional design of new projects in Villages and Village Expansion areas.

PLU 1.7.3 Village Area Land Use:

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

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 vil-lage through limitations in scale, height, bulk and operations, as well as provision of buffers. (36)

c. Specific land use recommendations will be devel-oped 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 vil-lages shall be maintained by encouraging preserva-tion of historic structures and preservation of the historic pattern of developed and undeveloped are-as that define the village and its boundaries. (38)

b. New infill development may be appropriate provid-ed it maintains the compact traditional design of patterns of existing villages and provided develop-ment densities are generally consistent with adja-cent properties. mix of housing types may be ap-propriate 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 encour-aged in villages to expand the range of housing op-tions available to County residents. (39)

c. New development in the Village Areas shall con-form to future Village Plans that will be adopted as part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Until such specific plans are adopted, all new develop-ment within the village shall related closely to the existing, historic fabric of the village. Design ele-ments 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

Cross References and Notes: 35. Additional information and guidelines for commu-nity 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 Tour-ism; ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy; and ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initia-tives. 37. Village planning is also addressed in PNG 4.0. Villages and Rural Communities.

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 Communi-ties. 39. Compact design and other forms of traditional neighborhood design are addressed in PLU 3.0 Community Design.


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)

PLU 1.7.5 Village Area Facilities and Utilities:

a. Villages are served by public sewer and water facili-ties. 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 communi-ty facilities and public investments. Additionally, the County supports the maintenance, enhance-ment and where appropriate, the expansion of ex-isting community facilities located in villages. (42)

c. Transportation access to Villages is usually via ex-isting 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 vil-lage road network. (43)

d. New roads and road improvements within a Village Areas should be designed to accommodate pedes-trians as well as motor vehicles, rather than allow-ing motor vehicles to cause an unsafe and unpleas-ant pedestrian environment. (44)

e. Stormwater management plans for new develop-ment should consider the impact of the develop-ment’s storm water on the Village and Village Ex-pansion Area as a whole and provide adequate storm water management facilities which work with the Village’s overall stormwater management plan and requirements. (45)

Cross References and Notes: 40. Context-sensitive street designs and standards is ad-dressed 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: Context-Sensitive Street Design.

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.


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 Ex-pansion 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 1.8.2 Corridor Planning: The County should identify major transportation corridors within Urban Expansion Areas that posses unique potential for resi-dential 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 develop-ment occurring in unincorporated areas of Mont-gomery County.

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 County’s major industrial parks located in Urban Expansion Areas should be expanded. (48)

PLU 1.8.4 Urban Expansion Area Community De-sign: (49)

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

b. The County will encourage high quality residential and non-residential design in Urban Expansion Areas. The County shall evaluate development pro-posals 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 neighbor-hoods. Such new development should be designed to provide a "seamless" transition from the existing development to the new.

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, recreation-al uses into a single development, with strong con-nections between all sites and all uses, especially pedestrian access along the public street network.

Cross References and Notes: 46. Economic development siting and facility require-ments are addressed in ECD 1.3 Future Land Use Requirements (pg.99); ECD 3.0: Loca-tion 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.

Cross References and Notes: 48. Economic development siting and land use require-ments 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: Commu-

nity Design . See, also, footnote #46.


d. The County will encourage the use of development options (cluster, compact, mixed-use, etc. ) that make better use of the land concentrating develop-ment 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 ad-jacent buildings.

e. Development in Urban Expansion Areas will be compatible with and complimentary to develop-ment 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 com-munity 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)

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 mu-nicipalities 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 mu-nicipalities will use cash proffers or other revenue shar-ing agreements to insure that new development in such areas pays its “fair share” of the cost of providing coun-ty 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 plan-ning for areas located close to municipal boundaries.(52) The County will coordinate with the City of Rad-ford, the Town of Blacksburg, the Town of Christians-burg and the NRVPDC on establishing Urban Devel-opment 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.

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 facili-ties related to the provision of utilities. 51. See, also, TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity.


PLU 1.9 Urban Development Areas: Urban Devel-opment 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. Develop-ment within the UDA must be compact, using Tradi-tional Neighborhood Design principles, and designed to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic with a full complement of services and amenities. Develop-ment in the UDA should also provide for transit facili-ties 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 of-fice, retail, service and civic uses, with higher den-sity housing in the core. Development within the UDA should consist of 2-3 story buildings with

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 develop-ment, and 4.0-8.0 du/ac and 0.25 FAR at the edg-es. The sought-after effect being one of a transi-tion away from the taller, denser core area to com-pact, predominantly residential areas. The built form should be compatible with surrounding low-er density development at the edges.

c. Development within the Urban Development Ar-ea 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 County’s rural areas through a network of connected trails and walk-ways.

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 accom-modate a range of development densities and in-tensities 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

Cross References and Notes: 52. Opportunities for cooperation between Montgom-ery 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 Afforda-ble Housing; PRC 1.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration; SFY 1.5 Regional Op-portunities; 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 Man-agement.


for commercial development or any proportional combination thereof

b. The County will encourage traditional neighbor-hood design in Urban Development Areas. The County shall evaluate development proposals in Urban Development Areas to ensure that proposed development is compatible with existing communi-ties and uses and is designed to minimize any nega-tive impact on these existing neighborhoods. Such new development should be designed to provide a "seamless" transition from the existing develop-ment to the new.

c. The County will encourage development of planned, mixed use, pedestrian and transit friendly communities in Urban Development Areas that would combine office, commercial, residential, rec-reational uses into a single development, with strong connections between all sites and all uses, especially pedestrian access along the public street network.

d. The County will encourage the use of development options (cluster, compact, mixed-use, etc.) that make better use of the land concentrating develop-ment away from on-site scenic, natural, historic or open space resources. In particular, the County will encourage residential development designs that pro-vide 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 adja-cent buildings.

e. Development in Urban Development Areas will be compatible with and complimentary to develop-ment within corporate limits.

f. Development in Urban Development Areas should be phased to ensure that an acceptable levels of

transportation service is maintained using all availa-ble transportation modes. New development pro-jects in UDAs should be required to submit an overall concept plan so that the interrelationship of proposed uses (residential, commercial, office, civ-ic, 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 fo-cus for public infrastructure facility investments occurring outside the towns, the City, or the Villag-es. 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 De-

velopment Areas to encourage and facilitate com-

pact, mixed use development.

a. Development applications that employ TND con-cepts will be eligible for expedited review.


b. The zoning code will be revised to provide flexibil-ity and encourage innovative mixed-use develop-ments.

c. Increased density, height allowances, narrower streets, limited parking and smaller setbacks.

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 Expan-sion Areas, Villages, Village Expansion Areas, and the Residen-tial 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 2.0 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 2.1 Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications: All residential rezoning requests will be evaluated using the follow-ing 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 nec-essary 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 ade-quate 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 con-struct 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 trans-portation plan.

6. Pedestrian Access. The rezoning proposal must include pro-visions 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 inten-sities.

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) appli-cations:

a. Percentage of Capital Costs: Proffers for public facilities and amenities will be encouraged for each residential rezoning, and are expected to have a to-tal 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 discre-tion, residential capital facility costs may be estimat-ed on the basis of capital costs for the average unit overall, or on the basis of costs per unit type, differ-entiating 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 quanti-fied.

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 prin-ciples:

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

ii. Consistency of format. The County should develop a consistent format for proffer statements with consistent style and termi-nology 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 maxi-mum extent feasible, proffers should be built or otherwise allocated so as to direct-ly benefit the particular project.

iv. Coordination. Proffers from neighboring


or adjacent developments should be coor-dinated to the maximum extent possible in order to ensure compatibility and con-sistency, and to avoid redundancy and con-flict.

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 ap-propriate 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.

g. Other Types of Proffers: The County proffer guide-lines should also allow for a variety of other types of proffers that will enhance the quality of develop-ment in the County including:

i. Reservation of sites for private, non-profit community facilities;

ii. Phasing of development;

iii. Impact mitigation;

iv. Preservation of special environmental, natural, open space or historic features; and

v. 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 Fea-tures 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 re-quirements 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.


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 includ-ed in the County's Zoning Ordinance.

PLU 3.1.1 Traditional Neighborhood Design Zon-ing Ordinance Amendments: The County will devel-op zoning districts based on the following key principles of Traditional Neighborhood Developments:

a. Organization and Structure:

i. The organizing framework of a TND is to create a walkable community, centered around a core area encompassing one quar-ter mile. This is approximately the distance at which studies have shown that a signifi-cant 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 memo-rable street corner, and/or a prominent civic building (a transit stop can be located at this center). The center may be surround-ed by a mixed-use retail/office core area.

iii. Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the neighborhood center.

iv. Small playgrounds or "pocket parks" are

accessible to all residents.

v. To the extent possible, an elementary school is close enough so that most chil-dren can walk from their home.

vi. Development is located in environmental-ly suitable areas, designed to preserve im-portant environmental and cultural re-sources reinforced through a system of parks and public and institutional uses and, a formal neighborhood governance associ-ation 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 neighborhood’s streets form a con-nected network, providing a variety of pe-destrian and vehicular routes to any desti-nation, 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.

iv. The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees, often with on-street park-ing, which slows traffic, creating an envi-ronment suitable for pedestrians and bicy-cles.

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 cen-ter are reserved for civic buildings that pro-vide sites for community meetings, educa-tion, 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

ii. There is a variety of dwelling types, densities and costs - single family houses, townhous-es, apartments and accessory units -- for all kinds of people, including younger, older, singles, families, lower income, upper in-come, 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 with-in 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).

Montgomery


Adopted: 10/12/04

Planning &Government

Government & Government: Executive Summary

Insert Photo

The Planning and Government chapter provides thebackbone of Montgomery County, 2025 because it definesmany of the central themes expressed by the citizenparticipants during the three year input process leading upto this plan. These themes include cooperation, participation,information, and education.

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 53

Planning and Government: Introduction

Insert Image

Community Survey Results

The community survey asked participantsto rank five planning and government issues:public involvement, public outreach, e-government, local cooperation, and regionalcooperation.

Participants gave “public involvement” thehighest mean score (3.99) of the five governmentrelated issues, with 76% ranking it as eitherimportant (34%) or very important (42%). Only5% of those who responded said it was eitherminimally important (4%) or not important(1%). Those involved in civic (50%), religious(64%), and government (50%) organizationswere more likely to rank public involvement asvery important than were those involved ineducational (37%), geographic (43%), orcommercial (21%) organizations or enterprises.Respondents who had previously participatedin the comprehensive planning process weremore likely to rank “public involvement” asvery important (53%) than were thoseparticipating for the first time (42%).

Participants expressed a wide range of viewsand offer an equally wide range of solutionswhen it came to public involvement. Theirsuggestions included: “aggressive solicitationfor citizens’ help,” creating more publicinvolvement activities, increasing the amountof publicity for local issues, establishing citizenreview boards, conducting educational programs,and creating innovative public forumopportunities to reach and educate communitymembers. One participant noted that the Countyneeds to “foster the flow of info, citizeninvolvement, and access to government andofficials.” Another wrote, echoing others, that

the government needed to “listen to the public,”noting that “people quit voicing opinions andparticipating because most decisions are alreadymade or actually decided by the more assertive.”

Closely related to public involvement wasthe issue of government communication,outreach, education, and information.Participants gave it a mean score of 3.79, with70% of respondents ranking it as either important(35%) or very important (35%). Very few ofthe participants rated it as either minimallyimportant (4%) or not important (1%).

Many of the comments related togovernment communication, outreach,education, and information were either similar

to those provided for public involvement or wereembedded in comments dealing with othersubjects. For example, a number of participantssuggested that the County needed to providepublic information and access to programs to adiverse range of groups: farmers, students,environmentalists, developers, and so on.Participants suggested a broad variety of publicinformation solutions, from developing orupgrading an online GIS, to distributinginformation about wells and septic systems tohome owners, to providing transportation maps,with the bike lanes and bus stops marked, throughthe public libraries and Chambers of Commerce.

E-government, one approach to both public

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


Note: Forty-one issues were included in the “rate this issue in terms of importance” portion of thecommunity survey. A mean score was calculated for each of the 41 issues, as well as for the totalof all issues. Issues with scores higher than 3.65 (the mean for all issues) indicate that the majorityof respondents rated the issue greater importance; a score lower than 3.65 indicates that the majorityof 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; and5=very important. Source: 2003 Community Survey, Montgomery County, Virginia.

Planning and Government IssuesCommunity Survey Results, 2003

involvement and public information generatedthe least support (mean score of 2.83) of all 41issues, with the largest percentage of respondents(34%) ranking it as “moderately important,” ascompared to 34% ranking it either as important(22%) or very important (11%). In some respects,the response to the e-government issue wassurprising given the amount of support for bothpublic involvement and public information. Theresult, however, may reflect a lack ofunderstanding of the term “e-government” byparticipants.

The last two issues included in thecommunity survey dealt with governmentcooperation at the local and regional levels. Ofthe two, local cooperation generated a highermean score (3.97) than did regional cooperation(3.51), with 75% of participants ranking “localgovernment” as either important (31%) or veryimportant (44%). A lower percentage (57%)ranked regional cooperation as either important(25%) or “very important (32%). Interestingly,support for both local and regional cooperationwas higher among Blacksburg residents (80%)than among residents from either Christiansburg(72% for local and 58% for regional) orMontgomery County (72% for local and 50%for regional), although all three jurisdictionsshowed significant support for cooperativeefforts between jurisdictions. Only 5% ofrespondents felt that local cooperation was eitherminimally important or not important. and 11%gave regional cooperation the same rankings.

Citizen comments underscored their interestin seeing the local and regional governmentswork together as a “team.” Participants notedthat they wanted to see better and moreproductive relationships between MontgomeryCounty, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford,and Virginia Tech, and they offered a numberof suggestions, including: “refining cooperativeguidelines between the County and towns;” andimproving cooperative approaches to planningand zoning.

In their comments, participants addressed amuch broader range of issues in than those raised

Mean Score

Public Involvement 3.99

Cooperation Between Towns and County 3.97

Government Communication, Outreach, Education, Information 3.79

Regional Cooperation (Between Counties) 3.51

E-Government Capabilities 2.83

Mean Score for All Issues 3.65

43.93.83.73.63.53.43.33.23.1

32.92.82.7

PublicInvolvement

CooperationBetween Towns

and County

GovernmentCommunication,

Outreach,Education,Information

RegionalCooperation

(BetweenCounties)

E-GovernmentCapabilities

Mean Score for all Issues = 3.65


in the survey, including: providing assessmentson the character and quality of the Countygovernment, the tax structure, and the planningand governing process. Judging from the writtencomments, participants want the planning andgoverning process to be progressive, forwardthinking, practice “out of the box thinking”, “bewilling to change, to look at ...things differently,have a vision,” and “develop [plans] based onconsensus and sustainability.”

Some of the participants felt the Countyneeded to be both more open with and moreaccountable and responsible to the citizens. Oneparticipant wrote that there should be an“eradication of labels like Republican andDemocrat in government--everyone should worktogether for the betterment of the people &environment of Montgomery County...”

Survey participants also commented on theneed for greater diversity in the planning andgoverning process. A number of participantsnoted that the County needed to increaseminority representation in the schools, localgovernment, and other institutions, expressinga concern that issues of diversity were not beingadequately addressed.

Of all of the issues raised in the governmentportion of the survey, none were more polarizingthan the issue of taxes. While a number ofparticipants felt that property taxes were toohigh or needed to be “kept at a reasonable cost,”

more participants wrote that the County shouldraise taxes, but only if necessary and fair.Participants noted, particularly, that the Countyshould “set [the] tax structure to support thegoals,” “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 enforceabletax” structure. As with the comments about thequality and character of government, participantsfelt that the monies they put into the countysystem should be wisely and responsibly spent.

Current and Historical Trends andConditions

Rezonings

On the whole, rezonings remainedreasonably constant between 1990 and 2003,

fluctuating between a low of four (4) in 1992and a high of 17 in 1990 and 2000, with anaverage of 12 rezonings per year.

In rezonings, Montgomery County lost, ata minimum, 2,686 acres of agriculturally zoneland and 185 acres of conservation zoned landsin the years from 1988 to 2002. Of the rezonedland, 64.2% was used for residential purposes:61.7% for subdivisions; and 2.5% for plannedmanufactured housing parks. The remaining35.8% was used for industrial (12.5%) andcommercial (23.3%) uses.

It should be noted, however, that the acreagechange in A-1 zoning does not accurately reflectthe loss of agricultural lands in MontgomeryCounty. According to the USDA’s 1997Agricultural Census, Montgomery County lost5,840 acres of agricultural lands in the yearsbetween 1992 and 1997, representing a decreaseof 5.9%. Prior to 1999, one-half acre lot

Major Planning Efforts: 1990-2004

1990 County adopts Comprehensive Plan1990 177 Corridor planning process begins1990 Work begins on the Huckleberry Trail1991 County begins Capital Improvements Program (CIP)1993 County adopts revised Subdivision Ordinance1994 Rte 177 Corridor Overlay adopted1996 Work on begins on revision Zoning Ordinance1998 Review and Revision of 177 Corridor Plan begins (PDC)1998 Montgomery County joins the Appalachian Regional Commission1998 County is awarded a Virginia Department of Housing and

Community Development Community Improvement Grant tofund the installation of a sewer system in Belview.

1999 Huckleberry Trail Completed (Blacksburg Library to New River Valley Mall)1999 Work begins on the Coal Mining Heritage Park Master Plan

(Radford University). Completed in 2000.1999 County adopts revised Zoning Ordinance, including Sliding Scale2000 County begins work on a new Geographic Information System2000 Work begins on the new Comprehensive Plan2001 County adopts a new Regional Telecommunications Plan2002 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)2002 Work begins on the Community Facilitators Initiative and Community Survey. (Completed,

2003; wins VAPA award for outstanding public awareness, 2004)


subdivisions were allowed, by-right inagriculture (A1). Additional agricultural andforestal lands were lost to “by right” residentialdevelopment (most notably, along BrushMountain) in the Agricultural (A-1) andConservation (C-1) districts prior to theintroduction of sliding scale zoning in the 1999zoning ordinance. While major subdivisionsaccounted for 18.6% of the loss and rezoningsaccounted for 25.7% of the loss, the majorityof the loss came from minor and familysubdivisions (55.7%).

Subdivisions:

Until the 1993 revision of the subdivisionordinance, the County had no effectivemechanism for tracking the subdivision of land.While plat approval was required for majorsubdivisions, including by-right subdivisions,plat approval was not required for minor orfamily subdivisions prior to 1993. Since 1993,major subdivisions have accounted for 6.3% ofnew subdivisions and 21.4% of new lots. Minorand family subdivisions make up the rest. In

the same years, minor subdivisions accountedfor 57% of all subdivisions and 42% of all newlots. Family subdivisions accounted for 36% ofsubdivisions, while creating 20% of all newlots. Since 1993, over 13,000 acres of land havebeen subdivided.

Building Permits and Distribution ofManufactured Housing:

Between 1990 and 2003, MontgomeryCounty issued 5,039 “new construction”

Acreage

Residential 1775.49

Commercial 671.33

Industrial 359.3

Planned Mobile Residential 71.54

Montgomery County: RezonedLand Uses, 1988-2002

Number of Acres Rezoned

Residential 61.7%

Commercial 23.3%

Industrial 12.5%

Planned Mobile Residential 2.5%

323028262422201816141210

864

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

Special Use Permits

Rezonings

Variances

Montgomery County: Rezonings, Special Use Permits, 1990-2003

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Special Use Permits 24 10 7 19 12 14 12

Rezonings 17 8 4 16 15 9 9

Variances 10 9 12 9 13 7 15

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Special Use Permits 18 25 6 14 17 32

Rezonings 13 9 10 17 13 13

Variances 8 13 9 9 18 17

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


Source: Montgomery County Planning Department,2004.

400.00200.00

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

A1 C1 RR R1 R2 R3 RM1 CB GB ML M1 PUDRPUDC PIN PMR

Acreage Changes

Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, 2004

Montgomery County: Rezonings, Changes in Acreage, 1988-2002

Notes:

1. The rural residential (RR) and lightmanufacturing (ML) zones wereintroduced in the 1999 ZoningOrdinance.

A1 C1 RR R1 R2 R3 RM1 CB GB ML M1 PUDR PUDC PIN PMR1988 -163.48 77.40 15.61 70.85 -0.381989 -289.17 43.93 34.62 0.67 53.44 36.20 118.301990 -44.18 -169.80 47.32 111.86 19.62 2.00 0.58 32.601991 -13.36 1.44 1.12 10.771992 -65.80 55.00 2.90 4.40 -2.00 5.601993 -221.40 10.10 5.60 28.00 36.40 -30.20 155.001994 -87.00 -241.00 110.50 186.50 4.30 2.00 24.701995 -56.10 13.90 29.40 1.00 12.601996 -742.20 353.70 363.30 3.60 12.80 2.90 6.001997 -394.00 -15.40 34.40 20.60 119.00 5.00 16.90 215.00 -1.301998 -245.70 42.70 -6.60 2.40 0.40 57.20 0.60 103.00 23.00 40.00 6.101999 -16.90 0.67 9.54 5.982000 -105.64 21.02 17.24 1.49 11.78 52.41 1.692001 -8.50 -2.49 2.50 11.35 1.21 -8.86 4.212002 -232.54 204.62 9.00 -122.71 2.20 9.58 -3.26 13.34 120.00 1.75


Montgomery County: Subdivisions, 1990-2003

Montgomery County: Recorded Plats, 1990-2002 Montgomery County: New Lots, 1990-2002

Source: Montgomery County Planning Department, 2003Notes: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 inthis table.

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

Major Plats 4 12 13 6 5 6 6 7 8 9 7 5 8 67

Number of Lots 76 138 124 21 59 80 139 99 104 182 67 93 146 990

Acreage 47 215 178 344 392 142 343 567 139 346 274 177 239 2,963

Minor Plats 37 37 53 56 52 69 68 55 58 75 560

Number of Lots 64 57 106 101 122 168 99 118 108 157 1,100

Acreage 223 256 500 368 1402 882 366 408 504 1436 6,345

Family Plats 27 37 30 40 37 36 49 46 30 29 361

Number of Lots 32 47 46 52 60 56 66 59 51 39 508

Acreage 88 472 227 189 840 329 196 180 263 223 3,007

Total Plats 4 12 13 212 163 232 292 96 113 126 108 93 112 1,547

Total Lots 76 138 124 117 163 232 292 281 328 347 244 252 342 2,598

Total Acreage 47 215 178 655 1120 869 900 2809 1350 908 862 944 1898 12,315

1301201101009080706050403020100

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

Major Plats Minor Plats Family Plats

3503253002752502252001751501251007550250

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02

Major Subdivisions Minor Subdivisions Family Subdivisions


building permits, including 2,274 permits forsingle-family and multi-family residentialconstruction (41.4%) and 2,518 permits for theinstallation of manufactured housing (49.9%).Of the permits issued for manufactured housing,an average of 47.6% (1996-2003) were forreplacement units, while 52.4% were new unitson new lots. It should be noted that the majorityof new manufactured housing units installedbetween 1996 and 2003 were located on newlots not located in manufactured housing parks;although in recent years, the trend, at least forsingle-wides, has reversed. Since 2000, 67%of single-wides have been placed on new lotsin manufactured housing developments, while90% of double-and triple-wides have beenplaced on new, privately owned lots.

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, thehighest concentrations of manufactured housingare in eastern Montgomery County; the Belview,Plum Creek, and Bethel areas in the westernportion of the County; the Pilot, Rogers andSugar Grove areas of in the southern end of theCounty; and two areas adjacent to Blacksburg(Merrimac and Brush Mountain). Although theCensus indicated that Shawsville and theElliston/Lafayette areas had some of the highestconcentrations of manufactured housing (as apercentage of the total number of housing units)in Virginia, building permit evidence suggests

that the concentration in the village of PlumCreek is much higher (Plum Creek was notincluded as a separate community in the 2000Census).

Since 2000, of the 463 new manufacturedhousing units installed in Montgomery County,39% (181 units) were installed in the Belview/Plum Creek/ Bethel area (Census Tracts 212and 215). In the same period of time, 28 newunits, on new lots, were located in manufacturedhousing parks in Shawsville; and no new units,on new lots, were added in parks in either

Elliston or Lafayette. A total of 56 new unitswere placed on private lots in the same area(Census Tracts 213 and 214--AlleghanySprings, Denhill, Elliston/Lafayette, Ironto,and Shawsville). Of the new units on privatelots, half were single-wides and half were eitherdouble- or triple-wides.

Special Use Permits

Since 1990, Montgomery County hasapproved 122 special use permits. Prior to the

Montgomery County: Distribution of Manufactured Housing,

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census


Montgomery County: Building Permits, 1990-2003

Single-Family Detached

Multi-Family

Manufactured Housing

Commercial/Industrial

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Single-Family Detached 141 141 194 157 211 198 115 123 134 141 113 140 151 131 2,090

Multi-Family 8 5 2 2 1 4 5 7 7 28 1 14 45 55 184

Manufactured Housing 75 103 99 142 168 111 138 207 181 319 319 236 224 196 2,518

Commercial/Industrial 5 4 1 3 6 6 4 9 6 52 35 34 36 46 247

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 TotalSingle Family Detached 141 113 140 151 131 676Single Family Attached 19 0 12 45 42 118

Duplex 9 1 2 0 13 25

Multi-Family 0 0 0 0 0 0

Modular 31 22 38 27 34 152

Mfg. Single-wide 185 154 125 134 109 707

Mfg. Double-wide 103 59 70 62 53 347

Mfg. Triple-wide 0 1 3 1 0 5

Commercial & Gov. 52 35 34 36 46 203

Accessory 88 70 83 58 55 354

Alterations 76 82 87 89 64 398

Additions 88 94 103 97 90 472

Towers 3 19 12 2 4 40

Miscellaneous. 10 18 9 28 7 72

805 668 718 730 648 3569

5505255004754504254003753503253002752502252001751501251007550250

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03


Notes:1. The Multi-Family category in the New Constructiontable includes multi-family, duplexes, and single-familyattached residential housing. The three categories werenot tracked separately until 1999.2. The manufactured housing data on both tables includesnew and replacement single-wides, double-wides, triple-wides, and modular units.3. Since 1999, the commercial and industrial permitscategory includes all permits issued to commercial,industrial, and institutional uses, which accounts for theincrease in commercial and industrial permits.

Montgomery County: New Construction and Manufactured Housing Permits, 1990-2003

Montgomery County: Total Building Permits, ExcludingReinspections, 1999-2003

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Average

New 52.5% 55.9% 53.1% 51.2% 47.8% 57.4% 49.3% 52.3% 52.4%

Replacement 47.5% 44.1% 46.9% 48.8% 52.2% 42.6% 50.7% 47.7% 47.6%

Montgomery County: Manufactured Housing,New and Replacement, 1996-2003


Special Use Permits: Types of Uses, 1990-2002

Approved byPlanning

Commission

Approved byBoard of

Supervisors

Accessory Structures 15 15

Agricultural/Garden Enterprise 3 3

Amusement/Recreation 11 10

Auto Repair/Service/Storage 13 13

Cluster Overlay/ Development 2 2

Commercial/Retail 5 5

Contractor's Storage Yard 9 9

Fraternity/Sorority 3 4

Government Requests 4 4

Home Occupation 3 4

Hospital/Medical 3 3

Industrial 3 3

Manufactured Housing Parks 7 9

Professional Office 6 6

Residential/Residential PUD 6 6

Resort/Bed and Breakfast 2 2

Senior Housing/Facilities 2 2

Storage 4 4

Telecommunication Towers 13 14

Miscellaneous 4 4

118 122

73.9%

21.7%4.3%

1990-1999

87.7%

5.5% 6.8%

2000-2002

Approved Withdrawn Denied

Note: Since the passage of the 1999 Zoning Ordinance, accessory structuresrequiring an SUP have accounted for 22.7% of all special use permits.


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, wasamended, in 2001, to include accessory structureslarger than 850 square feet (since amended to1200 square feet and 18 feet in height ). In 2001

and 2002, the County had 49 special use permitrequests of which 30.6% were for accessorystructures (primarily private garages). Excludingaccessory structures, the two uses that garneredthe most requests between 1990 and 2002,were for telecommunications towers (11.4%)and automotive repair and serviceestablishments (10.6%).

Zoning Variances and Appeals

Between 1990 and 2002, the Board ofZoning Appeals dealt with 131 variance requestsand 19 appeals. While the majority of varianceswere granted (75.5%), the majority of appealswere denied (73.7%). Of the requests forvariances, 77% dealt with setbacks and/orrequired yards.


Montgomery County: Zoning Variances, 1990-2002

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

Density 3 3

Floodplain 1 1 1 1 4

Lot Size/Coverage 1 1 1 1 2 6

Miscellaneous 1 1 1 1 4

Parking 3 1 4

Replacement (Mfg.) 1 3 4

Road Access (VDoT) 1 1 2

Setbacks/Required Yards 4 11 9 8 10 5 13 4 10 8 8 6 5 101

Use 2 1 3

Unclassified 6 6

Montgomery County: Board of Zoning Appeals, Types of Variances, 1990-2002

75.6%

22.9%

1.5%

Variances

10.5%

73.7%

15.8%

Appeals

Approved

Denied

Withdrawn

Variances AppealsApproved 99 2Denied 30 14Withdrawn 2 3Totals 131 19

Note: Variance Requests which asked for more thanone variance (i.e. floodplain and setback, etc.) werecounted in each category, but only one variance. Becauseof this, the total on the table below will not matchthe table to the left.



Public Participation and Civic Involvement

One key method of gauging civicinvolvement is by examining the voting patternsin local elections. While this works for the townsof Blacksburg and Christiansburg, which holdtheir town elections in May, it does not workwhen examining local voting patterns at theCounty level. County elections are part of theGeneral Election held in November, always incombination with federal and/or state elections.Voter participation rises, depending on the levelof government being considered: the highestlevels of participation occur during federalelections; 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 andolder registered and 85% of registered voterswent to the polls. Voter participation has sincedeclined: in 1996 34% of eligible votersregistered and, of those, 74% voted in thepresidential election. By 2000, the number ofregistered voters, who voted, dropped to 66.5%.

Statewide General Elections have followedthe same pattern. In 1994, voter participationpeaked at 74% and have since followed a steadydecline. In the 2002 election, voter participationwas at 42% (although 1999 marked the lowpoint at 41.7%). Statewide elections whichinvolve US Senate and House races generategreater turnout than those elections which haveno federal connection. The one exception to thisare Govenors races.

Local elections, however, do not follow thesame pattern, but voter turnout is significantlylower, ranging from a high of 20.9% in the 2002Christiansburg General Town Election to a lowof 3.25% in the 1998 Blacksburg General TownElection. Overall, the average turnout for TownGeneral Elections has been 15.3%. It is assumedthat county-wide participation in Countyelections would be similar if they were heldseparately from the state and federal elections.

In 1992, Montgomery County held a specialelection on the proposed revenue sharing

Montgomery County: Voter Participation, 1984-2002

Number ofRegistered

VotersNumber Who

Voted % Voting

1984 (P) 24154 19954 82.6%

1985 (G) 23601 13680 58.0%

1986(G) 23439 11814 50.4%

1987(G) 23583 13539 57.4%

1988(P) 26764 21668 81.0%

1989(G) 25326 17449 71.0%

1990(G)(L) 25339 11570 45.8%

1991(G)(L) 25967 10853 59.0%

1992(P)(G)(L) 29343 25028 85.0%

1993(G)(L) 28699 20024 70.0%

1994(G) 29584 21183 72.0%

1995(G)(L) 30088 18081 62.0%

1996(P)(G) 33030 23371 74.0%

1997(G)(L) 35899 17861 49.7%

1998(G) 37582 16620 44.2%

1999(G)(L) 38374 16009 41.7%

2000(P)(G) 41063 27318 66.5%

2001(G)(L) 41689 20154 48.3%

2002(G) 42616 17927 42.0%

Note:1. (P) Federal/Presidential Elections; (G) Statewide, General Elections; (L) Local/CountyElections.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 highof 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 actuallyregistered. That number dropped to 29% by 1997.

Source: Montgomery County Voter Registrar, 2003


referendum for the 177 Corridor Overlay District.Voter participation, for that election, was 8%.

Public Information

In 1999, Montgomery County hired their firstDirector of Public Information and establishedan Office of Public information. In the yearssince, the County has significantly increased the

amount of information available to the public,primarily through the implementation of an e-government website, which provides the publicwith direct access to a wide range of documents,including reports, plans, and minutes, as well asthe more traditional press releases. In addition,the Board of Supervisors meetings are beingbroadcast on the public access station inBlacksburg.

Geographic Information System (GIS)

Although Montgomery County has hadelectronic mapping since the late 1980s, theCounty’s Geographic Information System (GIS)is a fairly recent development and is currentlyunder construction. The County is in the processof integrating geographic, building permit, andland use data into a single package, which, whencompleted, will significantly increase the overalleffectiveness of planning and land use analysisand streamline development and constructionin the County.

Additional Planning Information

Currently, planning information takes threeforms: 1) the Planning Commission publichearing packets, available from the County’swebsite; 2) the Planning Commission newsletter, News and Notes; and 3) the development anddistribution of planning and zoning technicaldata sheets.

Local and Regional Cooperation.

Montgomery County belongs to the NewRiver Valley Planning District Commission,and, more recently, the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) with Blacksburg andChristiansburg. Over the past decade, the Countyhas worked on a number of significantcooperative efforts, including: the MontgomeryRegional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA), theRegional Approach to TelecommunicationsTowers agreement, the New River ValleyCommerce Park, and the Huckleberry Trail.


Government and Planning: Goals

Cross References and Notes: 1. Local and regional cooperation are built into the full extent of this plan. Significantsections addressing local and regional cooperation are included the following: PLU1.8.6 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 WorkforceDevelopment (pg.100); ECD 3.0 Location and Land Use (pg.101); EDU 2.0 LivelongLearning 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 andCollaboration (pg.206); SFY 1.5 Regional Opportunities (pg.198); TRN 1.2Metropolitan 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); UTL1.1 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)

Cross References and Notes:2. As with local and regional cooperation, public participation is one of the keystonesof 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 anumber 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 HistoricPreservation (pg. 81); CRS 3.0 Cultural Facilities and Fine Arts (pg.83); ECD 1.1Montgomery County Regional Indicators Program (pg.); ECD 2.0 WorkforceDevelopment (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 1.0Livable Neighborhoods (pg.189); SFY1.0 Public Safety (pg.197); TRN 1.0 LandUse and Transportation (pg.219); and UTL 3.0 Solid Waste (pg.237).

PNG 1.0 Local and Regional Cooperation: Think regionally inorder to better provide public goods and services more efficiently andeffectively. In many cases this will involve the County workingcooperatively with the two towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburgand possibly Virginia Tech. In other cases this will involve the Countyworking cooperatively on a regional basis with other New RiverValley governments (Radford, Floyd County, Giles County and/orPulaski County) and possibly local governments in the RoanokeValley. (1)

PNG 2.0 Citizen Participation: Increase citizen participation in localgovernment and provide more opportunities for public service. (2)

PNG 2.1 Involving the Public: Promote more active citizeninvolvement in the local government process through the useof innovative approaches and increased education and outreach.(3)

PNG 2.1.1 Citizen Review: Use Citizen AdvisoryCommittees (CACs) to study and evaluate issues andadvise local government decision makers.

PNG 2.1.2 Neighborhood Networks: Use ofneighborhood networks as a tool for providingneighborhoods review and input on planning projects,public input into county issues, and requests to boththe Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

PNG 2.1.3 Community Facilitators Program. Usethe Community Facilitators' Program, established underthe comprehensive planning process to provide citizensgreater input into county issues.

PNG 2.1.4 Community-Based Meetings: Organizecommunity-based meetings, in partnership with existingcommunity organizations, to inform and educate peopleon the issues and to seek their input. Community-basedmeetings should be held at different geographic locationsaround the county.


Cross References and Notes:4. Most, although not all, of the goals included in Montgomery County, 2025 havea public information component. In some cases, the specific approaches require thegeneration and distribution of materials; in other cases the specific approach requiresdistribution of existing materials available from other agencies. While most publicinformation developed by Montgomery County originates from Office of PublicInformation, 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 coordinatorsfor the Montgomery County Public Schools to design programs and classroommaterials which would enhance students' understanding of local issues while workingwithin the existing Standards of Learning framework.6. Citizen Academies are currently used by the Sheriff’s Department, although theapproach could be used to increase interest in other areas of government, includingplanning, parks and recreation, and water quality and monitoring. Citizen academiesare designed to provide members of the general public with a broader range oftraining and knowledge, while increasing the public’s understanding and interactionwith different parts of the governmental process.

Cross References and Notes:7. Multi-use of public facilities recognizes that the public’s ability to use publicfacilities in a variety of fashions contains long-term costs while providing the publicwith greater opportunity, whether it is adult education and job training classes beingheld 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 facilitiesis addressed in CRS 2.0 Montgomery Floyd Regional Library (pg.82); EDU 1.1.2Facilities Renewal Program (pg.116); EDU 1.2.2 New Facilities (pg.116); and EDU2.2 Nontraditional Educational Facilities (pg.117).

PNG 2.1.5 Public Hearings. Hold joint public hearingswith the Blacksburg Planning Commission or theChristiansburg Planning Commission on projectsimpacting both the county and the town.

PNG 2.2 Informing the Public: Inform citizens about howlocal government works, how local government interacts withstate and federal government, and how they can make theirviews known to local government decision makers.

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

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

PNG 2.2.3 Citizen Academies: Use of citizenacademies as a tool for informing the public about howlocal government works. (6)

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

PNG 3.1 Multi-use of Facilities. Develop and adopt acountywide policy for the multi-use of public facilities, includingthose owned by county government, parks and recreation, theMontgomery/Floyd Regional Library, and the MontgomeryCounty Public Schools. (7)

PNG 3.1.1 Multi-use Agreements. Develop and adoptan agreement on the multi-use of publicly ownedfacilities (government buildings, libraries, schools, fireand rescue squad stations, and parks and recreationalfacilities) by individuals and community-basedorganizations, including standardized use regulations,policies, and fee structures.

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

PNG 3.1.3 New Facilities. Require that all new facilitiesbe designed in such a way as to promote andaccommodate multi-use by individuals, governmentagencies, and community-based organizations, incompliance 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:8. The Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities Initiative is also addressedin the Educational Resources Chapter (EDU 1.2, pg.116).

Cross References and Notes:9. Montgomery County, 2025 includes six designated villages: Belview,Elliston/Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville. The village planswill become part of the this plan as they are adopted. Village planning is also addressedin PLU 1.7.1: Village Planning Process (pg.43). Other village and rural communityissues are included in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg.81); EDU 1.1.1 Local andNeighborhood Facilities (pg.116); and PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs(pg.207).10. Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) standards are addressed, in greaterdetail, in PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 67)11. Livable neighborhoods and communities are central to residents’ 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 zoningstandards regarding setbacks and mixed uses), 3. Preserve historic resources (findnew uses for old buildings), 4. Respect local character in new construction (askfranchises and chain stores to fit in, landscape commercial areas, control signs,disguise communication towers), and 5. Reduce the impact of the car (design streetsfor 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 LivableCommunities (pg. 176); HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg.175); and HSG 1.0 LivableNeighborhoods (pg.189).

PNG 3.1.4 Community-Based Schools and PublicFacilities Initiative. Study the feasibility ofimplementing the Community-based Schools and PublicFacilities initiative, based on the Florida and WestVirginia models, which allows for the provision ofgovernment, health and human service based servicesthrough the rural schools and public facilities (Elliston-Lafayette, Shawsville, Riner, Belview, and Prices Fork).(8)

PNG 4.0 Villages and Rural Communities: Retain the viability andcharacter of villages and rural communities found throughout theCounty. (9)

PNG 4.1 Planning Process: Involve residents of villages andrural communities in proactively planning for their future.Village and community residents need to be informed ofplanning tools such as "mixed uses" and "cluster development"in order that they can decide what may or may not be appropriatefor their village/community.

PNG 4.1.1 Livable Communities. Develop policieswhich encourage the adoption of TraditionalNeighborhood Design (TND) (10) and other designguidelines into the design process in order to maintainand produce livable communities. These principlesprovide a framework for and a greater potential benefitfrom cluster, mixed use, and planned unit development,especially in the context of villages and smallcommunities. (11)


Cross References and Notes:12. See footnote #8 for additional references.13. Examples of rural communities in the county are Alleghany Springs, Ellett, LongShop, Lusters Gate, McCoy, Pilot, Graysontown, etc. Planning and Rural Communitiesis addressed in PLU 1.3 (pg.37).14. Corridor Planning is also addressed in PLU 1.8.1 Corridor Planning (pg.45), andTRN 2.4 Access Management (pg.222).

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 Strategiesportion 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 1.3.2Capital Facilities and Funding (pg.198).

PNG 4.1.2 Planning for Villages: Formulate a planningprocess whereby the County will jointly work with theresidents of each village to prepare a village plan toguide their future development. Each village plan wouldbe amended to the countywide Comprehensive Plan.(12)

PNG 4.1.3 Planning for Rural Communities:Formulate a planning process where by ruralcommunities may apply to the County for assistancein preparing a community plan to guide their futuredevelopment. (13)

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

PNG 4.3 Zoning Changes: Review and revise the ZoningOrdinance in order to support the future development ofvillages and small communities.

PNG 5.0 Corridor Planning: Identify areas of the county with uniquegrowth characteristics that are appropriate for corridor planning andplan for them using the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor plan as amodel. (14)

PNG 6.0 Tax Structure and Legislative Changes and Priorities :Reduce County dependence on the local real estate tax, while expandinglocal control of land use decisions and opportunities.

PNG 6.1 Legislative Priorities: Work with the VirginiaAssociation of Counties (VaCo) and the Virginia MunicipalLeague (VML) in their efforts to diversify the revenue sourcesavailable to local governments, while expanding local controlof land use decisions and opportunities.

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

PNG 6.1.1 Planning and Legislative Priorities. Workwith the Board of Supervisors and CountyAdministration to expand planning-based options inMontgomery County, including transfer of developmentrights, an adequate public facilities ordinance, and otherinnovative planning tools.

PNG 7.0 Growth Impact: Use financial options, including cashproffers, as a way to encourage new development to pay its "fairshare" for the impacts of capital facilities costs associated with newdevelopment.

PNG 7.1 Cash Proffers: Develop cash proffer guidelines toaddress County capital facility needs such as schools, parks,libraries and fire & rescue facilities. (15)

PNG 7.2 Capital Improvements Program (CIP): Continuepractice of annually developing a five-year CIP to identifyfuture 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 toapprove APFOs.


CulturalResourcesMontgomeryCounty,2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Cultural Resources: Executive Summary

The Cultural Resources Chapter focuses on three primaryareas:

1) Historic preservation, including public investmentin the development of villages, districts, andcorridors; private investment in individualproperties; and historic tourism.

2) The Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library; and

3) The development and support of cultural programsand facilities.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Cultural Resources 71

Photos by Robert Parker

Cultural Resources provide key quality oflife, educational, and economic opportunities,all of which increasingly play a role whencompanies and individuals judge the suitabilityof an area for relocation or expansion. Inaddition, cultural facilities provide cultural andhistorical continuity for an area or a specificlocale, especially in terms of the preservationof historically or culturally significant structures(e.g. the County Government Center in theImperial Reading Textile Factory and theChristiansburg Institute), districts (e.g. Lafayette,Riner, Shawsville, and Prices Fork), orviewsheds (McDonald's Mill). Cultural andcommunity facilities include historicpreservation and revitalization opportunities,museums and heritage parks, libraries, and finearts and performance venues. While the publicschools also provide significant culturalresources, they are included in the educationchapter rather than the cultural resources chapter.

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS:

Participant comments in this portion of thecommunity survey can be subdivided into sixdistinct areas: Historic Preservation, VisualEnhancement, Cultural Activities and Amenities,Libraries, Cultural Facilities (Fine Arts,Museums, and Performance Venues), andCivic/Community Centers.

It is clear from participant comments thatmany of the participants believe that historicpreservation and the preservation of "history"or "local character" should be promoted and,where possible, aided. Of the participants whoresponded specifically to the community surveys,63% rated historic preservation as either veryimportant or important. An additional 24% ratedhistoric preservation as moderately important.As one participant noted, the county "..needs topreserve our "small town" history & stop

"concreting" everything in sight."Historic preservation represents a double-

edged sword: on the one hand, historic propertiesand districts represent significant cultural assetsboth within the large and small communitiesand in the rural portions of the county; on theother hand, most, if not all, of the properties areprivately owned, often precluding directgovernment-based activities. In addition, historicpreservation often requires that the propertiesbe economically viable enterprises, necessitatingthat the governments allow some form ofeconomic enterprise or mixed use in thestructures 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 localhistoric structures (Black House); "..Developinghistoric areas for tourism and educationalpurposes;" and encouraging revitalization ofexisting structures (note: revitalization commentscan also be found in the economic developmentportion of this report, although the commentsin that section are related, primarily, to the reuseof existing commercial structures). Onerespondent suggested specific approaches localgovernments could take in addressing the issue

Montgomery County, 2025: Cultural Resources


Cultural Resource Issues: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003

of historic preservation:

“ The historic resources of the county arehighly valued in both rural and urbanneighborhoods, and protection/restorationof historic structures is encouraged throughcounty tax incentives, zoning designationsand design standards, grants and awardrecognition for exemplary projects, anddisincentives for neglect and demolitionsuch as fines.”

Related to the issue of historic preservation,as well as the environment and planning, are thecomments addressing "visual enhancement." Inmost cases, respondents who cited visualenhancement as a concern fall into threecategories: 1) those concerned with buffering incommercial and industrial areas; 2) thoseconcerned with neglected properties; and 3)those concerned with the visual "beauty" eitheralong specific corridors or in certainneighborhoods.

One of the common complaints amongresidents, regardless of age, is the lack of "thingsto do" in Montgomery County. Indeed oneparticipant noted that one of the county's goalsshould be: "... diversity of activities for all" andwent on to note that there was "Nothing -Nothing - Nothing for 13-20 year old to dosocially on weekends, if not involved in sports.Lived here 30 years--always been a problem..."It is a sentiment shared by many of the studentswho responded to the student survey as well.Another participant noted that she "would liketo see less migration to Roanoke forentertainment every weekend." Of the surveyrespondents, 67 % rated cultural facilities aseither very important or important. An additional18% rated cultural facilities as moderatelyimportant. As the comments included in thefutures statements and the strategies attest,increasing opportunity and access to culturalamenities is a recurring theme amongparticipants.

The question of who should provide theseamenities, however, is open to debate. A fewparticipants saw the local universities as centralto the provision of cultural amenities andexperiences. Others wanted to see culturalopportunities created outside of the scope ofRadford University and Virginia Tech. As oneparticipant noted, “while the universities offereda broad range of concerts and other culturalevents, the events were passive in thatcommunity members watched the work of othersrather than actively participating in the creation.”

While most respondents who cited culturalfacilities and amenities as an important issuedid so in very general terms (i.e. "increasedcultural opportunities," "interesting culturalactivities," "cultural development," and"excellent cultural centers"), other respondentswere far more specific in their requests, includingan emphasis on fine art venues. In a few cases,respondents suggested combining culturalfacilities and amenities with community centers.The most often cited example was that ofBlacksburg Middle School. Other suggestions


43.93.83.73.63.53.43.33.23.1

32.92.82.72.62.5

Historic Preservation Cultural Facilities Civic Center/Fair Ground

Mean Score=3.65

Issue Mean ScoreHistoric Preservation 3.74

Cultural Facilities 3.72

Civic Center/Fair Ground 2.67


Historic Preservation in Montgomery County


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

Historic Districts in Montgomery County, 2004

included the development of museums, strongsupport for and expansion of the library systeminto rural areas of the county (most notably,Elliston), and performing art venues. As withfine art centers, respondents who citedperforming art venues (including the LyricTheater) also cited the need for either acommunity or civic center or an amphitheater.

CURRENT AND HISTORICALCONDITIONS AND TRENDS:

Historic Resources.

Historic preservation includes thepreservation of historic structures (CambriaDepot or the Do Drop Inn), neighborhoods (EastMain and the Park area in Christiansburg), anddistricts (Riner, Prices Fork, Lafayette,Shawsville, and McDonald's Mill). MontgomeryCounty currently has 10 historic districts, 2historic and archaeological districts, 1 ruralhistoric district, and 54 individual properties inthe Virginia Landmarks Registry and NationalRegister of Historic Places, with one propertypending. The majority of districts and individualproperties were added to the National Registerof Historic Places between 1989 and 1991 as aresult of Gibson and Charlotte Worsham’sReconnaissance Level Survey in 1985-1986


and their subsequent work on district andindividual structure nominations.

In 1985, Montgomery County received aDivision of Historic Landmarks grant to performa Reconnaissance Level Survey to identify thehistorically and architecturally significantbuildings and districts in the county. The survey,had a number of results:

1) It provided the county with acomprehensive history of theMontgomery County and an inventoryand series of quad maps of significantsites and structures; and

2) Led to the designation of 10 historicdistricts in Montgomery County.

The survey included 810 structures built

prior to World War II, 125 of which were deemedsignificant. The survey information has not been updated since 1986, when the Worshams’ finalreport was published, nor is there any indicationof how many of the 810 structures included inthe initial survey are still standing. Structuresand districts built between the beginning ofWorld War II and the mid 1950s are not includedin the county data, although some, like AirportAcres, in Blacksburg (one of the first “plannedcommunities”), should be assessed and addedto a future historic preservation database, asshould structures which meet qualifyingrequirements.

Historic Resources and Tourism.

According to the Virginia TourismCorporation, tourism is the third largest employer(behind business and health services) and thethird largest retailer (automobiles and groceriestake the first two spots) in the state. In 2001, itgenerated $652 million in state revenues and$413 million in local revenues. In addition,211,000 workers were employed in tourismrelated industries, accounting for 4.75% of theVirginia workforce.

Historically, Montgomery County has notactively promoted tourism , although participantresponses to the community survey suggeststrong support for an expansion of the industry,especially in terms of agricultural, historical,and eco-tourism. While tourism does promoteeconomic development’s emphasis onentrepreneurial enterprises and offers additionalopportunities for craftsmen, artisans, and othercreative workers, an expansion of tourism alsomeans a probable expansion of low wage servicejobs.

In Montgomery County, in 2001, tourismgenerated $4,103,295 in state revenues and$1,295,840 in local revenues. A comparison oflocal tourism related tax revenues suggests thatthe amount returned to locales varies a greatdeal. In the New River Valley, in 2001,Montgomery County had the lowest return at


Photo by Bill Edmonds

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

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992Montgomery 960 930 860 940 920Floyd 50 50 60 50 60Giles 280 270 220 210 210Pulaski 250 260 250 220 220Radford 60 70 70 130 140

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997Montgomery 970 1000 940 1020 1070Floyd 70 80 70 90 110Giles 200 210 190 190 200Pulaski 240 260 270 330 300Radford 120 120 120 140 140

1998 1999 2000 2001Montgomery 1133 1136 1159 1218Floyd 111 116 118 131Giles 202 207 217 201Pulaski 314 317 316 320Radford 142 135 139 131

$30,000,000

$28,000,000

$26,000,000

$24,000,000

$22,000,000

$20,000,000

$18,000,000

$16,000,000

$14,000,000

$12,000,000

$10,000,000

$8,000,000

$6,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$01988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford Source: Virginia Tourism Corporation, 2003

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994Montgomery $9,280,000 $9,690,000 $9,320,000 $10,640,000 $10,810,000 $11,590,000 $12,160,000Floyd $530,000 $600,000 $700,000 $660,000 $740,000 $930,000 $1,080,000Giles $2,740,000 $2,810,000 $2,390,000 $2,430,000 $2,560,000 $2,490,000 $2,660,000Pulaski $2,460,000 $2,800,000 $2,730,000 $2,530,000 $2,590,000 $2,910,000 $3,230,000Radford $550,000 $700,000 $750,000 $1,520,000 $1,640,000 $1,440,000 $1,510,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Montgomery $11,700,000 $12,980,000 $14,110,000 $15,514,618 $15,650,000 $16,708,700 $17,689,788Floyd $1,020,000 $1,220,000 $1,600,000 $1,602,875 $1,812,000 $1,925,568 $2,158,648Giles $2,390,000 $2,420,000 $2,730,000 $2,873,077 $2,990,000 $3,267,052 $3,053,789Pulaski $3,390,000 $4,270,000 $4,150,000 $4,385,223 $4,489,000 $4,682,289 $4,784,541Radford $1,540,000 $1,760,000 $1,920,000 $2,137,166 $2,030,000 $2,176,553 $2,066,765

Direct Travel Employment, 1988-2001

%±Montgomery 190.6%

Floyd 407.3%

Giles 111.5%

Pulaski 194.5%

Radford 375.8%

Percentage Increase inDirect Tourism Payroll,

1988-2001


$90,000,00

$80,000,00

$70,000,00

$60,000,00

$50,000,00

$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

Montgomery County

Floyd County

Giles County

Pulaski County

Roanoke County

Radford City

Montgomery County: Direct Travel Spending, 1988-2001

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994Montgomery $48,610,000 $50,460,000 $47,530,000 $48,320,000 $48,950,000 $53,290,000 $55,790,000

Floyd County $3,430,000 $3,990,000 $4,360,000 $4,530,000 $5,360,000 $6,390,000 $6,600,000

Giles County $14,230,000 $14,440,000 $12,870,000 $13,060,000 $13,900,000 $13,680,000 $14,210,000

Pulaski County $13,670,000 $15,660,000 $15,340,000 $15,620,000 $16,740,000 $18,750,000 $19,410,000

Roanoke County $57,740,000 $63,920,000 $61,100,000 $55,330,000 $44,110,000 $64,300,000 $66,710,000

Radford City $2,300,000 $3,040,000 $3,540,000 $7,060,000 $8,140,000 $6,960,000 $7,230,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Montgomery $54,100,000 $58,710,000 $59,880,000 $65,345,989 $67,306,000 $70,961,439 $72,262,387

Floyd County $6,330,000 $8,180,000 $9,800,000 $9,852,165 $10,656,000 $11,185,533 $12,061,175

Giles County $13,140,000 $13,120,000 $13,870,000 $14,446,490 $15,554,000 $16,784,921 $15,090,798

Pulaski County $20,870,000 $25,330,000 $23,920,000 $25,846,852 $27,878,000 $28,715,810 $28,223,643

Roanoke County $72,110,000 $68,540,000 $72,290,000 $69,769,410 $75,253,000 $78,556,839 $82,411,200

Radford City $7,530,000 $8,290,000 $8,470,000 $9,238,918 $8,983,000 $9,510,548 $8,686,349Source: Virginia TourismCorporation, 2003

Note: Direct travel spendingincreased, in Montgomery County, by148.6% between 1988 and 2001. Inthe same period of time, tourism-relatedpayroll increased 190.6%. With theexception of Radford, increases indirect tourism spending led to a greaterincrease in payroll. Interestinglyenough, the number of employees grewat a slower percentage than did payroll,and in some cases there were feweremployees, but a significant increasein both payroll and receipts.

%±Montgomery 148.7%

Floyd 351.6%

Giles 106.0%

Pulaski 206.5%

Roanoke Co. 142.7%

Radford 377.7%

Percentage Increase inDirect Travel Spending,

1988-2001


$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

S1988 L1988 S1991 L1991 S1994 L1994 S1997 L1997 S2000 L2000

Montgomery County

Floyd County

Giles County

Pulaski County

Radford City

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

State Revenue from Tourism Taxes, 1988-2001

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992Montgomery $2,790,000 $2,810,000 $2,530,000 $2,410,000 $2,450,000Floyd $170,000 $180,000 $200,000 $210,000 $250,000Giles $760,000 $740,000 $660,000 $660,000 $710,000Pulaski $710,000 $770,000 $740,000 $760,000 $830,000Radford $120,000 $150,000 $190,000 $350,000 $420,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997Montgomery $2,700,000 $2,840,000 $2,770,000 $3,060,000 $3,280,000Floyd $300,000 $310,000 $300,000 $380,000 $480,000Giles $690,000 $730,000 $670,000 $660,000 $730,000Pulaski $910,000 $950,000 $1,030,000 $1,260,000 $1,230,000Radford $370,000 $390,000 $410,000 $450,000 $490,000

1998 1999 2000 2001Montgomery $3,575,176 $3,711,000 $3,923,616 $4,103,295Floyd $486,143 $557,000 $586,205 $649,140Giles $759,598 $845,000 $914,308 $844,193Pulaski $1,347,021 $1,514,000 $1,564,380 $1,579,031Radford $526,655 $515,000 $547,054 $513,119

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992Montgomery $500,000 $570,000 $590,000 $630,000 $620,000Floyd $370,000 $500,000 $570,000 $570,000 $570,000Giles $390,000 $460,000 $470,000 $470,000 $480,000Pulaski $730,000 $970,000 $1,210,000 $1,190,000 $1,200,000Radford $50,000 $60,000 $100,000 $170,000 $180,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997Montgomery $660,000 $700,000 $670,000 $910,000 $1,090,000Floyd $600,000 $620,000 $630,000 $650,000 $820,000Giles $490,000 $510,000 $490,000 $490,000 $600,000Pulaski $1,270,000 $1,320,000 $1,350,000 $1,410,000 $1,680,000Radford $170,000 $170,000 $170,000 $190,000 $220,000

1998 1999 2000 2001Montgomery $1,191,672 $1,212,000 $1,282,890 $1,295,840Floyd $861,208 $902,000 $951,047 $1,017,202Giles $640,899 $679,000 $735,933 $656,302Pulaski $1,762,473 $1,909,000 $1,975,329 $1,925,766Radford $230,323 $229,000 $243,687 $220,768

Local Revenue from Tourism Taxes, 1988-2001

1990 1995 2000

Montgomery 0.23 0.24 0.33

Floyd 2.85 2.10 1.62

Giles 0.71 0.73 0.80

Pulaski 1.64 1.31 1.26

Radford 0.53 0.41 0.45

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

Source: Virginia Tourism Corporation, 2003


.32, while Floyd County had a return of $1.57in local revenue for every $1.00 in state revenue.The difference in state and local tax revenues,despite local earnings, may have more to dowith the types of businesses and the primarytourism attractions. Much of MontgomeryCounty’s current tourism industries centers onVirginia Tech, which does not generate revenuesfrom on campus activities.

The tourism industry employed 1,218workers, or 2.1% of the local workforce, andgenerated a payroll of $17,689,788(approximately $14,520 per worker). Whiletourism is often touted as an important part ofa sustainable economy, evidence suggests that

many of the jobs created by tourism are eitherlow wage, part-time, or both.

Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library.

The Montgomery-Floyd Regional Librarycurrently has two libraries in MontgomeryCounty, located in Blacksburg andChristiansburg, with an additional library,serving the eastern portion of the county, slatedto be developed in the former MeadowbrookNursing Home facility in Shawsville. Thelibrary system represents a critical and centralcultural resource in Montgomery County,providing a diverse range of opportunities,from book clubs and reading groups to familynight activities.

Since 1999, the Montgomery-FloydRegional Library has seen increased usage.Circulation per capita grew from 5.36(481,453) to 5.74 (559,846) in 2002. In thesame period of time, the materials per capita(1.97 to 2.02) has also increased, as has thenumber of visits per capita (from 3.12 to 3.63).Between 1999 and 2002, the overall operatingexpenditures increased 24%, despite limitedbudgets.

This said, the Montgomery-FloydRegional Library still falls well behind thestate averages, although it meets or surpassesbenchmark expectations. For operating

expenditures, Montgomery and Floyd Countiesspent $20.85 compared to the state average of$27.38. The benchmark for expenditures forlibraries similar to the Montgomery-FloydRegional Library is $14.73, a figure that hasnot risen since 1999. Similar patterns show upwhen looking at materials and visits per capita.However, in circulation per capita and turnoverrate per capita, the Montgomery-Floyd RegionalLibrary surpasses both the state median and theestablished median benchmark.

Cultural Facilities and Programs

Currently, Montgomery County contributesfunding to a number of cultural organizationsand institutions, including the Lyric Theater,Montgomery Museum (Pepper House),Smithfield Plantation, and the High StreetCommunity Center, which is housed in the OldChristiansburg Institute building adjacent toSchaeffer Memorial Baptist Church. In addition,Montgomery County provides significant galleryspace for area artists in the County GovernmentCenter. The Montgomery County Parks andRecreation Department continues to offer accessto cultural programming, especially throughtheir seniors program.



7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

5.36 5.05 5.15.74

5.23 5.1

1.972.74 3.1

2.02

3.44 3.1 3.12 3.42 33.63

6.23

3

Circulation,1999 Circulation, 2002 Materials, 1999 Materials, 2002 Visits, 1999 Visits, 2002

MFRL

VA Median

Med. Benchmark

Montgomery-FloydRegional Library: percapita user rates, 1999and 2002.

Source: Montgomery-FloydRegional Library, 2003

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

Total

Operating

Expenditures

1999 $1,626,432

2000 $1,720,308

2001 $2,099,305

2002 $2,032,622

MFRL

VA Median

Med. Benchmark


MFRL VA MedianMed.

Benchmark

1999 $18.09 $17.35 $14.732000 $18.76 $18.70 $14.732001 $21.53 $20.86 $14.732002 $20.85 $27.38 $14.73

$28.00$27.00$26.00$25.00$24.00$23.00$22.00$21.00$20.00$19.00$18.00$17.00$16.00$15.00$14.00

1999 2000 2001 2002

CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation Goal: Promote the preservation ofthe historical and cultural integrity of the built and natural environment,including individual structures, districts, and historically significantlandscapes and viewsheds. (1)

CRS 1.1 Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors: Developand revitalize historically significant districts, villages (Riner,Prices Fork, Lafayette, Elliston, Shawsville, and Merrimac),and corridors (US 460/Rt 11 and Catawba).

CRS 1.1.1 Certified Local Government Program.Establish a countywide Certified Local Governmentprogram, as outlined under the Historic PreservationAct of 1966, including maintaining and updating theinventory of historic structures in Blacksburg,Christiansburg, and Montgomery County. Establishinga countywide Certified Local Government programwould require a cooperative effort between MontgomeryCounty, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg, as well as theCity of Radford. (2)

CRS 1.1.2 Historic Signage. Establish a systematicprogram, through the Department of Historic ResourcesLocal Marker program, to provide historic markers,town markers, and appropriate historical signage, aswell as an online and printed guide to the local markers,throughout Montgomery County, Blacksburg, andChristiansburg, in order to preserve the history of thearea and promote the development of a viable history-based tourism industry. (3)

CRS 1.1.3 Historic Villages and Rural Communities.Maintain the viability and historic character of existingvillages and rural communities by encouragingpreservation of historic structures and preservation ofthe historic pattern of developed and undeveloped areasthat define the villages, rural communities, and theirboundaries.(4)

CRS 1.2 Preservation of Individual Properties. Promotethe historic preservation of individual structures by providinglocal technical assistance to local landowners and developers.

CRS 1.2.1 Historic Preservation Easements. Targetspecific areas of the county for conservation and historicpreservation easements, allowed under the VirginiaHistoric Preservation Easement Program (1996), therebypreserving both historic structures and districts bypreserving the context in which they are situated andby affording long-term legal protection.

CRS 1.2.2 Regional Survey of Historic ResourcesDatabase and GIS Layers. Provide direct access toinformation on individual properties, withinMontgomery County, to property owners byestablishing, maintaining, and updating the CountySurvey of Historic Resources GIS database. (5)

CRS 1.2.3 Public Information. Provide publicinformation on historic preservation and historicpreservation easements to individual landowners anddevelopers, including access to forms and a list of localpreservation and easement specialists.

Cultural Resources: Goals

Cross References and Notes:1. Issues surrounding historic preservation are also addressed in the Planning andLand Use Policies (pages 35-50), specifically PLU 1.2.1 (f), PLU 1.3.2(b), PLU1.4.2(d), PLU 1.5.2(b), PLU 1.6.4(d), PLU 1.7.4(a), and PLU 1.8.4(d). Flexible roadstandards is addressed in TRN 1.5 (pg. 221).2. The Certified Local Governments Program, established under the Federal HistoricPreservation Act (1966) is administered by the Virginia Department of HistoricResources (DHR). Program requirements and benefits are available from the DHR.3. State provisions for historic markers are included in sections 10.1-2209 and 10.1-2210 of the Code of Virginia.


Cross References and Notes:4. Land use policies for rural communities, villages, and village expansion areas areincluded 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 resourcesin Montgomery County in 1986. The survey culminated in the designation of 10historic districts throughout Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg,including four village districts in the unincorporated portions of the County. Thesurvey has not been updated since the initial survey. The initial database would bebased on the Worsham survey.

CRS 1.2.4 Preservation Incentives: Density Bonuses.Provide incentives, including density bonuses, todevelopers to encourage the preservation of significanthistoric structures and viewsheds on property slatedfor development.

CRS 1.2.5 Preservation Incentives: Taxes. Proactivelypromote historic preservation by education landownersabout the various state and federal tax benefits forhistoric preservation. Provide tax incentives, includinga historic preservation land use tax program, whichwould allow for a reduction in real estate taxes forstructures and properties which contribute to historicdistricts or viewsheds.

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

CRS 2.0 Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library: Provide increasedaccess to high-quality library facilities throughout MontgomeryCounty. (7)

CRS 2.1 New and Existing Facilities and Programs. Provideadequate public library facilities, based on population growthtrends and need, throughout Montgomery County.

CRS 2.1.1 Library Facility Standards. Work withthe Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library Board toestablish a set of criteria for determining future physicallibrary needs, including the resiting and upgrade ofexisting facilities and the siting of new facilities.

CRS 2.1.2 Public Information: Events and Programs.Establish a countywide public-information approachto the provision and promotion of library-based culturaland educational events and programs (special readings,art shows, book clubs, literacy and adult educationprograms, etc.).

CRS 2.1.3 Public Information: Technology. Workwith the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library Boardto develop a library-based technology plan that willprovide increased open access to technology-basedpublic information, including: the provision of local,wired, public meeting rooms where citizens can watchand participate in public meetings; greater public web-access; and increased electronic access to governmentforms, reports, and other documents.

CRS 2.1.4 Library-Based Community Space. Workwith the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library Boardto develop of community meeting space in existingfacilities and the design community multi-use facilitiesin new and rehabilitated facilities.

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

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


CRS 3.0 Cultural Facilities & Fine Arts: Provide increased accessto and support of cultural facilities and opportunities, including bothpublic and private museums, fine arts facilities, and performing artsvenues.

CRS 3.1 Cultural Facilities, Programs, and Events. Workwith local organizations to provide increased cultural displays,programs, and events at publicly-owned venues, including theCounty Government Center, Coal Mining Heritage Park andScience Center, parks and recreation facilities, and schoolfacilities.

CRS 3.1.1 Public Gallery / Exhibition Space.Continue to provide gallery / exhibition space for localartists and artisans. Montgomery County currentlyprovides publicly accessible gallery and exhibitionspace in the County Government Center, through acooperative arrangement with the Blacksburg ArtsCouncil, for local artists and artisans.

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

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).

CRS 3.2 Heritage Parks & Trails System. Continue todevelop the of Heritage Parks and Trails System to connectpublic, nonprofit, and private heritage and cultural sites ornodes (Coal Mining Heritage Park at Merrimac and the FarmHeritage Park at Riner), while providing venues for localcultural events (Coal Mining Heritage Day, Riner HeritageDay, etc.), artisans (an artisans' market), and performers (smallperformance and demonstration facilities) celebrating elementsof Montgomery County's heritage. (8)

CRS 3.2.1 Coal Mining Heritage Park. Continue toimplement the master plan for the Coal Mining HeritagePark, in partnership with the Coal Mining HeritageAssociation and other interested individuals andorganizations.

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

CRS 3.2.3 Farm Heritage Park. Create a master planfor 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 AgriculturalExtension Service.



EconomicResources

Adopted: 10/12/04

Economic Resources: Executive SummaryThe economic resources chapter focuses on four primary goals:

1) Land use and quality of life, including establishinga quality-of-life indicators and benchmarking program;

2) Workforce development, including vocational andtechnical training and retraining;

3) Location of economic resources and the quality ofdevelopment; and

4) Developing, attracting, and retaining economicresources.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Economic Resources 85


Ask county residents to define “economicdevelopment,” and the number of definitionsare likely to be as numerous as the responses.However, the definitions touch on commonthemes: the abundance and quality of jobs; thequality of development, including environmentalimpacts and location; wages; and the impact ofeconomic development on quality of life.

As with other issues, economic developmentstrongly interlocks with many of the other issuesfacing Montgomery County in the future,including affordable housing, environmentalquality, education, transportation, and utilities.The quality of jobs and the wage scale impactthe ability of individuals and families to affordhousing; the quality of education and strengthof workers’ skill sets directly influences thequality and range of industries likely to eitherrelocate to or start up in the county; and theavailability of sites and the presence ofinfrastructure dictate the location and amountof business growth in Montgomery County.


Participants were asked to rank a series offive 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 lesssupport for commercial and industrialdevelopment than for agricultural, high tech,and tourism development. The future statements,on the other hand, indicated a much higher levelof support for both industrial and commercialgrowth.

Industrial growth had a mean score of 3.07,Participants indicated that they wanted to seeindustrial development, but they wanted to seeit sited in either existing industrial parks or inareas which were already industrialized. Inaddition, they wanted the industrial development

to be environmentally friendly while providingquality jobs and higher wages. With a coupleof notable exceptions, most wanted to seeindustrial areas kept out of the more ruralportions of the county and away from existingresidential areas. In short, they wanted theindustrial areas defined and, at least to somedegree, limited. While a several respondentsnoted that industrial development could meanimproved wages and an increased tax base,more respondents expressed concern overpotential environmental impacts and the need

for a clear separation of land uses. Finally, anumber of participants saw industrial growthas a means of keeping local youth from movingaway by providing quality job opportunities.

The mean score for commercial growth(3.06) was similar to that of industrial growth. While few respondents noted specificcommercial enterprises they would like to seedeveloped in the County or suggested theexpansion of existing commercial areas, morerespondents wanted to either limit commercialdevelopment or redirect commercial

Economic Resources: Introduction


development into downtown areas or existingcommercial structures (redevelopment andrevitalization). There is, however, a distinctexception to the view that commercial growthshould be contained: a number of participants,in discussing compact developments, suggestedan emphasis on mixed use in plannedneighborhoods.

High-tech (3.59), agricultural (3.29), andtourism (3.25) growth received higher scoresthan either industrial or commercial development,although none of the three garnered as manycomments as either industrial or commercialdevelopment. A number of participants felt thatMontgomery County and the New River Valley

should be made more "tech friendly." In orderto encourage high tech growth, respondentsmade a number of suggestions, including: 1)improving high tech infrastructure; 2) providingincentives to high tech firms willing to locatein the area; 3) working with Virginia Tech toencourage the expansion of high tech industries;and 4) encouraging the growth of local industries.One factor that accounts for the favorablecomments for high tech growth is the belief thathigh tech industries are cleaner and moreenvironmentally friendly than more traditionalindustrial developments. As with industrialdevelopment, some respondents saw high techgrowth as a way of bringing in both quality jobs

and higher wages.Participants written comments indicate broad-

based support for both the continuation ofagriculture as a going concern in MontgomeryCounty and the expansion of specific forms oftourism, most notably those focusing on theenvironment, agriculture, or history.

As reflected in the economic developmentgoals, the community survey respondents andthe economic development work groupvolunteers agreed on the need for developing aholistic approach to economic development thatfocused on individual, group, and communityasset formation as a means of increasing boththe quality of economic development and thequality of life in Montgomery County.

Comments from the two open-endedquestions fell into seven distinct categories: 1)general comments concerning the need for orthe lack of need for increased economicdevelopment; 2) appropriate locations foreconomic 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, includinghistoric preservation; 6) the need for designstandards for industrial and commercial areas;and 7) environmental concerns primarily relatedto industrial development.

Participants discussed social issues relatedto economic development (including the currentand future level of wages and quality of jobs);environmental concerns (the need for cleandevelopment); the need for increased workertraining and retraining; and the creation andimplementation of design standards forcommercial and industrial sites. Indeed, theoverwhelming majority of comments, regardlessof subcategory, either directly cited or impliedthe need for quality development--that is,development that has a low impact on both thenatural and man-made environments; pays, atleast, a living wage; and provides increasedopportunities to current and future Montgomery


Commercial Industrial Tourism Agriculture High Tech All Issues

3.65

3.6

3.55

3.5

3.45

3.4

3.35

3.3

3.25

3.2

3.15

3.1

3.05

Mean Score

Commercial 3.06

Industrial 3.07

Tourism 3.25

Agriculture 3.29

High Tech 3.59

All Issues 3.65

Economic Development Issues: Mean Scores, 2003


1990 2000

Total full-time/part-time emp. 49643 55769

Wage and salary emp. 43519 48927

Proprietors employment 6124 6842

Farm employment 728 728

Private Sector 33788 38995

Public Sector 15127 16046

1970 1980

Total full-time/part-time emp. 28821 38403

Wage and salary emp. 26327 34742

Proprietors employment 2494 3661

Farm employment 974 827

Private Sector 19690 25466

Public Sector 8157 12110

County residents. As one participant noted:

The county needs a plan to attract goodjobs to C'burg & B'burg. These jobswould include management, technical,computer, etc. The county needs to beable to provide good jobs for its collegegrads. We have plenty of minimumwage low end jobs. How aboutattracting businesses w/tax incentivesto land regional, or corporateheadquarters here?

Along with improving the quality of jobsand wages, some participants also suggestedexpanding adult and teen educationopportunities, especially in tech related fields.One participant suggested "Educate singleparents with affordable education to improveincome;" while another participant suggested"more vocational opportunities for highschoolers who do not have a focus on academia."

CURRENT AND HISTORIC CONDITIONSAND TRENDS

Anyone who spends time examiningeconomic development trends since 1970 islikely to be struck by the changes in where andhow we work, the kind of job market we arefacing, the kinds of skills we bring to the job,and what we receive in return. Indeed, theeconomic landscape around the county, as withthe rest of Virginia, has undergone radicalchanges in the past 30 years, most notably inthe loss of manufacturing as the primaryemployment category in the private sector andthe impact that loss has had on the overallearnings of workers who live and/or work, inMontgomery County.

Public & Private Sector Employment

The percentage of public and private sectorjobs in Montgomery County has not changedin thirty years. In 1970, the public sector

Distribution of Non-Farm, PrivateSector Employment, 1970-2000

Montgomery County: Employment, 1970-2000

1970 1980

1990 2000

Construction

Manufacturing

Retail trade

Finance, insurance,and real estate

Services

Other

5750055000525005000047500450004250040000375003500032500300002750025000225002000017500150001250010000

750050002500

01970 1980 1990 2000

Total full-time and part-time employment

Wage and salary employment

Proprietors employment

Farm employment

Private employment

Government and government enterprises


400.0%

350.0%

300.0%

250.0%

200.0%

150.0%

100.0%

50.0%

0.0%

-50.0%

-100.0%% Change in Number of Jobs, 1970-2000

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

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

1970 1980 1990 2000

Total full-time and part-time employment 28821 38403 49643 55769

Nonfarm employment 27847 37576 48915 55041

Private employment 19690 25466 33788 38995

Construction 1354 1778 2201 2464

Manufacturing 10052 8970 9782 7826

Transportation and public utilities 630 766 636 990

Retail trade 3257 5404 8868 10423

Finance, insurance, and real estate 743 1830 2318 2505

Services 3225 5987 9022 13244

Government and government enterprises 8157 12110 15127 16046

State and local 7368 11428 14113 15113

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle

Alleghany Chesterfield

Henrico

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe

CarrollPatrick Henry

Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceEdward

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland

North- umber- landHighland

Amelia

NottowayDimwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews

MiddlesexNorth-ampton

Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Roanoke

% Change inManufacturingEmployment,

1970-2000

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

Manufacturing jobs increased by8.9% in Virginia between 1970and 2000, while manufacturingjobs decreased in MontgomeryCounty by 22.1% in the sameperiod of time.

New River ValleyCounties Used as Comparison

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2004.The BEA combines Montgomery County andRadford city data. According to the VirginiaEconomic Development Partnership, themanufacturing sector, in the 3rd Quarter of 2002,employed 5,594, representing 14.9% of the overallworkforce (including public and private sectoremployers).


accounted for 30% of the jobs in the county. In2000, the public sector still accounted for 30%,leaving 70% of the jobs provided by the privatesector.

Industries and Occupations.

In 1970, slightly more than half of theprivate sector jobs (51.1%) in MontgomeryCounty were in manufacturing. Although thenumber of manufacturing firms has increasedin the past 30 years, the number of manufacturingjobs has steadily decreased.

In 1970, manufacturing centered on threeprimary industries: high tech (Poly-scientific,Electro Tec, and Corning), textile (ImperialReading), and defense.

Of the private sector firms, the RadfordArmy Ammunition Plant (Hercules) was by farthe largest employer, although the employmentlevels, since the construction of the plant in the1940s, have fluctuated rather dramatically basedon the level of US military action at any giventime. In 1970, the Radford Arsenal, whichproduced much of the rocket propellant used inthe Vietnam War (as well as Korea and WorldWar II), was in full swing and providedmanufacturing jobs to workers who lived as faraway as southern West Virginia and NorthCarolina.

In 1996, control of the Radford Arsenalshifted from Hercules to Alliant Techsystems,and there has since been an increased emphasisin privatizing the facilities and encouraging thegrowth of non-defense related uses (GrucciPyrotechnics). According to the Roanoke Times,in the eight years prior to Alliant Techsystemstakeover of the RAAP, the arsenal lost 8,600jobs. In the aftermath of September 11th, 2001,the military presence and defense relatedproduction at RAAP have increased. However,as the numbers from the Virginia EconomicDevelopment Partnership indicate, the level ofcivilian/private sector employment is well belowprevious levels and the 8,600 jobs thatdisappeared in the late 1980s and early 1990s

have not been replaced.While defense-related work still plays a

significant manufacturing role in MontgomeryCounty, the textile industry has disappeared,replaced by a growing emphasis on technologyand truck/automotive related industries. Withthe exception of Imperial Reading, whosebuilding has since been renovated toaccommodate the needs of the Countygovernment, the major manufacturingemployers in Montgomery County in 1970remain some of the major employers in 2000,joined by a number of new, large-scalemanufacturing firms, including Rowe Furniture,Hubbell Lighting, Federal Mogul, Eagle PicherIndustries (Wolverine Gasket), and C&S DoorCorporation.

The majority of the new manufacturingfirms are located in the four industrial parks(Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Elliston-Lafayette,and Falling Branch), all of which were createdsince 1980. In addition, there are an increasednumber of small firms, including over 100technology, environmental technology, andbiotechnology firms located in the Virginia

Tech Corporate Research Center. The creationand expansion of these small, locally-createdfirms are likely to lead to the future expansionof manufacturing in Montgomery County.

Service and Retail Sector Employment.

While manufacturing jobs have decreased,jobs in the service and retail sectors havesubstantially increased. In 1970, the servicesector accounted for 11.6% of overall non-farmemployment and 16.4% of private employmentin Montgomery County and the City of Radford.Retail jobs accounted for a similar percentage:11.7% of overall non-farm employment and16.5% of private sector employment. In 2000,service industry jobs accounted for 34% ofprivate sector jobs (24.1% of non-farmemployment) and retail climbed to 26.7% ofprivate sector employment (18.9% of non-farmemployment).

Although the increase in retail and servicejobs signals a greater diversification of the localeconomy, the jobs, especially those in retail andin personal, food, entertainment, and lodging

Montgomery County: Major Manufacturing Employers, 2002

Employer Type of Industry Number ofEmployees

Alliant Techsystems, Inc. Explosives 1,000 to 1,499Litton Poly-Scientific Fiber Optics/Security Products 600-999Rowe Industries, Inc. Furniture 600-999Eagle Picher Industries Automotive Gaskets 300-599Federal Mogul Corporation Engine Bearings 300-599Hubbell Industries Lighting Fixures 300-599C&S Door Corporation Doors and Blinds 100-299Corning, Inc Ceramic Fibers 100-299Electro Tec Corporation Motors & Generators 100-299

Virginia Economic Development Partnership, 2002






2.202.001.801.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00

Montgomery Co

Albemarle Co

Augusta Co.

Hanover Co.

Rockingham County

Spotsylvania

Stafford

Management,Professional& RelatedOccupations

ServiceOccupations

Sales &OfficeOccupations

Construction,Extraction, &MaintenanceOccupations

Production,Transportation,& MaterialsMovingOccupations

Above 1.30. Significantly Higher% of Workers in

Occupation1.11 to 1.30 Moderately Higher

% of Workers inOccupation

.91 to 1.10 % of Workerswithin Range

of State Average(Mean)

.70 to .90 Moderately Lower% of Workers inOccupation

Below .70 Significantly Lower% of Workers inOccupation

Distribution of Occupations in Montgomery County:Comparison To Other Jurisdictions,

Based on Ratio to State Average, 2000. (State Mean=1.00)

Montgomery Albemarle Augusta Hanover Rockingham 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


services,, pay substantially less than those inmanufacturing, 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 servicesectors in Montgomery County may be viewedwith some concern, it is important to note thatthe rise in these two sectors also indicates adiminished dependence, in the same period oftime, on the Roanoke Valley. This is especiallytrue in professional services and in large-scaleretail. The reliance on Roanoke and the RoanokeValley meant that funds earned in MontgomeryCounty were exported to neighboringjurisdictions rather than being spent locally andadding to the local tax base. The developmentof the local service and retail industries meantthat not only did we stop exporting local monies,but we started importing monies from otherjurisdictions.

Service Sector:

According to the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, statistics for 2000 and before arebased on the Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) system. Numbers for 2001 and later arebased on the North American IndustryClassification System (NAISC). Although thereare some similarities between the two systems,there are enough significant differences to makedata comparison between the two problematic.The SIC system, which was the basis for thedata included in this report, defined the serviceindustry as:

“...establishments primarily engaged inproviding a wide variety of services forindividuals, business and governmentestablishments, and other organizations.Hotels and other lodging places;establishments providing personal,business, repair, and amusement services;health, legal, engineering, and otherprofessional services; educationalinstitutions; membership organizations,

and other miscellaneous services, areincluded.”

The increase in the service and retail sectorsis clearly connected to the creation andsubsequent expansion of the mall area in northernChristiansburg, but the expansion of the servicesector goes beyond the jobs created in the hotel,restaurant and fastfood, and the entertainmentindustries. The construction of the new CarilionHospital and expansion of medical servicesadded additional service sector jobs in theCounty, as did the shift of mental health servicesjobs from St. Albans, in Pulaski County, to thenew Carilion facility. Call centers, like Echostar’stechnical support center in the Falling BranchIndustrial Park, added additional jobs to theeconomic landscape in the county. Professionalservices, including law and engineering,expanded as the population expanded and as theneed for those services increased. Finally,consulting based firms at the Virginia TechCorporate Research Center, including WastePolicy Institute, added a large number of highpaying jobs in the County’s service sector.

Retail Sector.

Expansion of retail service in the past 30years can be tied, almost directly, to theexpansion and promotion of the mall area ofChristiansburg as the “New River Valley’sDowntown.” The creation and expansion of themall area can also be tied to the diminishedpresence of medium scale retailers in bothBlacksburg and downtown Christiansburg. In1970, both Blacksburg and Christiansburg hadchain retail outlets in their downtown areas:Roses in downtown Blacksburg, Leggetts indowntown Christiansburg. By 2000, the chainretail stores were concentrated in the areasurrounding the intersection of Rt. 114 (PeppersFerry Road) and US 460.

The creation of the mall area also created ashift in purchase patterns in the region. In 1970,if you lived in Giles, Pulaski, or Montgomery

Counties for example, you drove to Roanokeif you wanted to visit large scale retailers (Sears,Penneys, etc.). After the development of theNew River Valley Mall, and the subsequentexpansion across both 460 and Rt 114, residentsin Montgomery County and the surroundingarea need not spend a day going down toRoanoke.

The development and expansion of the mallhad four distinct effects: 1) the expansion ofrevenue from sales taxes; 2) increasedconcentration of traffic at the Rt. 114/US 460intersection; 3) increased number of relativelylow-paying retail based jobs; and 4) the loss ofsmaller retail outlets and the loss or shift of jobsin outlying areas (including retailers like Catosin Pearisburg) due to the closer proximity oflarger retail outlets marketing lower cost goods.

It should be noted that although MontgomeryCounty has seen a tremendous increase in thenumber of service and retail sector jobs, and acorresponding decrease in manufacturing jobs,the distribution of occupations in the county iswithin range of the state average. The numberof people in service related occupations wasmoderately higher than state average (1.20:1.00),whereas the number in construction, extraction,and maintenance occupations was moderatelylower (.85:1.00).

Location of Business and Industrial Areas.

The majority of business and industrial areasare located either in or in close proximity toBlacksburg and Christiansburg, or in the 177Corridor between the city of Radford andCarilion Hospital adjacent to I-81. The notableexceptions are the Elliston/Lafayette Park,located next to US 460/ Rt 11, at Elliston, andRowe Furniture, across the South Fork atLafayette.

Montgomery County and the two townsprovide industrial, corporate, and research sitesin five parks. In addition, small business districtsare located in the villages (Riner, Elliston,Shawsville, and Prices Fork) and along specific





Above 1.30. Significantly Higher% of Workers in

Occupation1.11 to 1.30 Moderately Higher

% of Workers inOccupation

.91 to 1.10 % of Workerswithin Range

of State Average(Mean)

.70 to .90 Moderately Lower% of Workers inOccupation

Below .70 Significantly Lower% of Workers inOccupation






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

Corporate, Research, and IndustrialParks in Montgomery County

Park Location

Blacksburg Industrial Park BlacksburgChristiansburg Industrial Park ChristiansburgElliston-Lafayette Industrial Park Elliston BranchCorporate Park ChristiansburgMidway Office Park ChristiansburgVTU Corporate Research Center Blacksburg

Business & Industrial Locations in Montgomery County


corridors (Rt. 11 at Plum Creek, Rt 114 atBelview, and Rt 460/Rt. 11 at Lafayette)

Wages and Income

Wages vary in Montgomery County. Whilethe universities, the Corporate Research Center,manufacturing companies and corporations, andvarious small high-tech concerns provide manyhigher skill, higher wage jobs, many of the jobs,especially those in the personal and hospitalityservices and commercial/retail industries,provide substantially lower wages.

Wages in Montgomery County andsurrounding environs have increased since 1970,although they have not kept pace with Virginiaas a whole. According to the US Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, the wage per job average,in 1970, was $5,770 in Montgomery Countyand the City of Radford, $5,117 in the NewRiver Valley, and $6,233 in Virginia. Between1970 and 2000, wages climbed locally (343.8%in Montgomery County and the City of Radford),regionally (382% in the New River Valley), andstatewide (456.9% in Virginia). By 2000, thewage per job average was $25,606 inMontgomery County and the City of Radford,$24,633 in the New River Valley, and $34,656in Virginia . In the thirty year span, the gapbetween the wage per job average at the localand regional level and the state level has grown.In 1970, the ratio of the local average to thestate average was .92 for Montgomery Countyand the City of Radford and .82 for the NewRiver Valley; by 2000, the ratio of the localaverage to the state average was .73 forMontgomery County and the City of Radfordand .71 for the New River Valley.

The same trends hold true for per capitaincome and median household income, both ofwhich evidence the growing gap between thelocal and state levels. Median family income,unlike per capita and median household, hasnarrowed the gap between the local and statemedians, although it is still showing a moderatedisparity.


Park Location


1980 Ratio 1990 Ratio 2000 Ratio

Virginia $17,475.00 $33,328.00 $46,677.00

Montgomery Co. $13,082.00 0.75 $22,949.00 0.69 $32,330.00 0.69

Floyd Co. $12,230.00 0.70 $22,968.00 0.69 $31,585.00 0.68

Giles Co. $13,589.00 0.78 $24,125.00 0.72 $34,927.00 0.75

Pulaski Co. $14,482.00 0.83 $23,319.00 0.70 $33,873.00 0.73

Radford, City of $14,434.00 0.83 $19,487.00 0.58 $24,654.00 0.53

Median Household Income and Ratio to State Average, 1980-2000


Virginia $20,018.00 $38,213.00 $54,169.00

Montgomery Co. $17,084.00 0.85 $32,128.00 0.84 $47,239.00 0.87

Floyd Co. $14,585.00 0.73 $27,439.00 0.72 $38,128.00 0.70

Giles Co. $15,274.00 0.76 $29,416.00 0.77 $42,089.00 0.78

Pulaski Co. $16,247.00 0.81 $28,057.00 0.73 $42,251.00 0.78

Radford City $18,680.00 0.93 $31,318.00 0.82 $46,332.00 0.86

Median Family Income and Ratio to State Average, 1980-2000


Virginia $10,176.00 $20,527.00 $31,210.00

Montgomery+Radford $7,125.00 0.70 $13,434.00 0.65 $19,573.00 0.63

Floyd Co. $7,285.00 0.72 $13,125.00 0.64 $18,185.00 0.58

Giles Co. $7,702.00 0.76 $14,656.00 0.71 $20,262.00 0.65

Pulaski Co. $7,104.00 0.70 $13,628.00 0.66 $21,627.00 0.69

Per Capita Income and Ratio to State Average, 1980-2000

Sources and Notes: Median Household and Median Family Income: U.S. Census Bureau. Per CapitaIncome: US Bureau of Economic Analysis. The ratio of local median and per capita income to the stateequivalent 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

Median Household, Median Family, & Per Capita Income, 1980-2000


Source: Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, 2003


Park Location


Above 130: Significantly above state average1.11 to 1.30: Moderately above state average1.00 State Average ($36,160).90 to 1.10 Within range of state average.70 to .89 Moderately below state averageBelow .70: Significantly below state average

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle


Henrico

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe


Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceWilliam

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDimwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Roanoke

Wage Per Job:Ratio to StateAverage, 2001

Jurisdiction Wage Per Job Ratio

Virginia $36,160

Albemarle + Charlottesville $32,020 0.89

Roanoke (Independent City) $30,667 0.85

Roanoke + Salem $30,599 0.85

Stafford $29,745 0.82

Hanover $29,656 0.82

Giles $28,213 0.78

Spotsylvania + Fredericksburg $27,724 0.77

Augusta, Staunton + Waynesboro $27,620 0.76

Pulaski $27,665 0.77

Montgomery + Radford $26,889 0.74

Rockingham + Harrisonburg $26,869 0.74

Floyd $22,172 0.61

Median Median Per

Family Household Capita

Virginia 1.00 1.00 1.00


Floyd 0.70 0.68 0.58

Giles 0.78 0.75 0.65

Pulaski 0.78 0.73 0.69

Radford 0.86 0.53 0.00

Montgomery+Radford 0.00 0.00 0.63

1.101.051.000.950.900.850.800.750.700.650.600.550.500.450.40

Median Family Median Household Per Capita

Montgomery

Floyd Giles

Pulaski Radford

Montgomery+Radford

State Average = 1.00

Median Family and Household and Per Capita Incomes: Ratioto State Average, 2000


A comparison of the decade growth rate forper capita personal income indicates that whilerates have fallen at the national, state, and locallevels since 1985, the level in MontgomeryCounty fell faster and farther than either thestate or national rates (although all three ratesare parallel and reflect, perhaps, the same trends).In the same period of time (1980-2000) theeconomy in Montgomery County made asignificant shift away from manufacturing andtowards service and retail sector jobs, whichhave traditionally offered lower pay and fewerbenefits.

Income and the Problem of a HighConcentration of Students.

One problem inherent in discussing incometrends in Montgomery County is the presenceof a large student population, which skews theper capita and household income numbers.Unfortunately, the presence of a large studentpopulation and their lower than average incomesmasks problems of income level and distributionin the county and all too often creates aconvenient method of explaining away lowerincome scales. One way of determining incomeis to look at ratio of per capita , medianhousehold, and median family income for those

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Montgomery Co. 9.8% 9.8% 6.5% 4.1% 3.8%

Virginia 10.4% 9.9% 7.3% 4.7% 4.3%

United States 9.5% 9.1% 6.8% 4.7% 4.3%

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%1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Montgomery Co.

Virginia

United States

Per Capita Personal Income: Decade Growth Rate, 1980-2000

census block groups with a median age of 26and older to the overall income levels for thecounty as a whole. The age is based on theassumption that the majority of undergraduateand masters level students are 18 to 25 yearsold. While there may well be some Ph.D.students 26 and older, they are statisticallymore likely to have spouses in the workforceand children in the public schools. Block groupswith an average age of less than 26 indicatethat at least half of the residents are at or nearcollege age.

The data indicates that there is a fairly wide

Source: Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, 2004

disparity in income, based on location. Higherincome families tend to live in or nearBlacksburg or in southern Christiansburg. Thehighest concentration of upper income blockgroups are located in heavily suburbanized areas,most notably Ellett Valley and Brush Mountain(Brush Mountain Estates, Preston Forest, andLaurel Ridge). Lower income residents arelocated in the same areas (Plum Creek, Belview,Merrimac, etc) with high concentrations ofmanufactured housing. The majority of the blockgroups, (76.5%) have families in which two ormore members of the family work. Only 9 out



Median % 2-IncomeNon-Student Block Groups Age MHI Ratio MFI Ratio PCI Ratio Families

202-2 (Hethwood) 27.8 $29,559 0.91 $31,250 0.66 $17,323 1.01 49.5%202-3 (Oak Manor) 26.7 $34,750 1.07 $59,464 1.26 $20,533 1.20 60.0%202-4 (Merrimac) 40.7 $20,667 0.64 $42,750 0.90 $18,286 1.07 49.1%203-1(Brush Mtn) 36 $30,069 0.93 $39,167 0.83 $23,073 1.35 51.2%203-2 (Toms Creek) 37.3 $49,091 1.52 $52,708 1.12 $26,314 1.54 57.3%203-5 (McBryde Village) 36.5 $61,080 1.89 $77,839 1.65 $36,019 2.11 57.5%204-1 (North Main Sub.) 38.5 $56,591 1.75 $78,656 1.67 $23,087 1.35 52.5%205-2 (North Blacksburg) 26.1 $26,696 0.83 $60,368 1.28 $29,568 1.73 57.4%205-4 (Indian Run) 38.9 $52,083 1.61 $56,607 1.20 $23,365 1.37 75.1%206-1 (B’burg/Lusters Gate) 34.6 $45,750 1.42 $86,615 1.83 $29,481 1.73 60.5%206-2 (B’burg/ South Main) 36.5 $34,896 1.08 $52,807 1.12 $23,876 1.40 44.3%207-3 (B’burg/Airport Acres) 41 $37,545 1.16 $80,714 1.71 $25,989 1.52 55.0%207-4 (B’burg/ South Main) 26.3 $18,207 0.56 $30,000 0.64 $12,369 0.72 57.2%207-5 (Ellett Valley) 26 $22,679 0.70 $31,953 0.68 $16,512 0.97 48.5%208-1 (Christiansburg) 32.9 $38,438 1.19 $40,938 1.71 $17,351 1.02 69.0%208-2 (Christiansburg) 34.8 $25,439 0.79 $40,250 0.64 $13,995 0.82 48.8%208-3 (Christiansburg) 34.3 $40,500 1.25 $42,826 0.68 $18,978 1.11 61.0%208-4 (Christiansburg) 32 $27,986 0.87 $35,847 0.87 $14,157 0.83 47.3%209-1 (Christiansburg) 36 $37,125 1.15 $43,125 0.85 $17,111 1.00 55.7%209-2 (Christiansburg) 35.4 $48,906 1.51 $50,417 0.91 $23,306 1.36 65.2%209-3 (Christiansburg) 36 $34,276 1.06 $40,667 0.76 $19,081 1.12 59.4%210-1 (Christiansburg) 45.1 $39,427 1.22 $49,837 0.91 $22,013 1.29 48.4%210-2 (Christiansburg) 36.8 $54,643 1.69 $60,863 1.07 $21,387 1.25 71.0%210-3 (Christiansburg) 36.4 $39,688 1.23 $41,897 0.86 $20,242 1.19 66.0%211-1 (Christiansburg) 32.4 $34,766 1.08 $43,371 0.92 $19,193 1.12 59.2%211-2 (C'burg/Merrimac) 34.3 $35,861 1.11 $58,750 1.24 $22,171 1.30 79.5%212-1 (Belview/114) 36.7 $23,782 0.74 $30,417 0.64 $14,113 0.83 37.8%212-2 (Prices Fork) 34.3 $35,861 1.11 $42,361 0.90 $16,515 0.97 51.7%212-3 (McCoy) 33.7 $35,333 1.09 $43,333 0.92 $18,405 1.08 63.0%212-4 (Brush Mtn) 37.5 $35,556 1.10 $40,938 0.87 $22,007 1.29 53.6%213-1 (Mt.Tabor/Catawba) 40.3 $54,185 1.68 $60,357 1.28 $26,293 1.54 59.2%213-2 (Ironto/North Fork) 38.8 $39,485 1.22 $41,184 0.87 $19,155 1.12 70.4%214-1 (Elliston/Lafayette) 35.9 $36,971 1.14 $41,422 0.88 $17,074 1.00 52.6%214-2 (Elliston, South) 33.5 $29,250 0.90 $31,797 0.67 $14,435 0.85 38.7%214-3 (Shawsville ) 39.2 $36,947 1.14 $43,333 0.92 $23,521 1.38 58.9%214-4 (Alleghany Springs) 43.4 $37,440 1.16 $45,509 0.96 $16,919 0.99 62.6%215-1 (Rogers/Pilot/Sugar G) 38.2 $36,715 1.14 $39,452 0.84 $19,964 1.17 60.7%215-2 (Riner) 37.2 $35,000 1.08 $48,155 1.02 $18,992 1.11 63.4%215-3 (Childress/Little River) 38.4 $50,104 1.55 $35,347 0.75 $23,133 1.35 71.3%215-4 (Plum Creek/Bethel) 34.5 $54,199 1.68 $37,560 0.80 $15,077 0.88 56.6%

Source: U.S. CensusBureau, 2000 Census

MontgomeryCounty: Ratioof MedianHouseholdIncome (MHI),Median FamilyIncome (MFI),and Per CapitaIncome (PCI),by CensusBlock Group,to MontgomeryCounty IncomeLevels., 2000

The 2000 Censuslisted medianhousehold incomeas $32,330, medianfamily income as$47,239, and percapita income as$17,077.

The percentage offamilies with twoor more workersapplies to themedian familyincome only anddoes not includenon-traditionalhouseholds.


Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Radford

1933 1242

17851252

2248�

2253384(RoanokeValley)

249

1840�

1872

Commuting Patterns: Montgomery County, 2003

Source: New River ValleyPlanning District Commission,2003

74.1% of the people who work in MontgomeryCounty, also reside in the County. 25.9% commutefrom neighboring locations. Of the people who live inMontgomery County, 79.1% work in the county. Theremaining 20.9% commute to other jurisdictions, includingthe Roanoke Valley and Pulaski.

of 40 block groups have a majority of one incomefamilies.

Commuting Patterns.

Commuting patterns, including bothincommuting and outcommuting, in 2000 showthat while Montgomery County does exportworkers to neighboring jurisdictions, far moreworkers commute to Montgomery County fortheir jobs. According to the Virginia EmploymentCommission, Montgomery County has 29,589workers who both live and work in MontgomeryCounty and an additional 10,319 workers whocommute to Montgomery County from otherjurisdictions. Pulaski County contributes thelargest number of people to the MontgomeryCounty workforce (2,248); it also employs thelargest number of Montgomery residents whowork outside of Montgomery County (3,384).Unlike Pulaski County, which contributes moreworkers to the Montgomery County work forcethan draws from the same workforce, the cityof Radford contributes the second largest number(1,785) workers, but draws a greater number ofworkers from Montgomery County (1,840) thanit contributes. Montgomery County has, however,a reasonably balanced rate of in and outmigrationwith both Pulaski County and the City ofRadford. The same is not true for the otherneighboring jurisdictions. Some, like Giles andFloyd, contribute far more workers to theMontgomery County workforce (1,933 and1,252, respectively) than they draw from theMontgomery County resident population (249work in Floyd County and 225 work in GilesCounty). Finally, although Montgomery Countyoutcommuters to the Roanoke Valley accountfor a very small percentage of the RoanokeValley workforce, they account for nearly 39%of Montgomery County residents who commuteto other jurisdictions for work.


ECD 1.0 Economic Development, Land Use, & Quality of Life.Actively promote economic development in the region, which takesa sustainable approach to the environmental, social, cultural, andeconomic integrity of the county and which contributes to the qualityof life.

ECD 1.1 Montgomery County Regional Indicators ProgramDesign and implement a regional indicators program,incorporating physical, social, cultural, and economicbenchmarks, in order to provide local jurisdictions (MontgomeryCounty, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and the City of Radford)with a method of defining success, tracking progress, andflagging problems to be addressed. (1)

ECD 1.1.1 Quality of Life Committee. Appoint aQuality of Life Commission, to oversee the formation,implementation, and maintenance of the MontgomeryCounty Regional Indicators Program. Membershipshould represent all of the stakeholders and be drawnfrom current county commissions and boards (PlanningCommission, Economic Development Commission,Human Relations Council, etc.), citizen organizations,and the educational and business communities. (2)

Economic Resources: GoalsECD 1.2 Mixed Use Development. (3) Encourage the use ofmixed-use and campus design approaches to new businessand industrial developments.

ECD 1.3 Future Land Use Requirements. Require theexpansion of future economic development to be located inareas of the county which are designated as urban expansion,village expansion, or villages.

ECD 1.4 Economic Development Strategic Plan: Workwith the Economic Development Department and theEconomic Development Commission to actively update andimplement the applicable portions of the EconomicDevelopment Strategic Plan, including areas concerned withland use, workforce development, and business retention andgrowth. (4)

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Economic Resource 99

Cross References and Notes:1. The Planning Commission initially explored the use of indicators in 2002, inconjunction with a project by graduate students in the Virginia Tech Urban Affairsand Planning Environmental Planning Studio course. A preliminary list of indicatorshave been included in the introductions of each chapter and an index of indicatorsis included in the appendix. Additional references to the indicators program areincluded 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 indicatorswhich are generally used to gauge a locale’s overall quality of life, including economicopportunity 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 theHealth and Human Resources chapter: HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg. 175).

Cross References and Notes:3.. Additional references to mixed use development are included in: PNG 4.0 Villagesand Rural Communities (pg. 68); PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 41); PLU1.7 Villages (pg.43); PLU 1.8 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 45); HHS 2.0 Quality ofLife (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 StrategicPlan for four subjects:

a) Workforce (Join forces with a regional-wide workforce development taskforce; survey target industries to assess labor market demand; Develop an actionplan to increase the available IT skilled workforce; Advocate for a ComprehensiveVocational Training Facility to serve the County; Connect vocational trainingwith the needs of existing targeted industries).b) Development (Expand the main industrial parks available industrial property;Develop new shell building in Christiansburg; Develop minimum investmentcriteria for locating in Montgomery County’s available industrial parks; Identifysites with the greatest marketing potential/appeal and focus resources; Establishviable real estate development partnerships to encourage speculative buildingon sites; Educate communities about Economic Development Department’smarketing and client management strategies).c) Program (Mobilize community resources to support local business development;Cooperate with Blacksburg and Christiansburg to interview and profile localbusinesses; Develop local industry database, with linkages, as a marketing tool;Encourage local participation in regional initiatives; Publish inventory of localresources; Promote business retention and expansion programs).d) Marketing and Recruitment (Create a technology zone; Enroll local businessleaders in target marketing efforts; Restructure incentives in ways that favor thedevelopment of industries in target sectors and the creation of primary and/orfamily wage jobs.

ECD 2.0 Workforce Development: Develop a local workforce withthe skills, training and experience necessary to succeed and advancein the job market of the future. (5)

ECD 2.1 Public Education and Workforce Development:Actively promote technical and professional training andworkforce development for current and future workers inMontgomery County, which is necessary for future success.

ECD 2.1.1 Community Technical Education/Knowledge Capital Task Force: Recognizing thatknowledge-based capital is one of the region's strengths,appoint a task force to 1) evaluate knowledge-basedcapital in the Montgomery County MSA, as well ascurrent student and adult educational and vocationaltraining opportunities and facilities; 2) develop a longrange plan for workforce development that addresseslong-range needs and objectives; and 3) design andpromote training and retraining programs which willbenefit students, workers, and area businesses andinstitutions. (6)

ECD 2.1.2 Vocational / Technical Skills: Work withhigh school vocation / technical directors, guidancecounselors, and others in the Montgomery CountyPublic Schools to provide new programs and strengthenexisting programs intended to develop marketable skillsets for non-college bound students.

ECD 2.1.3 Worker Retraining:Working with the area businesses, the MontgomeryCounty Public Schools, New River CommunityCollege, and the two universities, provide programs

to retrain existing workers to meet the challenges andneeds of a changing economy.

ECD 2.2 Future Workforce Development: Provide new workerswith the skills and training necessary to succeed in the future.

ECD 2.2.1 Technical and IT Training: Increase thenumber 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 Countyand the New River Valley new workers with target industryskills.

ECD 2.2.3 Retention of College Graduates: Retain ITskilled individuals graduating from local universities andcolleges in the local work force.

Cross References and Notes5. 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, livingwage, accessibility, and expanded opportunities are addressed in HHS 2.2: EconomicDevelopment (pg. 175).6. The task force should be made up of members from the Montgomery County PublicSchools, the New River Community College, Virginia Tech, Radford University, localbusinesses, the Montgomery County Economic Development Department, theMontgomery County Economic Development Commission, and the Board ofSupervisors, and representatives from Blacksburg and Christiansburg. The CommunityTechnical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force is cross listed as EDU 2.1.1 (pg.117)


Cross References and Notes7. Issues surrounding business location and land use are also addressed in the LandUse Policies, included in the Government and Land Use Chapter. For more specificinformation, 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 thesiting of business and industrial areas is included the Environmental Resourceschapter, including ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters (pg. 141); ENV5.0 Groundwater (pg. 144); and ENV 6.0 Karst (pg.147 ). Transportation relatedissues are addressed in TRN 1.4 Connectivity and Access Management (pg. 220).

ECD 3.0 Location and Land Use: Identify appropriate locationsfor new businesses to start and existing businesses to expand. (7)

ECD 3.1 Industrial & Business Parks: Identify locations fornew industrial and business parks and/or the expansion ofexisting parks.

ECD 3.1.1 Product Inventory: Set county objectivesfor locations and square footage to be developed inorder to have "product" in inventory.

ECD 3.1.2 Partnership Agreements: Workcooperatively with other localities in the developmentof regional business and industrial parks.

ECD 3.2 Zoning. Review and revise the Zoning Ordinanceto allow for innovative approaches to the design andorganization of industrial, light industrial, and business parksand business districts.

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

ECD 3.2.2 Two-Plus Story Structures: Considerincreasing the intensity of selected business parks bygoing 2+ stories in height rather than single storybuildings.

ECD 3.2.3 Smaller Sites: Promote the developmentof smaller (2 to 5 acre) industrial sites within businessand industrial parks.

Cross References and Notes8. The Zoning Ordinance defines flex industrial as Light industrial activities thatoccur in buildings of no more than two stories in height, with one or more loadingdocks, 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 CRS1.0 Historic Preservation (pg.81).10. Technology infrastructure, including telecommunications towers, is also addressedin UTL 2.0 Electric, Telecommunications, and Gas Utilities (pg. 236).11. Fiber-optic networks are also addressed in UTL 2.3: Broadband/Fiber-opticNetworks (pg. 236).


ECD 3.2.4 Flex-Industrial Zoning: Review and revisethe County Zoning Ordinance to allow flex-industrialuses, by special use permit, in the GB General Businessand M-1 Manufacturing zoning districts within theVillages, Village Expansion and Urban ExpansionAreas. (8)

ECD 3.1.6 Research & Development Zoning: Reviewand revise the County Zoning Ordinance to allowresearch & development uses in the M-1 Manufacturingzoning district.

ECD 3.3 Downtown Revitalization: Encourage the adaptationand reuse of existing buildings in downtown locations. (9)

ECD 3.2.1 Technology Zone: Consider developmentof a technology zone for downtown Christiansburg.(10)

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

ECD 3.2.3 Downtown Courthouse: Maintain CountyCourthouse in downtown Christiansburg.

ECD 4.0 Attraction & Retention of Business and Industry: Attractnew and retain existing businesses and industries that can best createviable job opportunities for all, expand the local tax base and maintainthose qualities that make the County a highly desirable place to liveand work.

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

ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy: Encourageentrepreneurship and small business startups by countyresidents, including industrial, commercial, tourism-based, recreational and agricultural enterprises.(12)

ECD 4.1.2 Expansion Incentives: Develop financialincentives for existing businesses that meet growthobjectives. Financial incentives for growth of existingbusinesses should be equivalent to financial incentivesused to attract new businesses.

ECD 4.1.3 Visitation Program: Continue visitationprogram with existing businesses.

ECD 4.2 External Focus: Attract new businesses and industriesto 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 developmentof good air transportation service in order to completein a global economy. (13)

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

ECD 4.2.3 Retail Quality: Recognize that the presenceof upscale retailers is an important consideration formany locational decisions. Therefore supportdevelopment of a quality regional mall.

ECD 4.2.4 College Graduates Data: Include collegestudents that have graduated or are going to graduatein labor market figures.

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

Cross References and Notes13. 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 Structureand Legislative Changes and Priorities (pg. 69). Issues related to public fundingsources, 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).


Cross References and Notes12. Small business development issues are also addressed in the EnvironmentalResources and Cultural Resources chapters of this plan. For additional referenceson Agriculture-related economic development, see ENV 2.1.7 Rural DevelopmentInitiatives (pg. 139). Cultural and historic tourism and historic tourism corridors are addressed in CRS 1.3 Historic Preservation and Tourism (pg. 82). Recreationaltourism and enterprises are addressed in PRC 2.4 Commercial RecreationalFacilities (pg. 207).

EducationalResources

Montgomery


Adopted: 10/12/04

Insert Photo

Insert Photo

Educational Resources: Executive Summary

Montgomery County recognizes that educational assetscontribute significantly to the quality of life in MontgomeryCounty, surrounding counties, and communities andincrease economic opportunity and development. Theeducational resource goals focus on three primary goals:

1. Provide high quality, life-long educational facilitiesand program;

2. Provide life-long learning opportunities, includinggiving adults and students the skill sets to succeedin the market place; and

3. Develop and support effective non-traditionaleducational facilities and programs.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Educational Resources 104

For the past 30 years, to one degree or another,education has defined much of life in MontgomeryCounty. Virginia Tech and Radford University(in the City of Radford) remain two of largestemployers in the area.. Add to that the facultyand staff with the Montgomery County PublicSchools, private school teachers not part of thepublic sector employment, and people who workin support services and related industries, and thepresence of education effectively permeates thecounty’s character and development Indeed, inthe 2000 Census, 35% of the population selfidentified their industry as educational, healthcare, or social services. It should come as nosurprise, then, that nearly half the respondents tothe community survey were connected, in somefashion, to education or an educational institution.

The challenge for both the MontgomeryCounty Government and the Montgomery CountyPublic Schools is centered on how to best servea growing and diverse population--not just thosein elementary or secondary schools, but thosewho, facing changes in the market place, areforced to retool into new professions or upgradetheir skill sets to remain competitive in theirchosen professions. The education resource goalsare meant to address the needs of all residentsrather than just those in the traditional publicschool classroom.

In addition, the goals recognize that the Countymust, of necessity, try to do more with less. Asbudgets tighten, it becomes necessary to begin tofind ways to use the County’s facilities in moreways, whether as part of a community-basedschools program; as a community, cultural, orrecreational center, as a learning hub fornontraditional students; or as a touchstone forsupporting diversity.

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

The community survey asked participants toconsider three key issues: 1) educational

opportunities for children, 2) educationalopportunities for adults, and 3) new educationalfacilities. All three issues rated well above themean (3.65), but the written comments fromparticipants indicated that concern for educationwent well beyond these three issues.

Of the three primary issues, participants wereasked to rate, educational opportunities forchildren ranked the highest (4.34). Indeed, ofthose who responded, 66.4% rated educationalopportunities for children as “very important;”an additional 19.4 percent rated it as “important.”Only 1.1% of participants felt it was “notimportant.” The comments from participantsunderscored their level of concern for public

education in the county, and their commentstouched on a number of issues, including thequality of teachers and teacher retention, thequality of schools and problems with accreditation,the expansion of educational opportunities, schoolfunding, the range of programs, and delivery ofservices.

Educational opportunities for adults receivedthe second highest score of the three issues (3.97),with 44.8% identifying the issue as being “veryimportant” and 28.3% saying it was “important.”Again, participant comments indicated a stronginterest in vocational and technical training andretraining.

The final education issue dealt with the

Educational Resources: Introduction

Insert Photo


provision of new educational facilities. While themean score for the issue (3.82) was well abovethe mean for all issues (3.65), and the majorityof respondents considered new educationalfacilities as either “very important” (42.6%) orimportant (25.8%), the written commentssuggested that participants had a certain amountof ambivalence when it came to the issue. Ofthose who specifically addressed facility issuesin their responses, the majority focused on theneed to upgrade existing facilities, the multiuseof existing and future facilities, and a need tolook at redistricting to more evenly distribute thecurrent and future student populations.

A number of participants raised concernsabout the current condition of some of the olderschools. This is especially true of the responses

from the students who filled out the studentcommunity survey. While the adult participantstalked about building new schools, the studentswrote about replacing windows that leak,providing air conditioning, and upgrading sciencelabs. This difference in perspective is thedifference between those seeing the outside ofthe buildings and those seeing the inside of theclassrooms.

The students comments, concerningeducation in Montgomery County, were, in someways, far more telling than those of the adults.While the adults wrote about teacher retentionand taxes, the students expressed concerns aboutphysical shortcomings of their own schools.One student from Auburn suggested building“a covered walk way to the high school,”

presumably to keep middle school students outof inclement weather. Another student noted thatthe schools do “not having good facilities andsupplies & overcrowding.” Yet another pointedout that “schools do not have all of the equipmentthey need.” Of all of the concerns expressed inthe student surveys, overcrowding, lack ofequipment, and perceived lack of funding werethe overarching themes.

If the future statements the students wrote areany indication, the students believe that the countywill effectively address education problemsbetween 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 “cleanedup (rebuilt). And still another wrote:

When I was in school, some of our schoolsdidn't have air conditioning and were veryold buildings. At present time, our countyis a wonderful place for children to attendschool. There are many brand new stateof the art schools with the latest technologyavailable in use.

Current and Historical Trends and Conditions

Educational Attainment.

The level of educational attainment inMontgomery County reflects the close proximityof two universities and an expanding professionalservice job market, driven by the CorporateResearch Center. According to the 2000 Census,82.8% of the Montgomery County population,25 years and older, are high school graduates,5.7% have associate degrees, 35.9% havebachelor’s degrees, and 18.6% have graduate orprofessional degrees (up from 16.2% in 1990).At the state level, for the same age group, 81%are high school graduates, 5.6% have associatedegrees, 29.5% have bachelor’s degrees, and11.6% have graduate or professional degree.

Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage ofthe population who are high school graduates


4.5

4.4

4.3

4.2

4.1

4

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6Edu. Opportunities: Children Edu. Opportunities: Adults New Educational Facilities

Mean Score= 3.65

Mean Score

Edu. Opportunities: Children 4.34

Edu. Opportunities: Adults 3.97

New Educational Facilities 3.82

Mean for All Issues 3.65

Educational Resource Issues:Community Survey Mean Results, 2003


Montgomery County: Educational Attainment, 1980-2000

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

Montgomery

Albemarle

Augusta

Hanover

Roanoke

Rockingham

Spotsylvania

Stafford

Graduate/Professional Degree

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40Associates

DegreeBachelor’s

Degree

State = 1.00

Graduate/

Associates Bachelors Professional

Montgomery 2,926 8,693 9,097

Albemarle 3,736 17,397 17,301

Augusta 3,529 8,861 4,311

Hanover 3,109 11,245 5,079

Roanoke 10,176 21,596 11,144

Rockingham 2,644 9,081 4,919

Spotsylvania 3,673 11,070 5,281

Stafford 4,163 10,550 6,056

Virginia 262,813 835,011 539,977

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census

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).

26.4%

21.1%15.3%

5.5%

15.4%

16.2%

1990

17.2%

23.1%

18.2%5.9%

17.4%

18.2%

2000

Associates Bachelors Graduate/ PopulationNo Degree High School

SomeCollege Degree Degree Professional 25 Years+

1990 10,005 8,007 5,820 2,105 5,850 6,153 37,940

2000 8,581 11,556 9,067 2,926 8,693 9,097 49,872

No Degree

High School

Some College

Associates Degree

Bachelors Degree

Graduate/Professional Degree

90.0%

85.0%

80.0%

75.0%

70.0%

65.0%

60.0%62.0%

73.6%

82.8%

1980 1990 2000

% High School Graduates

Note: Information includesMontgomery County, Blacksburg,and Christiansburg.



Montgomery County: Location ofPublic Schools, 2004

DateLast

Sq. Ft. per Number of Enrollment:School Age Built

Renovation/Addition Pupil Mobile Units Capacity Fall, 2003

Elementary Auburn 5 1998 n/a 143.8 0 600 565 Belview 52 1951 1979 153.8 0 240 261 Christiansburg Elem. 41 1962 1963 98 3 380 419 Christiansburg Primary 31 1972 n/a 118.2 5 440 457 Elliston-Lafayette 42 1961 1972 91.3 11 160 227 Falling Branch 13 1990 1990 116.4 5 480 551 Gilbert-Linkous 41 1962 1972 141.6 0 360 318 Harding Avenue 31 1972 n/a 208.8 0 260 228 Kipps 10 1993 1993 135.3 0 480 493 Margaret Beeks 41 1962 1972 133.2 0 440 413 Prices Fork 52 1951 1972 139.8 5 180 220 Shawsville 33 1970 1970 149.6 3 280 254Middle Auburn 33 1970 1999 104.5 6 220 318 Blacksburg 1 2002 n/a -- 0 1200 Christiansburg n/a 2003 n/a -- 0 1200 Shawsville 69 1934 1973 -- 0 240 251High Auburn 65 1938 1972 287.2 2 524 360 Blacksburg 33 1970 n/a 205.1 0 1216 1163 Christiansburg 32 1971/2 n/a 231.7 0 1216 977 Eastern Montgomery 2 2001 n/a -- 1 510 295

National Standards:

Elementary Schools: 100-130 sq. ft perpupil; calculations based on 2002 studentpopulation.Middle Schools: 120 to 150 sq. ft perpupil; calculations based on 2002 studentpopulation.High Schools: 150-200 sq. ft per pupil;calculations based on 2002 studentpopulation.

Notes:

1.School Data taken from ShapingTomorrow Together, July, 2000,DeJong and Assoc.

2.School population data taken fromMontgomery County Public SchoolsEnrollment Projections 2002--FinalReport, DeJong and Assoc.

3.Mobile unit data provided byMontgomery County Public Schools,August 2003.

4. Fall Enrollment Data is from theVirginia Department of Education,2004

5.Average age of school structures inMontgomery County is 31.3 years.

1.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00

AES BES CES CPS ELES FBES GLES HES KES MBES PFES SES AMS SMS AHS BHS CHS EMHS

Ratio of 2003Fall Enrollmentto ProgramCapacity.

Program Capacity = 1.00

Note: The new middleschools in Blacksburg andChristiansburg are notincluded becauseinformation was notavailable.

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

Montgomery County Public School Facilities, 2004

Program

921767


rose from 62% to 82.8%. In the same period oftime, despite a significant population increase(73%) in residents 25 years and older, the actualnumber of county residents, in the same agegroup, without at least a high school degree hasdecreased from 10,945 in 1980 to 8,581 in 2000(-21.6%). Finally, between 1990 and 2000, thepercentage increase in the number of residents,over the age of 25, with bachelor’s (increase of48.6%) or graduate or professional degrees(increase of 47.8%) has risen faster than theoverall population in the same age group(increase of 31.4%) These change can beattributed to two factors: 1) the newer population,relocating to Montgomery County, is more likelyto have a high school diploma and have bachelorsor a graduate/professional degree; and 2) thegraduation rate (from high school and/or college)has increased for each successive generation ofcounty residents.

Public School Facilities.

Montgomery County is currently served by12 elementary schools, four middle schools, andfour high schools, organized in four separatestrands: Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Auburn,and Shawsville. While the Auburn andShawsville Strands are predominantly rural, theBlacksburg and Christiansburg Strands are amixture of rural and urban. The two villages,Prices Fork and Belview, located in the northernend of the County are served by the village-based elementary schools; however, studentsfrom the Prices Fork Elementary attendBlacksburg Middle and High Schools, andstudents from Belview attend ChristiansburgMiddle and High Schools. Of the rural middleand high schools, Auburn serves the villages ofRiner and Plum Creek, as well as the 177 growthcorridor, while Shawsville Middle and EasternMontgomery High School serve the villages ofElliston-Lafayette and Shawsville. Given theemphasis on concentrating growth into thevillages and village expansion areas, which areserved by public water and sewer, growth in the

Montgomery County Public Schools:Fall Membership, 1995-2003

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 AverageBlacksburg Gilbert Linkous 386 419 398 346 334 300 287 290 318 342 Harding 307 278 292 271 253 228 231 208 228 255 Kipps 463 461 488 460 478 460 484 480 493 474 Margaret Beeks 463 448 444 436 393 401 375 390 413 418

Total 1,619 1,606 1,622 1,513 1,458 1,389 1,377 1,368 1,452 1,489 Blacksburg MS 876 929 880 886 871 889 901 861 921 890 Blacksburg HS 993 1,020 1,047 1,099 1,104 1,160 1,156 1,174 1,163 1,102

Total 3,488 3,555 3,549 3,498 3,433 3,438 3,434 3,403 3,536 3,482Christiansburg Elementary 371 352 366 397 397 412 412 412 419 393 Primary 371 379 399 388 436 442 433 460 457 418 Falling Branch 518 501 484 490 502 518 515 546 551 514

Total 1,260 1,232 1,249 1,275 1,335 1,372 1,360 1,418 1,427 1,325 Christiansburg MS 737 740 761 763 737 716 762 800 767 754 Christiansburg HS 876 946 949 974 968 945 965 962 977 951

Total 2,873 2,918 2,959 3,012 3,040 3,033 3,087 3,180 3,171 3,030Villages Auburn 588 594 600 611 580 565 590 Bethel 200 211 207 206 Riner 329 220 310 286 Belview 244 226 230 216 203 216 214 261 261 230 Prices Fork 220 220 247 242 218 215 192 221 220 222 Elliston-Lafayette 233 226 244 236 218 238 209 233 227 229 Shawsville 269 260 269 267 263 246 241 249 254 258

Total 1,495 1,363 1,507 1,549 1,496 1,515 1,467 1,544 1,527 1,496 Auburn MS 262 285 294 280 290 253 262 295 318 282 Shawsville MS 256 264 280 251 238 214 237 233 251 247

Total 518 549 574 531 528 467 499 528 569 529 Auburn HS 273 304 319 335 345 350 341 349 360 331 Eastern Mont. HS 296 311 298 292 295 290 289 292 295 295

Total 569 615 617 627 640 640 630 641 655 626Village Total 2,582 2,527 2,698 2,707 2,664 2,622 2,596 2,713 2,751 2,651

Overall Total 8,943 9,000 9,206 9,217 9,137 9,093 9,117 9,296 9,458 9,163


unincorporated portions of Montgomery Countyover the next twenty years will have a significantimpact on both the urban and rural middle andhigh schools. Population and housing trends inthe County suggest that the areas of major growthin the next two decades are likely to occur inthe villages and village expansion areas of PricesFork and Plum Creek, as well as the 177 corridor,which used to be served by Bethel Elementary.

Of the twenty schools in the MontgomeryCounty Public School System, nine are servingstudent populations larger than the statedprogram capacities for the schools. In two cases,Elliston-Lafayette Elementary and AuburnMiddle School have populations at more than140% of capacity, significantly above what theschools were designed to serve. Two others,Prices Fork Elementary and Falling BranchElementary have populations at or near 120%of capacity. A number of schools have hadongoing capacity problems since 1995 (theearliest state records). For example, Prices ForkSchool, built in 1951, has a program capacityof 180; however, since 1995, the school hasserved a minimum population of 192 in 2001and as many as 247 in 1997. Elliston-LafayetteElementary has a program capacity of 160, yetthe smallest population the school has serve,since 1995, is 209. (1)

Despite the construction of three newelementary schools (Auburn, Falling Branch,and Kipps), two new middle schools (Blacksburgand Christiansburg), and one new high school(Eastern Montgomery), the County’s publicschools are predominantly housed in agingstructures. Two of the schools, Shawsville Middleand Auburn High, are still housed in buildingsconstructed in the 1930s and are in need ofsubstantial renovation. In addition, two schools

(Prices Fork and Belview) were built in the1950s, four were built in the 1960s, and thereminder were built in the 1970s. No new schoolswere built during an 18 year span between 1972and 1990.

Despite aging buildings, no schools wererenovated between 1973 and 1999, with theexception of Belview Elementary in 1979. In1999, the County renovated Auburn MiddleSchool. In 2000, DeJong and Associates wrotea facilities evaluation for the Montgomery CountyPublic Schools. According to the DeJong study,

eleven out of twenty schools needed newwindows and frames; eleven need new roofs;twelve needed new heating, ventilation, and airconditioning systems; and 17 needed additionalimprovements to meet ADA requirements

In the years since the DeJong report, nosystemic renovations have been funded throughthe County’s Capital Improvements Program,although the Montgomery County Public Schoolshave submitted proposals for each of the lastfive CIPs and the County has indicated an interestin potentially funding systemic renewals for

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

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

Grade 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 122KG 767 733 756 689 709 727 679 723 7301 728 751 752 767 699 718 727 711 7522 690 726 746 719 734 668 677 689 6983 686 686 734 736 709 734 670 673 7264 750 678 692 729 729 708 736 672 6795 753 740 698 697 709 721 715 731 6996 736 772 739 689 691 711 735 715 7497 691 744 760 746 688 692 722 741 7348 704 692 716 745 757 669 705 733 7749 735 742 760 800 788 839 783 773 82110 620 690 680 648 689 726 736 710 68411 543 580 606 623 580 624 649 684 63012 532 545 544 605 607 556 583 610 660Total K-12 8935 9079 9183 9193 9189 9193 9117 9165 9336%±K-2 n/a n/a -2.7% -1.9% -2.9% -3.0% -4.5% -5.2% 2.8%%±3-5 n/a n/a 0.8% -2.0% -5.7% -4.3% -4.1% -6.3% -0.1%%±6-8 n/a n/a -2.7% -3.5% 2.4% -2.9% 2.0% 3.1% 5.3%%±9-12 n/a n/a n/a -17.7% -18.1% -26.8% -27.1% -22.5% -21.3%

Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2004


1.31 and above-significantly higher than state average1.11 - 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

4.40

4.00

3.60

3.20

2.80

2.40

2.00

1.60

1.20

0.80

0.4096-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02

State of Virginia

Montgomery

Floyd

Giles

Pulaski

Radford

96-97 97-98 98-99

Virginia 3.47 3.27 3.18


Floyd 0.44 1.03 1.02

Giles 2.41 4.26 3.08

Pulaski 3.63 4.23 3.84

Radford 2.51 2.35 3.15

99-00 00-01 01-02

Virginia 2.53 2.46 2.02


Floyd 1.16 1.80 1.96

Giles 2.10 2.32 1.36

Pulaski 3.20 2.62 1.81

Radford 1.66 1.47 1.99

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle


Henrico

Wise

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Tazewell

Smyth

Bland

Wythe


Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceWilliam

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDimwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Roanoke

Lee Scott

WashingtonGrayson

Montgomery County: Dropout Rates, 1997-2002

Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2003

Prices Fork and Elliston-Lafayette ElementarySchools.

Changes in Student Population

In 2000-01, the Montgomery County PublicSchools reported 9,093 students in their fallmembership. Of these students, 45% were inelementary school (K-5), 22.8% were in middleschool, and 30.7% were in high school. Fouryears later, in 2003, the distribution of studentsin elementary, middle, and high schoolsremained nearly the same (46.6% in elementaryschools, 23.9% in middle schools, and 29.5%in high schools). However, population patternsin the schools suggest reasonably high volatilityin the elementary school and high schoolpopulations, while middle school populationstend to remain fairly stabile. Changes in thestudent population can be attributed to universityrelated migration, especially among graduatestudents and younger faculty and their families,and local and regional migration as familiesmove from rental to owner-occupied housing.

As the population projection report indicates,Montgomery County has grown byapproximately 10,000 residents, per decade, forthe last two decades--a trend the County expectsto continue. Of the total population, between17% to 18% were under the age of 18. Whilethe overall population trend, since 1970, indicatesthat the under 18 population is decreasing as anoverall percentage of the total population (from27.6% in 1970 to 17.1% in 2000), there is someindication that the percentage of population hasstabilized and residents under the age of 18 willcontinue to represent roughly 17% of the totalpopulation. This projection assumes a stableand fairly constant population growth, howeverchanges in the composition of the Virginia Techstudent body, especially with an increase in thenumber of graduate students, is likely to havean impact on the number of students in theelementary school population over the next 20years.


124:All Schools Fully Accredited1.11 to 1.23: Above state average1.00 State Average(81% of schools).90 to 1.10 Within range of state average.70 to .89 Moderately below state averageBelow .70: Significantly below state average

Montgomery County: Public School Accreditation, 2000-2004

MoreThan 25Schools

16 to 25Schools

5 to 15Schools

1 to 5Schools

Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2003-2004Accreditation Report; Montgomery CountyPublic Schools, 2004.

Under the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting PublicSchools in Virginia (8VAC 20-131-10 et. seq.), adopted by the State’sBoard of Education, schools are “fully accredited” when the “eligiblestudents 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 ratein 3rd grade science and history/social science. “ProvisionallyAccredited/Meets State Standards” schools have “achieved theprovisional accreditation benchmarks...,but have not met therequirements to be rated fully accredited.” Schools which have beengiven a “provisionally accredited/needs improvement” rating, failed to meet the provisional accreditation benchmarks inone or more academic areas. Finally, schools whichreceive an “accredited with warning” rating had “pass-rateperformances on SOL tests [which were] 20 ormore percentage points below any of theprovisional accreditation benchmarks.”

According to the School Superintendent, threehigh schools (Auburn, Christiansburg, andEastern Montgomery) should receive full accreditation in 2004. All others shouldbe fully accredited by the target date of 2007.

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle


Henrico

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe


Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceWilliam

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDinwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surry

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Roanoke

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

20191817161514131211109876543210

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04


Note:According to the 2003-2007 Capital Budget, school-related projects account for 97% offuture capital budget requests.

Montgomery County: Sources of Funding for Public Education, 2003

8.8%

36.4%

6.5%

45.8%

Montgomery

7.9%

46.7%

7.4%

37.3%

Floyd

8.7%

45.4%

6.1%

36.6%

Giles

9.4%

46.8%9.4%

32.2%

Pulaski

7.5%

43.4%

4.5%

42%

Radford

State Sale/Use

State Funds

Federal Funds

Local Funds

Other Funding

Loans, Bonds, Etcc

State Sale/Use State Funds Federal Funds Local Funds Other Funding Loans, Bonds Total Receipts

Montgomery $6,979,543.17 $29,007,999.52 $5,181,914.46 $36,525,337.57 $2,002,836.97 $0.00 $79,697,631.69

Floyd $1,243,225.50 $7,362,991.73 $1,167,304.60 $5,879,636.26 $110,885.88 $0.00 $15,764,043.97

Giles $1,747,978.29 $9,104,667.06 $1,221,223.12 $7,339,474.05 $606,162.33 $15,125.00 $20,034,629.85

Pulaski $3,424,695.70 $17,133,033.80 $3,437,374.78 $11,775,567.91 $806,443.11 $0.00 $36,577,115.30

Radford $883,702.22 $5,141,509.20 $532,499.15 $4,968,240.85 $306,413.21 $949.19 $11,833,313.82

Last Prior FY FY 03/04 Future FYRenovated - FY06/07

New Christiansburg Middle New $22,777,815New Blacksburg Middle New $23,628,347School Cafeteria Equipment n/a $52,568Blacksburg Track n/a $33,000Auburn HS/Elliston ES see below $35,600School Roof Replacements n/a $3,404,748Eastern Montgomery HS New $15,871,241Other School Projects n/a $95,160Auburn ES-Water/Sewer n/a $692,083Elliston-Lafayette ES 1972 $6,658,207Prices Fork ES 1972 $5,634,666Blacksburg HS Parking n/a $203,300Auburn HS 1972 $4,653,791Auburn MS 1999 $4,371,025Christiansburg ES 1963 $6,840,010Christiansburg PS b. 1972 $7,248,184Gilbert Linkous ES 1972 $8,364,424Margaret Beeks ES 1972 $8,989,600Shawsville MS 1973 $3,813,009Belview ES 1979 $7,494,624Harding Avenue ES b. 1972 $6,648,516Shawsville ES b. 1970 $7,724,080Independence Secondary 1952 $690,406Falling Branch ES b. 1990 $1,425,108

Totals $66,590,562 $80,758,950

Capital Improvement Funds for School-RelatedNew Construction & Renovation, FY2003-2007

Sources: Virginia Department of Education, 2004; DeJong& Associates “Facility Master Plan Background andSummary Report, 2000; Montgomery County CapitalBudget, Fiscal Years Ending June 30,2003-June 30, 2007.


High School Dropout Rates.

Despite the influence of local educationalinstitutions and increasing levels of educationalattainment in the county, the graduation rates stillvary, rather dramatically, depending on the school.According to the Superintendent of theMontgomery County Public Schools, the dropout rate varies from a low of 2% at BlacksburgHigh School to a high of 5% at EasternMontgomery High School.

Average TeacherSalary, 2003

Montgomery Co. $37,390

Albemarle Co. $40,532

Augusta Co. $37,731

Hanover Co. $38,991

Roanoke Co. $44,139

Rockingham Co. $37,958

Spotsylvania Co. $42,589

Stafford Co. $44,161

Montgomery County Public Schools:Average and Median Teacher

Salaries, 2003

Notes:1. Virginia Average Salary for FY 2003 was $42,778.2. According to the Montgomery County SchoolSuperintendent, the average salary figures are influencedby the composition of the work force. School systemswith a higher proportion of experienced teachers, suchas Montgomery County, will display a higher averagesalary figure than school systems with a lowerproportion of experienced teachers.

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

Technical Training and Higher Education

Higher education is a central feature inMontgomery County’s economic and educationallandscape. While both Virginia Tech, located inBlacksburg, and Radford University, located inthe neighboring city of Radford, offer ampleadult educational opportunities, the cost of bothuniversities may place them out of reach foradults interested in gaining new skills orexpanding existing skills. New River CommunityCollege, located in Dublin (Pulaski County),offers technical training, but the distance fromMontgomery County may prove to be ahindrance to adults who can not afford thenecessary transportation. Currently, NRCCclasses are offered through a satellite locationin Christiansburg and through the public schools.


EDU 1.0 Educational Facilities and Opportunities: Provide highquality, lifelong educational opportunities and facilities throughoutMontgomery County.

EDU 1.1 New and Existing Educational Facilities: Addresscurrent and future educational facility and program needs inMontgomery County through a cooperative approach betweenMontgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, citizens,the business community, and the Montgomery County PublicSchools.

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

EDU 1.1.2 Facility Standards. Develop and adopt amutually acceptable planning standard for schoolfacilities, including renovation standards and a mobileclassroom policy.

EDU 1.1.3 Facilities Renewal Program: Design andincorporate a Facilities Renewal Program into theMontgomery County Capital Improvements Program,which would allow for large scale renewal, renovation,and expansion of existing facilities to meet futureneeds, including: physical upgrade, systemic upgrades(i.e. electrical, hvac, roofs), and facility changes forprogrammic upgrades (renewal/rehabilitation ofscience, vocational and technological facilities), whilerecognizing the need for multi-use facilities. (3)

Educational Resources: GoalsEDU 1.1.4 Landbanking: Land bank sufficient landfor future educational uses, including the expansion ofexisting facilities and the construction of new facilities.

EDU 1.1.5 Decommissioned & AbandonedStructures: Develop a policy for publicly owned,decommissioned or abandoned structures, includingfacilities owned by Montgomery County, theMontgomery County Public Schools, and otherapplicable agencies and departments.

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

EDU 1.2.1 New Facilities. Develop a policy for thedesign of new school facilities which wouldaccommodate multi-use, including a combination ofcommunity-based human, health, recreational, andgovernment services. (5)

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

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Educational Resource 116

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 CommunitySpace (pg. 82); and PRC 1.1.4 Facility Sharing (pg. 206).

Cross References and Notes:2. The retention of Village-based facilities underscores the observation that “Villageshave served as, and will continue to serve as focal points, for surrounding ruralareas” (PLU 1.7, pg 43). Village Area Facilities and Utilities are addressed in PLU1.7.5 (pg. 45). Additional information on Villages (PLU 1.6, pg. 41) and VillageExpansion Areas (PLU 1.7, pg. 43) can be found in the Planning and Land Usechapter.3. The capital improvements program is also addressed in the plan implementationportion of the Introduction; PNG 7.2 Capital Improvements Program (pg. 69); PRC2.1.2 Recreational Priorities and Funding (pg. 207); and SFY 1.3.2 Public SafetyFacilities and Funding (pg. 198).

EDU 2.0 Lifelong Learning. Adopt a countywide approach to lifelonglearning needs, including: 1) the development of adult education andjob training facilities and programs; 2) development and provisionof child care programs and facilities (pre-K, K-12 before and afterschool programs and facilities, and at-risk youth programs andfacilities); and 3) nontraditional educational programs and facilities.

EDU 2.1 Job and Vocational Education. Explore theexpansion of university, community college, vocational, andtechnical programs in Montgomery County through the reuseof abandoned or decommissioned educational facilities andfunded through public/ private partnerships.

EDU 2.1.1 Technical and Vocational TrainingOpportunities. Prepare a study, in conjunction withEconomic Development, Montgomery County SocialServices, and the Montgomery County Public Schools,that examines current and future technical training andvocational training needs in Montgomery County andrecommends possible approaches to the provision ofnew or upgraded vocational and technical trainingfacilities and programs. (6)

ECD 2.1.2 Community Technical Education/Knowledge Capital Task Force: Recognizing thatknowledge-based capital is one of the region's strengths,appoint a task force to 1) evaluate knowledge-basedcapital in the Montgomery County MSA, as well ascurrent student and adult educational, technical, andvocational training opportunities and facilities; 2)develop a long range plan for workforce developmentthat addresses long-range needs and objectives; and3) design and promote training and retraining programswhich will benefit students, workers, and areabusinesses and institutions. (7)

EDU 2.2 Nontraditional Educational Facilities. Continueto develop nontraditional educational facilities (such as theCoal Mining Heritage Park and Science Center, the FarmingHeritage Park, the Christiansburg Institute, Blacksburg’sHeritage Community Park and Natural Area, and theMontgomery County Museum) to provide expandededucational opportunities through public/private partnerships.

EDU 2.2.1 Coal Mining Heritage Park EducationalFacilities . Continue to develop the historic andscientific educational facilities and programs in theCoal Mining Heritage Park, (8)

EDU 2.2.2 Farming Heritage Park EducationalFacilities: Develop the historic and agriculturaleducational facilities at a Farming Heritage Park,including the establishment of facilities and programssupporting agricultural extension, 4-H, and FutureFarmers of America.

EDU 2.2.3 Christiansburg Institute andChristiansburg Community Center. Support thedevelopment of alternative educational and museumfacilities and programs at the Christiansburg Instituteand Christiansburg Community Center (originalChristiansburg Institute), focusing, specifically, on theneeds of minority communities in Montgomery County.(9)

EDU 2.2.4 Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library.Provide continuing support for the Montgomery-FloydRegional Library, including the development of newfacilities, the revitalization of existing facilities, andthe expansion of the technical infrastructure in supportof adult educational opportunities. (10)


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

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 HighStreet in Christiansburg, are outside of the jurisdiction of this plan, the work performedbenefits all Montgomery County residents. In the past, Montgomery County has beenasked to support and lend expertise to the development process of both institutions.Participants in the Cultural and Educational Facilities workgroup felt strongly thatthis support should be recognized and continued.10. The Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library is also addressed, in greater detail, inCRS 2.0 (pg. 82).

EnvironmentalAtlas

Montgomery


Adopted: 10/12/04

Environmental Atlas Soils

Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04 Environmental Atlas 151

Environmental Atlas GeologyEnvironmental Atlas Soils


Environmental Atlas Geology Environmental Atlas Surficial Geology


Environmental Atlas Karst Features


Environmental Atlas Mines


Environmental Atlas Mines Environmental Atlas Faultlines


Environmental Atlas Faultlines Environmental Atlas Threatened and Endangered Species


Environmental Atlas Floodplains


Environmental Atlas Floodplains Environmental Atlas Land Use and Ag. & Forestal Districts


EnvironmentalResourcesMontgomeryCounty,2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Environmental Resources: Executive SummaryIn 1947, Gifford Pinchot, wrote that "conservation means thegreatest good to the greatest number for the longest time...[and]demands the application of common sense to the common problemsfor the common good." The natural resources of MontgomeryCounty (including open space, agriculture, forests, water, karst,flora, wildlife, and mineral resources) are vital to the county’squality of life and provide substantial economic and recreationalopportunities for the citizens of the county. By considering thenatural resources in Montgomery County as a sustainable asset,an asset which will continue to contribute to the quality of life ofgenerations to come, the County can encourage stewardshipthrough the use of Best Management Practices, increasedinterjurisdictional cooperation, and common sense in naturalresource conservation, preservation, and management.

The environmental resources chapter focuses on seven keyareas of interest:

• Resource Stewardship, including open space, waterquality, air quality, species and habitat protection andenvironmental planning through the implementationof 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


Montgomery County, 2025 --Adopted 10/12/04 Environmental Resources 119

Environmental Resources: IntroductionCOMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

Participants were asked to rank five specificissues: agricultural preservation, environmentalquality, old or failing septic systems, open spacepreservation, and protection of surface andgroundwater. Of the five issues, protection ofsurface and groundwater had the highest score(4.33) and generated the greatest number ofcomments. Participants, overwhelmingly, ratedthe protection of ground and surface water aseither “important” (19%) or “very important”(67%). Only 4% felt that protection of surfaceand groundwater was either “minimallyimportant” (2%) or “not important” (2%). Inexamining response to the “protection of surfaceand groundwater” issue, the survey producedthe following results:

• 69% of homeowners ranked the issue as"very important” while only 55 % ofrenters gave it the same ranking;

• 83% of those living in modular residences,69% of those living in stickbuiltresidences, 53% of those living in single-wides, and 50% of those living in double-wides ranked the issue as “very important;”

• 69% of those with children and 65% ofthose in households with no childrenranked the issue as “very important,” and

• 68% of those living in the unincorporatedareas of the county and 66% of townresidents ranked the issue as “veryimportant.”

Interestingly enough, women were more likelyto rate the protection of surface and groundwater as “very important” (61% to 69%).

The result is, perhaps, not surprising giventhat the Community Survey followed closelyon the heels of one of the worst droughts in theCounty’s history. With low water levels in theNew, Little, and Roanoke Rivers, dry wells,

and dusty yards fresh in participants minds,water-related concerns dominated many of thecomments and the discussions in the communitymeetings. While most of the written commentswere short and direct, demanding that theCounty pay attention to water quantity andquality, others drew the connection betweenwater quality, environmental protection, andland use. One participant wrote that “...we needto protect ground water and limit residentialexpansion.” Others recommended that theCounty “reduce water pollution by using organicmethods where possible for county parks andlandscaping, ... use environmentally soundagricultural practices;” “require buffer zones

on creeks and streams,” and “encourage riparianvegetation.” A number of participants suggestedthat the County take a coordinated, watershedapproach to water resources, including:developing a “ watershed plan and implement[it] on whole watershed basis,” “coordinatewatershed management and planning,”“develop a karst terrain ordinance and mappingprogram to protect groundwater,” and implementbetter "floodplain management.”

Environmental quality ranked a close second,among participants, with a score of 4.30, with84% ranking it as either “important” (18%) or“very important” (66%). As with “protectionof ground and surface water,” the issue produced



some similar subgroup results, although therewere some differences between significantgroups. 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 inhow participants in different age brackets rankedthe issue of “environmental quality:” participantsbetween 18 and 24 (57%) and over 65 (55%)were less likely to rank the issue as “veryimportant” than were those ages 25-34 (62%),35-49 (71%), and 50-65 (72%).

Participant comments, concerning“environmental quality” centered on four mainissues: 1) the need for increased and effectiveenvironmental monitoring, especially of air andwater quality; 2) the need for a more proactiveapproach to resource management in the County;3) increased public education and awareness ofenvironmental issues and best practices,especially in the agricultural community; and4) the need to pay closer attention to and havegreater awareness of the impact of industrial,commercial, and educational institutions on theenvironment. Participants advocated attractingclean or green industries, working with localcompanies and educational institutions to cleanup environmentally unsound practices, andworking with governmental agencies to enforceexisting ordinances.

Participants comments, however, were notlimited to these four issues. Many of theparticipants noted the need for increased inter-jurisdictional cooperation, especially in termsof water quality and waste management; theneed for better agricultural and logging practices;the need for more stringent environmentalassessments before approving development;and the need to increase environmentaleducation in the public schools and amongorganizations in the County.

Open space preservation ranked third amongthe environmental resource issues (mean score


Environmental Resource Issues:Community Survey Mean Results, 2003

Mean Score

Protection of Surface and Groundwater 4.33

Environmental Quality 4.30

Open Space Preservation 4.14

Agricultural Preservation 3.84

Old and/or Failing Septic Systems 3.46

4.40

4.30

4.20

4.10

4.00

3.90

3.80

3.70

3.60

3.50

3.40Protection ofSurface and

Groundwater

EnvironmentalQuality

Open SpacePreservation

AgriculturalPreservation

Old and/orFailing Septic

Systems



of 4.14 and median score of 5.0), with 79% ofparticipants rating open space preservation aseither important (22%) or very important (57%).As described in the community facilitatorsglossary, open space preservation is a catchallcategory that refers to “the preservation of openspace features and viewsheds, includingridgelines, agricultural and forestal areas, naturalareas, wetlands and open water, and wildlifehabitats.”

Citizen comments covered a wide range ofopen space issues, including the preservationof 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 promotionof development patterns which encourage openspace preservation, the development ofconservation easement programs and land trusts,

and the design and implementation of effectiveopen space planning.

As with the other environmental issues,participants saw proactive approaches andinterjurisdictional cooperation as central to thepreservation of open space. One participantsuggested that the County “develop a plan topreserve open space that used countyordinances, the land trust, and county monies,”Others suggested working with “surroundinglocalities to protect wood areas and greenspacesthat cross county boundaries” and “adopt [an]open space plan into the comp plan thatidentifies natural and cultural resources worthyof protection.” Still others suggested specificprograms to address open space preservationissues, including: “institute a greenway parkprogram similar to Roanoke Valleycommunities;” and “designate special protectednatural areas and wildlife corridors to providehabitat for native plants and animals [bycooperating] with the Virginia Birding andWildlife Trails [program] to develop tourism.”

Agricultural preservation, although includedin the description for open space preservation,was treated as a separate subject because theissue went beyond the preservation of naturalresources. As defined in the CommunityFacilitators Handbook glossary, agriculturalpreservation includes not only the preservation

of farms and other agricultural lands, but alsorecognizes agriculture as a threatened industryin Montgomery County (as well as most ruraljurisdictions in Virginia). In this sense,agricultural preservation is an environmental,planning, and economic issue.

Agricultural preservation had a mean scoreof 3.84, with 69% of participants rating it aseither important (29%) or very important (40%).Support for agricultural preservation variedsignificantly by organizational type, previousparticipation, and age. Of the organizationaltypes that participated in the communityfacilitator’s initiative, only 8% of commercialor industrial organizations rated agriculturalpreservation as “very important,” while 53%of participants from religious organizations,41% from civic and community organizations,and 39% from educational organizations gaveit the same ranking. Those who had previouslyparticipated in a planning workshop were morelikely to rate agricultural preservation as “veryimportant” (50%) than were new participants(39%). Support for agricultural preservationincreased with age, with the highest level ofsupport coming from participants ages 50-65(45% rated it as “very important”), results whichreflect similar trends on other environmentalissues.

A number of participants noted the need topreserve the family farm, preserve local farming





in order to protect the local food supply, andprotect farmland from subdivisions anddevelopers. One common theme runningthrough participants comments was the need tomaintain government support of local agriculturethrough use-value taxation, maintaining the“safety net (tax reduction)” for agriculturalareas (family farms), and by “promoting marketsfor our locally produced farm goods.”Participants also noted the need to expand theterms of the debate to include forestal lands,urging the County to “not lock up forest landfor parks but maintain the forest land base asproductive forest to provide continued economicbenefits.” Again, as with other environmentalissues, participants suggested using existingand expanded zoning laws, other ordinances,tax incentives, and other support programs to

help maintain the quality and quantity of localagricultural and forestry lands.

The last issue addressing environmentalresources was concern for old and/or failingseptic systems. While the issue did not garneras much support as other issues, with a meanscore of 3.43, 57% of participants felt the issuewas either “important” or “very important.”Interestingly enough, concern over old and/orfailing septic systems was higher amongBlacksburg residents (62%) than among County(53%) or Christiansburg (53%) residents.Among participants’ chief concerns was theneed for heightened testing and monitoring,increased emphasis on alternative systems, anda concern over the impact of septic systems onthe groundwater supply, especially in areaswith karst terrain. As one participant observed,“there are too many septic systems for thegeology.”

Participants comments were not, however,limited to the five environmental issues includedin the “rate this issue” portion of the survey.Participants expressed concerns over the needfor local and government support forconservation easements, the purchase or transferof development rights, and other landowneragreements; increased awareness of agriculturalrunoff and non-point source pollution;strengthening of local erosion and sedimentcontrol laws and ordinances governing trash,junk cars, property maintenance, and litter; andlimiting the impact of light pollution in ruralareas. As one participant wrote, “the county isnow evolving into not only the dumpinggrounds for dead automobiles but dead mobilehomes are starting to litter the countylandscape.” Another wrote, “I do not want toleave my children/grandchildren [with] thefilthy sprawl I left in North[ern] Virginia.”Indeed, not wanting to become NorthernVirginia, maintaining the rural qualities andquality of life, and preserving the naturalenvironment were fairly common themes,especially in participants’ futures statements.

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL TRENDSAND CONDITIONS

Physical Description

Covering 388 square miles, MontgomeryCounty is characterized by three distinctgeographies: the Blue Ridge Mountains in thesoutheastern portion of the county, the initialslopes of the Allegheny Mountains along thenorthern portion, and the Christiansburg Plateau,in the southern, central, and western portions,separating the two ranges. In addition,Montgomery County is split by the ContinentalDivide, which defines the eastern edge of theChristiansburg Plateau and neatly cutsBrush Mountain and Gap Mountains, in thenorthern portion of the county, into three




Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature (F)

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

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

BLACKSBURG 3 SE, VA (440766) 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

LAFAYETTE 1 NE, VA (444676) 3.03 2.86 3.37 3.14 3.74 3.38 3.96 3.3 3.11 2.9 2.76 2.79 38.32

PILOT 1 ENE, VA (446723) 2.57 2.68 3.25 3.47 3.77 3.32 3.94 3.76 3.16 3.34 2.66 2.61 38.54

RADFORD, VA (446999) 2.37 2.43 3.15 3.29 3.5 3.22 3.43 3.32 2.86 3.33 2.81 2.54 36.28 Average Total SnowFall (in.)

BLACKSBURG 3 SE, VA (440766) 7.1 6.1 4.3 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 3.8 23.1

LAFAYETTE 1 NE, VA (444676) 6.5 5.4 3 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 3.6 19.6

PILOT 1 ENE, VA (446723) 6.2 4.3 2.9 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 1.3 3.3 18.8

RADFORD, VA (446999) 0.3 0 1.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 2.1

Montgomery County: Average Temperature and Precipitation, 1951-2003

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

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Average Max. Temperature (F)

Average Min. Temperature (F)

Average Maximum & Minimum Temperatures:Blacksburg 3 SE, VA (440766), 1951-2003

BLACKSBURG 3 SE, VA (440766)

LAFAYETTE 1 NE, VA (444676)

PILOT 1 ENE, VA (446723)

RADFORD, VA (446999)

4.2

4

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

Average Annual Precipitation, by Month, 1951-2003


separate watersheds. East of the Divide, thestreams and runoff contribute to theheadwaters of the James River, which flows intothe Chesapeake Bay, and the north andsouth forks of Roanoke River, which merge atLafayette and flow into Albemarle Sound onthe North Carolina coast. To the west, the waterenters the New River, part of the muchlarger Mississippi River watershed which emptiesinto the Gulf of Mexico.

The Continental Divide defines far more thanthe flow of ground and surface water. To the eastof the Divide, the valleys narrow, bordered bymoderately steep ridges. To the west, the land inthe New River Drainage Basin is marked bygently rolling land, Although there aremountainous areas on the west side of the divide,their sides and ridges are far more moderatelysloped. The degree of slopes, east and west, havean impact on the type, degree, and impact ofrunoff from construction, logging operations, andother land uses. On steeper slopes, runoff hasless chance to be absorbed into and filtered bythe soil and vegetation. Any construction or landuse that increases runoff on steeper slopes willpotentially contribute to additional flooding,increased silt in streams, and loss of top soil.

Climate

The climate in Montgomery County isgenerally mild, with temperatures ranging fromaverage low of 20.4° in January to an averagehigh of 82.7°in July. Depending on the area ofthe County, the average annual precipitationvaries, between 40.52” in the Blacksburg area to38.32” in Lafayette, 38.54” in Pilot, and 36.28 “in Radford. Just as the precipitation amounts varydepending on the area of Montgomery County,so too does the time of the year when the greatestprecipitation is likely to occur. In the Blacksburgand Radford areas, May is the wettest month,with an average of 4.02” and 3.5” of precipitation,respectively. For eastern and southernMontgomery County, July is the wettest month,with an average of 3.96” in Lafayette and 3.94”

8

7.5

7

6.5

6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

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

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average 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

1997 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

1998 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

1999 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

2000 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

2001 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

2002 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

2003 1.21 6.31 3.08 4.43 6.18 7.57 7.75 2.64 4.06 1.8 3.87 2.7 51.6Southeast Regional Climate Center, 2004

Note: At one time, Montgomery County had four climate stations: Blacksburg, Lafayette, Pilot, andRadford. The Pilot station was discontinued in 1985, and the Radford station was discontinued in1992. Subsequently, there is no data available for the parts of Montgomery County most effected bythe 1998-2002 drought. The Blacksburg station data was chosen because the Blacksburg stationtypically has the greatest amount of precipitation annually.

Mean, 1951-2003


in Pilot.

Air Quality

Air quality data for Montgomery County isa bit thin or outdated primarily because thereis no air monitoring station in the County andthe relevant Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) data does not extend beyond 1999. Theclosest monitoring station is located in theRoanoke Valley. Because of geography, largerpopulation, and denser development, the datais not applicable to Montgomery County andthe New River Valley. Indeed, the lack of anair quality monitoring station was raised as aconcern by participants in the community survey.

Data on air pollutants and emissions fromspecific facilities is available, however the datais five years out of date, so there is no way ofdetermining whether conditions have improvedor deteriorated. Data from the EPA indicatesthere are 67 commercial and governmentoperations in Montgomery County whichproduce and release pollutants into the air. Asthe point sources of pollutant emissions map(left) indicates, there are high concentrationsof point sources in the Blacksburg IndustrialPark, in northeast Christiansburg, and at theRadford Arsenal.

Water Quality

Unlike air quality, there are water qualitymonitoring stations in Montgomery County. Inaddition, the Save Our Streams program,administered by the Virginia Natural HistoryMuseum, uses volunteers to monitor streams.

According to the EPA, nine facilities havepermission to discharge pollutants into thesurface waters in Montgomery County. Inaddition, there are 27 community water systems(homes and businesses), 11 transient watersystems (rest areas, camp grounds, and gasstations), and 3 non-transient, non-communitywater systems (schools) in Montgomery County.

The majority of the consolidated facilities

Montgomery County: Total Facility Emissionsfor Criteria Air Pollutants, 1996 and 1999

Emissions in short tons (2,000 lbs) per year.

Pollutant 1996 1999

Emissions Density,1999 (Tons perSquare Mile)

Carbon Monoxide 1024 158 52-130

Nitrogen Oxides 377 1372 11-32

Sulfur Dioxide 1073 3277 2.6-20

Volatile Organic Compounds 1124 1190 9.4-23

Particulate (size < 2.5 micrometers) 527 83.4 2.1-3.5

Particulate (size < 10 micrometers) 626 133 7.8-13

Ammonia 0.31 0.32 1.7-2.9

Total 96-260

Note: Although the EPA data indicated between 10 and 15 contributing sources for the abovetotals, 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, mostspecifically automobiles.Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AirNOW, 2004.

Point Sources of Pollutant Emissions, 2003

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EnviroMapper, 2004


with permits to discharge to water arewastewater treatment plants, including theBlacksburg Country Club STP, BVPISA Wastewater treatment facility, the Town ofChristiansburg, the Montgomery County PSA,the Riner Town Sewage Treatment facility, theShawsville Town Sewage Treatment facility,and Virginia Tech Water Supply. The remainingfacilities are located at two corporate sites:Federal Mogul and the Radford Arsenal.

Of the 27 community drinking water systems,located in Montgomery County, 11 purchasedtreated surface water, 12 use ground water, andthe remaining two (Blacksburg-Christiansburg-VPI Water Authority and the Radford Arsenal)use surface water, primarily drawn from theNew River. Public systems provide drinkingwater to 54,270 residents (in the combinedjurisdictions. The remaining systems are eitherprivately operated or are specific to asubdivision, manufactured housing park, orindustry.

Impaired Streams (1)

The Virginia Department of EnvironmentalQuality, which is tasked with monitoring TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDL) in accordancewith regulations from the federal Clean WaterAct, identified eight streams or portions ofstreams impaired by man-made causes and 1stream impaired by natural causes in twowatersheds: the Roanoke River and the NewRiver. With the exception of Wilson Creek,none of the stream impairments had a singlecause. Of the eight streams, two were impairedby general standard (benthic) causes, six byagricultural causes, six by urban causes, andtwo (both in the area west of Riner) by domesticseptage from private septic systems.

Soils (2)

According to the USDA Soil ConservationService Soil Survey of Montgomery County(1980, 1982) Montgomery County has sevenprimary soil types: 1) Groseclose-Poplimento-Duffield, 2) Caneyville-Opequon-Rock outcrop,3) Berks-Groseclose-Lowell, 4) Berks-Lowell-Rayne, 5) Berks-Weikert, 6) Glenig-Parker, and7) Unison-Braddock.

The soil types, in Montgomery County, alignwith other features and land uses. Areas withboth geologic faults and, in two cases (PriceMountain and Brush Mountain) semi-anthracite

coal seams, have Berks-Weikert soils, overlayingan acid shale and sandstone residuum bedrock.Areas with significant karst features, mostnotably in the Roanoke River (North and SouthFork) and the Toms Creek watersheds, arecharacterized by Caneyville-Opequon-Rockoutcrop, Berks-Lowell- Groseclose, andGroseclose-Poplimento-Duffield soils, all ofwhich overlay limestone bedrock formations.Farmland in Montgomery County is located,primarily, in areas with Groseclose-Poplimento-Duffield, Berks-Groseclose-Lowell, and UnisonBraddock soils, although only Unison-Braddock,an alluvium soil found along the New River, isconsidered prime soil by the US Departmentof Agriculture.

Montgomery County: Impaired Streams, 2002(2002 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load Priority List)

Watershed / River or Stream Length Cause SourceRoanoke River 15.31 Temperature Natural ConditionsRoanoke: North Fork 6.56 miles Fecal Coliform; NPS-Urban; Unknown

Metals in fish tissueRoanoke: Wilson Creek 6.91 miles Fecal Coliform NPS-UrbanNew River: Crab Creek 12 miles Fecal Coliform NPS Agriculture/Urban

General Standard NPS Agriculture/Urban(Benthic)

New River: Meadow Creek 4.48 miles Fecal Coliform Agriculture/Wildlife/Domestic Septage

New River: Little River 1.29 miles Fecal Coliform NPS-Agriculture/WildlifeNew River: Mill Creek 15.27 miles Fecal Coliform NPS-Agriculture/Wildlife

Domestic SeptageStroubles Creek 7.08 miles Fecal coliform; NPS Agriculture/Urban;

General Standard NPS Agriculture/Urban(Benthic) 4.98

New River 52.08 miles Fissue Tissue-PCBs VDH Fish ConsumptionAdvisory / Unknown

Notes:1. The only point source cited by the DEQ was the Radford Army Arsenal Plant, which dischargedAmmonia (71.59) into the New River (Water Quality Based Effluent Waters 2002 303(d) TMDL PriorityList).2. NPS = Non-point sourceSource: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2004

2. A description of each of the soil types can be found inthe glossary under soils. A soil map for the county isinclude in the Environmental Atlas at the end of thisintroduction.

1. A map of the impaired streams in Montgomery Countyis included in the Environmental Atlas at the end of thisintroduction.


Geology and Karst (3)

As the description of the soils indicates, alarge portion of Montgomery County sits onlimestone, shale, and sandstone bedrock and ischaracterized by a karst topography, includingsink holes and caves. Inasmuch as karst is afeature associated with limestone, little, if anykarst features are prevalent in the area southwestof Riner and south into Floyd County.

Until the 1940s and early 1950s,Montgomery County had a significant semi-anthracite coal mining industry, centered onBrush and Price Mountains. Although the coalstill exists in the two locations, the cost ofremoval and environmental constraints mademining in those two locations prohibitive.Currently, mining, in Montgomery County, islimited to quarrying limestone southeast ofBlacksburg and west of Shawsville.

Vegetation and Endangered and ThreatenedSpecies (4)

Much of the vegetation in MontgomeryCounty is typical of mixed hardwood/coniferforests, with white oak, red maple, northern redoak, white ash, white pine, and Virginia pineon the southern and southwestern slopes andscarlet oak and chestnut oak on the northernand northeastern slopes.

On April 22, 2004, Representative RickBoucher and Senator John Warner introducedthe “Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness andNational Scenic Areas Act of 2004.” The billwould designate the portion of Brush Mountain,extending from Blacksburg east into CraigCounty, as the Brush Mountain Wilderness Area(4,707 acres in Montgomery County) and theBrush Mountain East Wilderness Area (3,800

Montgomery County: Impaired Streams, 2002(2002 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load Priority List)

Watershed / River or Stream Length Cause SourceRoanoke River 15.31 Temperature Natural ConditionsRoanoke: North Fork 6.56 miles Fecal Coliform; NPS-Urban; Unknown

Metals in fish tissueRoanoke: Wilson Creek 6.91 miles Fecal Coliform NPS-UrbanNew River: Crab Creek 12 miles Fecal Coliform NPS Agriculture/Urban

General Standard NPS Agriculture/Urban(Benthic)

New River: Meadow Creek 4.48 miles Fecal Coliform Agriculture/Wildlife/Domestic Septage

New River: Little River 1.29 miles Fecal Coliform NPS-Agriculture/WildlifeNew River: Mill Creek 15.27 miles Fecal Coliform NPS-Agriculture/Wildlife

Domestic SeptageStroubles Creek 7.08 miles Fecal coliform; NPS Agriculture/Urban;

General Standard NPS Agriculture/Urban(Benthic) 4.98

New River 52.08 miles Fissue Tissue-PCBs VDH Fish ConsumptionAdvisory / Unknown

Notes:1. The only point source cited by the DEQ was the Radford Army Arsenal Plant, which dischargedAmmonia (71.59) into the New River (Water Quality Based Effluent Waters 2002 303(d) TMDL PriorityList).2. NPS = Non-point sourceSource: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2004

Note: Department of Conservation & Recreation Codes: S1=extremely rare; S2=very rare; S3=rare touncommon; 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.

Montgomery County: Rare and Endangered Species, 2004Date

Global State Federal State Last

Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status Obs.AmphibianCryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender G3G4 S2S3 SC 1979Bivalvia (Mussels)Lasmigona subviridis Green Floater G3 S2 SC 1981Natural CommunitiesNatural Community Appalachian Cave

Drip Pool/epikarsticCommunity

G2 S2 SOC 1970

Crustacea (Amphipods, Isopods, & DecapodsCaecidotea vandeli Vandel's Cave

IsopodG2G3 S1S2 SOC 1969

Stygobromus estesi Craig County CaveAmphipod

G1G2 S1S2 SOC 1999

Stygobromus fergusoni Montgomery CountyCave Amphipod

G1G2 S1 SOC 1969

Diplopoda (Millipedes)Pseudotremia cavernarum Ellett Valley

PseudotremiaMillipede

G2G4 S1 LT ND

Diplura (Diplurans)Litocampa sp. 3 A Cave Dipluran G2 S2 SOC 1971FishNoturus gilberti Orangefin Madtom G2 S2 SOC LT 1989Percina rex Roanoke Logperch G1G2 S1S2 LE LE 1986Lepidoptera (Butterflies & Moths)

Pyrgus centaurae wyandot AppalachianGrizzled Skipper G2 S1S2 SOC LT 1975

MammalsMyotis sodalis Indiana Bat G2 S1 LE LE 1947Vascular PlantsVascular PlantsBuckleya distichophylla Piratebush G2 S2 SOC 1996Clematis addisonii Addison's Leatherflower G2 S2 SOC 2001Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower G2 S2 LE LT 2002Paxistima canbyi Canby's Mountain-lover G2 S2 SOC 1993Phlox buckleyi Sword-leaved Phlox G2 S2 SOC 19923. Maps dealing with Geology, Surficial Geology, Karst,

and Mines can be found in the Environmental Atlas at theend of this introduction.4. The Threatened and Endangeres Species map can befound in the Environmental Atlas at the end of thisintroduction.


acres in Craig County). Among other things,the bill would require the development of a trailplan for hiking, mountain bike, and equestriantrails, consistent with the Wilderness Act.

Montgomery County is part of the VirginiaDepartment of Conservation and Recreation’s(DCR) “ridge and valley physiographicprovince.” Specifically, the County is recognizedfor its karst features, including caves, and forits dolomite glades. Currently, MontgomeryCounty has 18 threatened or endangered species.Of these, three are federally designated asendangered species: the Roanoke logperch (afish), the Indiana bat, and the smoothconeflower.

Hazards and Hazard Mitigation (5)

In the spring, 2004, the New River ValleyPlanning District Commission released the NewRiver Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2004 inresponse to the passage of the DisasterMitigation Act of 2000, which requires thatstate and local governments adopt mitigationplans by November 1, 2004 or be deemedineligible for future FEMA assistance. (6)

In the years between 1969 and 2002, there

5. Unless otherwise noted, the information in hazards andhazard mitigation portion of this introduction was takenfrom the New River Valley Planning District Commission’sdraft version of the New River Valley Hazard MitigationPlan 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 andvulnerabilities; 3) mitigation strategy, including goals,analysis of options, and action plan; and 4) planmaintenance process, including methods of monitoring,evaluating and updating within a five year cycle.” Inaddition, the act requires that jurisdictions take an “allnatural hazards planning” approach, including considerationof atmospheric, hydrologic, and geologic hazards, as wellas other types of hazards (wildfires, subsidence in karstareas, etc.). It is important to note that “hazard” is definedas “an even or physical condition that has the potential tocause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructuredamage, agricultural loss, damage to the environment,interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss.”

were 28 Presidential Disaster Declarationsissued in Virginia, 50% of which have includedthe New River Valley. Most of the disasterswere from flooding, winter weather (blizzards,storms, and ice), and hurricane-related storms(Camille, Agnes, and Fran). An additionalFederal Disaster declaration was issued forMontgomery County following a storm thatresulted both in ice and in flooding. Finally, theUS Department of Agriculture, in 2000, declareda USDA Disaster, based on the severe droughtwhich started in 1999 and lasted until 2002 andresulted in $2,700,000 in farm facility andlivestock weight losses in Montgomery Countyalone.

Of the hazards included in the PlanningDistrict Commission’s hazard assessment,flooding, most specifically flash flooding, isthe most prevalent natural hazard inMontgomery County. The New River ValleyHazard Mitigation Plan 2004 cites sixteenspecific flooding sources in the County.

According to the New River Valley PDC,as of “December, 2002, the National FloodInsurance Policies inforce in MontgomeryCounty covered $15,289,700 in theunincorporated portions of the County,$2,386,900 in Blacksburg, and $2,485,200 inChristiansburg.” Finally, the Hazard MitigationPlan identified the areas along the South Forkof the Roanoke River and the Roanoke Riveras “Special Flood Hazard Area,” in part becauseof the range of structures at risk during a majorflood event, including Shawsville ElementarySchool, the Elliston Wastewater TreatmentPlant, and some 85 homes. Other areas proneto flooding include the densely developed areaalong Plum Creek and portions of Blacksburgand along Crab Creek in Christiansburg.

Flooding and flash flooding, however, arenot the only hazards in Montgomery County.As the years between 1998 and 2002 amplydemonstrate, portions of Montgomery Countywere highly susceptible to the droughtconditions, conditions which resulted in 370dry wells and springs. As the annual and

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 RiverJames River Watershed:

• Craig Creek

Source: New River Valley Planning DistrictCommission, The New River Valley Hazard MitigationPlan, 2004.



monthly precipitation averages indicate, thesouthern and western portions of MontgomeryCounty were far drier than either the northernor eastern areas. Unfortunately, the climatestations in those two areas were closed well inadvance of the 1998-2002 drought, so data isunavailable.

Other hazards identified by the New RiverValley Hazard Mitigation Plan 2004 include:severe weather (snow, ice, lightening, cold, andhail), wildfires, subsiding sink holes and mines,and earthquakes. It should be noted that, despitethe number of faultlines in Montgomery County,no major earthquakes have had their epicenterin the County, although earthquakes haveoccurred in both Giles and Pulaski Counties.

Of the remaining hazards, MontgomeryCounty is most likely to have problems withsevere weather. In recent years, ice has provento be a greater problem, countywide, than otherweather related events, although the winter’sice storms have led to only one PresidentialDisaster Declaration in 1994. PresidentialDisaster Declarations have also been issued inthe region for winter storms (2000), blizzards(1996), and snowstorms (1993)

Montgomery County averages 68 fires perfive year period. While fires in the County donot occur on a grand scale (average size is 2.1acres), the amount of development, includingsubdivisions, into the forested lands in thecounty increases the chances of significantproperty damage if a large scale fire, in fact,occurs.

Agriculture (7)

In the spring of 2000, the MontgomeryCounty Planning Commission and PlanningStaff held a series of community meetings inthe four planning districts (Mount Tabor, PricesFork, Riner, and Shawsville). Reactions frommeeting participants indicated an almost

Number of Working Farms in Virginia, 1997

1987 1997Craig 177 176Floyd 772 731Giles 346 341Montgomery 544 517Pulaski 360 370Roanoke 279 273

1-133 Farms134-229 Farms230-351 Farms352-631 Farms632-1834 Farms

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle


Henrico

Source:U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997 Agricultural Census

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe


Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceEdward

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDinwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

Number of Working Farms,Per County

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Roanoke

CraigFloydGilesMontgomeryPulaskiRoanoke

Montgomery & Neighboring Counties: Number of Farms

and Acreage, 1997

CraigFloydGilesMontgomeryPulaskiRoanoke7. A map of the Agricultural and Forestal Districts and

Land Use Assessment designations is included in theEnvironmental Atlas.

45684122613

67245930748040626688

45684122613

67245930748040626688

Acreage

273

#of farms176731341517370

#of farms176731341517370



Virginia: Average Size of Farms, in Acres, 1997

Source:U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997 Agricultural Census (8) 8 The agriculture portion of this introduction was writtenduring the summer of 2002 and reflects available data atthat time. In the intervening years, additional agriculturalland has been lost, but the introduction of the sliding scalein the 1999 Zoning Ordinance significantly reduced therate of loss. The study draws heavily on census informationfrom both the U.S. Census and the U.S and VirginiaDepartments of Agriculture and Forestry, and the U.S.Department of Commerce’s 1987, 1992, and 1997 Censusesof Agriculture. One caveat, however, the CommerceDepartment completes their agricultural census every fiveyears (in years ending in 2 and 7); however, the county-level information is not released until two to three yearslater. While the USDA is performing a new AgriculturalCensus this year, the information for Virginia Counties isnot slated to be released until 2004, which effectivelylimits the currency of the census data. Where applicable,the information has been supplemented with rezoning andspecial use permit data for the years since 1997 and by the1999 and 2000 Virginia Agricultural Statistics Bulletin.Additional information was provided by the Virginia Tech/Montgomery County Extension Office and the U.S. ForestService.

Avg. FarmSize, 1997

Craig 260 acres

Floyd 168 acres

Giles 197 acres

Montgomery 180 acres

Pulaski 217 acres

Roanoke 98 acres

0 to 100 acres101 to 200 acres201 to 300 acres301 to 400 acres401+ acres

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle

Alleghany

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Chesterfield

Henrico

Roanoke

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe


Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceWilliam

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDimwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

universal concern over the loss of open spaceand agricultural lands and the degradation ofenvironmental quality during the previous twodecades. As evidence, the participants pointedto the large-scale suburban developments onthe southern slope of Brush Mountain and onthe agricultural lands surrounding Riner. Indeed,one need only drive south on Route 8 or throughthe 460 corridor between Blacksburg andChristiansburg to note the changes in the landuse patterns since the early 1980s.

According to the 2000 Virginia AgriculturalStatistics Bulletin, published by the VirginiaAgriculture Statistics Service, MontgomeryCounty had 517 farms covering 93,074 acres.

The number, however, is misleading because itincludes not only the large scale working farms,but hobby and part-time farms as well. As isnoted later in this chapter, very few of the farmsin Montgomery County are large enough toprovide sole support for the families living onsite.

While cultural definitions of farms are moreoften linked to images of the large scaleoperations in the Midwest, the CommerceDepartment’s definition uses a far more broadlydrawn base criteria. According to the CommerceDepartment, based on the definition used in the1974 census, a farm is any property or placewhich produced and sold $1,000 or more inagricultural products during the census year. The

definition, however, varies according to areaand to state. The Virginia Land Use definitionrequires that a property consistently produceand sell $1,000 or more in agricultural productsover a five year period in order to qualify forthe land use program. In any case, the definitionsallow for a broader range of farms than onemight suppose.

Of the six counties included in this study,two of the counties, Floyd and Montgomery,have consistently lost farms since 1987. Of theremaining four, three (Craig, Giles, and Roanokecounties) have shown a gain in the number offarms between 1992 and 1997, following aninitial loss of farms between 1987 and 1992.The gains in the number of farms in thosecounties in the years between 1992 and 1997,however, did not make up for the losses incurredin the previous five year period. Only PulaskiCounty saw a net gain in the number of farmsduring the 10 year period of this study.

In Montgomery County, the most dramaticloss of farms occurred in the years between1992 and 1997. In the five years prior to therevision of the Subdivision Ordinance in 1993,


240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 1 to 9 10 to 49 50 to 179 180 to 499 500 to 999 1,000+

Farms by size: 1987 1992 1997 1 to 9 acres 25 39 34 10 to 49 acres 156 128 136 50 to 179 acres 213 238 213 180 to 499 acres 111 94 96 500 to 999 acres 24 20 26 1,000 acres or more 15 18 12

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

MontgomeryRoanoke

Montgomery & Neighboring Counties: Distribution of Farms, by Size, 1997

Montgomery County, Distribution of Farms,By Size, 1987-1997

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987, 1992, 1997 Agricultural Census

1-9 Acres

10-49 acres

50-179 acres

180-499 acres

500-999 acres

1000 acres or more

Size of Farm, inAcres

1997

1992

1987


Source:U.S. Department of Agriculture,1997 Agricultural Census

More than 75015001 to 75002500 to 50001 to 25000±

-1 to -2500-2501 to -5000-5001 to -7500-7501-or moreUrban Area orInformation not available

Acreage,1987

Acreage,1992

Acreage, 1997

Craig 50308 45451 45684

Floyd 118115 116509 122613

Giles 71550 73097 67245

Montgomery 97319 98914 93074

Pulaski 78577 71803 80406

Roanoke Co. 29758 24924 26688

Montgomery County & Neighboring Counties: Changes in Agriculture, 1987-1997

Change in Agricultural Acreage: by County, 1992-1997

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle

Alleghany

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Chesterfield

Henrico

Roanoke

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe


Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceWilliam

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDimwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45Craig Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Roanoke

+/- Change 87-92 +/- Change 92-97 Net +/- 1987-1997

+/- Change in the Number of Active Farms, 1987-1997

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0Craig Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Roanoke

Farms 87

Farms 92

Farms 97

Number of Active Farms, 1987-1997


Change in Acreage being Farmed, US Agricultural Census, 1992 and 1997900080007000600050004000300020001000

0-1000-2000-3000-4000-5000-6000

223

6104

-5852 -5840

8603

1764

Craig Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Roanoke Co.

±acres

Montgomery and Neighboring Counties:Changes in Agriculture,1987-1997

130000120000110000100000

900008000070000600005000040000300002000010000

0Craig Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Roanoke Co.

acres, 92

# of Acres being Farmed, U.S. Agricultural Census, 1992 and 1997

acres, 97

Montgomery County actually gained 1,595acres of agricultural land. In the five yearsfollowing the passage of the ordinance,Montgomery County lost 5840 acres. Of theagricultural acres lost, 25.7% were rezoned toaccommodate high-density residential orbusiness uses. An additional 18.6% weredeveloped into large-lot subdivisions. Theremaining farmland was lost to a combinationof uses, although the primary losses were dueto minor and family subdivisions. Finally,between 1990 and 2002, a minimum of 12,315acres were subdivided. The actual number ishigher, but the County did not track minor andfamily nor were landowners required to submittheir minor or family subdivision plats forapproval prior to the revision of the SubdivisionOrdinance.

It should be noted that the passage of the1999 Zoning Ordinance and the introductionof the sliding scale and rural residential zoninghave significantly decreased the number of



Source:U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997 Agricultural Census

Montgomery and Neighboring Counties: Farm Incomeand the Value of Land, 1987-1997

0-20% Increase in Value




81% or Greater Increase in Value

Decreased Value

Value Not Given

Income, 1987Income,1992Income,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

$0Craig Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Roanoke Co.

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle

Alleghany

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Chesterfield

Henrico

Roanoke

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe


Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceWilliam

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDimwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

major subdivisions being sited in the A-1 district.In 2001, 8.5 acres were rezoned from A-1(Agriculture) to either a residential orcommercial use. Among other features, the 1999Zoning Ordinance removed major subdivisionsas a by-right use in the A-1 district, requiringsubdividers to rezone to R-R (Rural Residential)and made the denser development dependenton the provision of public water and sewer notavailable in much of the agricultural and ruralareas of the County. Despite changingrequirements, minor and family subdivisionscontinue to have an effect, accounting for thesubdivision of 676 acres and 2348 acresrespectively between January of 2000 andDecember of 2002. The majority, but not all, ofthe minor and family subdivisions occurred inagricultural or rural districts.



Environmental Resources: Goals

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Environmental Resources 136

Cross References and Notes:9. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are also encouraged in other sections of theEnvironmental Resource Goals, including: ENV 1.5: Water Quality (pg. 137); ENV3.1 Agricultural Programs and Practices (pg. 141); ENV 5.5.2 Groundwater: BestManagement 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 Stormwaterand Erosion Best Management Practices (pg. 149).10. The environmental layers are part of a larger GIS system which MontgomeryCounty 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)

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 5.2.1Septic System Maintenance (pg.145); ENV 5.2.2: Alternative Wastewater ProcessingSystems (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 1.4Individual 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).

ENV 1.0 Natural Resource Stewardship: The County is committedto preserving, conserving, and managing its natural resources, as asustainable asset, for the benefit of its citizens and future generations.

ENV 1.1 Stewardship: Encourage funding of Departmentof Forestry and Virginia Extension Service programs to helpencourage good stewardship of Montgomery County’s natural resources.

ENV 1.2 Resource Management: Encourage the use ofForestry and Agriculture Best Management Practices (BMP’s).(9)

ENV 1.3 Environmental Planning and Mapping: Developa natural and critical resources geographic information systemto facilitate effective environmental planning in Montgomery County, including: Critical Resources Map; ComprehensivePlan; Land Use Policy Map; Comprehensive Plan GISSignificant historic structures and districts (see CulturalResources chapter); Groundwater and surface water resources;Floodplains; Karst terrain; Soils; Vegetation; Geology andgeologic features (other than karst); Rare and endangeredspecies; Well and septic systems; Agricultural and ForestalDistricts; Conservation easements; and State and federallands. (10)

ENV 1.3.1 Environmental GIS Program: Initiateda mapping program to produce large-scale mapsoptimal for environmental planning for the entirecounty. Maps should be produced at a scale of 1:2,400with a 5-foot contour interval for the fast growth areas

of the county, and a scale of 1:4,800 with a 10-footcontour interval for slow growth areas of the County.ENV 1.3.2 Well and Septic GIS Data: Work with theNRV Health Department to expand a current FloydCounty program for gathering GPS data on new septicand well systems into Montgomery County. Use theGPS data to develop a GIS-based location map forseptic systems and wells that can tie into the databaseto easily monitor areas where septic failures and wellcontamination are concentrated. (11)

ENV 1.3.3 Bedrock Geology Maps: Create bedrockgeology maps, similar to Geology of the BlacksburgQuadrangle, Virginia, for areas of Montgomery Countyin the following United States Geological SurveyQuadrangle Maps: Eggleston, Newport, McDonaldsMill, Glenver, Elliston, Ironto, Radford North, RadfordSouth, Riner, Pilot, Check, Indian Valley, and AlumRidge. Priority should be given to the fast developingareas around Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford.

ENV 1.3.4 Karst GIS Database: Identify and provideinformation that will be useful in land use decisionmaking for each sinkhole, sinking creek, cave, karstspring, etc. This information should include, at aminimum, the precise location (recorded by GPS), type,and size of the karst feature, as well as issues of concernthat may require future monitoring of the feature. (12)

ENV 1.3.5 Floodplain Mapping: Improve and updateexisting floodplain mapping data through continuedrequests to FEMA, while utilizing the resources ofeducational institutions, to re-delineate Countyfloodplain boundaries. (13)

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, andSurface Waters (pg. 141) and ENV 4.0 Floodplains (pg. 143).15. Mass Transit is also addressed in HHS 2.3 Transportation (pg. 175) and TRN3.0: Mass Transit (pg. 176).

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 (BrushMountain, Prices Mountain, and Paris Mountain).


ENV 1.4 Wildlife Corridors: Establish green spaces, includingcorridors and greenways, that promote viable wildlife habitat.

ENV 1.5 Water Quality: Develop and initiate water resourcemanagement and Best Management Practices (BMPs) topreserve and maintain ground and surface water quality. (14)

ENV 1.6 Air Quality: Routinely monitor air quality in theCounty to determine if air quality is declining.

ENV 1.6.1 Mass Transit: Encourage the use anddevelopment of mass transit systems in the County. (15)

ENV 1.6.2 Monitoring Station: Work with theDepartment of Environmental Quality and areauniversities to establish an air monitoring station in theMontgomery County.

ENV 1.7 Species Protection: Protect threatened and endangeredplant and animal species in the County. Wildlife habitat

management is a critical component due to the increasingdevelopment in the county.

ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resource : To work with countyresidents to conserve the natural resources and agricultural characterof the land in the county. (16)

ENV 2.1 Private Open Space: Encourage the preservationof the rural and agricultural character of private land withinthe County through cooperative efforts with local landowners.

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service DistrictsENV 2.1.2 Community Development AuthoritiesENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal DistrictsENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale ZoningENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster ZoningENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.7 Rural Development InitiativesENV 2.1.8 Use Value AssessmentENV 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 anddevelopment of additional active and passive parklands andopen space with the cooperation of Blacksburg, Christiansburg,Virginia Tech, and other related entities.

ENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition ProgramENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and VirginiaScenic Byways

ENV 2.3 Viewsheds: Develop and enact a plan of action forthe protection and preservation of the scenic byways andtransportation corridors, rivers, tributaries, and ridgelines. (17)

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service DistrictsENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities


ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale ZoningENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster ZoningENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.7 Rural Development InitiativesENV 2.1.8 Use Value AssessmentENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and

Village Expansion Areas]ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition ProgramENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia

Scenic Byways

ENV 2.4 Forest Land: Minimize the loss of the County’sproductive forestlands.

ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal DistrictsENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.7 Rural Development InitiativesENV 2.1.8 Use Value AssessmentENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and

Village Expansion Areas]ENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational

Distribution ProgramENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia

Scenic Byways

ENV 2.5 Agriculture: Maintain the agricultural land in varioustypes of active production and discourage its conversion toother land uses.

ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal DistrictsENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale ZoningENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster ZoningENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.7 Rural Development InitiativesENV 2.1.8 Use Value AssessmentENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and



Scenic Byways

ENV 2.6 Open Space Corridors : Create a countywidegreenway plan which would include a riverside protectionplan for the New, Roanoke, and Little Rivers and theirtributaries.

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service DistrictsENV 2.1.2 Community Development AuthoritiesENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal DistrictsENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale ZoningENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster ZoningENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and

Village Expansion Areas]ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition ProgramENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational


Scenic Byways

ENV 2.7 Land Trust Support Objective: Support, throughpolicy and funding measures, land trusts for the New RiverValley that coordinate conservation easement programs andother land conservation transactions, such as the donation andpurchase of easements. Develop a program for the County tohold interest in conservation easements.

ENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational


Scenic Byways

ENV 2.8 Inter-Authority Planning Cooperation: Initiatecooperation among Montgomery County, Blacksburg,Christiansburg, Radford, Virginia Tech, Radford University,as well as surrounding counties to coordinate their plans toprevent gaps in rivershed and viewshed protection projectsand stretch open space protection budgets by pooling talentsand resources.

ENV 2.8.1 Representative County Planning Group:Create a team of county representatives responsible forbringing county interests to the attention of the VirginiaTech, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford planningagencies.

ENV 2.8.2 Cooperative Area Plans: Create andimplement action plans for those areas identified inObjective 8, Milton Herds 2002 report, as well as those

Cross References and Notes:18. Development in the agricultural and forested areas of the County are discussedin 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.


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" (April2004) Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and FarmlandPreservation Task Force.22. Rural development initiatives represent one part of the County’s entrepreneurialeconomy. Additional references to small businesses is included in ECD4.1.1:Entrepreneurial Economy (pg.102).

areas identified by the Representative County PlanningGroups.

ENV 2.1.1-12 Approaches to Open Space and AgriculturalPreservation: (18)

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts: Special ServiceDistricts (SSDs) are created by passage of an ordinanceby the Board of Supervisors. They require an organizedplan and dedicated board to carry out the goals, whichcould be tailored to open space preservation. SSDs canbe used to preserve open space by allowing a designatedboard to purchase development rights with the moneyraised from special real estate taxes.

ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities:Community Development Authorities (CDAs) are verysimilar to Special Service Districts but are allowedspecifically to raise funds to purchase easements anddevelopment rights. The other key difference is thatAuthorities can take on long-term debt allowing themto issue revenue-generating bonds as a means ofproducing income.

ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts:Agricultural/Forestal Districts are rural zones that havebeen reserved for the production of agricultural productsand timber. Established as a local planning tool in the1970s by the General Assembly, they are establishedaccording to state guidelines with the approval of thelocal governing body. A district constitutes a voluntaryagreement between landowners and the governmentthat no new, non-agricultural uses will take place in thedistrict. An agricultural/forestal district provides muchstronger protection for farmers and farmland than doestraditional zoning, because it assures that the Use ValueAssessment will continue to be available to landownerswithin the district. Participation in an agricultural/forestaldistrict can also provide protection from local nuisanceordinances. To encourage agricultural/forestal districtparticipation and to reflect the 8-year commitment bylandowners, the County should consider local tax

incentives above and beyond those currently providedthrough the Land Use Assessment program. (19)ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning: (20) Sliding ScaleZoning is a method of zoning requiring that the largerthe initial size of the parent parcel prior to subdividing,the lower the permitted density. The permitted densitydecreases on a sliding scale as the size of the parentparcel increases. The rationale is that higher densitiesshould be allowed on smaller tracts because they aredifficult to farm and may have already moved out ofagriculture and into the residential land market.Minimum lot size is usually set at 1 acre or a maximumof 2 acres and a large number of acres can be utilizedfor open space.

ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning: Rural Cluster Zoningallows a relatively significant amount of residentialdevelopment to occur in rural and farming areas whileat the same time ensuring that such development isdesigned and laid out to have the least possible impacton the landscape and to preserve large chunks of openspace land even after development is complete.

ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements: ConservationEasements are restrictions placed on a parcel of landby its owner that limit how the land may be used in thefuture. Based on the owner’s decision, a conservationeasement may be used to prevent the future conversionof land from its present state to residential, commercial,or other uses. The placement of a conservation easementon a land parcel is totally voluntary and, in most cases,results in tax benefits for the owner. Conservationeasements may be used alone or in combination witha local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program.(21)

ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives: (22)

Cross References and Notes:23. Overall approaches to public information is addressed in PNG 2.2: Informing thePublic (pg.67).24. Scenic Byways is also referenced in TRN 2.6 (pg.223)


Economic Development is normally associated withindustrial and commercial enterprise efforts, but thebasic approach can also be applied to the agriculturaland forest industries. Such efforts can include agri-tourism and eco-tourism, development and promotionof alternative and/or local markets and the developmentof alternative products or production techniques. RuralEconomic Development Initiatives are a part of thisreport because they are voluntary and address thefundamental benefit of making open space land usesmore economically competitive and intensive in orderto achieve long term conservation.

ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment: Use ValueAssessment is a popular program in Virginia that hasbeen used by many localities since the 1970s. Use ValueAssessment is a system by which property taxes arebased on the current use of the land, rather than on itspotential market value as developable (residential,commercial, or industrial) land. This change in tax rateoften provides farmers with enough additional incometo continue farming, when they otherwise would haveto sell their land to pay their taxes. It is also known asLand Use Assessment.

ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban andVillage Expansion Areas] : Urban Growth Boundaryconsists of invisible lines drafted by planners to signifyareas beyond which future growth in the city shouldnot pass. The boundary is often drawn outside of existingpolitical boundaries, such as city limits. Land withinthe boundaries is designated as “urbanizable land.”

ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition Program: PublicLand Acquisition Program is a fund created by a countyfor the express purpose of purchasing public open spacefor use as parks, or recreational corridors.

ENV 2.1.11 Educational and InformationalDistribution Program: To give the residents ofMontgomery County access to open space preservationinformation from the county, state and national level,which they can use to protect their land fromdevelopment. One of the fundamental problems withopen space protection is that most landowners are

unaware of the tools available for the protection oftheir land, and those that have had some exposure tothese tools only have a partial understanding of howthey work. This strategy is essential for the success ofopen space preservation, because until landowners aremore familiar with the available tools, the County willcontinue to meet resistance from many of the County’sresidents. (23)

ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and VirginiaScenic Byways: Virginia Byways are existing roadswith significant aesthetic and cultural values, leadingto or lying within an area of historical, natural orrecreational significance. Virginia Byways designatecorridors of regional significance. Accordingly, theCounty actively supports the retention of agricultural,forest, and open space uses along Virginia Byways.(24)

Cross References and Notes:25. Floodplains are addressed in ENV 4.0: Floodplains (pg. 143). Erosion andSediment 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 RiparianBuffer Easements (pg.149 ). Riparian areas are addressed in ENV 3.2.7 Protectionof Riparian Features (pg.142).


ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters: The county iscommitted to working to maintain and to enhance the quality of itsmany streams and rivers for human health, habitat vitality, and saferecreational opportunities. Furthermore, the county is committed toensuring that the problems such as flooding, erosion, and sedimentationwill be minimized. (25)

ENV 3.1 Agricultural Program and Policy: Encouragefarmers and landowners to work with existing governmentagencies, such as Skyline Soil and Water District, and programsand to learn about and use Best Management Practices (BMP’s)to protect surface water qualities.

ENV 3.1.1 Floodplain Ordinance: Enhance thefloodplain ordinance to require that riparian buffersremain undisturbed at a specified distance from theedge 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 thatincludes provisions to preserve the natural forestedvegetation along the corridors of all perennial streamsand rivers.

ENV 3.1.3 Environmental Quality Corridors:Develop an Environmental Quality Corridor (or WaterQuality Corridor or Creek Overlay District likeBlacksburg) that requires the preservation of riparianbuffers as a foundational component.

ENV 3.1.4 Agricultural Best Management Practices:Work with farmers to locate and obtain grant fundingfrom resources such as the Virginia Agricultural BestManagement Practices Cost Share or the USDA’sEnvironmental Quality Incentives Program. Theseincentives encourage the use of Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) including riparian buffers, fencingof livestock, and providing alternative watering sourcesfor livestock.

ENV 3.1.5 Environmental Education and Outreach:Develop an educational and outreach program tailoredto farming practices near impaired waters to assistfarmers in sharing information and learning aboutalternative techniques.

ENV 3.1.6 Agricultural and Forestal Districts:Strengthen the quality of the Agricultural and ForestalDistrict (AFD) management plan review to ensure thatwater quality goals are an essential element on propertiesin the AFD. Enlist the assistance of Extension Servicestaff, the Skyline Soil and Water Conservation Districtstaff, and other advisory bodies in clarifying the reviewprocess.

ENV 3.1.7 Skyline Soil and Water ConservationDistrict: Work with the Skyline Soil and WaterConservation District to identify county needs andparticipate in district programs. In order to facilitatethe programs of the District and to demonstratecommitment to the partnership, the County shouldincrease funding resources (currently $4000) to theDistrict equivalent to at least half of the amount providedby the highest paying county (currently Floyd Countyat $11,455) in the District.

ENV 3.1.8 Extension Service: Work with the countyExtension Service to disseminate information innewsletters to farmers and to organize educationalsessions on maintaining water quality while enhancingagricultural practices.

ENV 3.2 Vegetation and Soil: Develop initiatives andordinances that maintain and enhance of the integrity of surfacewater bodies during development and redevelopment projectsby minimizing clearing of vegetation and disturbance of soils.

ENV 3.2.1 Impervious Surface: Amend zoningordinance to reduce the percent of coverage frombuildings, parking, and other impervious surfaces.

ENV 3.2.2 Vegetation: Increase incentives formaintaining existing vegetation during development.

ENV 3.2.3 Compliance Incentives: Adjust the feeschedule to allow for a reduction in fees for quality


development proposals that comply with the purposesof this objective.

ENV 3.2.4 Maintaining Water Quality: Establishstandards for water quality improvement during thedevelopment or redevelopment of properties locatedwithin Urban Expansion Areas, and other areas targetedfor development and redevelopment, throughreplacement of improperly maintained BMPs,replacement of inefficient sanitary sewer lines or failingseptic systems, and, where appropriate, revegetationalong streams.

ENV 3.2.5 Commercial and Industrial Runoff: Locateaway from the County's water bodies thosenonresidential activities that use, store, or manufacturesignificant 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 naturallandscapes and apply them in the evaluation of rezoningand/or special use permit applications.

ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features: Whereappropriate, require rezoning and special use permitapplicants to describe in general detail the naturalcharacter of significant creeks, rivers, lakes, and ponds(as characterized on United States Geological SurveyMaps) located on the property, as well as the 100-yearfloodplain. Require applicants for such rezonings and/orspecial use permits to explain how the significant surfacewater bodies and related shorelines to be retained uponcompletion of the project will be protected duringconstruction.

ENV 3.2.8 Shrink/Swell Soils: Amend applicableCounty Ordinances to require a shrink/swell soils studyfor development and construction. (27)

ENV 3.3 Individual Septic System Work to reduce septicleaching problems by encouraging proper locating,maintenance, and testing of septic tank systems.

ENV 3.4 Public Awareness: Address water resource concernsin the County by developing networking opportunities forcitizen groups and school programs to share information and pool resources, and enlist their aid in the Virginia Departmentof Environmental Quality’s stream water quality monitoringprograms.

ENV 3.4.1 Grants: Assist organizations in locatingand obtaining grant funding for various projects for theCounty’s streams and rivers.

ENV 3.4.2 Technical Data/ Resources for IdentifyingProblem Areas: Provide technical data and resourceswhere available to allow citizen groups to identifycurrent and potential future problems or concerns.

ENV 3.4.3 Citizen Involvement: Enlist the aid ofcitizen groups in community clean up efforts such asAdopt-A-Highway, Adopt-A-Stream, Broomin’ andBloomin’, Save Our Streams, etc.

ENV 3.4.4 Public Information: Activities, Meetings,and Events: Maintain a list of contact information forlocal citizen groups involved in water quality issues,and work with citizen groups to communicate activities,meetings, and other events to a central office so thatinformation can be disseminated to other citizen groupleaders.

ENV 3.4.5 Citizen Water Quality Monitoring: Identifygroups that have a significant interest in surface waterin the County including, but not limited to, anglinggroups, outdoor recreation groups and/or companies,watershed or water quality protection organizations,science and ecology classes in public schools, etc. Holdthe training sessions and obtain commitments fromvolunteers to perform regular monitoring of streamsthat are of particular interest to them.

ENV 3.4.6 Save Our Streams: Work with the VirginiaNatural History Museum, Fish and Wildlife Service,Virginia Tech departments, and/or DEQ officials to

Cross References and Notes:27. Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (2000 Edition) Section R401.4 SoilTests (effective October 1, 2003)


continue implementation of the Save Our StreamsProgram, including develop training sessions andmonitoring kits for interested county volunteer monitorsand schools.

ENV 3.5 Government Cooperation: Work with the Townsof Blacksburg and Christiansburg, the City of Radford, andneighboring counties to ensure consistency and compatibilityof goals, objectives, and strategies in the water quality planningprocess.

ENV 3.5.1 Regional Roundtable: Enlist the aid of theNew River Valley Planning District Commission,Roanoke Valley Regional Commission, and the RoanokeRiver Corridor Committee to develop regionalroundtables to plan for and to address water qualityconcerns.

ENV 4.0 Floodplains: Montgomery County seeks to maintain andenhance the integrity of its floodplains through improved publiceducation, public safety, governmental cooperation, ordinances, anddata.

ENV 4.1 Partnership and Regional Cooperation: Continueto build partnerships with public agencies to preserve andenhance floodplains in the County.

ENV 4.1.1 Regional Cooperation: New River Valley:Enhance collaboration with the New River ValleyPlanning District Commission through regularparticipation in regional meetings.

ENV 4.1.2 Regional Cooperation: Roanoke & JamesRiver Watersheds: Develop working relationship withlocal governments in the Roanoke Valley to preserveand protect floodplains within the headwaters of theRoanoke and James Rivers.

ENV 4.1.3 Public Education: Work to educate propertyowners, builders, lenders, and others of the negativeeffects of building within the floodplain. Educationprograms should be developed in collaboration withthe relevant agencies listed above.

ENV 4.2 Floodplain Program and Policy: Developprograms/policies/ordinances that will encourage developersand builders to avoid developing within or directly adjacentto the floodplain.

ENV 4.2.1 Flood Damage Prevention OverlayDistrict: Enhance the Flood Damage Prevention OverlayDistrict of the zoning ordinance to require that riparianbuffers remain undisturbed at a specified distance fromthe edge of all streams within a designated floodplain(e.g., minimum of 100 feet) as well as to encouragegreater buffers through incentives such as tax relief orland use valuation.

ENV 4.2.2 Code Enforcement: Continue to enforceapplicable county, state and federal regulations withinthe designated 100-year floodplain.

Cross References and Notes.28 Hazard Mitigation and the New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan are alsoaddressed in SFY 1.1.4: NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 197) and UTL 4.2: RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 237). A copy of the NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan isavailable from the New River Valley Planning District Commission.

Cross References and Notes29. Issues surrounding septic systems are also addressed in UTL 1.4: IndividualSystems (pg. 235).


ENV 4.3 Public Safety: Reduce and/or eliminate the long-term risks to human life and property from flooding and itseffects through the use of timely data. (28)

ENV 4.3.1 Regional & Local Hazard MitigationPlan: Continue to work with the New River ValleyPlanning District Commission to develop a local hazardmitigation plan.

ENV 4.3.2 Flood Mitigation Measures: Followingcompletion of the local hazard mitigation plan (whichmay include prioritized areas), apply for FloodMitigation Assistance Program funds (dependent onsuccessful completion of strategy 2) to acquire orrelocate structures from floodplain areas and to constructcertain types of minor and localized flood controlprojects. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds maybe sought following a hazard declaration and assistancemay be sought through the New River Valley PlanningDistrict Commission.

ENV 5.0 Groundwater: Montgomery County is committed tomaintaining an abundant and clean supply of subsurface water resources.

ENV 5.1 Septic System and Well Water Testing: Work withthe New River Valley (NRV) Health Department to developa process for locating and testing well water quality and septicsystems on a regular basis to ensure that groundwater qualityis consistently monitored and that contamination risks areminimized. (29)

ENV 5.1.1 Tracking Septic System Maintenance:Develop an official process in conjunction with theNRV Health Department and certified private septicsystem maintenance firms to track septic systemmaintenance throughout the County. The process couldinclude the following components but may includeothers deemed appropriate by the partnershipparticipants: Private firms should report the name,address, date of pumping, overall quality of the septicsystem, and other information deemed necessary bythe participating parties. The Health Department shouldmaintain the records provided by the private firms inthe upcoming statewide database system for ease ofreference and use. Once the database is established, thehealth department with other agencies can identifyseptic systems that have not been pumped and sendreminders to landowners (much like the private firmsdo now for past customers).

ENV 5.1.2 Septic System/ Well Testing with RealEstate Transactions: Implement a county process withthe NRV Health Department, which would require thatwell testing and/or septic system testing reportsaccompany every real estate transaction involving septicsystems or well water resources.

ENV 5.1.3 Monitoring of Alterative OnsiteWastewater Treatment Systems: Assist the NRVHealth Department in identifying engineering firmsthat install, monitor, and maintain alternative onsitewastewater treatment systems in the County. Work withthe engineering firms to participate in the septic system


maintenance partnership to share information about thelocation and condition of the alternative systems. Sincethese systems are regularly monitored, the necessaryinformation should be readily available.

ENV 5.2 Education: Educate landowners on various factorsto consider in choosing and maintaining onsite wastewatertreatment systems, and encourage connections to public sewer systems where possible.

ENV 5.2.1 Septic System Maintenance: Identifyseptic tank owners who have not regularly maintainedtheir septic systems through the process outlined inobjective one. Beyond sending postcard reminders,disseminate educational pamphlets and bookletsdeveloped by the Virginia Water Resources Center toeducate reluctant septic tank owners of the benefits ofregular maintenance procedures.

ENV 5.2.2 Alternative Wastewater ProcessingSystems: Work with the NRV Health Department topromote alternative wastewater processing systems thattreat effluent before discharging the waste intosurrounding soils. These systems are particularly suitedto Montgomery County given the incompatibility ofcounty soils with traditional systems. These systemsshould be promoted in new developments and especiallyfor homes that have experienced a septic system failure.

ENV 5.3 Groundwater Quality Protection Programs andPolicies: Develop and/or update ordinances, policies, andprograms that ensure responsible land use in karst terrain forthe protection of groundwater quality.

ENV 5.3.1 Septic System Maintenance: Update theprocess for applying for Building Permits to requirethat a proof of septic system maintenance accompanythe application.

ENV 5.3.2 Drainfield Requirements: Review thezoning ordinance to ensure that lots in areas that requireseptic tank waste disposal systems are large enough toaccommodate two drain fields one of which can beused for repair drainage fields when the first field fails.

ENV 5.3.3 Connection to Public Sewer: In caseswhere public sewer is available, require hook-ups tothe system for new units, even where the zoningordinance would otherwise allow septic systems. Whereexisting septic systems fail and sewer systems areaccessible, require hook-ups to the system instead ofa septic system repair job.

ENV 5.4 Wellhead Protection: Complete all twelve stepsfor the wellhead protection process as identified by the VirginiaGroundwater Protection Steering Committee within 5 years ofthe adoption of this plan.

ENV 5.4.1 Well-Head Protection Program: Implementa Well-Head Protection Program, including: 1) Establisha Wellhead Protection Advisory Committee and appointa project leader; 2) Determine the appropriate areas toinclude in wellhead protection areas, based on the 1993Wellhead Protection Program report for MontgomeryCounty; and 3) Identify management strategies tomitigate the impact of land uses within the protectionarea on the water source. (Consult Montgomery County’s1993 Proposed Wellhead Protection Program and theVirginia Ground Water Protection Steering Committee’s1998 Implementing Wellhead Protection publication.)

ENV 5.4.2 Public Involvement: Encourage publicinvolvement in the development and implementationof the wellhead protection program by includinginterested citizens on the advisory committee and holdingpublic information and comment sessions incommunities that might benefit from a wellheadprotection program.

ENV 5.5 Conservation: Encourage landowners to conservewater and consider the impacts of their water use on othersin their region.

ENV 5.5.1 Public Information: Develop anddisseminate educational materials to the public on waterconservation measures for both private and businessuses.

ENV 5.5.2 Best Management Practices. Strategy:Work with local farmers to identify best managementpractices for crop watering during drought years. Enlist


the aid of area universities, the Farm Bureau, and otherinterested parties in developing educational materialsand disseminating the information.

ENV 5.5.3 Wastewater/water Recycling andReclamation Programs: Investigate waterrecycling/reclamation practices and advocate suchpractices where applicable in the County.

ENV 5.6 Development: Minimize the coverage of impervioussurfaces to allow rain percolation through strategies such aslow-impact development and stormwater management planningand concentrate new development in areas where public watersupplies and sewer systems exist or are planned.

ENV 5.6.1 Groundwater Identification: Identify areasof the County where groundwater resources are abundantand encourage rural development and redevelopmentin proximity of these water resources. Consider theseareas for designation as expansion areas and/or urbangrowth areas.

ENV 5.6.2 Adequate Facilities Policy: Develop anadequate facilities policy for the County modeled afterthe Route 177 Corridor Overlay District to ensureadequate levels of service for public water supplies.

ENV 5.6.3 Cooperative Urban/Suburban Planning:Coordinate planning efforts with the towns of Blacksburgand Christiansburg and the City of Radford to encourageinfill development in and around the towns and city.

ENV 5.7 Monitoring: Implement a monitoring program forwell systems in areas that may be affected by mine drainage(notably, near Brush Mountain and Price Mountain) or otherareas that are at a particular risk of contamination to ensurepublic health and safety.

ENV 5.7.1 Water Quality: Work with the NRVDepartment of Health, area universities, citizen groupsor other appropriate resources on developing a regularmonitoring schedule to keep track of water qualityconcerns in wells near closed mines.

ENV 5.7.2 Well Testing: If contaminated well systemsare identified due to monitoring efforts in the County,work with the NRV Department of Health, areauniversities, and/or citizen groups or other appropriateresources to test wells in the surrounding area to ensurethat other nearby wells are checked for health risks.


ENV 6.0 Karst Goal: Montgomery County is committed to managingkarst terrain in such a manner so as to: 1) protect groundwater andsurface water resources from contamination; 2) reduce potential forproperty damage resulting from subsidence, or other earth movement,and sinkhole flooding; 3) protect the health, safety, and welfare of thepublic; and 4) protect the habitat of rare, threatened, and endangeredanimal species and ecosystems that depend on the environmentalquality of Montgomery County’s karst terrain.

ENV 6.1 Planning: Identify and map bedrock geology, karstterrain, and sensitive karst terrain at a scale appropriate forenvironmental planning. Incorporate these maps into theplanning tools used by the county.

ENV 6.2 Program and Policy: Adopt policies and proceduresthat preserve, protect, and restore significant karst features inMontgomery County.

ENV 6.2.1 Karst Ordinance: Adopt a Karst orCarbonate Area Ordinance that includes:

a. Programs, policies, and/or amendments toestablished ordinances that will preserve andrestore Karst Feature Buffers around karstterrain recharge features (e.g., sinkholes,caves, sinking creeks).

b. Programs, policies, and/or amendments toestablished ordinances that will establishsubstantial (one thousand [1000] feet)minimum distances from which undergroundstorage tanks and hazardous waste must bekept from karst terrain recharge features(e.g., sinkholes, caves, sinking creeks).

c. Programs, policies, and/or amendments toestablished ordinances that prohibit trashdumps in karst terrain recharge features,especially, but not limited to sinkholes.

d. Programs, policies, and/or amendments toestablished ordinances that substantiallyincrease the minimum septic system standardsset by the New River Valley Department ofHealth to ensure greater groundwaterprotection in karst areas.

ENV 6.3 Public Awareness: Promote public awareness ofkarst related issues by providing public information on karstgeology and water quality.

ENV 6.4 Conservation: Encourage and facilitate the applicationof permanent open space land conservation tools to protectareas of the County identified as sensitive karst. Potential openspace tools include, but are not limited to, agricultural-forestaldistricts conservation easements, large lot zoning, sliding scalezoning, rural cluster zoning, public land acquisition, and thepurchase of development rights. Each of these tools is detailedin the open space section of this plan.

ENV 6.5 Stormwater Management: Maintain the pre-development drainage patterns (including the quantity andtiming) of runoff draining into karst terrain features.

ENV 6.5.1 Karst Feature Overlay Districts: Amendthe Montgomery County Subdivision and Zoningordinances to include a Karst Feature Overlay District(or Limestone Overlay District). Development withinthis district should maintain pre-development drainagepatterns on the site and the quantity and quality ofstormwater runoff entering karst terrain features on,and adjacent to, the site. In addition, the constructionof any structure in an area determined by a GeophysicalStudy to be susceptible to subsidence that would beharmful to the public safety or the safety of futureresidents should be prohibited if the potential harmcannot be mitigated.

ENV 6.5.2 Low Impact Development: Amend theMontgomery County Subdivision and Zoning ordinancesto allow and strongly encourage the use of Low ImpactDevelopment (LID) techniques. It will be necessary tocarefully screen the LID tools to ensure that thosetechniques used in Montgomery County are appropriatefor use in karst terrain (please refer to the Karst-LIDWorkgroup study being conducted by the NorthernShenandoah Planning District Commission, contactdetails in Appendix II).

ENV 6.5.3 Erosion and Sediment Control: Amendthe County Erosion and Sediment Control ordinanceto protect karst recharge features and encourage landdevelopers to implement additional Best Management

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).


Practices (BMPs) to limit the clogging of karst rechargefeatures by sediment.

ENV 6.6 Conservation Best Management Practices:Encourage the use of both agricultural and silvicultural BMPsand cost share programs in karst areas, especially theConservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

ENV 6.6.1 Karst and Ground Water BestManagement Practices: Work with the Skyline Soiland Water Conservation District, the Natural ResourcesConservation Service, the Farm Service Agency andthe Virginia Department of Forestry to help improvevoluntary implementation of karst and groundwaterprotection BMPs.

ENV 6.6.2 Conservation Reserve EnhancementProgram: Strongly encourage landowner participationin the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programand work with the sponsoring agencies to achieve asa high a participation rate as possible.

ENV 6.7 Governmental Cooperation: Work with the townsof Blacksburg and Christiansburg, the City of Radford, andthe neighboring counties to provide a regional approach toland use management decision-making in karst terrains andkarst impacted groundwater and surface water resources.

ENV 6.7.1 Regional Karst, Groundwater, andSurface Water Roundtables: Enlist the aid of theNRV Planning District Commission and RoanokeValley-Alleghany Regional Commission to developregional roundtables to plan for and address karst terrainand related groundwater and surface water issues.

ENV 6.8 Water Quality: Gauge and establish baseline waterquality data at all major springs.

ENV 6.8.1 Hydrological Studies: Perform hydrostudies (dye trace) to delineate recharge areas for major(>0.5 MGD) springs and water supply wells serving> 10 residences or industries.

ENV 7.0 Stormwater & Erosion Control: County is committed tomanaging stormwater and erosion in order to protect surface waterquality and aquatic habitat vitality, to guard against the loss of landmassand to maintain and enhance human health and safety. (30)

ENV 7.1 Stormwater and Erosion Management Program.Develop a proactive stormwater management program designedto address stormwater runoff in watersheds and villages.

ENV 7.1.1 Village Planning and StormwaterManagement. Work with the County Engineer todevelop a stormwater management plans in tandemwith each of the six village plans (Belview, Elliston-Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, andShawsville).

ENV 7.1.2 Comprehensive Watershed ManagementStudy. Conduct a local comprehensive watershedmanagement study for Montgomery County and reviseordinances to address results.

ENV 7.1.3 Stormwater Management Database.Create a database of projects, integrated with theCounty’s GIS, that would track projects and activities,including timber operations, which contribute to runoffand erosion.

ENV 7.1.4 Stormwater Management Ordinance.Develop, adopt, and implement a stormwatermanagement ordinance, in line with Phase II of theVirginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program(VPDES), including 1) provisions for water qualityassessment in site designs and reviews; 2) provisionsfor strengthening current stormwater management anderosion control requirements; and 3) and provisionswhich reflect new Virginia Storm Water PollutionPrevention Plan Requirements (SWPPP) which wentinto effect July 1, 2004.

ENV 7.1.5 Stormwater and Erosion BestManagement Practices. Develop a Best ManagementPractices approach to water management fordevelopment and redevelopment, including the use ofLow Impact Development (LID) techniques (clustering,limiting impervious surfaces, use of innovativepavement, etc.).

ENV 7.1.6 Public Awareness and Education. Developan erosion/ stormwater management public awarenessprogram.

ENV 7.2 Stormwater Authority. Examine the feasibility ofdeveloping of a joint Stormwater Utility (Stormwater Authority),including fee structure, for Montgomery County, Blacksburg,Christiansburg, and Radford.

ENV 7.3. Compliance. Investigate alternative means ofencouraging compliance with erosion and sedimentation control.

ENV 7.3.1 Enhanced Inspections. Utilize buildinginspectors to enhance compliance with the Erosion andSedimentation Ordinance. Additional building inspector

man-hours required for erosion and sediment controlinspection may be funded through a stormwater utilityfee.

ENV 7.3.2 Pre-Construction Notices. Implement anon-site erosion control pre-construction notice toencourage public enforcement of the Erosion andSedimentation Ordinance. This notice is intended tohelp ensure that erosion and sediment control measuresare properly installed, by including a list of permitconditions and plan requirements prior to construction.Additionally, the public will be put on notice that suchconstruction has been permitted while construction siteswithout such a notice have not.

ENV 7.3.3 Tax Incentives for Riparian BufferEasements. Provide a tax exemption for land designatedas a riparian buffer, if held under a perpetual easement.Riparian buffers protect streams and shorelines fromerosion and prevent sedimentation of waterways. Suchan exemption is provided for under Article 5, Chapter36 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia.



Adopted: 10/12/04

Health & HumanServices

Health and Human Resources: Executive SummaryThe Health and Human Services Chapter addresses quality of lifeissues in the social, natural, and built environment, including theprovision of adequate health and human services and facilities.Montgomery County recognizes that healthy communities arecommunities in which both what we have in common and howwe are different are celebrated, and in which the health of thecommunity is measured in the success and satisfaction of all ofits residents. There are five key goals included in the Health andHuman Services Chapter:

• Sustainable and Livable Communities• Quality of Life• Regional Cooperation and Collaboration• Medical and Mental Health Facilities• Human Services and Facilities

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Health and Human Services 161


In the 2003 Community Survey, participantswere asked to think about the changes theywould like to see over the next 20 years andthen describe Montgomery County in 2025.While the focus of the survey was on land useplanning issues, the comments generated bythe survey were far broader in range and farmore inclusive in intent. They covered topicsas broad as the need for increased toleranceand diversity in Montgomery County and asfocused as the need to address inequities,poverty, and other social issues not generallybroached in land use planning based documents.It is important, however, to recognize that thecharacter and quality of land use development,the location of public and private facilities, andthe resulting environmental quality have veryreal consequences on the social, cultural, andhealth and mental health conditions within.

Initially, issues connected to health carewere included in the same category as fire,rescue, and law enforcement. However, theresults of the community survey indicated asubstantial interest in not only health care issues,but also in human service issues, most notablythose connected to the provision and distributionof childcare, elder care, and at-risk youthservices and facilities. The comments dealingwith human service issues can be found in thisportion of the report, as well as in commentsconnected to housing, education, economicdevelopment, and parks and recreation. Whetherthe issue was afterschool programs andcommunity facilities which cater to k-12students or the provision of a senior accessiblefrisbee golf course, the subject of services andfacilities for both the oldest and youngestcitizens turned out to be a key issue for manyof the respondents.

As Montgomery County and thesurrounding region continue to grow, the needfor human services will expand. While the

provision of shelters and group homes, mentalhealth and at-risk youth facilities are not oftenpopular and all to often provoke NIMBYresponses, the reality is that they are facilitieswhich are needed, but rarely addressed incomprehensive plans. As the debates over theconstruction and expansion of the CarilionHospital facility, south of Radford, have shownover the last few years, even traditional healthcare facilities can run into public opposition,especially when their placement is seen as an

encroachment on existing land uses, onhistorically defined landscapes, or on land valuesin the vicinity. In other words, while theirprovision is not often popular, it is all to oftennecessary and should be taken into considerationin the comprehensive plan. For this reason, thesubject of health and human services has beenremoved from the original element (PublicSafety) and is now a separate element.

The health and human services chapter isintended to address the development of a livable

Health and Human Resources: Introduction



and sustainable community for all residents andthe provision of future health and human servicefacilities which go a long way in defining qualityof 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.

4

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.973.93

3.4

3.96

EducationalOpportunities

for Adults

Affordable Housing(Senior, Low Income,

First Homes)

Quality ofManufacturedHousing Parks

Increased Accessto Health Care

Facilities

Mean Score

Mean Score for All Issues = 3.65


Health & Human Resources: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003

Community Survey Results

The community survey asked participantsto rank 41 issues, drawn from comments madeat previous community meetings. Only one,availability of medical care, was included inthe Health and Safety category. Three additionalissues, originally connected to other chapters,are also related to this chapter: affordablehousing, the quality of manufactured housingparks, and educational opportunities for adults.The majority of concerns included in thischapter, however, did not come from the forty-one issues but from the participants writtencomments. Participants expressed concern overissues related to both children and senior

citizens, including, the provision of daycarefor both groups; issues surrounding diversityand human relations, including the need forstronger neighborhoods and affordable housing;issues surrounding human potential, includingjob training, access to resources, living wages,and greater opportunity; and issues connectedto improving and maintaining the quality oflife of Montgomery County residents.

Educational Opportunities for Adults

Of the four issues included in the “rankthese issues” portion of the survey, educationalopportunities for adults scored the highest, witha mean score of 3.97. Of those who responded,73% rated educational opportunities for adultsas either important or very important. Theirwritten comment clearly reflected this level ofconcern. Participants noted the need foradditional adult educational opportunities atthe local universities, affordable night classes,an increased emphasis on vocational trainingopportunities for adults and non-college boundstudents, improved educational benefits, supportof literacy efforts, adequate funding, and equaleducational opportunities.

A number of the participants saw access toeducation as central to quality of life andeconomic opportunity. One respondentcommented that “Part of the charm of the countyis the rural feel with opportunities available forcitizens to better themselves.” Another suggestedthat the County “ educate single parents withaffordable education to improve income.” Stillanother wrote that:

“Montgomery County should be an areaknown for its excellent educationalopportunities for all. Facilities andpersonnel should be provided to meetthe needs of a growing, prosperouscommunity.”


Increased Access to Health Care.

Both in their ranking of the “increased accessto health care” as an issue and in their writtenresponses, participants clearly saw access toboth health care and mental health care asimportant issues. Of those who responded to thesurvey, 74% ranked increased access to healthcare as either important or very important. Ofthose participants who had never participated ina planning input session, 75% rated increasedaccess to health care as important or veryimportant. Finally, of those age 50 and older,78% rated increase access to health care asimportant or very important.

Participants concern for access to health carewas reflected in many of their written comments.This was especially true for those respondentswho lived in Eastern Montgomery County, wherethe closest hospital is located not in MontgomeryCounty but in Roanoke. Of those who wrotewritten responses, most focused on the qualityand quantity of health care in MontgomeryCounty, as well as health care for the poor anduninsured. As one participant noted, “ peopleget sick on days other than Tuesday.” Anothersaw the issue in terms of “universal accessibility.”

Many of the respondents, however, tiedhealth care to the needs of a growing retirement

population. One participant wrote that inasmuchas Montgomery County “is becoming aretirement community, a new medical center”is needed.

Surprisingly, the concern over health carewas relatively strong among student respondentsas well, although the emphasis was on accessto affordable health care and the need foradditional health care facilities rather than theprovision of services for senior citizens. As onestudent, from eastern portion of MontgomeryCounty, noted “ there are no doctors to helpyou.” Others commented that there were nodoctors’ offices or hospitals. Students suggestedgetting more hospitals, more doctors, morenurses, “hospitals closer to us," and “gettingmore health departments.”

In addition, students were asked if they couldtalk to the members of the Board of Supervisors,what would they say. One student wrote thats/he would “like to live close to a doctor.”Another wrote that s/he would “tell them weneed more hospitals and doctors offices.” Indeed,concerns about proximity and availability ofdoctors and hospitals were the central themesin the students comments about health care.

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing, which garnered nearlyas many written comments as environmentaland economic development issues, had a meanscore of 3.93, with 73% of respondents ratingaffordable housing as either important or veryimportant. The issue of the quality/livability ofmobile home parks had a far lower score(mean=3.4), with 55% of survey participantsrating the issue either important of veryimportant.

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 incitizen and student responses to the open ended

questions, including elder and childcare,diversity, poverty, and equity.

Citizens’ interests in healthcare went beyondjust the issues of proximity or access. A fewrespondents suggested increasing the numberof specialists in Montgomery County,encouraging a trend that has marked theCounty’s growth over the past 30 years. Since1970, there has been a decreased reliance onmedical facilities in Roanoke as the number ofprofessionals and medical specialists haveincreased in the County. Other participants feltthere was a need to increase medical servicesaimed at senior citizens, including a greaternumber of long-term care facilities andprograms

Participants noted the need for expandingsenior and youth facilities and programs,including: child and adult daycare facilities,and youth services, programs, and facilities.Perhaps not surprisingly, comments on thecommunity survey tended to focus far more onthe needs of seniors and less on youth services,


whereas the exact opposite was true in thestudent surveys.

Both groups (citizens and students) raisedthe issue of diversity and the need for cohesiveresponse towards issues related to equity andpoverty in Montgomery County. The issues ofdiversity and equity generated some of the morespecific comments in the participants’ writtenresponses. One participant wrote that the countyneeded to pay “attention to race relations,poverty, and limited income housing” Anothersuggested that the county needed to become a“welcoming community for all races, sexualorientations, and socioeconomic groups.” Otherssuggested that Montgomery County “embracediversity,” while providing” opportunities forgrowth.” and that "Montgomery County shouldbe a place where different cultural, ethnic, andeconomic strata can prosper with their socialand basic needs met.” Finally, one noted that:

As any concerned citizen, I would liketo see Montgomery County improve inareas of Race issues for minorities andthe less fortunate.

Participants suggested a number of possiblesolutions or starting points for addressingdiversity and equity issues. One participantsuggested increased“ collaboration/communication among diverse groups.” Anumber of participants suggested increased“minority representation in the schools andgovernment.” In addition, a number of

participants suggested a greater emphasis onthe development of mixed incomeneighborhoods. One wrote, “I would like to seea county with mixed income levels livingtogether in neighborhoods” mirroring a “concernfor the less affluent to have ready & affordableaccess to workplace & home.

Student respondents addressed the issuesof diversity, poverty, and other social concernsat a greater rate and covering a broader rangeof topics than did the adults, although theircomments were not generally as detailed. Whilecitizen comments focused primarily on diverseneighborhoods and increased opportunity,students wrote about problems of homelessness,lack of jobs and opportunities, poverty, and the

lack of youth programs and activities. In one ofthe letters to the members of the Board ofSupervisors, a student wrote:

“The county could definitely find a wayto deal with the poverty in the area. Theycould focus more on helping poorfamilies and provide them with betterbenefits and services.”

Another wrote that “With better education, thepoverty level will decrease and our communitywould function more efficiently.” When askedwhat issues they felt Montgomery County wasfacing, students cited population growth, drugsand alcohol, and helping people in need.

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle


Henrico

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe


Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceWilliam

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDinwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Roanoke

1.31 and above: Significantly above state rate1.11 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 rateJurisdiction lost population

State % Increase = 52.5%,1970-2000

Population: % Increase in Montgomery County, 1970-2000

% Ratio toCounty Increase State RateFloyd County 43% 0.82Giles County 0% 0.00Montgomery County 69% 1.31Pulaski County 19% 0.35Roanoke County 23% 0.45

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970, 2000.

1. A fuller treatment of student survey comments can befound in the student survey pages (available online atwww. Montva.com and on the cd-rom version of the plan.Additional analysis can be found in the “Listening toStudents,” a pdf. report (available for download from boththe website and, on the cd-rom, and in the hardcopyversions of the plan distributed to the public libraries.2. Much of the health and human services data (education,environment, economic, housing, public safety, andtransportation) is dealt with in other chapters. Thediscussion in this chapter covers the basic demographicsfor Montgomery County and the current Health andHuman Service indicators.


Montgomery County: Population Characteristics, 2000

Population,2000 Census

Ratio ofFemales to

MalesMedian

AgeAverage

Household Size

Montgomery County 83,629 100:110 26 2.4

Unincorporated Areas 26,109 n/g 2.43

Christiansburg 16,947 100:92.7 35 2.35

Blacksburg 39,573 100:127 22 2.37

Elliston-Lafayette 1,241 100:92.4 35 2.53

Shawsville 1,029 100:100.6 34 2.39

Merrimac 1,751 100:82 40 1.82

100: 1.36

Age by Gender, 1980-2000

WhiteAfrican

AmericanAmerican

Indian AsianNative

Hawaiian Other2 or More

Races

Unincorporated Areas 26093 498 70 163 5 90 190

Christiansburg 15783 819 36 70 3 81 155

Blacksburg 33394 1738 45 3087 22 355 932

Elliston-Lafayette 1140 50 7 2 2 13 27

Shawsville 990 11 6 1 0 5 16

Merrimac 1652 33 10 34 0 6 16

Montgomery 75270 3055 151 3320 30 526 1277

TotalMinority

Population

MinorityPopulation:% of Whole

TotalPopulation

Unincorporated 1016 3.75% 27109

Christiansburg 1164 6.87% 16947

Blacksburg 6179 15.61% 39573

Elliston-Lafayette 101 8.14% 1241

Shawsville 39 3.79% 1029

Merrimac 99 5.71% 1735

Montgomery 8359 10.00% 83629

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census.


The students’ biggest area of concern,however, dealt with the belief that the Countywas not providing them with adequate facilitiesand programs, both in education and inrecreation and entertainment. A number ofparticipants commented on the connectionbetween the lack of youth programs and thelikelihood that youth would “get into trouble.”One student suggested “that we put more placesfor teenagers in so that they can get off thestreet.” Another wrote, “If I could talk to theBoard of Supervisors, I would say that we needmore activities to keep kids out of trouble." (1)

Historic and Current Conditions and Trends

General Population Characteristics

In 1980, the population of MontgomeryCounty was 63, 516. Of that population, 48%lived in Blacksburg, 16% lived inChristiansburg, and the remaining 34% livedin the unincorporated areas of county. In 2000,both Blacksburg and the unincorporated areasof Montgomery County saw their percentageof 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 growthrate, 39%, from 1980 to 2000. While part ofthe rapid expansion in the population inChristiansburg can be attributed to annexationsduring the period of time, one need only drivethrough Christiansburg and look at all of thenew development to know that annexation isnot the only explanation.Race

While Montgomery County is stillpredominantly White, the minority populationhas increased from less than 5% in 1980 toslightly less than 10% in 2000. People of Asianancestry account for much of the increase inthe minority population (4% of the populationin 2000, up from 1% in 1980). Increases were

Montgomery County: Median Family (MFI) and Household Income(MHI), Number of Households per Income Group, 2000

# of HouseholdsLess than $10,000 4,397$10,000-$14,999 2,722$15,000-$24,999 5,230$25,000-$32,330 3,178$32,331-$34,999 846$35,000-$49,999 4,999$50,000-$74,999 5,015$75,000-$99,999 2,398$100,000-$149,999 1,482$150,000-$199,999 321$200,000 or more 466Total 31,054

Program/Income Category IncomeSec. 8 Housing: Max. Income (50% of MHI) $16,165Per Capita Income (2000) $17,077Poverty Threshold (USCB, 2002, Family of 4) $18,244Poverty Rate (HHS, 2002, Family of 4) $18,400Free Lunch Program: (Upper Cutoff, 2002) $23,920Median Household Income (2000) $32,330Reduced Lunch Program (Upper Cutoff, 2002) $33,120Median Family Income (2000) $47,329Median Priced Home, 2002 $137,500

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 NativeAmerican communities. It should be noted thatthe U.S.Census changed the way they viewedand accounted for race in the 2000 Census.Prior to 2000, respondents were asked to identifythemselves based on a single racial designation;in 2000, respondents were asked to designate,if applicable, more than one race. The changein approach has had an effect on therepresentation of some groups, most notablyNative Americans, by expanding the group’sbase population through the inclusion ofindividuals who may only be part NativeAmerican.

Hispanic Origin

In 1980, Hispanics accounted for less than1% of the population. While their percentageis still very low (2% of the population in 2000),the Hispanic community experienced a 61%growth rate between 1980 and 2000.

Language

Although English is still the primarylanguage, spoken in 93% of the homes in theCounty, that figure is down from 95.1% in 1980. Of those respondents who identified a differentlanguage 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 relativelylow percentage of Spanish speaking residentshas meant that local government programinformation, including planning information,has been provided, primarily, in English,although this is likely to change as the Hispanicpopulation increases.

Age

Age still remains one of the most tellingfeatures of the Montgomery County population,especially when factoring in the impact ofVirginia Tech students on the age distribution


Montgomery County: Family Characteristics, 2000

Montgomery County 30,977 25% 45% 8% 44% 25% 7%

Unincorporated Areas 10,742 32% 59% 10% 29% 23% 8%

Christiansburg 7,093 31% 53% 11% 33% 27% 9%

Blacksburg 13,162 16% 29% 5% 64% 27% 4%

Elliston-Lafayette 489 34% 50% 15% 29% 24% 10%

Shawsville 431 35% 49% 12% 31% 24% 8%

Merrimac 889 18% 29% 7% 60% 54% 25%

Number ofHouseholds

Percentage ofHouseholds

with ChildrenUnder 18


with MarriedCouples

Percentage ofHouseholdswith FemaleHouseholder,no Husband

Present


that are Non-Families


withIndividual

Living Alone


withIndividual, 65

or Older,Living Alone

37.5%

16.6%

45.9%

Unincorporated Areas

Christiansburg

Blacksburg

Number ofHouseholds 70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% % ofHouseholds

with MarriedCouples

% ofHouseholdswith FemaleHouseholder,no Husband

Present

% ofHouseholds

that are Non-Families

% ofHouseholds

withIndividual

Living Alone

% ofHouseholds

withIndividual,65 or Older,

LivingAlone

MerrimacChristiansburg

Blacksburg

Montgomery County

Unincorporated Areas

Elliston-Lafayette

Shawsville

% ofHouseholds

with ChildrenUnder 18

Notes:1. The statistics for Montgomery County,includes the towns, the unincorporated portionof the County, the villages of Elliston andShawsville, and the Merrimac community.

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census.



in the County. Currently, residents between theages of 18 and 21 make up slightly more than1/5th (21.6%) of the county’s population. Ofthis population, 57% are male and 43% arefemale. The gender disparity in this populationis due, primarily, to Virginia Tech. Accordingto Tech, 58% of their students, in the fall of1999 were males and 42% were females. Asimilar pattern can be seen in the 22-29 agegroup, which, presumably, includes the majorityof graduate students at Virginia Tech. With theexception 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 theretirement age population (65 and older), withwomen far outnumbering men. For those 65 to79, there is slightly more than an 11 point spreadbetween men and women. For those 80 andolder, the spread increases to more than a 36point spread.

Retiree Population

While retirees do not represent a largepercentage of the population (8.6%), there hasbeen a increase in the retiree population in thepast two decades (39.6%). Part of the increasecan be attributed to the construction andexpansion of both Warm Hearth Village andWheatland in the past 20 years. Given the size

of the Baby Boom Generation (those bornbetween 1944 and 1963 and represented by the40 to 49 and the 50 to 64 cohorts, the countycan expect a far greater increase in the numberand percentage of retirees over the next 20 years.Indeed, by 2025, the entire Baby Boomgeneration will be over the age of 65.

Households and Families

In 2000, there were 30,977 households inMontgomery County, 34.6% of which (10,742)were located in the unincorporated areas andvillages. Between 1990 and 2000, there was an18.1% increase in the number of households.During the same period of time, the number ofhousing units increased by 17.1% in the countyas a whole, and by 18.4% in the unincorporatedareas. Of the occupied housing units (95.3%occupancy rate), 55.2% were owner occupiedand 44.8% were renter occupied. Notsurprisingly, while the majority of occupiedunits in Christiansburg and the unincorporatedareas were owner occupied (66.9% and 77.6%,respectively), the majority of units in Blacksburgwere renter occupied (69.5%), reflecting thepresence of a large student population.

Household and family compositionrepresents one of the most diverse categories inthe U.S. Census data and also clearly illustratethe differences between the two towns and theunincorporated area of the county. While 25%of the households in Montgomery County, as awhole, include children under 18, only 16% inBlacksburg do. Christiansburg and theunincorporated areas of the county (exceptingMerrimac where 18% of the households includechildren) have roughly the same percentages(31% in Christiansburg, 32% in theunincorporated areas). Shawsville has the highestpercentage of households with children under18 present at 35%.

The same trends hold true for the percentageof households with married couples: 59% in theunincorporated areas, 53% in Christiansburg,and 29% in Blacksburg. In the unincorporated

areas, Elliston-Lafayette has the highestpercentage of households with married couples,while Merrimac has the lowest (29%).

Although the number of households with afemale householder with no husband presentaccounts for a relatively low percentage overall(8%), the percentage varies a great deal, with alow of 5% in Blacksburg and a high of 15% inElliston Lafayette (15%).

A significant portion of the households inthe county are “non-family” (44%). The “non-family” designation is a misnomer in the sensethat it includes individuals living alone (25% oftotal households), non-traditional families(including unmarried couples), widowed seniorcitizens living alone (7% of total households),as well as student households most typicallyassociated with universities. Reflecting thepresence of students, 64% of Blacksburg’shouseholds are considered “non-families.” Inthe unincorporated areas, “non-families” accountfor 29% of the total households. Elliston-Lafayette has the lowest percentage of non-family households (29%), while Merrimac hasthe highest percentage (60%). Merrimac alsohas the highest percentage of households in thecounty with individuals living alone (54%) andindividuals over 65 living alone (25%). Inasmuchas the U.S.Census Bureau includes Warm Hearthin the Merrimac area, the higher percentagesare not particularly surprising.

Montgomery County: Child Care Capacity, 1995-2002

.90 to 1.10 Within range of state average

.70 to .89 Moderately below state averageBelow .70: Significantly below state average

Above 130: Significantly above state average1.11 to 1.30: Moderately above state average1.00 State Rate: 255 per 1,000 children, ages 0-11

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle


Henrico

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe


Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

RockbridgeNelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

Clarke Loudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceWilliam

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDimwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King and Queen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Roanoke

Notes:1. The data is point-in-time.2. The rate reflects only those child care facilities which are regulated by theVirginia Dept. of Social Services. It does not include unregulated facilities,informal childcare arrangements (a neighbor, a family member, etc), or householdswith at least one stay-at-home parent.3. As the map to the right indicates, licensed child care facilities are primarilyan urban phenomena. While Montgomery and Hanover counties have the highestcounty rates for non-urban areas, their rates are misleading due to the presenceof large towns (Blacksburg and Christiansburg) within the counties’boundaries. When the urban areas in eachcounty are factored in, Montgomery County has the thirdlowest rate of comparative counties. Locally, Montgomery County and RadfordCity have the highest rates of child care capacity, both well above the state rateof 255 positions per 1,000 children ages 0-11.

Sources: Virginia Departmentof Social Services, 2003; U.S.Census Bureau: 1980, 1990, and2000 Census.

Comparison of Localto State Rate for ChildCare Capacity: 2002

Child Day CareCapacity (number slotsper 1,000 children, ages

0-11, 2002)1995 2002

PercentageDifference:

1995 to2002

Ratio toState Rate,

2002Virginia 186 255 37.10%Montgomery Co. 235 303 28.94% 1.19

Floyd Co. 38 57 50.00% 0.22

Giles Co. 123 125 1.63% 0.49

Pulaski Co. 116 143 23.28% 0.56

Radford 307 375 22.15% 1.47

Roanoke Co. 231 228 -1.30% 0.89

Roanoke 274 487 77.74% 1.91

Salem 521 655 25.72% 2.57

Albemarle Co. 103 99 -3.88% 0.39

Charlottesville 611 1038 69.89% 4.07

Augusta Co. 74 153 106.76% 0.60

Staunton 355 404 13.80% 1.58

Waynesboro 193 363 88.08% 1.42

Hanover Co. 353 418 18.41% 1.64

Rockingham Co. 51 163 219.61% 0.64

Harrisonburg 144 246 70.83% 0.96

Spotsylvania Co. 79 147 86.08% 0.58

Fredericksburg 274 641 133.94% 2.51

Stafford Co. 127 225 77.17% 0.88

28.7%

4.6%

15.0%14.2%

37.5%

1995

30.2%

5.7%

12.5%14.3%

37.4%

2002Montgomery Co. Pulaski Co.

Floyd Co. Radford

Giles Co.

Regional Share of Child Care Capacity, byJurisdiction, 1995 and 2002


Natality: MontgomeryCounty, 1995 and 2001

Childbearing Population, 2002, Rate per 1000Population by Age of MotherPopulation:

FemalesAges 10-19,

1995

Population:Females

Ages 10-19,2002

Total No. ofTeenage

Live Births,1995 (1)

Total No. ofTeenage

Pregnancies,2001 (1)

Ages 10-19,1995

Ages 10-19,2002

Ages 15-17,1995

Ages 15-17,2002

Ages 18-19,1995

Ages 18-19,2002

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 24.8Note: (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 ofthe 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; VirginiaHealth Statistics 2000 Annual Report--Volumes 1 & III, Center for Health Statistics, Virginia Department of Health, February 2002.

2500

2250

2000

1750

1500

1250

1000

750

500

250

0

1219

185237

484

219

1087

184297

482

267

1995 2000

Total Number of Pregnancies,1995 and 2000

Five Year Infant MortalityRate per 1000 Live Births

1991-1995 1996-2000Virginia 7.7 7.3Montgomery 2.5 3.4Floyd 0 5.6Giles 20.7 6.8Pulaski 17.4 5.6Radford 9.2 9

36.0%

33.0%

30.0%

27.0%

24.0%

21.0%

18.0%

15.0%1995 2001

%Nonmarital births

% Nonmarital births

1995 2001

Virginia 29.3% 30.0%

Montgomery 20.7% 23.8%

Floyd 16.8% 24.1%

Giles 26.9% 26.0%

Pulaski 32.0% 30.4%

Radford 29.4% 33.3%

VirginiaMontgomery

FloydGiles

PulaskiRadford

VirginiaMontgomery

FloydGiles

PulaskiRadford Percentage Receiving Prenatal

Care in 1st Trimester1995 2001

Virginia 82.4% 84.6%

Montgomery 84.8% 87.7%

Floyd 87.1% 81.6%

Giles 71.5% 86.6%

Pulaski 85.4% 84.9%

Radford 82.6% 88.7%

Birth Rate Per 1000 Population1995 2001

Virginia 14.0 14.0

Montgomery 10.4 9.8

Floyd 12.6 11.4

Giles 11.8 15.2

Pulaski 11.7 11.7

Radford 6.5 10.0


Montgomery County: Mortality, 1995 and 2002

125012001150110010501000

950900850800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100

500

Virginia Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Radford

Mortality Rate (per 100,000 in population), 1995 and 2002

10 Leading Causes of Death (rate per 100,000 in population), 1995 and 2002United States Virginia Floyd Giles Montgomery Pulaski Radford1995 2002 1995 2002 1995 2002 1995 2002 1995 2002 1995 2002 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) 17.8 15.5 19.4 42.0 14.3 22.8 12.6

HIV/AIDS (3) 4.1 6.4 3.6 0.0 4.3 9.1 2.7

Heart Disease

Cancer

Cerebrovascular Disease

Chronic Lower Respiratory/COPD (1)

Unintentional Injury

Pneumonia/Influenza

Diabetes Mellitus

Suicide

Septicemia

Alzheimers Disease (2)

HIV/AIDS (3)

2002

1995

Death From All Causes, 1995

Death From All Causes, 2002

U.S. Death Rate, 1995 (502.9)

U.S. Death Rate, 2002 (872.4)

Montgomery County: 10 Leading Causesof Death, 1995 and 2002

Notes: 1) Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseaseincludes COPD. 2) Alzheimers was not includedin the 1995 list. 3) AIDS/HIV was not includedin the 2002 list.

Sources: Virginia Department of Health, 2004, Center for Disease Control, 1995, 2000, 2001.


Montgomery County, Distribution of Transfer Payments, 1970-2000(Number in Thousands)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Total personal current transfer receipts 12893 36404 65243 99305 138129 190446 243194

Government payments to individuals 11417 32965 59751 88905 125901 177258 220097

Retirement and disability insurance benefit payments 7414 17782 33822 52387 69507 87055 110314

Medical payments 1010 4212 9705 17985 31900 56826 74121

Income maintenance benefit payments 571 3137 5348 6794 9961 17290 18386

Unemployment insurance benefit payments 443 2906 3081 2492 2349 1091 1047

Veterans benefit payments 1870 3874 3970 5261 5091 6413 7859

Fed ed. and training assistance payments (excl.vets) 108 656 3815 3968 7043 8460 8155

Other payments to individuals (L) 398 (L) (L) 50 123 215

Payments to nonprofit institutions 854 1578 3347 4242 5887 9172 11850

Federal government payments 470 568 1108 1068 1443 2146 2572

State and local government payments 151 614 1432 1626 2716 4376 5501

Business payments 233 396 807 1548 1728 2650 3777

Business payments to individuals 622 1861 2145 6158 6341 4016 11247Source: 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, victimcompensation, disaster relief, and other special payments to individuals. State and Local government payments consist of education assistance and other payments tononprofit organizations. Business payments to individuals consist of personal injury and other business transfer payments.

Note: Transfer payments refer to payments from a government agency, or in somecases a business, to other government agencies, nonprofit organizations, andindividuals. For example, Social Security tranfers government monies to individuals.In 2000, direct government payments to individuals accounted for 90% of totalpersonal 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 individualsand retirement 64.9% of the government payments to individuals, while the remaining26.3% divided between income maintenance (SSI, family assistance, food stamps,and housing programs), unemployment, and veterans benefits. By 2002, the mostrecent year available, medical payments accounted for 34.9% of the governmentpayments to individuals, while retirement payments dropped to 47.9% of the total.The remaining 17.2% of the government payments to individuals were distributedbetween income maintenance, unemployment, and veterans benefit programs. Finally,it should be noted that in the same period of time, family assistance (AFDC andTANF) dropped from 1.26% to .69% of government payments to individuals andfood 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 impactof the increased cost of housing.

$250,000,000

$225,000,000

$200,000,000

$175,000,000

$150,000,000

$125,000,000

$100,000,000

$75,000,000

$50,000,000

$25,000,000

$01970 1980 1990 2000

Floyd

Giles

Pulaski

Montgomery + Radford

Total Personal Current Transfer Payments,1970-2000


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.

.90 to 1.10 Within range of state average

.70 to .89 Moderately below state averageBelow .70: Significantly below state average

Above 130: Significantly above state average1.11 to 1.30: Moderately above state average1.00 State Rate: 32% K-12 in 2002

Fauquier

Rockingham

Augusta

Spotsylvania

Hanover

Stafford

Albemarle

AlleghanyChesterfield

Henrico

Lee

Wise

Scott

Dickenson

Buchanan

Russell

Washington

Tazewell

Smyth

Grayson

Bland

Wythe

Carroll Patrick Henry

Franklin

Pittsylvania

Halifax

Bedford

Botetourt

Campbell

Amherst

Bath

Rockbridge Nelson

Appo-mattox

Buckingham

PrinceEdward

Charlotte

Mecklenburg

Lunenburg

Brunswick

Greenville

Fluvanna

Greene

Madison

Page

Shenan-doah

Warren

Fred-erick

ClarkeLoudoun

Rappa-hannock

Culpeper

PrinceWilliam

Fairfax

KingGeorge

Caroline

Westmorland


Amelia

NottowayDimwiddie

Sussex

PrinceGeorge

Charles City

New Kent

James City

Surrey

Isle of Wight

Suffolk

Southampton

Chesapeake

VirginiaBeach

York

New-port

NewsNorfolk

Poquoson

Hampton

Glou- cester

Mathews


Acco- mack

Lan caster

RichmondEssex

King andQueen

King William

Orange

Louisa

Goochland

Powatan

Cumber- land

Craig

Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

MontgomeryRoanoke

Comparison of Localto State Average forStudents, K-12,Qualifying forFree or ReducedLunch: 2002

Montgomery County: Childhood Poverty, 1993-2003

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

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

101993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Floyd

Virginia Giles

Montgomery

Pulaski

Radford

Children Receiving TANF/AFDC(Number per 1,000 Children)

Notes:2. Students from families with incomes at or below 130 percentof the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those between130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligiblefor reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged nomore than 40 cents.3.

4.According to the USCB, 8.8% of families, 12.8% of familieswith related children under age 18, and 16.6% of families withrelated children under age 5 were at or below the poverty level.

% of Students Eligible for the Free or Reduced Lunch Program, 1993-2003 (2)1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Virginia 29% 30% 31% 32% 32% 32% 31% 31% 31% 32% 33%

Montgomery 26% 29% 33% 29% 30% 29% 29% 28% 28% 31% 33%

Floyd 28% 27% 27% 26% 31% 30% 30% 29% 33% 34% 32%

Giles 31% 30% 31% 30% 30% 30% 28% 28% 29% 31% 32%

Pulaski 30% 31% 31% 32% 32% 33% 33% 32% 34% 37% 37%

Radford 19% 19% 20% 19% 19% 19% 18% 17% 22% 23% 23%

Notes:1.Prior to 1996, figures refer to Aid for Families withDependent Children (AFDC), which did not have afixed time frame for subsidies. For 1996 and after,figures refer to Temporary Aid for Needy Families(TANF), which places a 2 year lifetime cap onsubsidies.

Poverty Threshold (USCB, 2002, Family of 4) $18,244Poverty Rate (HHS, 2002, Family of 4) $18,400Free Lunch Program: (Upper Cutoff, 2002) $23,920Reduced Lunch Program (Upper Cutoff, 2002) $33,120


Health and Human Services: GoalsHHS 1.0 Sustainable and Livable Communities: Promotedevelopment patterns in Montgomery County which enhance thediversity; recognize the interrelatedness of land use, economicdevelopment, quality of live, social, health, and environmental issues;and enable the development of a livable and sustainable communityfor all citizens. (1)

HHS 2.0 Quality of Life: Promote a fair and equitable approach toquality of life issues, including housing, jobs, transportation, education,and community amenities. (2)

HHS 2.1 Affordable Housing. Montgomery County shouldpromote affordable housing and livable neighborhoods andcommunities. (3)

HHS 2.2 Economic Development. Establish and support aneconomic development policy that : 1) provides a living wage;2) encourages diversity and accessibility; 3) increases accessto job training and retraining opportunities; and 4) expandsopportunities for job advancement and improved quality oflife for all citizens.

HHS 2.3 Transportation. Provide increased access to andvariety of public transportation opportunities for all citizens,

with a special emphasis on job-related transportation for thedisabled and for lower income individuals and families. (4)

HHS 2.4 Technical and Vocational Education Facilities andPrograms. Expand technical and job related training through apartnership with Virginia Tech, Radford University, New RiverCommunity College, and the Montgomery County Public Schools,as well as other public and private vocational and job trainingprograms in Montgomery County through the reuse of abandonedor decommissioned educational facilities and funded throughpublic/ private partnerships. (5)

HHS 2.5 Community Facilities. Equitably distribute new culturaland recreational facilities throughout Montgomery County inorder to provide greater access to social, cultural, and recreationalopportunities to all county residents.

Cross References and Notes:1. Sustainable and livable communities is also addressed in HSG 1.0: LivableNeighborhoods (pg. 189) and HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 190).2. While much of this plan deals with improving citizens’ quality of life, specificreferences are contained in ECD 1.0: Economic Development, Land Use, and Qualityof Life (pg. 99).3. The work group promoted the following affordable housing strategies: 1) mixedincome developments through the implementation of a 25% affordable housingrequirement for all new developments such that the units will be interspersed throughoutthe development rather than encouraging ghettoization (clustering of affordable unitsin one area); 2) development of smaller housing stock (starter homes) of 1,000-1,500square feet on smaller lots by providing developers with density bonuses; 3) accessorydwelling development in higher density areas in order to provide greater access toand dispersion of rental units; 4) provision of individual eldercare opportunities forfamilies by allowing accessory dwellings on all lots in the county used for residentialpurposes; 5) mixed-use developments which allow residential, commercial, institutional,and/or industrial uses within a single development; 6) encourage increased developmentand density in areas where public utilities and services area available; and 7) establishand enforce a property maintenance in order to address housing standards in MontgomeryCounty.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Health & Human Resource 175

Cross References and Notes:4. Public transportation is addressed in TRN 3.0 Mass Transit (pg. 223) and TRN 4.0Alternative Transportation (pg. 224).5. Education and Technical/Vocational Training are addressed in ECD 2.0: WorkforceDevelopment (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 ExpansionAreas (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, andRecreational Resources.

HHS 3.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration: Promote regional,local, and intergovernmental cooperation in the development anddistribution of health and human services, with a special emphasis onpublic/private cooperation and collaborative efforts. (7)

HHS 3.1 Interjurisdictional Cooperation: Work with the NRVPlanning District Commission to establish a interjurisdictionaltask force to assess and monitor health and human service relatedissues both in Montgomery County and in the New River Valley.

HHS 3.1.1 County Office on Cooperation: Establish anoffice that would provide: 1) linkages between public andnonprofit agencies and between jurisdictions; 2) grant-writing resources for public/nonprofit partnerships; 3)generation of public information for public and nonprofitagencies.

HHS 1.3 Public Information: To facilitate the distribution ofpublic information concerning health and humans service relatedissues, services, and facilities.

HHS 1.3.1 County Office on Information. Work withthe Montgomery County Public Information Office todevelop appropriate and effective approaches to thedevelopment and distribution of social and health servicerelated information

HHS 1.3.2 Geographic Information System. Createappropriate geographic information system layers whichtrack affordable housing, distribution of social and healthservices, demographic information (income, commutetime, household size, etc. by block, block group, andvoting district), and emergency management information.

HHS 4.0 Medical and Mental Health: To promote and, when possible,help facilitate the equitable distribution of medical and mental healthservices and facilities, including hospitals, clinics, special care facilities,and fire and rescue services throughout the county, with a special emphasison underserved populations or areas of the county. (8)

HHS 4.1 Health Care Facilities. Identify and designate areasappropriate and adequate for the location of long- and short-termmedical and mental health care facilities, with a special emphasison the siting of long term eldercare facilities.

HHS 4.2 Emergency Care Facilities. In conjunction with theHealth Department, the Free Clinic, and other public and nonprofitagencies, develop and site an emergency health care clinic inunderserved portions of the County, most notably in the Shawsville-Elliston-Lafayette area.

HHS 4.3 Emergency Response Facilities and Staff. Continueto support the development of adequate fire and rescue facilitiesand ongoing training of fire, rescue, and law enforcement staffthroughout Montgomery County.

Cross References and Notes:7. Montgomery County recognizes the grants are often more successful when theyincorporate a regional approach and have the support of local governments andgovernment agencies. In addition, governments can offer certain services, such asGIS, that may be beyond the scope, ability, or budget of social, human, health, andmental health organizations.

Cross References and Notes:8. The Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities initiative offers one possiblesolution to the siting of health and human service facilities in the County. Specificdiscussion of the program is included in PNG 3.1.4 Community Based Schools andPublic Facilities Initiative (pg.68) and EDU 1.2: Community Based Schools andPublic Facilities (pg.116). Public safety facilities are addressed in SFY 1.3: FutureCapital Facilities (pg.197).


HHS 5.0 Human Services and Facilities: To promote and, whenpossible, help facilitate the development and equitable distribution ofelder, 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 designateareas appropriate and adequate for the location of humanservice facilities, including group homes; emergency carefacilities, such as shelters; transitional care and housing facilities,and rehabilitation facilities.

HHS 5.2 Elder Care Facilities. Identify and designate areasappropriate and adequate for the location of elder care facilities,including retirement communities, long-term care facilities,

adult daycare facilities, and other special use facilities specificto the needs of the senior population.

HHS 5.3 Child and Youth Care Facilities. Identify anddesignate areas appropriate and adequate for the location ofchild and youth care facilities, including child care centers,after school centers, child and youth group homes, and otherspecial use facilities specific to the needs of children, youth,and families.

HHS 5.4 Location. Explore the design and implementationof a "Trust Program" which would allow landowners, in specificareas of the county, to gift their property to health and humanservice organization if they so choose in exchange for taxrelief.

HHS 5.5 Adequate Funding: To promote adequate publicand private funding for public health and human services andfacilities.

Cross References and Notes.9. See footnote # 8 (pg. 176).


HousingResources

Montgomery


Adopted: 10/12/04

Housing: Executive Summary

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Housing Resources 179

Three key housing related concerns emerged during the communitysurvey process: affordability, quality of life, and livability ofneighborhoods. Montgomery County recognizes that theneighborhoods provide the cornerstone for residents’ sense ofcommunity, as well as their sense of safety and well-being. Thehousing 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 andcommunities.

Housing, especially the provision ofaffordable housing, represents one of the greatestchallenges facing Montgomery County and theNew River Valley. While housing costs in thecounty are still reasonably low compared toother areas of the state, there are specific factorsin the county which makes affordablity an issues,including low income scale and a large studentpopulation. The challenge for the county, overthe next 25 years, will be in finding ways tomitigate these factors.


Three issues in the Community Survey dealtdirectly with housing: 1) affordable housing,2) compact development (neighborhooddesign); and 3) the quality of mobile homeparks. In addition, two of the planning related issues were also connected to housing: 1)concentrating growth where utilities are alreadyprovided; and 2) using the zoning ordinanceto direct growth or protect property values. Ofthe five issues, affordable housing and the useof the zoning ordinance to either direct growthor protect property values generated the highestmean scores.

Seventy three percent (73%) of respondentsidentified “affordable housing” as either veryimportant or important. In their writtenresponses, participants' underscored their beliefthat housing affordability was one of the keyissues facing the county. While most includedbrief references to affordable housing, somewere far more specific, especially in terms ofhousing for low and middle income. As oneparticipant noted, the issue centered on making"homes affordable according to the income ofarea residents." Another, combining the issuesof affordable housing and zoning, suggested

that there should be a "revision of zoning toencourage development of affordable houses."A third respondent noted that the County should"provide an incentive for developers to buildaffordable, sustainable, safe, dependablehousing for low and middle low income familiesin existing small villages."

While 55% of respondents identified theissue of manufactured housing andmanufactured housing parks as either veryimportant or important, very few of the writtenresponses suggested overwhelming support forthe existence of either. As one participant noted, "mobile home growth is out of control inMontgomery County...we are turning into acounty-wide trailer park." A few of the

respondents felt that the county needed to focuson providing affordable housing as an alternativeto manufactured housing and manufacturedhousing parks. Still others suggested thatmanufactured housing provided "a reasonablealternative to high priced conventionalconstruction" or exemplified "communities--all development should learn from that." Inshort, respondents did not take a single viewon the issue of manufactured housing inMontgomery County. While many of the writtenresponses were negative, the majority of thesame respondents recognized the need toupgrade existing facilities and hold developersof new facilities to higher standards, including:

Housing: Introduction


• Providing "guidelines for mobile homeparks;"

• Require that "mobile home developersmust conform to the same requirementswe expect of neighborhoods...sidewalks, parks, paved roads;"

• "Have stricter rules/ laws governingappearance of such parks;" and

• “Have stricter rules or laws governingmanufactured housing park ownership.”

Issues of zoning and property values, forbetter or worse, cropped up throughout theresponses, most notably in terms of mixed-income developments and the location ofmanufactured housing and manufacturedhousing parks. While some of the respondentsfelt that the county should employ "properzoning...mobile homes should be zoned together,not mixed in among neighborhoods and high-income homes" and the county should "makeplans or regulations on where trailers can be

parked...put them in groups not just everywherethey want to put trailers," others saw the issuesof zoning, aside from manufactured housingparks, as a way of insuring the "integrity ofneighborhoods," which help to underscore "asense of pride & community."

The issue of compact development producedsome interesting responses. Only 40% ofrespondents ranked compact development aseither important or very important; however76% of the same respondents ranked the issueof uncontrolled growth and sprawl as eitherimportant or very important, and 79% identifiedopen space preservation as being important orvery important. Despite the relatively lowpercentage, participants' comments suggest afar greater support for concentrating growthnear or in the urbanized core and existingvillages and increasing the density of growth:

• “Balance the preservation of historical,forests, parks, open land spaces and theencouragement of development ofindustry and communities - which meansthe development of residential needs tocalm down.”

• “Densely developed, high-qualityvillages where all new development ison a grid system if possible and followsneo-traditional design & developmentideas. This would preserve open space& contain sprawl while fostering a senseof community.”

• “Since the county is an attractive placeto live and work, and since it has all thehuman, intellectual, technological, andphysical resources to grow, it willcontinue to do so, with inevitably lessreliance on agriculture and more onresearch, technology & industry. It iseasy to see a time (within the scope ofthis plan) where the Cburg/Bburg &


4.34.24.1

43.93.83.73.63.53.43.33.23.1

32.9

CompactDevelopment

Quality ofManufacturedHousing Parks

ConcentratingGrowthWhere

Utilities areProvided

AffordableHousing

Sprawl orUnplanned

Growth

ZoningOrdinanceto DirectGrowth

Mean Score For All Categories = 3.65

2.93

3.403.46

3.934.07

4.20

Housing & Residential Development:Community Survey Mean Results, 2003


Median monthly costs, for owner occupied units, with mortgage

Median Monthly Costs for owner occupied units, without mortgage

Median Monthly Gross Rent

Cost of Housing in Montgomery County:Selected Monthly Owner Costs (Mortgaged and Not Mortgaged

Owner Occupied Housing) and Gross Rent, 1980-2000

1980 $292.00 $91.00 $198.00

1990 $643.00 $164.00 $397.00

2000 $912.00 $219.00 $535.00

WithMortgage

WithoutMortgage Gross Rent

1.20

1.10

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

Median House Value

Median Household Money Income

Per Capita Income

$1000.00

$900.00

$800.00

$700.00

$600.00

$500.00

$400.00

$300.00

$200.00

$100.00

$0.001980 1990 2000

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

Ratio of Local Median House Value, Median HouseholdMoney Income, and Per Capita Income to State Median,

2000

Virginia Median/Per Capita = 1.00

Housing Affordabilityin Montgomery County, 1980-2000

Source: U.S. CensusBureau, 1980, 1990, and2000; US Bureau ofEconomic Analysis,2003

Note: While the presence of a large student population both inMontgomery County and the City of Radford contribute to the disparitybetween household income, personal income, and the cost of housing.there are other contributing factors, including a lower pay scale.


Radford triangle becomes a much moredensely populated and commercializedarea.”

• “I would like to see more concentrateddevelopment in the Blacksburg area. Iwould like to have minimal sprawl asa result of commercial and residentialsprawl. I would like to have moreconcentrated growth in and aroundBlacksburg to provide closercommunities and easier publictransportation access.”

The results suggest the need to balance abroad range of often conflicting concerns andthe need to provide more public informationabout planning issues, including: 1) the conflictbetween retaining the rural character of thecounty; 2) large versus small lot development;and 3) increased urban- and suburbanization.One participant wrote that Montgomery Countyshould "remain [a] small, friendly, [and]agricultural area , " but that "too many areasare ... allotted for subdivisions and other housing growth" that threatening the rural character.Another suggested keeping "residential/urbansprawl to a minimum either by increasingdensity or by lowering prices for people to ownmore land to prevent unnecessary development."

In addition to the issues included in thesurvey, respondents raised a number of otherconcerns, including residential neighborhooddesigns and quality, the increased need for seniorhousing, and the need for developers to carrytheir fair share of the cost of residential growth.

Although a few of the respondents felt thatthe county should continue to rely on andencourage large lot subdivisions, far moresuggested that the county should concentrateon creating neighborhoods and villages.

Montgomery County: Cost of Living and Cost of Housing.

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

Median Rate of Property Tax Home CostTown/City House Cost Appreciation Rate per $1,000 Index

National Average $146,102 7.8% $16.43 100.0

Blacksburg $120,440 7.0% $11.80 103.0

Christiansburg $117,870 3.0% $11.80 101.3

Radford $107,040 3.6% $11.80 92.0

Pulaski $108,110 7.1% $11.80 92.9

Roanoke City $169,400 6.2% $12.40 145.6

Salem $172,140 6.1% $12.40 148.0

Charlottesville $223,150 6.3% $12.30 191.8

Fredericksburg $125,380 11.7% $11.00 107.8

Harrisonburg $141,030 7.1% $7.00 121.2

Staunton $138,510 6.9% $11.80 119.1

Waynesboro $134,710 6.9% $11.80 115.8

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%) andmiscellaneous expenditures, including clothes and services (32%)

Cost of Housing Index: According to Bestplaces.net, the cost of housing index is based on homecosts, rental costs, and property taxes.

Sources: Bestplaces.net, 2003. Data based on information from 2000.


1939 or earlier

1940 to 1959

1960 to 1969

1970 to 1979

1980 to 1989

1990 to March, 2000

Montgomery County: Age of Housing Units, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.


Patterns of Residential Development.

Very few of the residential developments, builtsince 1990 interconnect with the surroundingarea , thus lacking a sense of being integratedinto the place in which they were built. Mostwere designed as discrete subdivisions ratherthan as part of the broader landscape,neighborhood, or village, and relied heavily onthe use of street patterns (cul-de-sacs and circles)that were self-contained within the subdivisionrather than providing connection and continuitybetween the subdivision and the adjacentvillages or other subdivisions. In addition, thesubdivision designs, while following traditionalpatterns of large lot suburbanization, providedno alternative interconnectivity, such assidewalks, bikeways,and walkways. While thelarge lots were appropriate and often necessaryin the outlying, rural portions of MontgomeryCounty, where there is no access to public water

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0Blacksburg Christiansburg Unincorporated Areas

Blacksburg Christiansburg Unincorporated Montgomery

Areas County

1939 or earlier 583 503 1119 2205

1940 to 1959 1402 1140 1335 3877

1960 to 1969 1840 822 1081 3743

1970 to 1979 4398 1474 2346 8218

1980 to 1989 2886 1669 2623 7178

1990 to March, 2000 2526 1800 2980 7306

13635 7408 11484 32527

and sewer, they were less appropriate in or nearthe existing villages and urban core. This isespecially true where the lack ofinterconnectivity and the visual disruption ofexisting development patterns led to adiminished sense of community andinterconnectedness among residents. Familiesbecame less a part of adjacent communities andmore identified with discrete subdivisions.

Affordable Housing:

Under the Guidelines established by the Codeof Virginia, jurisdictions must address theprovision of affordable housing on a local basiswhile considering the regional needs:

"The plan shall include: the designationof areas and implementation of measuresfor the construction, rehabilitation andmaintenance of affordable housing,


Unincorporated Areas Blacksburg Christiansburg Montgomery CountySource: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000U.S. Census (Table DP-4)

Montgomery County: Types of Housing Stock, 2000

Single-family detached

Single-family attached

Duplexes

Multi-Family

Manufactured Housing

Other

1990Unincorporated

120001100010000

900080007000600050004000300020001000

01990 Blacksburg 90-00 Change

(Blacksburg)1990

Christiansburg90-00 Change

(Christiansburg)90-00 Change

(Unincorporated)

SF-Detached

Other

Mfg Hsg.

Unincorporated Areas Blacksburg Christiansburg Montgomery County

Single-family detached 7439 3965 4709 16113

Single-family attached 221 1166 647 2034

Duplexes 226 446 404 1076

Multi-Family 573 7536 907 9016

Manufactured Housing 3018 522 741 4281

Other 7 0 0 7

Total Units 11484 13635 7408 32527

SF-Detached 3398 567 4086 623 6048 1391

Other 7899 1249 1369 589 814 206

Mfg Hsg. 560 0 812 0 2784 241


Sander of Bestplaces.net ranked the Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford MSA 8th among“Emerging U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” with thecost of living index at 85.4. The Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford MSA ranked well abovethe other two Virginia locales included in thelist: Winchester (ranked 17th), with a cost ofliving index of 88.2; and Harrisonburg (ranked18th), with a cost of living index of 95.1. Theauthors saw the cost of living as one of thepositive factors contributing to the area’s overallranking, however they, like Dr. Koebel, notedthat the area was prone to low incomes. It shouldalso be noted that the combine MSA score wassignificantly lower than individual communityscores, suggesting that the surrounding ruralareas contribute to the lowering of the overallcost 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 thevalue of single-family housing. In 2000, theU.S. Census Bureau listed the median value ofa house, in Montgomery County, at $114,600.Montgomery County has since gone through areassessment, and, according to the CountyAssessor, the median assessed value of a house,

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

01990 2000

Montgomery County, 1990 & 2000

10000

5000

01990 2000

Giles County, 1990 & 2000

MontgomeryCounty

1990 8147 8218 3065 3471 3340

2000 9148 9459 3909 3914 4567

GilesCounty

1990 785 1330 895 1488 1963

2000 1015 1435 1030 1242 2272

Within 1year

1 to 5years

6 to10years

11-20years

More than20 years

1990 1961 3484 1731 2923 3250

2000 2215 3855 1924 2678 3971

PulaskiCounty

15000

10000

5000

01990 2000

Pulaski County, 1990 & 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau,1990 & 2000 Census

Housing Tenure, 1990 & 2000

Within 1 year 1-5 years 6 toe years 11-20 years More than 20 years

which is sufficient to meet the currentand future needs of residents of all levelsof income in the locality whileconsidering the current and future needsof the planning district within which thelocality is situated." (§15.2-2223).

In his report, "Housing Affordability in

Virginia," Dr. C. Theodore Koebel noted thatthe New River Valley had cost burdens, relatedto housing, at or above the national average,although he ascribed the cost burden to lowincome rather than necessarily high housingprices.

In the recently published Cities Ranked andRated (2004), authors Bert Sperling and Peter


as of August 2003, is $137,500, amounting toa 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 owneroccupied housing units in 1980 was $292 forthose with a mortgage and $91 with nomortgage. 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 increasecan be attributed to the construction of largerand more expensive housing stock, whichwould, presumably generate larger taxationand insurance costs. The increased value of thehousing stock (both new and existing) is adouble edged sword: while the existing stockalso 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, MontgomeryCounty, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg arenot facing normal circumstances in the provisionof affordable housing. In 2000, nearly 70% ofthe 32,527 housing units in MontgomeryCounty were built since 1970. While multi-family, student housing in Blacksburg accountsfor a large proportion of these units, the figuresdo suggest that there are fewer older affordablesingle-family houses available. Although thereare exceptions, many of the houses in theestablished neighborhoods in Blacksburg haveeither not entered the affordable housing marketor have become student housing, effectivelykeeping the values well above the affordabilityrange or removing it from the market. Accordingto bestplaces.net, the cost of housing inBlacksburg was 103.5% of national average,

compared to 101.3% in Christiansburg, 92%in Radford, and 92.9% in Pulaski.

Type of Housing Stock:

Single-family dwellings (16,113 single-familydetached units and 2,034 single-family attachedunits) account for 56% of the housing units inMontgomery County as a whole. Single-familydetached units account for 49.5% of the housingstock in Montgomery County.

Multi-family dwellings account for 55.3%of the housing units in Blacksburg, accordingto the 2000 Census, but only account for 5%of the housing units in the unincorporatedportions of the county and 12.2% inChristiansburg. Duplexes, which are somewhatmore evenly distributed through out the countyin terms of number, account for 3.3% of thetotal housing units in Blacksburg, 5.4% inChristiansburg, and 2.0% in the unincorporatedportions of Montgomery County.

There is, however, a second way to look atsingle-family dwellings. While not generallyadded in to the single-family statistics, whichmost often focus on stick-built structuresrequiring building permits, most manufacturedhousing serves, in fact, single families.According to the 2000 Census, manufacturedhousing accounted for 26% of the housing

stock in the unincorporated areas of MontgomeryCounty, 10% in Christiansburg, and 3.8% inBlacksburg. When added into the county single-family, stick-built, detached and attacheddwellings, the percentage of residences whichserve single families climbs to 92.7% of allhousing.

Housing Stock: Tenure.

Initial data would indicate that tenure in housingunits is fluid and far more transitory than inneighboring counties. According to the 2000Census, 60% of householders had moved, atleast once, in the period between 1995 and 2000.This compares to 35% of householders in GilesCounty and 41% in Pulaski County during thesame period of time. The much higher rate oftransience in Montgomery County can beattributed, in large part, to a significant studentand graduate student population.

Low, Very Low, and Transitional Housing:

Currently, there are four transitional housingunits, provided by Community Housing Partners,located in Christiansburg. No other transitionalhousing is available in Montgomery County,Blacksburg, or Christiansburg. Housing for lowand very low income residents is currentlysupplied through the private and nonprofitsectors. According to the Council of CommunityServices, there are currently four apartmentcomplexes in Christiansburg and five inBlacksburg which offer subsidized housing.Montgomery County does not, currently, havea housing authority.


Housing: GoalsHSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods: Promote affordable, safe, livableneighborhoods for all residents. (1)

HSG 1.1 Affordable Housing. Promote affordable, qualityhousing for all income levels. (2)

HSG 1.1.1 Regional Housing Study. Work with theNew River Valley Planning District Commission andmember jurisdictions, including Virginia Tech andRadford Universities to do a comprehensive analysisof current housing conditions, housing affordability,and the impact of a large student presence on theavailability of affordable housing in the region, anddetermine the best approaches to insuring the availabilityof quality housing across income levels.

HSG 1.1.2 Adequate Zoning for Future Growth.Conduct a zoning study to determine residential landuse requirements for the next 20-25 years, in five yearincrements, including an evaluation of product type(single family attached and detached, multi-family, andmanufactured; own/rent, price/rent categories) andestimated land required for each type of housing; andrezone sufficient lands, in appropriate areas (those areasserved by public water and sewer) to accommodatefuture growth.

HSG 1.1.3 Affordable Housing Incentives. Provideincentives for affordable housing development. (3)

HSG 1.1.4 Public/Private Partnerships. Promote thedevelopment of public private partnerships to addressthe needs of moderate, low, and very low incomeresidents. (4)

HSG 1.1.5 Public Information. Provide publicinformation on programs that encourage thedevelopment of housing for moderate, low, and verylow income individuals and families and programs thatwould promote affordable homeownership, including:1) Below market interest programs; and 2)Homeownership counselling, credit counseling, andsavings programs (Individual Development Accounts)(5)

HSG 1.1.6 Very Low Income and TransitionalHousing Needs: Conduct a study of housing for verylow income and transitional housing in MontgomeryCounty and the Metropolitan Statistical Area

HSG 1.1.7 Grants Office. Promote the developmentof a regional grants office, through the New RiverValley Planning District Commission, to develop joint-sponsored grants and public/private partnerships toaddress issues of affordable housing, housing for thevery low income, and transitional housing in the region.(6)


Cross References and Notes:1. Livability, sustainability, and quality of life go hand-in-hand. While the planimplicitly addresses all three, specific references can be found in PNG 4.1.1: LivableCommunities (pg. 68); PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 50); ECD 1.0: EconomicDevelopment, 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 recommendationsfrom Wu Li and Dr. T. Koebel of Virginia Tech’s Housing Institute.3. 1) Reducing pre-development approval times; 2) Reducing the impact of governmentregulations on building cycle time; 3) Facilitating the development of Low IncomeHousing 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 developersto advise the county on the impediments they face in developing affordable housing.

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, lowincome is defined as 80% of the area’s median family income, and very low incomeis 50% of the area’s median family income.” In 2000, the US Census Bureauestablished the County’s median family income at $47,239. Given this, the lowincome 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 housingand Section 8 housing programs. It should be noted, however, that the percentageof median varies based on the size of family and eligibility may be affected by localhousing prices and other considerations.5. General approaches to public information are addressed in PNG 2.2: Informingthe 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).

HSG 1.2 Manufactured Housing and Housing Parks:Actively encourage the development and maintenance of livablemanufactured housing parks inorder to facilitate a communityethos.

HSG 1.2.1 Manufactured Housing Park Standards.Develop prototype standards for improving site design,including landscaping and buffering standards, amenitiesstandards, and public facility standards.

HSG 1.2.2 Maintenance Standards. Developmaintenance standards for mobile home parks and HUD-code housing units.

HSG 1.2.3 Recycling/Salvage Program. Develop arecycling/salvage program for old, obsoletemanufactured housing that would encourage replacingoccupied, obsolete mobile homes and discourageabandonment and neglect.

HSG 1.3 Safe and Livable Neighborhoods. Promote the useof safe and livable neighborhood designs in residentialdevelopment. (7)

HSG 1.3.1 Mixed Use Neighborhoods. Encouragethe development of planned, mixed use, pedestrian andtransit friendly neighborhoods, which would combineoffice, commercial, residential, recreational uses intoa single development.

HSG 1.3.2 Public Information: Provide residents anddevelopers information on "safe neighborhood," transit-oriented, and traditional neighborhood (TND) designand development.

HSG 1.3.3 Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation.Encourage intra- and inter-connectivity of roads,bikeways, and walkways in new residentialdevelopments in order to promote increased sense ofcommunity and safety, while decreasing trafficconcentration.


Cross References and Notes:7. The concept of safe and livable neighborhoods is implicitly embedded in the landuse 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 theCommunity Design policies (PLU 3.0, pg 50; see, also, footnote # 1 (pg 189) forother references.

PublicSafety

Montgomery


Adopted: 10/12/04

Public Safety: Executive SummaryThe 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 callcenter.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Public Safety 192


The community survey asked participantsto rank two issues related to public safety: 1)support of fire and rescue, and 2) police/sheriffservices (law enforcement). Not surprisingly,given the events of recent years, both issuesranked very high. Fire and rescue was thenumber one issue of the forty-one issues raisedin the survey (mean ranking of 4.39), with 88%of participants ranking it either important (22%)or very important (66%). Support for fire andrescue was universally strong, regardless of thedemographic variations.

The same held true for the issue ofpolice/sheriff services, which had a mean scoreof 4.31. Of those who participated, 86% ratedpolice/sheriff services as either important (22%)or very important (63.8%). Only 4% ofrespondents felt that police/sheriff services wereeither minimally important (2%) or not important(2%). As with fire and rescue, police/sheriffservices garnered almost universal support,again, regardless of demographic variation, withone notable exception. A higher percentage ofwomen (70%) rated police/sheriff services asvery important, compared to 54% of men.

The majority of written commentsconcerning fire and rescue dealt with the needfor new facilities (specifically in the Ellistonarea), paying fire and rescue personnel, increasedtraining, better equipment, public outreachthrough education, and “involvement in thecommunity.”

In terms of police/sheriff services,participants cited a number of specific concernsin their written comments, including the needto enforce existing ordinances (traffic, litter,noise, nuisance, and leash laws), increasing thenumber of law enforcement officers in theCounty, and increasing financial support forlaw enforcement.

Students had far more to say than did theiradult counterparts. Again, while it is a reflection,in part, of the events of the last few years; italso reflects, interestingly enough, a broaderrange of concerns, including the need for moreanimal shelters, the prevalence of bullies inschools, a concern about automobile accidents,the lack of light at night, too few lawenforcement officers, drugs, drinking, and trash.

In their letters to the Board of Supervisors,the students had a number of specificsuggestions. One student suggested that theCounty needed to “get police to direct trafficat intersections where there aren’t any trafficlights.” Other students suggested that the “policecould clean up pollution,” and “fine people forlittering.” One commented that “if police fine

the people that litter the world might not befilled with trash...that would make the worldmore beautiful place.” The most commoncomments, however, from the students mirroredtheir adult counterparts: more police, more fireand rescue personnel, and better pay. It was clearfrom the written comments, that the majority ofstudents who participated in the survey supporteda greater public safety presence, especially intheir schools and communities.


Fire and Rescue

In 2002, the Montgomery County Board of

Public Safety: Introduction


Supervisors hired the EMSstar Group, LLC toassess current conditions and future fire andrescue needs.

In 2002, there were five fire departmentswith 137 volunteers and four rescue squads,with 184 volunteers. Only Blacksburg andChristiansburg currently have full-time,predominantly administrative, paid staff. In

comparison to other counties in the New RiverValley, Montgomery County has the lowestpersonnel rate of fire department (21.6 per10,000 in population) and the second lowestpersonnel rate for rescues squads (18.1per10,000 in population).

For the rescue squads located in the twotowns, the County provides partial facilities

support, sharing the cost with the towns. TheCounty provides full facilities support for thefire and rescue stations in the unincorporatedareas of the County. In addition, the Countycovers equipment costs for all of the fire andrescue units through annual CIP disbursements.Currently, Montgomery County is in the processof replacing two of the stations: Elliston-Lafayette and Longshop-McCoy.

According to the EMSstar report, there area number of issues facing the County in termsof the provision of adequate and timely service,including: 1) availability of volunteer personnelbetween 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.; 2) the provision ofALS care; 3) lack of funding oversight andaccountability; 4) lack of technical assistance;5) lack of countywide central dispatching; and6) no centralized or standardized data collection(response times, staffing levels, and criticalvehicle and equipment failures). As the reportnoted, “the county does not aggregate data andas such cannot adequately look at the totaldelivery of service for the constituents it serves.”On the positive side, EMSstar noted that “serviceplacement appears to be well distributed for thepresent population of the county; however, futuregrowth and development will require additionalservices and stations.”

The Blacksburg Comprehensive Planproposes the creation of a central answeringpoint for public safety agencies withinMontgomery County. The center would receivepolice, fire, and EMS emergency requests fromthe public through an Enhanced 911 telephonesystem. In addition, non-emergency calls forthese agencies would also be processed by thecenter. The center’s mission would be to enhancethe quality of life of every person in MontgomeryCounty by receiving and processing 911emergency calls and non-emergency calls inorder to dispatch police, fire, and EMS units ina prompt, efficient, courteous, and professionalmanner.

In addition, Blacksburg is currentlyconsidering a state-of-the-art training facilityfor police, fire, and rescue. It would include


Public Safety: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003

5

4.8

4.6

4.4

4.2

4

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3Fire & Rescue Services Police/Sheriff Services


Mean Score

Fire & Rescue Services 4.39

Police/Sheriff Services 4.31

Mean Score for all Issues 3.65


classrooms with audio/video equipment, adriving range, a firearms range, a rope tower,and a fitness building. The BlacksburgComprehensive Plan states that this new complexwould not only consolidate necessary trainingfacilities, but it would also greatly enhancepublic safety training for Town staff and itsneighboring jurisdictions.

Sheriff’s Department

According to the 2003-2004 Budget, theSheriff’s Department had 111 fulltime employeesand one part-time employee, and accounted for,along with fire and rescue, 21% of the GeneralFund Budget (the General Fund represents26.6% of the overall budget). In FY03, theCounty covered 34.8% of the cost of the Sheriff’sDepartment, with the rest coming from the Statebudget. In addition to law enforcement, thesheriff’s department provides support for the ,dispatching (including 911 emergency calls),jail operations, emergency services and civildefense, and a significant public outreachprogram.

The Sheriff’s Department’s public outreachand community based program, most specificallytheir citizen academy, based on an Englishmodel, provides a useful model for futureacademies in other areas. Other community-based and citizen response initiatives include:Project Lifesaver, D.A.R.E, School ResourceOfficers, Crime Prevention Officers, ClassAction instructors, and a Domestic ViolenceCoordinator.

FireDepartmentPersonnel

RescueSquad

PersonnelFD: Rate per

10,000RS: Rate per

10,000 Population

Montgomery 181 151 21.6 18.1 83629

Floyd 110 45 79.3 32.4 13874

Giles 250 100 150.1 60.0 16657

Pulaski 190 99 54.1 28.2 35127

Radford 36 17 22.7 10.7 15859

155.0

135.0

115.0

95.0

75.0

55.0

35.0

15.0Montgomery Floyd Giles Pulaski Radford

FD: Rate per 10,000

RS: Rate per 10,000

#of Vehicles

Blacksburg FD 7 1992

Blacksburg RS 13 1997

Christiansburg FD 12 1990

Christiansburg RS 11 1994

Elliston-Lafayette FD 9 1988

Longshop-McCoy FD/RS 12 1990

Riner FD 10 1993

Shawsville RS 8 1999

Median Age ofEquipment

Sources: 1. EMSstar Report, 2003; NewRiver Valley Alliance, 2000; U.S.CensusBureau, 2000 Census (Table DP-1)

Montgomery County: Fire and Rescue, 2003



Montgomery County: Fire and RescueFacilities, 2004

Cross References and NotesNote: the EMSSTAR report (2003) is available, upon request, from the MontgomeryCounty 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 Fireand Rescue Strategic Plan recommendations should be reviewed and adopted intothis plan.4. See EMSSTAR Recommendations 3.1.3 and 3.3.3

SFY 1.0 Public Safety Goal: Promote and facilitate the provisionof superior law enforcement and emergency services (fire and rescue)in order to insure that people have a safe and secure community inwhich to live, work and raise their families.

SFY 1.1 Management Structure: Establish a single clearmanagement structure for planning and policy setting whilestriving to achieve consensus among fire, EMS and otherhealth and safety related constituency groups in formulatingpublic policy, procedures and protocols. (1)

SFY 1.1.1 Advisory Board: The "Fire and RescueTask Force "should be formally commissioned by theBoard of Supervisors as an advisory board workingwith the Emergency Services Office and reportingregularly to the Board of Supervisors. Moreover, thenew Advisory Board should be broadened to includelaw enforcement representation. (2)

SFY 1.1.2 Fire and Rescue Strategic Plan: Developand ratify a comprehensive strategic plan for fire andEMS services in Montgomery County. This plan shouldbe based on sound demographic and other data. Fundingdecisions should be made based upon this plan andupon compliance with other requirements establishedby the Board. (3)

SFY 1.1.3 Response Performance Goals: Establishresponse performance goals and such other fire andEMS performance goals as may be desired using inputfrom the fire and EMS agencies, county staff, themedical community and the public. (4)

SFY 1.1.4 NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan: Review thedraft NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by NRVPlanning District Commission staff for adoption by theCounty in order to satisfy FEMA requirements for a hazardmitigation plan. (5)

SFY 1.1.5 GIS Support: Continue County GIS supportfor both law enforcement and emergency services activitiesespecially in order to provide compatible and readilyavailable geodata in support of law enforcement andemergency services activities throughout the County.

SFY 1.2 Public Involvement: Recognize and support the roleof citizen volunteers in the delivery of law enforcement andemergency services throughout Montgomery County. Moreover,promote a better understanding of law enforcement and emergencyservices issues by all County residents.

SFY 1.2.1 Fire and Rescue Involvement: Support thevital role of volunteers in the delivery of emergencyservices (fire and rescue) throughout Montgomery County.

SFY 1.2.2 Law Enforcement Involvement: Supportprograms that increase public involvement andunderstanding of the law enforcement process such as theSheriffs Citizen Academy and Neighborhood WatchProgram. (6)

SFY 1.3 Future Capital Facilities: Use the response performancegoals, the future land use policies/map from the ComprehensivePlan, projections for future traffic and road improvements fromthe MPO, and other pertinent data to develop a plan to locate andfund future law enforcement and emergency services facilitiesthat are necessitated by a growing County population. (7)

Public Safety: Goals


Cross References and Notes:5. The New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan is also addressed in ENV 4.3Floodplains: 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.

SFY 1.3.1 Cash Proffers: Develop a cash profferguideline to address County capital facility needs forlaw enforcement and emergency services facilities.

SFY 1.3.2 Capital Facilities and Funding: Continueto work, annually, through Capital ImprovementsProgram to identify future capital facility needs and themeans for funding them.

SFY 1.3.3. Animal Shelter: Provide adequate, humaneanimal control services and facilities.

SFY 1.4 New Development: Proactively consider public safetyissues in the County’s review and approval of new residential,commercial, industrial and institutional developments.

SFY 1.4.1 Site Plan Review: Involve the EmergencyServices Coordinator in the site plan review process formajor residential, commercial, industrial and institutionaldevelopments proposed for the unincorporated portionsof the county.

SFY 1.4.2 Street Signs and House Numbers: Workwith county departments e.g. General Services (street

signs) and Building Inspectors (house numbers) toinsure that new structures can be easily located in thefield by emergency and law enforcement personnel.

SFY 1.5 Regional Opportunities: On selected issues, a regionalapproach may provide services more efficiently and effectively.In some cases this may involve the County workingcooperatively with Blacksburg, Christiansburg and VirginiaTech. In other cases this may involve the County workingcooperatively with other New River Valley governments andpossibly local governments in the Roanoke Valley.

SFY 1.5.1 Regional Swift Water Rescue Team:Evaluate the feasibility of County support for a regionalswift water rescue team.

SFY 1.5.2 MERIT Emergency CommunicationsCenter: Evaluate the feasibility of County participationin a Montgomery Emergency Response InformationTeam (MERIT) Emergency Communications Centerserving the county, Blacksburg, Christiansburg andVirginia Tech.

SFY 1.5.3 Regional Training Facility: Evaluate thefeasibility of County participation in the developmentof a regional training facility for use by fire, rescue andlaw enforcement personnel.


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 implementationportion 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 RecreationalPriorities and Funding (pg. 207).

RecreationalResourcesMontgomeryCounty,2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Parks and Recreation: Executive SummaryMontgomery County recognizes that parks, trails, and a widevariety of recreation opportunities contribute significantly toresidents’ quality of life. The Parks and Recreation chapter focuseson two key areas of interest:

• Local and regional approaches to the provision of parksand recreational opportunities, with an emphasis on regionalcollaboration and cooperation; and

• The provision of indoor and outdoor recreational facilitiesand programs, to better serve all residents of MontgomeryCounty, including the expansion of the county’s HeritageTrail system and the development of the recreationalfacilities included in the Outdoor Facilities Master Plan.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Recreational Resources 200

As the introduction to the County’s OutdoorFacilities Master Plan indicates, parks andrecreational opportunities are major contributorsto the County’s quality of life. In MontgomeryCounty, the natural setting provides a widerange of recreational opportunities: hiking inthe Jefferson National Forest, fishing in thecounty’s streams and rivers, tubing on the NewRiver, and bird-watching near Pandapas Pond.The two universities, Virginia Tech inBlacksburg and Radford University in the Cityof Radford, contribute to the cultural recreation(plays, art exhibits, concerts, and guest speakers). Indeed, many of the recreational opportunitiesavailable in Montgomery County are providedby agencies and individual organizations thanthe County government.


Community survey participants were askedabout four park and recreation-related issues:1) individual recreational opportunities,including bikeways, walkways, and nature andheritage trails; 2) traditional parks (playgrounds,picnic areas, ballfields, etc.); 3) river access(boating, fishing, and tubing); and 4) specialuse facilities (golf courses, skateboard parks,etc.). Of the four issues, individual recreationalopportunities scored the highest, although noneof the issues scored at or above the mean scorefor all issues.

Both in terms of overall mean score (3.58)and in terms of citizen comments, individualrecreational opportunities proved to be the mostpopular recreation issue with community surveyparticipants. Of those who participated, 61%rated the provision of individual recreationalopportunities, including trails and bikeways, aseither important or very important. Two factorsmay account for participant interest in individualrecreational opportunities: 1) the majority ofparticipants in the community survey were age

35 and above, less likely to be involved inscheduled group or team activities, andpreferred unscheduled recreationalopportunities; and 2) participants were morelikely to view trails and bikeways, specifically,as alternative transportation locations and as ameans of access to nature. Citizen commentsunderscored the connection between trails andthe desire to have easier access to nature andnatural areas. As one participant suggested,Montgomery County needed to “construct morenature preserves for observation of wildlife &vegetation & outdoor exercise.” Otherssuggested that the parks in rural areas shouldbe focusing on providing opportunities forhiking, biking, and picnicking and providing

residents with increased access to “naturalareas.” Many of the participants who encouragedthe expansion of the trail system in MontgomeryCounty, also expressed an interest in seeing thetrail system connected to other existing systemsin neighboring jurisdictions (Bissett park trailsin Radford, the New River Valley Trail in PulaskiCounty, and the National Forest trails nearPandapas Pond) or expanded to provide accessto the New and Little Rivers as well as thevillages (Riner, Shawsville, Elliston, PlumCreek, and Prices Fork).

Traditional parks had a mean score of 3.47,with 56% of participants rating them either asimportant or very important. Despite the factthat slightly more than half the participants rated

Parks and Recreation: Introduction


traditional parks fairly high, the subjectgenerated very few specific comments, althougha few participants did note the need for anincreased number of ball and soccer fields.

River access and special use facilities rankedsignificantly lower than either individualrecreational opportunities or traditional parks.Of those who participated in the community

survey, 44% rated river access as important orvery important and 29% rated special usefacilities, most notably golf courses, as eitherimportant or very important. These numbers,however, may be misleading, especially in termsof the issue of river access. Citizen commentsabout trails and bikeways and access to naturalareas centered on, among other issues, increased

bicycle access to the New River. The riveraccess issue was presented as a sportsman-related issue (increased opportunities for boatingand fishing), which may have led participantswho want to be able to bike or walk along theriver to give the issue a lower score than theymight have if the issue had been less narrowlyframed.

Special use facilities had one of the lowestmean scores on the survey (2.76) and was oneof the few issues where more respondents ratedit as “not important” (11%) than as “veryimportant” (9%). In addition, the commentssuggested virtually no support for publiclyprovided golf courses. It should be noted,however, that special use facilities, especiallyskateparks, were one of the significantlydivergent issues between the community andstudent survey responses and may well reflectgenerational differences in the definition ofrecreation.

The student surveys suggested fairly strongsupport for increased recreational opportunities,special use facilities (such as pools, skateparks,paintball facilities, and climbing walls), and abroader range and greater number of countysupported sport and non-sport related activities.The most common complaint registered in thestudent surveys was that there was “nothing todo” in Montgomery County. Respondents feltthere was a very real need for more activitiesand opportunities for youth. This was especiallytrue for students in the outlying areas, includingRiner, Prices Fork, Elliston, Belview, andShawsville.

It should be noted that students were not theonly respondents who felt that youth activitieswere lacking and that there needed to be agreater emphasis on all sorts of recreation inMontgomery County. As one citizen surveyrespondent noted, there is “Nothing -Nothing- Nothing for 13-20 year old to do socially onweekends, if not involved in sports... Lived here30 years--always been a problem.” Anotherwrote that the county “needs more recreationaland educational development for children under

Mean Score

Traditional Parks River Access

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3

2.9

2.8

2.7Individual

RecreationalOpportunities

Special UseFacilities

Mean Score

Individual Recreational Opportunities (Trails, Bikeways, etc.) 3.58

Traditional Parks 3.47

River Access 3.17

Special Use Facilities (Golf Courses, Skate Parks, etc.) 2.76



Parks and Recreation: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003


Distribution of Park and Recreation Facilities, 2003

Type of Park / Recreational Facility Number/Size Location

Overall Amount of Park/Recreational Land 143 acres Montgomery County (MC)291 acres Blacksburg (B)11 acres Christiansburg (C)n/a MC Public Schools (MCPS)

Linear Miles of Trails 5 miles Montgomery County27 miles Blacksburg1 mile Christiansburg

Number of Undeveloped/Developing Parks 3 Blacksburg3 Christiansburg4 Montgomery County

Arboretum 1 BBasketball Court 34 B,MCPS,C,MCBaseball/Soccer/Multi-purpose Fields 63 B,MCPS,C,MCDisc Golf Course 1 MCGardens 2 B,MCGolf Course 1 BHorseshoe pits 15 B,C,MCIndoor Nature Center 1 BInline Hockey Area 1 BModel Airplane Field 1 MCNature Trail 1 mile BPicnic Shelter 16 B,MCPS,C,MCPlaygrounds 42 B,MCPS,C,MCRecreation Center/Activities Buildings 3 B,C,MCRestrooms 5 B,MCSkate Park 1 BSwimming Pool 2 BTennis Courts 29 B,MCPSVolleyball Courts 1 BWalking/Jogging Trail 8 B,C, MC

Source: Montgomery County Parks and Recreation Department, Outdoor Facility Master Plan, January,2003 Draft.

school age.” A third felt that town and countyofficials needed to “promote youth events.” Anumber of the respondents broadened thediscussion by suggesting the County place agreater emphasis on recreational opportunitiesand facilities for families. Regardless of focus,however, the community survey and the studentsurvey respondents felt that the county neededto do far more to provide a broader range ofrecreational opportunities and facilities thanhad been done to date.


There is very little argument thatMontgomery County is well below the level ofservices and facilities recommended by theVirginia Outdoor Plan. What is arguable,however, is why. As noted in the introductionto this chapter, Montgomery County hassignificant National Forest recreationalopportunities (most notably at Pandapas Pond),privately owned recreational opportunities andfacilities, (New River Junction and the publiclyavailable hiking opportunities on the NatureConservancy Lands), and a broad range ofactivities offered through Virginia Tech andnon-profit organizations like the YMCA. Inaddition, the majority of the population lives inthe two towns, both of which provide access torecreational opportunities to their residents, aswell as to residents outside of the towns’ limitsfor a fee. Because of these outside resources,Montgomery County has not had to provide asmuch in terms of recreational programs andfacilities as might otherwise be the case.

In the past, limited fiscal and capitalresources, have meant that the county has hadto concentrate their facilities in the center portionof the county, accessible to the largest percentageof residents, most notably at Mid-County Park.In recent years, however, the county hassignificantly increased the number of parks inthe county, as well as diversifying the types ofparks. In the past 15 years, the County has added










Montgomery County: Federal Lands, Parks,and Private Conservation Easements, 2004








the Huckleberry Trail and the Coal MiningHeritage Park and Science Center (underdevelopment), as well as three traditional parks(two in Plum Creek and one in McCoy). Inaddition, Montgomery County has undevelopedpark land in the Mt Tabor district (AEP Propertynear Blacksburg), Christiansburg (adjacent tothe County Courthouse), and Elliston (adjacentto the south fork of the Roanoke River).

The County also provides significant outdoorrecreational opportunities through multi-useagreements with the Montgomery County PublicSchools, including community access toballfields, tennis courts, and playgrounds.

In 2003, the Montgomery CountyDepartment of Parks and Recreation developedthe Montgomery County Outdoor FacilitiesMaster Plan. The plan made recommendationsfor the development of the county’s park systembased on level of service standards, establishedby the Virginia Department of Conservation andRecreation (DCR) and on a needs assessmentconducted by the DCR in conjunction with the2002 Virginia Outdoor Plan. Facility needs werebased on three criteria: standards, demand, andresources. The goals included in MontgomeryCounty, 2025 reflect not only the facilityrecommendations from the Outdoor FacilitiesMaster Plan, but also public comment andconcerns from the Community Survey.

Montgomery County Outdoor Recreational FacilitiesLevels of Service (LOS), 2003

RecommendedDCR LOS included inRecommended Current LOS 2003 OutdoorLevels of in Montgomery Facility Master

Facility Service (LOS) County Plan

Parkland 10 acres per 1000 residents 5.3 acres--all Suggested increase,(836.3 acres) jurisdictions; but no specific

(5.2 acres numeric(unincorporated recommendationsareas)

Archery Range 1 per 50,000 residents 0 (0) 1 range

Baseball Fields (Youth) 1 per 6,000 (13.9 fields 25 (14) 13 additional--all jurisdictions; 5.5 inunincorporated areas.

Basketball Courts 1 per 5,000 (16.7 courts--all 33 (15) Suggested increase,jurisdictions; 15 in but no specificunincorporated areas. recommendation.

Football/Soccer Fields 1 per 10,000 (8.3 fields-- 28 (6) 12 additionalall jurisdictions; 3 inunincorporated areas)

Golf 9 holes per 25,000/18 holes 1 public course-9 Add additional 9 holeper 50,000 (30 holes--all hole; 1 private Public Coursejurisdictions; 9.87 holes in 9 hole; 2 privateunincorporated areas) courses 18 hole (54)

Horseshoes 1 per 10,000 (8.3 lanes-- 15 (2) Not includedall jurisdictions; 3 inunincorporated areas

Skateboard Park 1 per 25,000 (3.3--all 1 (0) 6 additionaljurisdictions; 1 inunincorporated areas

Tennis Courts 1 per 2,000 (41.8--all 29 (16) 12 additionaljurisdictions; 13.7 inunincorporated areas

PlaygroundsNote: This represents a partial list from the Outdoor Master Plan needs assessment. State LOS standardscan be found at http://www.dcr.state.va.us/prr/docs/vop2002.pdf--Virginia Outdoor Plan, pgs 379-382.


Recreational Resources: GoalsPRC 1.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration: To encouragethe multi-use of existing facilities, while encouraging regionalapproaches to new recreation opportunities, which provide the broadestrange of recreational experiences to all residents of MontgomeryCounty, including those who live in Christiansburg and Blacksburg.(1).

PRC 1.1 Local Cooperation: Continue to work with theTowns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg and with countyschools to develop regional policies, facilities, and programsfor the benefit of all residents of Montgomery County.

PRC 1.1.1 Joint Meetings: Initiate regular meetingsbetween town and county recreation directors followedby joint meetings of the three recreation commissions.

PRC 1.1.2 Large Town Policies: Investigaterecreational policies of other Virginia counties withlarge towns in order to evaluate alternative plans ofaction for county recreation.

PRC 1.1.3 Regional Master Plan: Develop a “regionalmaster plan” to avoid duplication of similar facilitiesand programs between towns and county.

PRC 1.1.4 Facility Sharing: Coordinate facility sharingand "program-sharing" between the county, the countyschools and the towns through cooperative agreementsand/or a uniform policy on the use of recreationalfacilities. (2)

PRC 1.1.5 Regional Parks Authority: Evaluate thefeasibility of establishing a Regional Parks Authority.

PRC 1.1.6 Special Events. Work with neighboringjurisdictions and local organizations to organize andsponsor special events, including festivals and concerts.

PRC 1.2 Private / Non-Profit: Work with private and non-profit civic clubs to develop new and enhance existing sportleagues throughout the County (e.g., New River United SoccerAssociation).

PRC 1.2.1 Sports Needs: Determine the needs anddesires of existing sport leagues in the county and theappropriate role of the county in meeting these needs.

PRC 1.2.2 Public/Private Partnership Facilities:Develop clear policies for the future use of facilitiesthat are constructed and/or maintained with fundingfrom non-profit groups.

PRC 1.3 Cooperative Agreement: Work to establishcooperative agreements with Virginia Tech, Radford Universityand the City of Radford for facility sharing that will benefitall citizens of Montgomery County.

PRC 1.3.1 Kentland Farms: Work with Virginia Techto open the 4+ miles of New River frontage torecreational use by both students and county residents.

PRC 1.3.2 Trail Linkage: Develop a trail system thatwill link to the City of Radford and the two universitiesto better meet the needs of the student population andcity residents (e.g. Kentland Farms river access andDedmon Center & Bissett Park).


Cross References and Notes:1. Local and Regional Cooperation are a central theme to this plan. Additionalreferences 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 addressedin PNG 3.0 Access (pg. 67).

PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs . To provide a broadvariety of recreational opportunities and traditional and special usefacilities for all citizens of Montgomery County, with special attentionto the recreational needs of youth, young adults, and senior citizens.(3)

PRC 2.1 Outdoor Facility Master Plan (OFMP): Revise,formally adopt, and use the Outdoor Facility Master Plan asa guide for the development of new parks and recreationalfacilities, including pocket, neighborhood, village, and regionalparks, as well as special use facilities, trails, and heritage parks.

PRC 2.1.1 Recreational Priorities and Funding:Decide on the top projects in the OFMP and developfunding strategies for them including incorporationinto the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), use of grantfunds and other sources of funding.

PRC 2.1.2 Cash Proffers: Evaluate cash proffers asa funding tool for recreation facilities identified in theOFMP that are necessary to meet the recreational needsof an increasing county population.

PRC 2.1.3 Operational and maintenance needs:Broaden the OFMP to better address indoor facilitiesas well as operational and maintenance needs.

PRC 2.1.4 Village Plans: Work with residents in eachof the villages to address recreational needs in theirVillage Plans, including community, neighborhood,pocket, and tot parks and walkway/bikeway facilities.(5)

PRC 2.2 Accessibility: Make existing recreational facilitiesaccessible to all county residents, both in terms of how thefacilities are accessed and used.

PRC 2.2.1 Facility Location: Develop major facilitiesin areas that are accessible by major roads therebyproviding the opportunity for existing and/or future busservices.

PRC 2.2.2 Facility Accessibility: Develop a plan toensure that existing and new facilities are accessible toall Montgomery County residents, with special attentionto the needs of differently-abled residents, by meetingthe accessibility standards established under the Americanswith Disabilities Act (ADA).

PRC 2.3 Trails: Provide a high quality trail network, based ona series of trails and activity or education nodes, throughout thecounty, which offers both increased individual and familyrecreational opportunities and alternative transportation routesbetween jurisdictions and outlying villages. (6)

PRC 2.3.1 New River Trail Linkage: Support New RiverValley Planning District Commission efforts to developa multi-jurisdictional plan for linking the HuckleberryTrail to the New River Trail via Christiansburg andRadford.

PRC 2.3.2 Business/Industrial Park Trail: Developbikeway/walkway trails in existing and proposedbusiness/industrial parks.

PRC 2.3.3 Trails and Nodes: Develop recreation facilitiesin collaboration with the County and Towns master plansfor trails (including bikeways and walkways).

PRC 2.4 Commercial Recreational Facilities: Encourage thedevelopment of for-profit, privately-owned recreational facilitiesin the County when they are sited in appropriate locations.

PRC 2.5 Planning Review: Involve the Parks & RecreationCommission in the review of rezoning and special use permitrequests for recreation facilities desiring to locate in theunincorporated areas of the County.


Cross References and Notes:3. Recreational facilities include traditional regional parks, multi-use sports facilities(developed in conjunction with the public schools), community and neighborhoodparks, Heritage Parks and Trails, pocket parks, and tot parks, as well as special usefacilities.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 1.6Village Expansion Areas (pg.41); and PNG 4.0 Villages and Small Communities(pg.68).

Cross References and Notes:6. Trails are also addressed in CRS 3.2 Heritage Parks and Trails System (pg.83) andTRN 4.2 Bikeways, Walkways, and Trails (pg. 224).

TransportationResources

Montgomery


Adopted: 10/12/04

The transportation component of Montgomery County, 2025 focuseson four primary goals: 1) Land Use and Transportation, 2) HighwaySystems, 3) Mass Transit, and 4) Alternative Transportation. Additionaltransportation goals and objectives are include in the other sectionsof Montgomery County, 2025, most notably in connection with thefollowing 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)

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Transportation Resources 209

Transportation Resources: Executive Summary

Photos by Bill Edmonds


Participants were asked to rank fourtransportation related issues: new roads, existingroads, public transportation, and trafficcongestion. Not surprising, existing roads andtraffic congestion ranked highest (3.79) of thefour transportation related issues. Of specialconcern, judging from the written comments,was the need to maintain and, in some cases,upgrade the secondary road network inMontgomery County. A number of participantscited specific roads, or portions of roads, asbeing of some concern, whether it was flooddamage on Falling Branch, speed on Riner Road,the blind curves of Pilot Road, or the narrownessof Brush Creek Road and Coal Bank Hollow.For roads in the more urban areas ofMontgomery County, participants concernschanged from the condition of road beds to thelevel of traffic congestion and safety concerns.Many of the participants noted problems withRt. 114, the Rt 114/U.S. 460 interchange, and,what one participant refer to as the spaghettimess--the interchanges connected to the new460 bypass (3A).

Safety concerns ranged from overcrowdingof roads, speed limits on rural roads, the lack oflaw enforcement personnel, and the lack ofenforcement of traffic laws, especially inneighborhoods and other residential areas, mostnotably along Rt. 8.

New roads ranked the lowest of all of thetransportation issues, with a mean score of 3.05,in part because of participants reactions to theSmart Road and the ongoing construction of 3Aand the interchanges at South Main Street andNorth Franklin. Participants commentsconcerning the two roadways indicateddissatisfaction on the part of respondents towardsthe two road projects. One participant went sofar as to suggest that Montgomery County createa board game, based on the 3A interchanges,

and market it to raise money to fund re-engineering in the future.

The future of the Route 8, Route 114, andRoute 11/460 corridors were among theconcerns expressed by participants in the 2003Community Survey. In addition to wanting tosee better corridor planning, respondentsstressed the need for maintaining and upgradingexisting roads, broadening public transitopportunities, and expanding the existingbikeway, walkway, and Heritage Trail system.Perhaps not surprisingly, given the constructionof the new bypass and the Smart Road,

respondents voiced limited support for new roadconstruction (41% rated new roads as eitherimportant or very important).

Public transportation, which received a meanscore of 3.62, was cited as one of the primarymeans of reducing traffic congestion and theneed for new roads. One participant wrote:

“Work on regional cooperation to providemore extensive public transportation suchas bus and passenger railroad service toease traffic congestion. Also buses coulduse new technology to be less polluting.”

Transportation Resources: Introduction



Another noted that the county should “Expandpublic transportation to relieve congestiondecrease pollution & allow more funds formaintenance of existing roads.” A number ofthe participants noted specific changes to thecurrent public transportation offerings, includingexpanding or changing bus routes, Still othersfelt that the modes of public transportationshould be expanded, including building morebikeways and trails and adding a light railsystem in the more populated areas.

Finally, in their written responses to thequestion, "What would you like to see inMontgomery County in 2025?," respondentssuggested they wanted a county with an adequatepublic transportation system, access to intermodaltransportation options (rail, bikeways, walkways,etc.), safer traffic control and conditions, andbetter overall transportation planning (includingactive participation in the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization).


In the past fifty years, Montgomery Countyresidents have seen the county shift fromrelatively isolation, connected to the rest of thecountry by the parallel rails of the Norfolk &Western and the Virginian Railroads and the twolanes each of US 460 and US 11, to a countycrossed by the mainline of the Norfolk-SouthernRailroad; by Interstate 81 (a heavily traveled,four- to six-lane, north-south interstate, linkingMontgomery County to both the upper EastCoast and to the upper South and the Southwest);and an expanded US 460 (providing direct accessto I-77 and the upper Midwest).

As the transportation facilities changed andexpanded, so too did the economic conditionsand character of Montgomery County. In 1950,the economy was based on agriculture, education,and manufacturing. The construction of I-81, inthe 1960s and 1970s, brought Roanoke and therest of Virginia closer, at least psychologically,by significantly decreasing the driving timerequired to reach Woodrum Field (RoanokeRegional Airport) and the eastern and northernportions of Virginia, including Richmond. In the1960s and 1970s, the Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDoT) added two additionallanes to US 460 through Giles County to whatwould become the West Virginia Turnpike(subsequently I-77), and I-81 was extendedfurther south and west. The changes in I-81 andUS 460 both effectively decreased the isolationof Montgomery County and the outlying areas,while increasing Montgomery County's viabilityas a regional center. By the early 1970s,Montgomery County's economy was beingdefined by the rapid growth of Virginia Techand nearly 20 years of industrial expansion(including Electro Tec, Poly-Scientific, andCorning). By the 1980s, growth in the retailand commercial sectors not only transformedthe economic landscape, but also forever changedthe physical landscape in the mid-county area.The development of the New River Valley Mall

Transportation Resource Issues:Community Survey Mean Results, 2003


Transportation Resource Issues Mean Score

Existing Roads 3.79

Traffic Congestion 3.79

Public Transportation 3.62

New Roads 3.05

4

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3Existing Roads Traffic Congestion Public Transportation New Roads



in the late-1970s signaled a significant shiftin the regional economic patterns--a shift madepossible, in large part, by changes in thehighway transportation system.

Today, Montgomery County is the regionalemployment, education, retail, and servicecenter for the New River Valley, a factunderscored by the U.S. Census Bureau'srecent designation of Montgomery Countyand Radford (as well as Giles and PulaskiCounties) as a Metropolitan Statistical Area(MSA) and the 2003 formation of the federallymandated Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO), an organization charged withtransportation planning in the urbanized portion

of the county, including Blacksburg andChristiansburg.

Cohesive planning, both in terms oftransportation and land use, is and will benecessary to address the issues created by anexpanding population and by expanding needsboth in and outside of Montgomery County. Aswith the changes created by the expansion ofhighway systems in the past, new expansionsare likely to spawn changes in developmentpatterns and increase development pressures inareas of Montgomery County which have been,heretofore, left reasonably untouched. This isespecially true along the I-81, Mudpike, andUS 11 corridors between Christiansburg andRadford; the US 460/11 and I-81 corridorsthrough Elliston/Lafayette, Ironto, andShawsville; and the Route 8 corridor throughRiner area and the southwestern portions ofMontgomery County. The latter of these threecorridors creates the greatest amount of concernbecause the development pressure will, mostlikely, originate outside of Montgomery County.As Floyd County develops, there is likely to beincreased pressure to provide that county witha more direct, higher speed link to I-81 and theemployment, educational, cultural, andcommercial opportunities offered in theurbanized center of Montgomery County.

Montgomery County Road Network, 2003Road Number of Percentage of

Classification Miles Road MilesInterstate 20.94 miles 4.00%

Other Principal Arterials 7.17 miles 1.37%

Minor Arterials 21.98 miles 4.20%

Major Collectors 111.91 miles 21.37%

Minor Collectors 12.93 miles 2.47%

Local Roads 348.70 miles 66.59%

Virginia Department of Transportation, 2003


Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO):

A new Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) consisting ofBlacksburg, Christiansburg and urbanizingportions of Montgomery County wasrequired by the Federal HighwayAdministration after the 2000 Census foundthe Blacksburg / Christiansburg area hadan urbanized population greater than50,000. The MPO is required to developand maintain a comprehensivetransportation plan and process for thisarea and receives federal funding to carryout these planning functions. AMemorandum of Understanding (MOU)was executed in 2003 between Blacksburg,Christiansburg, Montgomery County, andVDoT to establish the MPO. Thismemorandum provides for a TechnicalCommittee for general review, guidance,and coordination of the continuing planningprocess and a Policy Board withrepresentatives from elected boards toassure coordination between the severalelected boards and the MPO operations.

Primary and Secondary Highway System:

Montgomery County has six primarycategories 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 460/11between Roanoke County andChristiansburg, Rts 8, 11, and 114, and anumber of secondary roads (e.g. PricesFork Road); 5) minor collectors, includingRts 693 and 603S; and local roads.

Since 1975, Montgomery County haswitnessed a dramatic increase in the amountof traffic on the county’s road system. Thetotal vehicle miles, per 24 hour period, hasincreased 266% (1975-2001) and the traffic

2,000,000

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

01975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001

Montgomery County Floyd County Giles County Pulaski County

Total Vehicle Miles Per 24 Hours:Interstate, Arterial, and Primary Roads,

1975-2001

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

Note: Between 1975 and 2001, there was a 266% increase in the total vehicle miles per 24 hours in MontgomeryCounty. Of the 1,834,637 miles logged per day, in 2001, 800,346 (or 44%) were on the County’s arterial andprimary routes; the remaining 1,034,291 miles, per day, were on I-81. Prior to 1995, more vehicle miles werelogged per day on the primary and arterial routes than on I-81. This has changed in the past seven years. Thedifference in the Interstate Total Vehicle Miles between Montgomery and Pulaski Counties can be accounted forby traffic from Virginia Tech and from vehicles using US460 as a connection between I-77 and I-81.

1,834,637 tvm

1,192,351 tvm



Montgomery County: Primary andSecondary Roads, 2004

22,00021,00020,00019,00018,00017,00016,00015,00014,00013,00012,00011,00010,0009,0008,0007,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001

density, defined as the average traffic per mileof road during a 24 hour period, has increased248% in the same period of time.

Until very recently, Montgomery Countyranked either 10th or 11th in Virginia in theaverage density per mile. In the past seven years,however, the traffic in areas on or near I-95 hasincreased and Montgomery County’s statewideranking dropped to 24th in 2001.

In October, 2003, the Board of Supervisorsspecified a list of secondary road projects forthe Virginia Department of Transportation's(VDoT) Six-Year Improvement Program list,including projects on Yellow Sulphur Road,Craig Creek Road, Thomas Lane, and manyothers.,. In addition, VDoT has provided somefunding for primary road projects, includingslating work for I-81, Rt 114, US 460, IVHS(Intelligent Vehicle Highway System), and theSmart Road.

Commuting Patterns.

There are a number of ways to look at work-related commuting: 1) as incommuting (thenumber of people who commute to MontgomeryCounty for work); 2) as outcommuting (thenumber of people who commute fromMontgomery to other locales for work; and 3)as commuting time (the average time required

to commute to work). While the majority ofMontgomery County residents (79.1% or 29,589)both live and work in the county, slightly morethan a fifth (20.9%) commute to otherjurisdictions to work (outcommuting), including5% to Pulaski County, 4.9% to Radford, and9.1% to the Roanoke Valley. The same trendshold true for those who work in MontgomeryCounty. Better than a quarter of the MontgomeryCounty workforce (25.9%) commutes from otherjurisdictions, including 5.6% from PulaskiCounty, 4.8% from Giles County, 4.5% fromthe City of Radford, 3.1% from Floyd County,and 3% from the Roanoke Valley. The ratio ofincommuters to outcommuters approximately5 to 4 (1.18:1). Despite the number of residentswho work outside of Montgomery County, themajority of residents spend less than a half anhour commuting to work (79%) and 42% spend

less than 15 minutes. The relatively shortcommute times is, in large part, due to theconcentration of population (residences) andeconomic enterprises in Blacksburg andChristiansburg.

Mass and Alternative Transportation:

Mass transit has the potential to producesubstantial mobility for all and provideenvironmental benefits by attracting largenumbers of individual trips that otherwise wouldbe made by private automobile. Mass transitcan provide support to communities, theeconomy, and the environment by decreasingauto-related transportation on existing highwaynetwork and connecting people with alternativemodes of transportation. It would be ideal totransport a large number of people to their

Montgomery County

Pulaski County

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001Montgomery County 8,700 10,644 12,846 15,789 19,922 21,623

Pulaski County 7,782 9,447 10,834 13,442 15,698 19,109

Montgomery &Pulaski Counties:Average Traffic,Per Mile of Road,in 24 hours,1975-2001

Source: Virginia Departmentof Transportation, 2004

10

State ranking for county isincluded on each bar.

10

10

11

11

24

13

12

14

14

14

27



Giles

Pulaski

Floyd

Montgomery

Radford

1933 1242

17851252

2248�

225

3384(RoanokeValley)

249

1840�

1872

Commuting Patterns: Montgomery County, 2003

Source: New River ValleyPlanning District Commission,2003

74.1% of the people who work in MontgomeryCounty, also reside in the County. 25.9% commutefrom neighboring locations. Of the people who live inMontgomery County, 79.1% work in the county. Theremaining 20.9% commute to other jurisdictions, including the Roanoke Valleyand Pulaski.

desired destination without them ever havingto set foot in a private automobile, which couldbe achieved by providing connectivity to variousexisting network modes.

While alternative and mass modes oftransportation have long existed in MontgomeryCounty, their scope and range of network havegenerally been both limited and isolated.Longtime residents of Merrimac, a small miningcommunity between Blacksburg andChristiansburg, can still remember riding theHuckleberry rail line into the two towns.Residents of Elliston, in the eastern portion ofthe county, still speak of catching the train intoRoanoke. Although there is a significant moveafoot to bring rail transportation back toMontgomery County, evidenced by the NewRiver Valley Regional Rail Corridor Plan, PhaseII (1997) and the Trans Dominion Expressinitiative, current mass transportation inMontgomery County is limited to the servicesprovided by Blacksburg Transit, including theTwo-Town Trolley, which runs betweenBlacksburg and Christiansburg. A pendingproposal form the Greater Roanoke TransitCompany (Valley Metro) would provide busservice between Blacksburg, Christiansburg,Montgomery County, and the Roanoke Valley.

Bikeway, Walkway, Trail System

Alternative transportation refers to theprovision of a system of bikeways, walkways,and heritage trails in Montgomery County. Thecurrent system of trails and other pedestrian andbicycle friendly transportation routes wasestablished in the 1990 Montgomery CountyBikeway/Walkway Plan, which described asystem of shared roads (roads with lighter trafficcounts), bike lanes adjacent to roads with highertraffic counts, and paved, ADA compliant trails.In the years since the passage of the 1990 plan,bike lanes have been added along Rt 723between Lusters Gate and Ellett and along Rt685 between Blacksburg and Prices Fork. Inaddition, Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and


Montgomery County Commuters: Time They Leave For Work, 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

1990 657 472 700 1973 2561 4686 5972 4215 1816 2170 1132 518 2898 3043

2000 985 667 937 2072 2977 4756 6856 4141 2694 2689 1220 514 3533 3138

Number (%) of

Number (%) Number (%) Number (%) of Number Incommuters

Working & Outcommuting Outcommuters Incommuting Commuting from

Living in Same to Montgomery Montgomery

County County County

Montgomery County 29,589 (77%) 8,741 (33%) n/a 10,319 n/a

Floyd County 2,824 (43%) 3,746 (57%) 1,252 (33%) 640 249 (39%)

Giles County 3,914 (54%) 3,381 (46%) 1,933 (57%) 2,148 225 (11%)

Pulaski County 16,183 (65%) 5,592 (35%) 2,248 (40%) 6,443 1,872 (29%)

Radford (City) 3,651 (52%) 3,317 (48%) 1,785 (54%) 5,128 1,840 (36%)

Roanoke County 14,425 (33%) 28,994 (67%) 534 (02%) 20,247 1,036 (05%)

Roanoke City 27,069 (62%) 16,625 (38%) 492 (03%) 42,478 1,199 (2.8%)

7000

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

012:00am 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

RegionalCommutingPatterns,2001

Source: New River Valley PlanningDistrict Commission, 2003


Christiansburg worked the Friends of theHuckleberry to build the Huckleberry Trail, arails-to-trails project, which extends from theBlacksburg branch of the Montgomery/FloydRegional Library in downtown Blacksburg,through Merrimac, to the New River Valley Mallin Christiansburg. Plans to extend the Huckleberrysouth into Christiansburg and north to the JeffersonNational forest are under development.

Air and Rail Transportation.

Virginia Tech / Montgomery Executive Airport:

This airport, located beside the Virginia Techcampus, currently houses approximately 35 aircrafton site, and serves 39,000 flights annually. Theairport sits on 280 acres and uses a non-precisionlocalizer approach. A primary runway of 4,550feet in length accommodates corporate and privatejets. The runway is also lighted for night flightoperations and is complemented by instrument

approach facilities. A parallel taxiway iscurrently provided as well as a newly constructedterminal building, parking area, hangar space,and apron area. The Virginia Tech / MontgomeryRegional Airport Authority was formed in 2001by Blacksburg, Montgomery County andVirginia Tech to administer the airport under along-term lease from Virginia Tech.

New River Valley Airport:

This facility, adjoining the New River ValleyCommerce Park, has an ample supply ofavailable and affordable land for expansion andinstallation of shipping terminals. The NRVairport has one of the longest runways in thewestern portion of Virginia with a 6,201' x 150'asphalt runway. There is open space around thefacility for both fixed facility improvementsand runway improvements. This airport is wellpositioned to serve all domestic and foreignmarkets. It is the Montgomery County's closest


inland port authority. Montgomery County is amember of the New River Valley AirportAuthority

Roanoke Regional Airport:

This facility provides full-service passengerand freight air service and is the primary airportserving southwestern Virginia. The airport hasapproximately 90 scheduled passenger flightarrivals and departures per day, accessing twelvemajor cities with nonstop service. A five-membercommission that includes representatives of theCity of Roanoke and Roanoke County governsthe airports operations. The airport has mademajor improvements in recent years to ensureits competitiveness, such as a new terminal andrunway extension. A new tower is planned alongwith other improvements. Project Nexus is aregional project to increase the airportscompetitiveness by promoting low-fare, dailyexpress service between Roanoke RegionalAirport and Dulles International Airport.

Cross References and Notes:1. Specific transportation land use policies are include in the Planning and Land Usechapter, including Resource Stewardship Areas (PLU 1.2.3 [c][d])(pg. 36); RuralAreas (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 ExpansionAreas (PLU 1.6.4 [c][f] and PLU 1.6.5 [c])(pg. 42); Villages (PLU 1.7.4 [d][e] andPLU 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 forRoad 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 Neighborhoodsand Transportation (pg. 190).2. The provision of public information is one of the central themes of MontgomeryCounty, 2025. Additional information on the plan’s approach to public informationis included in PNG 2.2: Informing the Public (pg. 67).3. Corridor planning is addressed in PLU 1.8.2: Corridor Planning (pg. 45).

TRN 1.0 Land Use and Transportation Goal: Coordinate land useplanning with transportation planning in order to reduce trafficcongestion and to balance development needs with the desire forlivable communities. (1)

TRN 1.1 Public Information and Outreach: Actively promotepublic participation in the transportation planning and decision-making processes and public use of transportation opportunitiesin Montgomery County by: 1) providing for public inputopportunities; 2) maintaining and publicly distributingtransportation-related GIS data in order to track changes inland use and transportation opportunities; and 3) providingaccess to a broad range of transportation related informationto increase public understanding and awareness and promotepublic use of the transportation modes offered in MontgomeryCounty. (2)

TRN 1.1.1 Transportation Related PublicInvolvement: Increase public involvement intransportation-related decisions, including: 1) workwith the MPO and other local jurisdictions to developa policy to encourage significant public input andinvolvement in transportation and corridor planning;and 2) work with local organizations to encouragesignificant public input and involvement in local corridorand village planning initiatives. (3)

TRN 1.1.2 Transportation Map (GIS) and Public

Information: Provide an annually updated MontgomeryCounty Transportation Map, legibly labeled, whichwould include all road names, route numbers, walkway/bikeway routes, public transit stops, park and ride lots,airports, and other transportation information generatedby Montgomery County and the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO). (4)

TRN 1.1.3 Transportation Related PublicInformation: Provide broad-based public access toprint and electronic based transportation-relatedinformation, including Montgomery CountyTransportation Map, annually updated; MontgomeryCounty GIS data and online mapping service;Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) data,meeting minutes, and reports; roadway maintenanceproblems and directions for notifying the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation (VDoT) whenmaintenance problems arise; Park and Ride facilitiesand information; and bikeway, walkway, and HeritageTrail information.

TRN 1.2 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO):Provide ongoing, long-term support of and assistance to theMetropolitan Planning Organization.

TRN 1.2.1 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan:Provide input on County land use issues into the MPOsongoing transportation planning process and the MPOspreparation of the 2030 Long-Range TransportationPlan, which will address: 1) future road improvementsfor arterial and collector roads, including flexible,context-sensitive road design standards; 2) mass transit;and 3) Heritage Trails, bikeways, and walkways. (5)

Transportation Resources: Goals

Cross References and Notes:4. The County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) provides both County staffand County residents with a powerful analytic tool. Additional information on theGIS system is included in Cultural Resources (CRS 1.2.2, pg. 81), EnvironmentalResources (ENV 1.3, pg. 136), Public Safety (SFY 1.1.5, pg. 197), and Utilities (UTL1.4.3, pg. 235).5. The Heritage Trail system, bikeways, and walkways are addressed in TRN 4.2Walkway/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).


TRN 1.2.2 Cooperative Review: Develop acooperative review policy/ agreement wherebyMontgomery County would include the MPO, alongwith other localjurisdictions, and vise versa in addressing transportationissues for new, major developments.

TRN 1.3 Subdivisions: Proactively review, on a regular basis,the Subdivision Ordinance with respect to those issues thatinvolve both land use and transportation. By regularlyreviewing the subdivision ordinance, the county can establishproactive policies which address land use and transportationissues, including cul-de-sacs, street continuation andconnectivity, and right-of-way standards. (6)

TRN 1.3.1 Cul-de-sac: Review the SubdivisionOrdinance requirement limiting the number of lotspermitted on a dead end cul-de-sac rather than limitingthe linear feet of the cul-de-sac.

TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity:Require that the arrangement of streets in newsubdivisions: 1) make provisions for connectivity andfor the continuation of existing streets into adjoiningareas; and 2) delineate future street extensions onsubdivision plats in order that lot purchasers are awarethat the streets in their subdivisions are likely to beextended to adjoining properties. (7)

TRN 1.3.3 Right-of-Way Standards: Require newlots, created by subdivision, abut streets meeting VDoTright-of-way standards. This requirement leads to thededication of additional right-of-way when lots areplatted along existing streets with substandard right-of-way widths. Exceptions are made for familysubdivisions and lots with private access easements.

TRN 1.3.4 Context Sensitive Street Designs. Workwith VDoT to develop road standards which allow for

context sensitive street designs in Villages and urbanizedareas. (8)

TRN 1.3.5 Pedestrian Oriented Facilities. Require theprovision of pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, walkways,trails, etc.) in new developments in the Village, VillageExpansion, Residential Transition, and Urban ExpansionAreas. (9)

TRN 1.4 Connectivity and Access Management: Provide forthe safe, orderly, and efficient flow of traffic along roads classifiedas major and minor arterials by 1) incorporating accessmanagement strategies in the review of development proposals;and 2) asking the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) toassist in evaluating ingress, egress, and connectivity requirements. This requirement would limit the burdening of any one roadwith only one ingress and egress and encourage connectivity.Presently such a requirement exists only for the 177 CorridorPlanning Area.

TRN 1.4.1 Strip Development: Discourage stripdevelopment, particularly of commercial properties, alongimportant transportation corridors by designating areasthat can be zoned to serve as compact centers fordevelopment, including village and urban centers andmajor road intersections.

TRN 1.4.2 Commercial Access: Require that high volume/high turnover commercial establishments (drive-thrurestaurants and convenience stores for example) locatewithin other commercial development where access tothe facility is from the development, not from the majorthoroughfare.

Cross References and Notes:6.See footnote #1 (pg. 219).7. Street continuation and connectivity are central themes in the County’s approach totransportation planning. Additional references can be found in the Planning and LandUse chapter (see note #1 for specific references); and HSG 1.3.3 Safe Neighborhoodsand Transportation (pg. 190), as well as other portions of this chapter.

Cross References and Notes:8. The need for a flexible, contextual approach to road standards is especially importantin the Villages and Rural Communities where historic patterns of development differfrom existing state road standards and where the historic fabric of the community couldbe disrupted or destroyed if current standards were strictly applied. Additional informationon transportation issues and contextual road standards as they apply to rural communitiesand 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] (pgs39, 44-45). In addition, street sensitive design is also addressed in the Proposed RevisionVirginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements (published inthe Virginia Register on May 3, 2004) and Draft Virginia Department of TransportationSubdivision Street Design Guide (Appendix B of the Road Design Manual) dated12/19/20039. 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).


TRN 1.4.3 Shared Access: Encourage shared accessfor roads classified as major and minor arterials andmajor and minor collectors.

TRN 1.5 Road Standards: Encourage flexibility in theapplication of road design standards. The application of anystandards should consider a roads context and setting and theimpact of the proposed design upon the community and theenvironment.

TRN 1.6 Cash Proffers: Evaluate the development a CashProffer System, in partnership with Blacksburg andChristiansburg, to address the impact of new development onthe transportation system and provide funding to alleviatefuture problems. (10)

TRN 1.7 Comprehensive Plan Compliance. Actively reviewall transportation and land use projects and proposals todetermine compliance with the applicable sections of thecomprehensive plan and land use policies.

TRN 2.0 Highway System: Manage, enhance, and maintain thecurrent network of transportation in order to maximize safety andefficiency and facilitate economic development, while reducing naturaland built environmental impacts.

TRN 2.1 Maintenance: Encourage the Virginia Departmentof Transportation and Montgomery County to approach efficientand effective maintenance of existing public roads as a firstpriority, in order to extend roadway surface life, minimizetraffic congestion, and increase public safety during all seasonsand under all weather conditions. It is important to maintaincurrent transportation routes as the most cost effectivealternative to building new roads. Maintenance of our roadswill provide a safe travel surface, eliminate hazards to pedestrianand vehicular traffic, and protect the financial investment inthe roadway system by preventing progressive deteriorationof the pavement and shoulders.

TRN 2.2 Safety: Encourage law enforcement to enforce speedlimits, stoplights, and all other traffic laws in order to effectivelyprotect: 1) the public health, safety, and welfare; 2) residents'quality of life; and 3) the fluidity and efficiency of both ourvehicular and our pedestrian transportation systems. (11)

TRN 2.2.1 Law Enforcement Personnel: Encouragelocal and regional jurisdictions to increase the numberof law enforcement personnel, in order to moreeffectively enforce the law and provide a higher qualityof life and a safer atmosphere to the MontgomeryCounty citizens.

TRN 2.3 Alleviating Traffic Congestion and Accidents.Identify congestion and accident prone routes and intersectionsand adopt policies to alleviate congestion, increase safety, anddecrease car trips.

TRN 2.3.1 Problem Intersections and Routes:Identify problematic intersections and routes inMontgomery County, and work with the MetropolitanPlanning Organizations and The Transportation SafetyCommission to find solutions.

Cross References and Notes:10. Proffers are addressed, more fully, in PLU 2.2: Proffer Guidelines (pg. 48).

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 safeneighborhoods, addressed in HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 190).


TRN 2.3.2 Park-and-Ride: Work with the MPO todevelop a regional park-and-ride lot strategic plan whichwould : 1) provide facilities in outlying areas ofMontgomery County and adjacent jurisdictions; 2)evaluate existing, under utilized parking lots for parkand ride opportunities; and 3) establish a publicawareness program to encourage increased usage ofpark-and-ride facilities.

TRN 2.4 Access Management: Encourage the practice ofaccess management both in Montgomery County and regionally,which will deter expensive road improvements, allow saferdriving conditions while decreasing traffic congestion, andincrease safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

TRN 2.4.1 Corridor Planning and AccessManagement: In cooperation with the New RiverValley Planning District Commission, develop a regionalapproach to the corridor planning process (e.g. The 177Corridor Plan) which incorporates access managementtechniques, (12)

TRN 2.5 Interstate 81 Corridor Improvements: Support themulti-year Environmental Process currently being conductedby the Virginia Department of Transportation and the corridorimprovements identified in the 1998 Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDoT) study to meet the future needs countyresidents and those passing through the county on Interstate81. (13) Any proposal for improvements to the Interstate 81corridor must address the following eight issues of significanceto Montgomery County:

TRN 2.5.1 Smart Road: The future Smart Roadinterchange should be evaluated and incorporated intothe design and construction of any improvements.

TRN 2.5.2 Scenic Beauty: Encourage green mediansand discourage soundwalls in order to maintain scenicbeauty throughout the corridor. (14)

TRN 2.5.3 Rail Alternatives: Require a detailed studyand serious consideration of passenger (Trans Dominion)and freight rail service alone the entire Interstate 81corridor, including possible improvements in adjacentstates. (15)

TRN 2.5.4 Toll Free Local Traffic: Structure tollpolicies to exempt local traffic: 1) within the BlacksburgMSA (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford) and2) between the adjoining Blacksburg MSA and theRoanoke MSA.

TRN 2.5.5 Toll Facility: Location Locate toll facilitieswhere they will not have an adverse impact on localhighways. For example, the Fluor proposal locates atoll facility at mile marker 116 thereby dumpingsignificant traffic onto the local streets of Christiansburg.

TRN 2.5.6 Stormwater Management: EncourageVDoT to work with appropriate local governments inthe design and construction of regional stormwatermanagement facilities along the corridor. (16)

TRN 2.5.7 Agricultural & Forestal Districts (AFDs):Discourage expansion of right-of-ways beyond whatwas identified in VDoT's 1998 concept study in orderto minimize the impact on Agricultural and ForestalDistricts (AFDs) in Montgomery County. (17)

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) withthe two private proposals (Fluor and Star Solutions) for improvements to the Interstate81 corridor submitted under the Public Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPTA).The two proposals are vastly different from each other and neither proposal correspondsto the concept study for Interstate 81 corridor improvements developed for VDoTin 1998. Moreover VDoT is beginning a multi-year Environmental Process todetermine the purpose, need, and scope of corridor improvements. Therefore, anyproposal decision should not be made until the Environmental Process is complete.

Cross References and Notes:14. Scenic beauty, in the form of viewsheds, is a significant advertising resource forMontgomery County. The I-81 corridor functions as both an introduction to and aninvitation to travellers to stop and explore the County. The preservation of access toviewsheds 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 Preservationand 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: Stormwaterand Erosion Control (pg. 148).17. Agricultural and Forestal districts are addressed in ENV 2.1.3: Agricultural andForestal Districts (pg. 139) and ENV 3.1.6: Agricultural and Forestal Districts (pg.139).


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 theexisting Blacksburg Transit (BT) transit service in order tomaximize safety and efficiency while minimizing environmentaldegradation.

TRN 3.1.1 Efficient Transit: Encourage BT to providemore efficient and well-planned service routes, with"safe" bus stops and "safe" access to those bus stops,including: 1) well-planned service routes to decreasetime spent waiting for the bus; 2) lit and well markedbus stops; and 3) and sidewalks or walkways/ bikewaysto access bus stops safely rather than walking on theshoulder of a busy road.

TRN 3.1.2 Transit Service Extension: Request thatthe Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) evaluatemass transit extensions as part of the 2030 long-rangetransportation plan including the extension of the TwoTown Trolley service between Blacksburg andChristiansburg to include Radford. (19)

TRN 3.2 Future Service: Encourage the provision of a masstransit service in commercial areas and between jurisdictions(Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford) and between MSAs(Blacksburg and Roanoke) to alleviate congestion and decreasethe number of personal car trips.

TRN 3.2.1 Micro-shuttle: Ask the MetropolitanPlanning Organization (MPO) to evaluate micro-shuttleservice to area businesses within the core shoppingarea. This study would evaluate cost, demand, efficiency,and transit route tie-ins. A shuttle service would simplybe 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 wouldhave a shuttle stop in front of their store, the jurisdictionsserved by the commercial area, and Chamber of


Cross References and Notes:18. Park and Ride facilities for outlying areas and public awareness programs forcarpooling are addressed in TRN 2.3.2 (pg. 222)19. Public transit services provide transportation for lower income and disabledcommuters to travel to work and to the commercial areas in the County, as suggestedin HHS 2.3: Transportation (pg. 175).

TRN 2.5.8 Rest Areas: Encourage the construction ofadequate rest areas, which provide separate facilitiesfor cars and trucks, through out the corridor.

TRN 2.6 Virginia Scenic Byways: Virginia Byways areexisting roads with significant aesthetic and cultural values,leading to or lying within an area of historical, natural orrecreational significance. Montgomery County, in conjunctionwith Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) and theDepartment of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), will workto identify, evaluate and designate roads in the county thathave important and unique scenic value and experiences,provide diverse landscape experiences, provide linkages andaccess, provide leisurely motoring experiences, and areregionally significant.

Commerce. Ideally, the micro-shuttle would be operatedby BT and would tie into existing bus routes.

TRN 3.2.2 Valley Metro Service: Establish clearbenchmarks to measure the success or failure of ValleyMetro's demonstration project for express bus servicebetween Blacksburg and downtown Roanoke.

TRN 3.2.3 Alternate Transit Transfer Site: EncourageBlacksburg Transit and Virginia Tech to evaluate analternative to the existing transit transfer area on campusat Burress Hall. While Burress Hall serves the VirginiaTech population well, it does not purposefully serveother users of the BT transit system. The idea is to makemass transit more usable by all citizens; therefore findingan additional off-campus transit transfer site would bevery beneficial.

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).

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 differentprovisions 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 expansionareas (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 inneighborhood and community design (PLU 3.1.1[b][i-v], pg. 50), providerecreational opportunities (PRC1.3.2 and 2.3, pgs. 206-7 ), and provide additionalcommuting opportunities to the large scale economic and industrial areas (PRC2.3.2, pg. 207).

TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation: Support viable alternativemodes of transportation (walking/ biking trails) and provide connectivityto existing transportation networks. Walking and biking trails are animportant alternative mode of transportation that can reduce congestionfrom the use of private cars. By managing the existing trails networkand providing connectivity to other modes of transportation, theCounty can develop a comprehensive transportation network thatbalances safety, mobility, cost, and environmental impact. Whenwalkway and bikeways interconnect, people are more likely to usethem to get to and from work, shopping, etc. The Huckleberry Trail,Mid-County Park Market Place Connection, and New River Trailsare walkways/ bikeways that should be linked with other local andregional walkway/ bikeway systems. (20)

TRN 4.1 Commercial/ Public Use: Evaluate sidewalk andbike rack requirements for commercial and public usedevelopments in order to encourage the use of alternativetransportation and alleviate congestion.

TRN 4.2 Bikeways, Walkways, and Trails: Encouragecoordination between the County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg,and regional jurisdictions in order to provide connectivity ofall bikeways, walkways and Trails.

TRN 4.2.1 Bikeways, Walkways, and TrailsCoordination: Use the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) framework to create coordinationcommittee to study the connectivity of the bikeway,walkway, sidewalk, and heritage trail network..

TRN 4.2.2 Walkway/ Bikeway Update: Work withthe Metropolitan Planning Organization to review andupdate the Bikeway, Walkway, and Heritage TrailsPlan.


TRN 5.0 Multi-Modal Transportation Goal. Encourage, maintain,and enhance air and rail transportation service in Montgomery Countyand the New River Valley. The New River Valley provides Virginiawith a rich resource of educational institutions. With those institutionscome high technology industries and businesses. Public transportationrail and air links between southwest Virginia, the State Capital, andWashington, D.C. are essential for the continued growth and prosperityof the New River Valley and would help spawn new economic growthin the more rural western sections of the state. New corporations andhigh tech industries would take a more favorable look at locating inVirginia with this type of statewide transportation initiative.

TRN 5.1 Air Transportation: Maintain and enhance thecomplementary roles of the three airports serving MontgomeryCounty: 1) Virginia Tech / Montgomery Executive Airport forcorporate and general aviation needs; 2 New River ValleyAirport for air freight needs, and 3) Roanoke Regional Airportfor full-service air passenger needs.

TRN 5.1.1 Low Cost Carrier Strategy: SupportVirginia Tech's efforts to attract a low cost air carrierto the Roanoke Regional Airport.

Cross References and Notes:21. The Corning Rail Spur is one example.

TRN 5.2 Rail Transportation: Maintain and enhance NorfolkSouthern rail service to businesses, industries, and people inMontgomery County.

TRN 5.2.1 Industrial Rail Spurs : Support increasedrail service and spurs to the industrial areas and parksin the county. (21)

TRN 5.2.2 Interstate 81 Freight Diversion Strategy:Support state efforts to promote rail alternatives tothrough truck traffic on Interstate 81. This willnecessitate consideration of rail improvements in nearbystates in conjunction with improvements to“bottlenecks” in Virginia in order to providecompetitive, long haul rail service.

TRN 5.2.3 Trans Dominion Express Strategy: Supportstate efforts to promote high speed passenger rail servicefor southwestern Virginia.


UtilitiesMontgomeryCounty,2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

Utilities: Executive Summary

The Utilities Chapter of Montgomery County 2025covers four distinct areas of concern: 1) public and privatewater and sewer; 2) electric, telecommunications, and gasutilities; 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: IntroductionCOMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

The survey asked participants to rank fourutility-related issues: 1) public water and sewer,2) concentrating growth where utilities arealready provided, 3) concern over old or failingseptic systems, and 4) trash collection facilities.

Of the 815 county residents who respondedto the Community Survey (1), 56% felt that itwas either “ important” or “very important” toconcentrate growth where utilities we alreadyprovided. An additional 25% felt it was“moderately important.” Only 3% (25respondents) felt it was “not important.” Inmost cases, those who suggest concentratinggrowth also express a concern for eitheragricultural or open space preservation. As oneparticipant noted, Montgomery County should,in the future, see that" large contiguous areasof farm and forest lands are protected byconservation easements" while "developmentis concentrated in growth areas served by publicwater, sewer." In addition, those who noted theneed for the provision of quality public utilities,also emphasized open space and/or ampleoutdoor activities and opportunities.

As with other areas, there was a strongemphasis on interjurisdictional cooperation. Ofthe 815 respondents to the citizen survey, 69%rated the provision of public water and seweras either “important” or “very important.” Only23 respondents (3%) felt that public water andsewer was “not important.” Some of therespondents who included utility comments intheir future statement suggested that they wantedto see increased cooperation between the towns,county, and, in some cases, Virginia Tech,

especially in terms of the provision of publicwater, sewer, and trash collection. Others, onthe other hand wanted to see the expansion ofexisting town water and sewer either extendedinto the county or see the merging of theindividual public service providers into oneorganization. Regardless of how eachrespondent defined the method of distributionor the provider, the majority of respondents, inone way or another, expressed an interest inthe effective and efficient provision of publicservice.

In addition to concerns about the provisionof public water and sewer, participants alsoexpressed a concern about private water and

sewer systems (wells and septic systems) andtheir impact on groundwater and surface waterquality. More than half of the respondents (57%)felt that concern over old or failing septicsystems was either “important” or “veryimportant,” while a combined 86% ofrespondents rated groundwater and surface waterprotection as being “important” (19%) or “veryimportant” (67%). As one respondent noted,"there are too many septic systems for thegeology,” while another observed that "we mustprotect groundwater and limit the number ofhomes or businesses drawing water fromunderground resources since it is difficult todetermine how much water is there."


Notes:1. The Community Survey generated 826 responses;however, 11 responses were received well after thedeadline. The written comments from these surveys wereincluded in the results, the quantitative data was not.

Many of the comments focused on trash andwaste management, most specifically in termsof expanded opportunities for recycling and thelocation and distribution of public services. Bothin the utilities chapter and in the housing chapter,respondents appeared concerned with not onlythe extent of services and the concentration ofdevelopment near existing services, but alsowho was ultimately responsible for providingthose services. While many of the commentssuggested that the county needed to both controlgrowth near existing infrastructure and expand

infrastructure in designated areas to providefor future needs, some also noted that developershave a responsibility to provide infrastructure(including utilities) to serve developments andlessen the fiscal impact of developments onexisting residents.

A number of respondents suggested that thecounty explore the use of decentralized sewersystems in areas where the provision of publicutilities might not be either physically orfinancially feasible. The emphasis ondecentralized sewer systems goes hand-in-hand

with concerns over the impact of septic systemson groundwater quality (comments related tofailing septic systems are included in theenvironmental portion of this report).

While telecommunication towers were onlymentioned a couple of times, many of thecomments in the environmental portion of thecommunity survey suggest that respondents areconcerned about the adverse impacts ofdevelopment in rural and scenic areas, mostspecifically in terms of ridgelines. In addition,comments related to light pollution and thevisual impact of development suggest supportfor controlling the dispersal of towers inMontgomery County.

The issue of trash was not limited torecycling, the location and management ofcollection sites, or the potential for house byhouse pickup. A number of respondents alsonoted the problem of junk cars and litter in thecounty. As one respondent noted, "the countyis now evolving into not only the dumpinggrounds for dead automobiles but dead mobilehomes are starting to litter the county landscapeon Ellett Road in Ellett Valley, on FairviewChurch Rd, on Rt 615 toward Pilot."

HISTORIC AND CURRENT CONDITIONSAND TRENDS

Public Water and Sewer.

Blacksburg provides water services throughits membership in the Blacksburg,Christiansburg, & VPI Water Authority andsewer services through its membership in theBlacksburg-VPI Sanitation Authority.Christiansburg provides water service throughits membership in the Blacksburg,Christiansburg, & VPI Water Authority andsewer service through its operation of the CrabCreek Sewage Treatment Plant (STP).

In selected areas of the County, outside thetowns, public water is provided by the PublicService Authority (PSA), which operates severalwell systems but mostly buys water from

Utility Issues: Community Survey Mean Results, 2003


Mean Score

Public Water and Sewer 3.87

Trash Collection Facilities 3.58


3.9

3.85

3.8

3.75

3.7

3.65

3.6

3.55Public Water and Sewer Trash Collection Facilities




Montgomery County:Location of Utilities, 2004

neighboring jurisdictions (Blacksburg,Christiansburg, and Radford) and the RadfordArmy Ammunition Plant (RAAP). All 3 watertreatment plants (BC&VPI Water Authority,RAAP, and Radford City) withdraw water fromthe New River.

For Montgomery County, water is providedfrom 3 water treatment plants (Radford, RAAPand the Blacksburg Christiansburg & VPI WaterAuthority), none of which is controlled by theCounty. Wastewater is handled at 3 large sewagetreatment plants (stp) and several small stps.

The cost to operate these plants is increasingalong with growing state and federal regulationsand testing requirements. Virginia Senate Bill1221 (approved and signed into law) calls fora comprehensive water supply planning processto (1) ensure that adequate and safe drinkingwater is available; (2) encourage and protectall beneficial uses; and (3) encourage, promote,and develop incentives for alternative watersources.

The network of individual water distributionlines and service areas is growing closer together.The ability of the various water systems to backeach other up would provide reliability benefitsand could possibly reduce the daily coast ofoperation. Roanoke/Salem/Roanoke Countyprovide a nearby example of the long-termadvantages to be gained by interconnectingwater systems. The existing 2.5 million gallons

per day (mgd) RAAP treatment plant could beupgraded to 4.5 mgd. There is also the 20 mgdRAAP treatment plant for non-potable waterthat could be upgraded to provide potable water.

Public Service Authority

The PSA provides for wastewater servicethrough County membership in the Pepper'sFerry Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority;through capacity agreements with the BlacksburgVPI Sanitation Authority (Stroubles Creek STP)and Christiansburg (Crab Creek STP); andthrough the operation of small sewage treatmentplants in Riner, Shawsville, and Elliston. Inaddition, there are several privately owned waterand sewer systems serving specific subdivisions(for example, Blacksburg Country Club Estates),and numerous individual wells and septicsystems.

The Peppers Ferry Regional WastewaterTreatment Authority recently changed from acapacity approach (where each member localityowned a specified portion of the authority's totaltreatment capacity) to a "put and pay" approach(where each member locality paid dependingon their actual sewage throughput). Thisinstitutional change has given the authoritygreater flexibility in providing service to member

localities and planning for future treatmentneeds.

In 1993, the County commissioned the"Countywide Study Water and WastewaterFacilities Montgomery County, Virginia". Thisstudy updated a previous water and wastewaterstudy prepared in 1986. Using the 1993Countywide Study, 39 water and sewer projectswere evaluated and 24 of them were added tothe Comprehensive Plan by amendment in 1999.An additional 2 projects were added byamendment in 2002 in support of the PricesFork Water Project. Four of these projects havebeen completed or are nearing completion:

• SewerRiner Expansion;

• WaterPrices Mountain/Oilwell Rd,Merrimac LoopMerrimac-Prices Fork.

The remaining projects need to be carefullyevaluated with regard to the projects’compatibility with the comprehensive plan andfactors such as economic and engineeringfeasibility.

A preliminary review by the UtilitiesWorking Group found little basis for several ofthe remaining projects in terms of current orpotential health problems or growth areas. The


PSA has completed improvements andextensions to its water system supplying thePrices Fork and Merrimac communities withwater from the RAAP.

Now is the time for the County to considerfull membership in the Water Authority. For thisto become a reality, the county and the twotowns will need to develop coordinated landuses strategies for adjacent areas and includethem within the respective Comprehensive Plans.

Private Water and Sewer

In 1992, the Extension Service householdwater quality educational program tested 461household water supplies in the county. Thestudy concluded:

"Considering the results from both the rawand tap water sample groups, and theinfluence of water treatment devices, themajor remaining household water qualityproblem in Montgomery County, from anuisance standpoint, was hardness. Themajor health-related concerns were

corrosivity (because of the potential toraise dissolved copper and lead levels inwater), sodium bacteria, and to a lesserextent nitrate. Forty-eight percent of thesamples undergoing bacteriologicalanalysis tested positive for total coliformand 27% for fecal coliform bacteria. Inthese positive cases, participants wereadvised of ways to improve well conditionsand encouraged to pursue retesting forcoliform bacteria. In the cases of corrosivityand sodium, conditions were likely madeworse due to the installation of commercialwater softeners on drinking water lines."(2)

Privately owned water and sewer systemssometimes suffer from inadequate service,inadequate capital infrastructure, poor financialmanagement and/or excessive service rates. Insuch cases it may be in the public interest forthe systems to be acquired and operated by thePSA. Cost-sharing by homeowners, who wouldbenefit from the acquisition, may be requiredto make such acquisitions financially feasibleto the PSA. While in general it is more costeffective to cluster growth in areas that alreadyhave public water and sewer lines, it will notalways be in the public interest to do so. Tomaintain the distinct character of "villages" inthe County, it may be necessary to deny accessto service lines which run through areas notdesignated for growth. Communities with healthproblems should not be forced to choose betweenpoor water or rampant growth.

Telecommunications, Electricity. and NaturalGas

These utilities are provided by the privatesector. The provision of electric andtelecommunication services are basic to anydevelopment occurring in the County. Theprovision of high speed fiber optics service andnatural gas are important to the development ofdesignated growth areas and their higherresidential densities. However, when providing

any of these services, the impact upon the naturalenvironment must be mitigated. Examplesinclude overhead power lines in residentialsubdivisions and telecommunication towers inimportant viewsheds or environmentallysensitive areas.

Telecommunications Towers

At the request of the Board of Supervisors,County staff worked with Blacksburg,Christiansburg, Radford and Pulaski Countyrepresentatives to develop a regional approachto:

• Uniform definition and approach to co-location;

• Uniform and consistent notificationprocedures;

• Uniform approach to siting of newtowers;

• Uniform mapping of tower sites; and• Consistent use of consultants to assist


2. Virginia Extension Service (April 1993). "Evaluationof Household Water Quality in Montgomery County,Virginia"

jurisdictions in review of requests.

This approach was adopted as an amendmentto the Comprehensive Plan on May 14, 2001.

Solid Waste Collections

In 1991 the County, along with Blacksburg,Christiansburg and Virginia Tech completedand adopted the Montgomery County SolidWaste Management Plan, as required by theState of Virginia. In implementation of the plan,the County joined with the two towns anduniversity in 1995 to form the MontgomeryRegional Solid Waste Authority (MRSWA).Subsequently, the County's Mid-County Landfillwas closed and replaced by MRSWAs recyclingprocessing facility and transfer station whereCounty solid waste is received for processingand subsequent hauling to the Cloyds MountainLandfill in Pulaski County. This CloydsMountain Landfill is operated by the New RiverResource Authority (NRRA). NRRA members

include MRSWA along with Pulaski Countyand Radford.

The County operates a solid waste collectionsystem composed of 9 manned, consolidatedcollection sites around the County to receivehousehold wastes and recyclables and 2unmanned green box sites.Recycling

Recycling a significant part of the wastestream is required by law (currently 25%) andis cost effective. Education can improve boththe quality and quantity of recyclables, thusreducing costs. Recycling also encouragesCounty residents to care for the environment,and obtain satisfaction from doing so.

As the regions largest employer and largestlandlord, Virginia Tech has the responsibilityto serve a role model for recycling efforts. Thevolume of recyclables Virginia Tech choosesto collect directly impacts the finances ofMRSWA recycling operations. (CurrentlyMRSWA recycling is operating at 50% of itscapacity of 80 tons/day.) Moreover, VirginiaTech can pave the way for new recycling effortse.g. "e-waste" recycling of computers, monitorsand electronic equipment.

Storm Water Management

Under the Virginia Code and subsequentregulations, “all land disturbing activitiesundertaken on private and public lands in theCommonwealth of Virginia must meet the 19“minimum standards” for erosion and sedimentcontrol” which are spelled out in the VirginiaErosion and Sediment Control Regulations(§4VAC50-30-40). Presently, the only


3. The State’s minimum standards cover 19 issues: 1) soilstabilization, 2) soil stockpile stabilization, 3) permanentstabilization, 4) sediment basins and traps, 5) stabilizationof earthen structures, 6) sediment traps and sedimentbasins, 7) cut and fill slopes design and construction, 8)concentrated runoff down slopes, 9) slope maintenance,10) storm sewer inlet protection, 11) stormwater conveyanceprotection, 12) work in live watercourse, 13) crossing livewatercourse, 14) regulation of watercourse crossing; 15)stabilization of watercourse, 16) underground utility lineinstallation, 17) vehicular sediment tracking, 18) removalof temporary measures, and 19) stormwater management.Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation(2003). “Virginia Erosion and Sediment ControlRegulations: Minimum Standards Section 4VAC50-30-40. Pamphlet. Available at:http://222.dcr.state.va.us/sw/docs/MSPamphlet.PDF.4. Additional information on environmental hazards andmitigation are included in the introduction to theEnvironmental Resources chapter of this plan.

stormwater regulations enforced by the countyare minimum standard #19 of the state erosion& sediment control regulations, “StormwaterManagement,” which controls the volume andpeak rate but not the frequency of stormwaterrunoff from developed properties. (3)

Hazard Mitigation

Localities must now have an adopted hazardmitigation plan in order to receive funding torecover from any presidential declared disasterssuch as the flooding of February, 2003. Ratherthan each locality prepare such a plan on itsown, the NRVPDC is leading the effort toprepare a regional hazard mitigation plan. Amore detailed discussion of natural hazards inMontgomery County is included in theintroduction to the Environmental Resourceschapter.

UTL 1.0 Water & Sewer Goal: Provide a planning framework forthe provision of public and private water and sewer, so that the waterand sewer projects are consistent with the County's land use policieswhile ensuring adequate, safe drinking water and proper,environmentally safe disposal of wastewater/sewage for all Countyresidents.

UTL 1.1 Regional Cooperation: Approach the provision ofpublic water and sewer from a regional perspective in orderto provide these services more efficiently and effectively andto provide alternative sources in the event of individual systemfailures. (1)

UTL 1.1.1 Regional Water Authority: Work to obtainfull membership for Montgomery County in theBlacksburg, Christiansburg & VPI Water Authority.

UTL 1.1.2 Water Supply Study: Work through theNew 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 1.1.3 System Interconnect: Evaluate thefeasibility of interconnecting the major public watersystems in Montgomery County and Radford, includingthe land use implications. (3)

UTL 1.1.4 Institutional Arrangements: Evaluateexisting authorities, service areas and jurisdictionalagreements with regards to greater regional cooperationinvolving the Blacksburg, Christiansburg & VPI WaterAuthority, RAAP/Montgomery County and the City ofRadford.

UTL 1.1.5 Regional Wastewater Authority: ContinueCounty membership in the Peppers Ferry RegionalWastewater Treatment Authority. Evaluate the feasibilityof a regional approach to wastewater treatment involvingthe Peppers Ferry Authority, the Blacksburg VPISanitation Authority and the Crab Creek STP operatedby Christiansburg.

UTL 1.2 Public Systems: Continue to provide safe and reliablewater and sewer utilities at reasonable cost through the PublicService Authority (PSA) and through line extensions from thetowns and Radford. Provide for the orderly extension of publicwater and sewer service to designated growth areas and toareas with designated public health problems. (4)

UTL 1.2.1 Water Supply: Study the feasibility ofdeveloping an independent and reliable source of safedrinking water for County residents by continuing towork with the Radford Army Ammunition Plant(RAAP).

UTL 1.2.2 Project Priorities: Work with the PublicService Authority (PSA) to evaluate and prioritize the22 outstanding water and sewer projects added to theComprehensive Plan by amendments in 1999 and 2002.Among the factors to consider in establishing prioritiesare: engineering feasibility, financing feasibility,

Cross References and Notes:1. Regional cooperation is one of the linchpins of Montgomery County, 2025. Specificinformation on regional approaches is included in the Introduction and in PNG 1.0:Local and Regional Cooperation (pg. 66). Regional cooperation and efforts are alsoaddressed in other portions of this chapter, most notably in terms of Public Waterand 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, andSurface Waters (pg. 141); ENV 5.0: Groundwater (pg. 144); ENV 5.3: GroundwaterQuality 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 followingLand Use Policies: PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Areas (pg. 36); PLU 1.3.3 RuralAreas (pg. 37); PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities (pg. 39); PLU 1.5.3 ResidentialTransition Areas (pg 40); PLU 1.6.5 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 42); PLU 1.7.5Villages (pg. 45); PLU 1.8.5 Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 46); PLU 1.8.6 MunicipalCoordination/Cooperation (pg. 47); and PLU 2.1(b) Criteria for Evaluating RezoningApplications--Public Utilities (pg. 48).

Utilities: Goals

Cross References and Notes:4. Specific policies addressing the provision and extension of public utilities in theseven land use policy areas are included in the Planning and Land Use Chapter: PLU1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Areas (pg. 36); PLU 1.3.3 Rural Areas (pg. 37); PLU1.4.3 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 1.8.5Urban Expansion Areas (pg. 46); PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination/Cooperation(pg. 47); and PLU 2.1(b) Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications--PublicUtilities (pg 48).


compatibility with established service areas andcompatibility with identified Comprehensive Plangrowth areas, designated health problem areas, and theinterest of current homeowners in having PSA waterand/or sewer.

UTL 1.2.3 Financing: Work with the PSA to developa proactive funding plan for implementation of the topranked projects. (5)

UTL 1.2.4 Acquisition: Upon the request of a privateutility or of a significant proportion of the homeownersin a subdivision, evaluate the feasibility of the PSAacquiring and operating the private water or sewersystem, which serves the subdivision. Cost sharing byhomeowners may be required when a private water orsewer system is acquired by the PSA at the homeownersrequest.

UTL 1.2.5 Growth Boundary Strategy: In complianceand coordination with the County's land use policies,restrict public water and sewer access to futuredevelopment outside designated growth areas eventhough the lines may be present in the area.

UTL 1.3 Private Systems: Evaluate the construction andoperation of private systems for selected areas outside ofdesignated growth areas on a case by case basis.

UTL 1.3.1 Alternative Wastewater Systems: Evaluatethe feasibility of using alternative wastewater systemsin selected areas of the County instead of extendingpublic sewer lines. Determine the long-termresponsibilities of public and private interests in orderto insure that regular maintenance is performed onalternative systems.

UTL 1.3.2 Private System Standards: Require anyprivate systems to be constructed to Health Departmentand/or PSA specifications.

UTL 1.4 Individual Systems Objective: Support the properuse of individual wells and private septic systems in areas ofthe County that do not have public water and sewer and arenot expected to have public water and sewer in the foreseeablefuture. (6)

UTL 1.4.1 Public Information: Provide residents withinformation on the proper (health and environmentallysafe) use of individual wells and septic systems. (7)

UTL 1.4.2 Well Testing: Work with the ExtensionService to periodically repeat their successful 1992household water quality educational program forindividual well users. (8)

UTL 1.4.3 Utility Database and GeographicInformation System (GIS): Work with the HealthDepartment and other sources of information to mapthe location of current individual wells, septic systemsand potential hazards to groundwater, in order to bebetter able to predict and prevent future health problems.

Cross References and Notes:5. This should be done in conjunction with UTL 1.2.2: Project Priorities (pg. 234).

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 RealEstate Transactions (pg. 144); ENV 5.4: Well-Head Protection (pg. 145); and ENV5.7.2: Well Testing (pg. 146).


UTL 2.0 Electric, Telecommunication and Gas Utilities Goal:Provide for the orderly extension of electric service, telecommunicationservice (land line, wireless and/or cable) and natural gas service ina manner that supports growth and development without negativelyimpacting the natural environment.

UTL 2.1 Underground Lines: Require underground utilitylines and utility easements in new subdivisions.

UTL 2.2 Telecommunication Towers: Retain the RegionalApproach to Telecommunication Towers amendment to theComprehensive Plan in 2001. (9)

UTL 2.2.1 Co-location: Support the siting of newantennae, microwave dishes, etc. on existing structuressuch as existing communication towers, tall buildings,water tanks, electric transmission towers, signs, etc.This allows for the "highest and best" use of existingstructures and sites that could eliminate the need forconstruction of a new tower structure in an inappropriatearea.

UTL 2.2.2 Uniform Approach to Siting of NewTowers: (10) Siting of new communication towers ina jurisdiction should be reviewed for their potentialeffects on surrounding jurisdictions as well as thejurisdiction in which the structure is to be located.Newly constructed towers should be built in locationsthat will provide the lease negative impact to thecitizens of each jurisdiction. Montgomery Countyencourages the use of monopole and/or "stealth towers"for new sites that require new construction or "newbuilds". The following locations are listed from mostto least preferable when considering the siting ofcommunication towers:

A.Industrial parks (Urban Expansion, VillageExpansion, and Villages);

B.Industrial zoned lands (Urban Expansion, VillageExpansion, and Villages);

C.Commercially zoned lands (Urban Expansion,

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 2.3 Broadband/Fiber Optic Networks: Provide greater accessto broadband capabilities the Urban and Village Expansion Areas, andVillages in Montgomery County. (11)

UTL 2.3.1 NRV Telecommunications Plan: Review andAdopt the New River Valley Telecommunications Plan (2004).

UTL 2.3.2 Open-Access Service Network: Work with theNew River Valley Planning District Commission and regionaljurisdictions to establish a regional three tier (inter-county, intra-county, and local access) fiber-optic open-access service network,designed to deliver Open Access TCP/IP transport services, inthe New River Valley. The network and phasing of the projectwould be based on the New River Valley Planning DistrictCommission’s Proposed Fiber-Optic Network (2004).

Cross References and Notes:9. The 2001 Regional Approach to Telecommunications Towers amendment tothe 1990 Comprehensive Plan has been carried over to Montgomery County, 2025and is included at the end of this chapter.


Cross References and Notes:10. The uniform approach to the siting of new towers was referenced in the decisionfrom the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the Court found in favor of MontgomeryCounty. 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 theNew River Valley Planning District Commission and can be accessed at:http://www.nrvpdc.org/NRVTelecomPlan/NRVTelecomPlan.html.

UTL 3.0 Solid Waste: Provide for the collection, recycling anddisposal of solid waste to satisfy the needs of the County and toprovide for the well being of County residents and the environment.

UTL 3.1 Solid Waste Management: Continue to provide acomprehensive solid waste management program to addressthe immediate and long-term solid waste recycling and disposalneeds of the County.

UTL 3.1.1 Regional Cooperation: Continue toparticipate in and support the operation of theMontgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority(MRSWA) and the New River Resource Authority(NRRA).

UTL 3.1.2 Recycling Education: Encourage increasedquality and quantity of recycling through education incooperation with MRSWA.

UTL 3.1.3 Virginia Tech: Encourage Virginia Tech tofully fund the on-campus recycling program includingthe recycling of white office paper.

UTL 3.2 Collection System: Provide for the orderly collectionof solid waste and recyclables in the County.

UTL 3.2.1 Consolidated Collection Sites: Increasethe number of manned consolidated sites in the Countyafter first determining, from a countywide perspective,the best locations for additional manned sites that mostefficiently and effectively meet the needs of countyresidents. After expanding the system, close down theremaining 2 unmanned green box sites.

UTL 3.2.2 Curbside Pickup: Continue to allow privatecompanies to provide for curbside pickup of householdtrash in residential areas of the County.

UTL 3.2.3 Volunteer: Continue to support volunteercleanup efforts including the spring cleanup of roadsidetrash through the Bloomin’ and Broomin’ program.

UTL 3.2.4 Brush-to-Mulch Strategy: Continue toprovide for brush-to-mulch recycling at the old Mid-County Landfill Site.

UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management: Effectively manage stormwaterrunoff and erosion in order to protect properties, surface water qualityand aquatic habitat to maintain and enhance human health and safety.

UTL 4.1 Watershed Approach: In cooperation withBlacksburg and Christiansburg, develop a regional stormwatermanagement initiative, based on watershed boundaries, toeffectively manage stormwater runoff.

UTL 4.1.1 Stormwater Ordinance: Consider foradoption of a local stormwater management programto manage both the quantity and quality of runoff. Suchprograms are permitted as a local option under VirginiaStormwater Management Law. Coordinate with, andencourage, Blacksburg and Christiansburg to adoptsimilar ordinances.

UTL 4.1.2 Regional Stormwater Facilities: Withinthe watershed approach, evaluate the efficiency andeffectiveness of fewer, larger detention facilities withmore stringent maintenance responsibilities.

UTL 4.1.3 User Fees: Consider, in cooperation withBlacksburg and Christiansburg, a stormwater utilityapproach or an impervious surface fee approach orother types of user fees to pay for the development andmaintenance of regional stormwater facilities.

UTL 4.2 Village Planning and Stormwater Management.Work with the County Engineer to develop a stormwatermanagement 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 andadopt the regional hazard mitigation plan currently beingdeveloped by the New River Valley Planning DistrictCommission (NRVPDC) along with the participation of localjurisdictions. (14)

Cross References and Notes:12. Stormwater management is discussed in greater detail in ENV 7.0, including astormwater management program (ENV 7.1, pg. 148), a stormwater utility (ENV7.2, 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: RegionalOpportunities (pg. 198) reflect specific suggestions included in the NRV HazardMitigation Plan.


Special SubjectPlansMontgomeryCounty,2025

Adopted: 10/12/04

1990Bikeway/Walkway Plan

1990 Bikeway/Walkway Plan

Purpose

This plan was written to serve as a guide to the Montgomery CountyBoard of Supervisors in the development of county biking/walkingroutes. Due to unsafe conditions, many routes discussed in this planare currently not designated as routes. It is anticipated that this planwill encourage the funding of lanes and trails where they are needed.

History

In previous years, bike planning for Montgomery County has beenon a limited basis. While Montgomery County was included in the1974 regional bike plan prepared by the New River Valley PlanningDistrict Commission, the county itself did not initiate bike planninguntil 1989.

In 1976, for the nation's bicentennial, the TransAmerican BikeTrail was developed. Montgomery County was fortunate to have partof this prominent route running from the northeast to the southwestof the County. This was the first designated bike route in theunincorporated part of Montgomery County.

In 1989, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors approvedthe funding of 3.9 miles of bike lanes along Lusters Gate Road (StRte 723) to be completed when the road is widened and improved bythe Virginia Department of Transportation. Following the approval ofthis project, the Board requested that a county-wide bike plan beprepared as part of the revision of the Comprehensive Plan.

Justification

There are numerous reasons to justify the writing of a countybikeway/walkway plan. With a growing emphasis on fitness andhealth, more and more people have begun exercising regularly(According to a survey, the Bicycle Federation has estimated that in1984 more than 75 million Americans rode bicycles and 1.6 millioncommuted to work by bicycle). Montgomery County, with its naturalbeauty and rural character provides an almost ideal location forbicyclists. Due to the County's growing population and increasedcommercial growth however, many citizens are finding that someroads have become too dangerous from increased traffic. While

recreational bicycling can easily be accommodated in the rural portionsof the County, residents who are interested in safely traveling betweenBlacksburg, Christiansburg, or Radford by foot discover that this isno longer possible. A good bicycle/pedestrian plan works to encouragethe development of lanes and trails where they are needed to providesafe routes for non-motorized travel.

While providing safe routes is one of the most important goalsof a bikeway/walkway plan, there are also several other reasons. Theencouragement of commuting to work by bicycle reduces traffic alongovercrowded roads, reduces air and noise pollution, and helps savenatural resources. A plan can foster cooperation with other localitiesby extending existing town routes into the County and can encourageeconomic development by promoting regional "bike rides". And lastly,a major purpose of a bike plan is to save county money. By encouraginglanes and trails only where they are needed and by taking into accountalternative funding sources, a bike plan guides decision makers inthe efficient funding and development of biking/walking routes.

Note: This plan has been carried over from the 1990 Comprehensive Plan withoutupdate or change.

All photos included in the1990 Bikeway/Walkway Planare by Bill Edmonds.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Bikeway/Walkway Plan 239

Process

In April 1989, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisorspassed a resolution requesting that a bike plan be written as part ofthe revision of the Comprehensive Plan. A committee of county citizensand representatives from related groups was formed and began meetingin September 1989.

Any interested citizen was welcome to participate in this group.Some active members included representatives from: the Town ofChristiansburg, the Blacksburg Bikeway/Walkway Committee, theVirginia Tech Civil Engineering Society, and the Montgomery CountyParks and Recreation Commission. The committee met approximatelytwice a month for several months developing the county bike map.The plan was written with a ten year time span but it was recommendedthat it be reviewed every five years.

The plan was also written with a regional perspective.Recommendations from the Blacksburg plan were included and severalroutes designated in Montgomery County could easily be extendedinto neighboring counties. Input was also received from the MountainValleys Bike Path Committee which is studying a bike link betweenRoanoke's Explore Project and Montgomery County..

To publicize the plan and to receive citizen input, theBikeway/Walkway Draft Map was presented and discussed at fourcounty comprehensive plan citizen meetings held in February of 1990.During these meetings comments were received on the plan and werebrought back to the full committee for review.

Goals

This plan seeks:

• To encourage a lesser dependency on cars as a form oftransportation and to increase bicycle use as a mode oftransportation.

• To help preserve the natural and scenic environment of theCounty. 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 andon courtesy among drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

• To help promote coordination and cooperation among localgovernments.

• To expand the County's recreational facilities by providingon and off road hiking and biking trails.

• To provide safe biking/walking lanes where they areappropriate such as to schools, population centers, or parks.

Funding Sources

In developing and prioritizing proposed bike routes, theBikeway/Walkway Committee carefully considered the costs involved.It was felt that if the plan's recommendations were expensive, theywould not be funded. Therefore, many of the proposed routes aredesignated as "shared roads". For these routes, the committee felt thatthe current road was safe for cyclists and that it should only be markedwith signs to designate the road as a bike route (the State wouldpossibly fund these signs).

Other proposed routes were designated as either "lanes" or "trails".All roads recommended for lanes were coordinated with the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation's Six-Year Road Plan with the intentionthat bike lanes would be constructed when regular road improvementsoccurred. This is the most cost effective way to fund bike lanes andcan be done incrementally as roads are improved. It is estimated thatlanes developed independent of VDOT road improvements costapproximately twice as much as projects completed when roadimprovements occur.

The funding of trails (off road routes) was only recommendedwhere lanes were not feasible. These routes were only proposed nearexisting or future parks so that state grants would apply. The followinggrants apply to bikeways/walkways:


Bikeway/Walkway Grant Programs

Type of Grant Source Program Description Qualifying Route

VA Outdoors Grant Department of Conservation 50% grants for parks involving Huckleberry Trail& Recreation water and/or projects with a (promote as a linear park)

county-wide focus

Recreational Access Roads Department of Conservation Funds to construct, maintain, & Huckleberry Trail, 114& Recreation improve access roads & bike trails to proposed New River

in historical or recreational areas Park, connector Trailfrom Huckleberry to Mid-County Park

Virginia’s Orphaned Land Department of Mines, For reclamation of land which Huckleberry Trail in theProgram Minerals, & Energy is hazardous or an attractive Merrimac area

nuisance due to surface mining

Development of Routes

The following factors for bikeway/walkway routes were considered:

Population Centers:

According to the Center for Public Service MontgomeryCounty is the fastest growing locality in Southwest Virginia.Between 1980 and 1988, Montgomery County grew by 3,715people while Roanoke County's population increased by only2,555 people. A population increase also results in an increaseof new housing units, subdivisions, mobile home parks, andservices needed to accommodate the population. Traffic alsoincreases and roads become dangerous for non-motorizedtravel.

To serve this increasing population, county growth areaswere identified as locations that should be served bybiking/walking routes. These locations have experienced anincrease in housing through subdivisions, mobile home parks,or by a large number of single family homes. Areas consideredto be "growth centers" included: Bethel, Ellett Valley,Elliston/Lafayette, Ironto, Laurel Ridge, Mt. Tabor Road, PlumCreek, Preston Forest, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville.

Commuter Links:

Montgomery County currently has two major commuterlinks between Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford. USRoute 460 between Blacksburg and Christiansburg is the mostdirect route for travel between these two towns. This strip ofroad also provides access to the New River Valley mall, theMarket Place Shopping Center, Mid-county Park, and variousother businesses. Route 114 between Christiansburg and theMontgomery County Line has also experienced developmentand 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 Christiansburgand Radford.

Both of these roads suffer from a lack of good shoulders,high-speeding cars, and congestion. These dangerous conditionsmake these popular roads inaccessible to walkers and bikers.

Parks:

Recreational facilities should be easily accessible by footor bicycle. Existing parks addressed in this study included:Mid-County Park located off US Route 460, Plum Creek Parklocated 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 50% grants for parks involving Huckleberry Trail& Recreation water and/or projects with a (promote as a linear park)

county-wide focus

Recreational Access Roads Department of Conservation Funds to construct, maintain, & Huckleberry Trail, 114& Recreation improve access roads & bike trails to proposed New River

in historical or recreational areas Park, connector Trailfrom Huckleberry to Mid-County Park

Virginia’s Orphaned Land Department of Mines, For reclamation of land which Huckleberry Trail in theProgram Minerals, & Energy is hazardous or an attractive Merrimac area

nuisance due to surface mining

Falls, Pandapas Pond, and the nearby Blue Ridge Parkway.Proposed Parks considered in this study included: New RiverPark located at Peppers Ferry on Route 114 and Little RiverPark in the southwestern portion of the county.

Other Recommendations from the Blacksburg

Bikeway/Walkway Plan were considered and where appropriateincluded into the County Plan. Popular, scenic biking routesthroughout the County were also evaluated and considered forinclusion in the plan.

Definitions

Trail: A separate path which is for the exclusive use of non-

motorized vehicles. It usually contains a separate right-of-wayfrom those facilities used by other modes of transportation.The path should have a minimum width of five feet and shouldbe paved. (Example: Huckleberry Trail in Blacksburg)

Lane: A portion of the roadway that has been designated forthe exclusive use of bicycle travel with a minimum width offour feet. (Example: bike lanes in Blacksburg)

Shared Road: This is a bike path that shares the right-of-waywith motor vehicles, or where a bicycle path is not designatedexcept 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 460between Blacksburg and Christiansburg) and since most ofthe route is owned by the County, this is recommended to becleared and paved as a trail. This project is also the #1recommendation of the Blacksburg Bike Plan.

High Priority: A project that is recommended to be completedwithin the next one to five years.

Medium Priority: A project that is recommended to becompleted within the next five to nine years.

Future Routes: A Project that is recommended to be completedbeyond ten years.


St. Rt/Name Designation Priority Justification

Huckleberry Line Trail #1 Project Co-owned right-of-way, good commuter route,also #1 Blacksburg project.

Mid County Park/ Park Lane/Trail High Link Mid County Park to Blacksburg,Connections Christiansburg, and Huckleberry Trail.

Lusters Gate Road (Rte 723 to Lane High ‘76 Bike Route, VDoT 6-Year Plan: August 1990,Rte 603) & serve growing area of County.

Prices Fork Road (Rte 685) Lane High VDOT 6-Year Plan: June 1991 & link fromBlacksburg to Coal Hollow Road.

Coal Hollow Road (Rte 705) Lane High VDoT 6-Year Plan: December 1994 & link fromPrices Fork Rd. to Peppers Ferry Rd.

North Fork Road (Rte 603) ? Medium VDoT 6-Year Plan:? Scenic popular biking route,waiting on road recommendations.

Yellow Sulphur Rd. (Rte 643) Lane Medium VDoT 6-Year Plan: November 1996 & link betweenBlacksburg and Christiansburg.

Ellett Rd. (Rte 723 from 603 to Lane Medium VDoT 6-Year Plan: January 1997 and link betweenBlacksburg and Christiansburg

Mt. Tabor Rd. (Rte 624 to Rte 628) Lane Medium VDoT 6-Year Plan: January 1999, Scenic & PopularBike Route

Peppers Ferry Rd. (Rte 114) Trail Medium Link from Coal Hollow Road to proposed NewRiver Park, traffic conditions require off-road trail.

Future Routes

St. Rt/Name Designation Priority Justification

Pandapas Pond Rd. (US 460) Trail Future Recommendation in Blacksburg Plan, servePandapas Pond

Craig Creek Rd. (Rte 621) Lane Future Serve Northern portion of County including theJefferson National Forest

Thomas Lane (Rte 737) Lane Future VDoT 6-Year Plan: 1999, serve growingsubdivisions and link to Prices Fork Rd.

Pilot Rd. (Rte 615) Lane Future Pave with lanes as road is widened to linkChristiansburg to designated shared roadway.

Nellies Cave Rd. (Rte 681) Lane Future Pave with lanes when road is paved. Provides adirect link from Ellett Valley to Blacksburg.

Summary of Routes


Shared Roads

Due to low traffic counts and the rural nature of these roads, thefollowing have been recommended as shared roads (map is includedwith 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)

Detailed Description of Routes

The following list of routes are addressed in detail in this plan. It isrecommended that these routes be funded as Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDOT) road improvements occur. Proposed lanesshould be constructed to VDOT standards. While specific costs havenot been addressed in this plan, it is estimated that one mile of pavedlanes would cost $30,000 if completed when road improvementsoccur. This figure would increase to approximately $50,000 per mileif completed independent of VDOT improvements.


Huckleberry Trail

PRIORITY: #1 Project

DESIGNATION: Trail

Description: Beginning near the entrance toWarm Hearth Retirement Village, and extendingto the corporate limits of Christiansburg, thisproject would convert the county-owned,abandoned Norfolk and Western railroad lineto an off-road trail.

Funding Source: If promoted as a linear park,this trail would qualify for Virginia OutdoorsGrant funding. Since the land is currently ownedby the County, land acquisition is unnecessary,making this project economically feasible.Various civic organizations have also volunteeredtheir 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 originallyextended between Blacksburg andChristiansburg. This trail would follow the oldrailroad line and would create a linear parkparallel to US 460. The route would serve as acommuter link between Blacksburg andChristiansburg and would provide access toMid-County Park . While the County's portionof this route would end at the town limits ofChristiansburg, it is recommended thatChristiansburg investigate continuing this trailto the New River Valley Mall. The BlacksburgBikeway Plan also ranks this project as #1 andrecommends that it be extended from Blacksburgto the County.


Mid-County Park Connection:

PRIORITY: High

DESIGNATION: Paved Lanes, Trails

DESCRIPTION: This system of bike lanes andtrails will provide bicycle/pedestrian access tothe Montgomery County Park from Blacksburg,Christiansburg, and the Huckleberry Trail. Thissystem consists of several segments (listedbelow) that will be incorporated into the designand construction of the future Route 460 Bypass(Route 3A).

Bike lanes along the 3A Service Road fromthe entrance to the Montgomery County Parknorth to Jennelle Road; Bike lanes along therevised alignments of Yellow Sulphur andHightop Roads; A bike trail on VDOT right-of-way to connect the bike lanes on the serviceroad (above) and those on the realigned portionof Yellow Sulphur Road; A bikeway/walkwaybridge across Route 3A; A bikeway/walkwayconnection between the bridge over Route 3Aand Route 460 via Pear Street (bike lanes), andexisting public right-of-way (trail), and a stripof land owned by Montgomery County (trail);A bike trail between the bridge over Route 3Aand Arbor Drive; Bike lanes along HightopRoad from the realigned portion to theintersection with the Huckleberry Trail.

FUNDING SOURCES: All but the last segmentwill be incorporated into the construction costfor Route 3A. The bike lanes along HightopRoad from the realigned portion to theHuckleberry Trail will be funded throughVDOT's Recreational Access program.

JUSTIFICATION: Without these facilities,access to the park by bicycle or foot travel willbe very difficult and potentially dangerous. Thissystem will also provide a bicycle route fromBlacksburg to the Marketplace shopping area.


Lusters Gate Road

PRIORITY: High

DESIGNATION: Paved Lanes

DESCRIPTION: Lusters Gate Road (St Rte723) beginning at intersection with CatawbaRoad (St Rte 785) and ending at intersectionwith North Fork Road (St Rte 603).

FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled to bewidened by Virginia Department ofTransportation on August 1990. State will fund100% of cost if done when road is widened.

TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 477 averagedaily traffic to 1,375 average daily traffic (1987figures).

JUSTIFICATION: This will serve a growingnumber of residential subdivisions (includingWoodland Hills, Deercroft, and BlacksburgCountry Club Estates) in the county. This routeis also part of the '76 Bicentennial TransAmericaTrail and serves as a link between Blacksburgand Christiansburg.


Prices Fork Road

PRIORITY: High


DESCRIPTION: Prices Fork Road (St Rte 685)beginning at the town limits of Blacksburg andextending 1.68 miles to Tucker Road (St Rte736).

FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled to bewidened by the Virginia Department ofTransportation in June 1991. The State will fund50% of the cost if work is done when the roadis widened.

TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 7,047 averagedaily traffic to 4,663 average daily traffic (1987figures).

JUSTIFICATION: This route will serve agrowing number of subdivisions (MontgomeryFarms, Phillips Acres, and the proposed Sterlingmanor) in the county. This route also servesPrices Fork Elementary School, provides themost direct link between Blacksburg andRadford and is a popular biking route betweenBlacksburg and the New River. This roadcurrently receives a large volume of high speedtraffic which makes walking or biking verydangerous and almost impossible. The town ofBlacksburg currently has bike lanes extendingto the town limits. These proposed lanes wouldbe a logical extension into the County.


Coal Hollow Road (Prices Fork/ PeppersFerry Connector):

PRIORITY: High


DESCRIPTION: Coal Hollow Road (St Rte705) beginning at Peppers Ferry Road (St Rte114) and extending 1.95 miles to Prices ForkRoad (St Rte 659).

FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled to bewidened by the Virginia Department ofTransportation in December 1994. The Statewill fund 50% of the cost if work is done whenthe road is improved.

TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 97 averagedaily traffic to 93 average daily traffic (1987figures).

JUSTIFICATION: This route will connect the"Prices Fork Route" (discussed on page 16) toPeppers Ferry Road. Prices Fork Road near theintersection with Peppers Ferry Road is currentlyhilly, narrow, curvy, and too dangerous forbicyclists. There are also no plans to widen orimprove this section of the road. The placementof lanes along Coal Hollow Road would allowfor cyclists to have a safe route to travel betweenBlacksburg and Peppers Ferry Road. This wouldhelp promote non-motorized travel forcommuting purposes. Improvements to this roadwill greatly increase traffic (and development)along this road - making lanes even morenecessary.


North Fork Rd.:

PRIORITY: Medium

DESIGNATION: No Designation

DESCRIPTION: North Fork/Den Hill Road (StRte 603) beginning at intersection with LustersGate Road (St Rte 723) and extending toRoanoke Road (US Rte 11/460).

FUNDING SOURCE: The State would fund50% of this route when the road is improvedand widened.


JUSTIFICATION This is a very popular bikingroute that would connect to Ellett Valley Route#1 and Ellett Valley Route #2. This routewould provide a safe, easy connector fromBlacksburg and Christiansburg close to theRoanoke County Line. To date, the status ofthis road is questionable due to the proposedBlacksburg to Roanoke link. If this road wereto remain undisturbed, the route could continueas a shared roadway. If however, the road werewidened, improved lanes or trails would thenbe necessary along this road.


Yellow Sulphur Springs:

ROUTE NAME: Yellow Sulphur Route

PRIORITY: Medium


DESCRIPTION: Yellow Sulphur road (St Rte643) beginning one mile north of the corporatelimits of the town of Christiansburg to theintersection with Jenelle Road (St Rte 642).

FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled tobe widened and improved by the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation in November1996. State will fund 50% of the cost if donewhen road improvements occur.

TRAFFIC COUNTS: 145 average daily traffic(1987 figures).

JUSTIFICATION: This road serves a growingarea of Montgomery County. It is also a directlink between the towns of Blacksburg andChristiansburg. Yellow Sulphur Road is awinding, curvy road which is not safe forbikers or walkers without lanes. Improvementsto this road will greatly increase traffic , makinglanes even more necessary.


Ellett Rd.:

PRIORITY: Medium


FUNDING SOURCE: Road is scheduled to bewidened by the Virginia Department ofTransportation in January 1997. State will fund100% of the cost if done when road is widened.

TRAFFIC COUNTS: Range from 1,229 averagedaily traffic to 641 average daily traffic (1987figures).

JUSTIFICATION: This route is part of the '76Bicentennial TransAmerica Trail and connects"Ellett Valley Route #1" (discussed on page 15of this report) to the corporate limits ofChristiansburg. This route is both a scenic,popular bike ride and also a good commuterlink between Blacksburg and Christiansburg.


Mt. Tabor Rd.:

PRIORITY: Medium


DESCRIPTION: Mt. Tabor Road (St Rte 624)beginning from the corporate limits ofBlacksburg and extending one mile east ofPreston Forest Drive (St Rte 806).

FUNDING SOURCE: This road is scheduledto be widened and improved by the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation in January 1999.The State would fund 50% of these lanes if thework is completed when the road is improved.


JUSTIFICATION: This bike route would serveseveral subdivisions (Indian Run, Preston Forest,Mt. Tabor Village, Blacksburg's Woodbine) anda large school/day care facility. Currently, thenarrow, windy road is dangerous for bikers orwalkers because of the heavy traffic generatedfrom the subdivisions. These paved lanes wouldextend beyond Preston Forest serving the heavilypopulated area of the road but the route wouldcontinue beyond this as a shared roadway. Thisbike route is a popular route that extends intoRoanoke County.


Peppers Ferry Rd.:

PRIORITY: Medium

DESIGNATION: Trail

DESCRIPTION: Located parallel to PeppersFerry Road (Rte 114) beginning at intersectionwith Coal Hollow Road (St Rte 705) andextending to proposed New River park atMontgomery County line.

FUNDING SOURCE: This route would connectan established biking/walking route (Prices ForkRoute and Prices Fork/Peppers FerryConnector) to New River park, qualifying it forState Recreational Access Funds.

TRAFFIC COUNTS: 10,645 average dailytraffic (1988 figures).

JUSTIFICATION: This trail would connect aproposed bike route (Prices Fork Route andPrices Fork/Peppers Ferry Connector) to NewRiver park and would also serve as a commuterlink from Blacksburg to Radford. Currently,Peppers Ferry Road is too dangerous for non-motorized travel. Future plans indicate that thisroad may be widened to four lanes makingbiking or walking impossible along PeppersFerry Road without an off-road trail.


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 planshould be funded and implemented as VDOT roadimprovements occur. If the funding for road improvementschanges, the timing of the bikeways/walkways should alsochange to correspond.

2. The recommended trails discussed in section X of this planshould be funded in a timely manner. It is suggested that grantmoney be pursued as soon as possible.

3. The proposed county shared roads should be marked withsigns. These could possibly be funded by the state.

4. A regional committee should be appointed to coordinate andimplement bikeways. Members on this group could includerepresentatives from Montgomery County, Blacksburg,Christiansburg, Radford, and interested civic organizations(Virginia Tech's Civil Engineering Society). This group wouldcoordinate the development of new routes and trails; promotebicycling in the area; pursue funding options; update the bikeplan; and undertake any other function to promote and developbikeways/walkways in Montgomery County and the NewRiver Valley.

5. A county or regional bicycle map should be developed. Thismap would illustrate and discuss various routes for biking inthe county. Items that could be included on this map wouldbe the different types of routes, points of interest along eachroute, the route's degree of difficulty, eating and lodgingestablishments, and other related information. This pamphletcould be distributed to chambers of commerce or bicycle clubsaround the state and could promote this area for regionalbicycling.

6. Bike safety programs - both for children and adults, bikersand drivers - should be supported and encouraged. Thiscould be accomplished through the schools (including localuniversities), through recreational programs, or throughdrivers education.

7. A maintenance program needs to be developed to addressthe upkeep of bikeways/walkways. Often bike lanes becomedepositories for snow, leaves, litter, or other debris. Toensure safe bike paths, these routes need to be regularlycleaned and maintained.

8. To ensure that this plan remains current, this documentshould be reviewed and updated at least once every fiveyears.

9. Investigate revising the subdivision ordinance to requirethe dedication and development of biking/walking trails inlarge subdivisions.


Bibliography

Bicycle Compatible Roadways - Planning and Design Guidelines.New Jersey Department of Transportation. 1982.

Bicycle Facilities: Control and use of Right-of-Way and AdjacentLands. Virginia Department of Transportation. 1981.

Bicycle Facilities: General Guide Lines for Bicycle Lanes and Paths.Virginia Department of Transportation. 1983.

Bicycling on Virginia Roads Laws and Safety Tips. Virginia Departmentof Transportation and Division of Parks & Recreation. 1988.

Bikeway Plan. New River Valley Planning District Commission. 1975.

Bicycle Transportation. Nina Dougherty. Office of Planning andEvaluation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.December 1974.

Effective Cycling A Handbook for Safe, Fast Bike Travel. John Forrester.Custom Cycle Fitments. 1980.

Evaluation of the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan. City of Eugene,Oregon. 1979.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning with Safety Considerations.Transportation Research Board. National Research Council. Washington,D.C.1987.

Proposed Blacksburg Bicycle and Walkway Master Plan 1989.Blacksburg, Virginia. 1989.

Recreational Access: Law, Policy and Procedure. Secondary RoadsDivision, Virginia Department of Transportation. 1986.

Regional Bicycle Plan. Richmond Area Metropolitan TransportationPlanning Organization. 1982.

Regional Bicycle Facilities Plan. Southeastern Virginia PlanningDistrict Commission, 1980.

Status Report-Capital Area Greenway, Raleigh Parks, Recreation, andGreenway Advisory Board. 1987.

What is a Walkway? An Introduction to the Walkways at Your DoorstepProgram. The Walkways Center. Washington, D.C.


Special SubjectPlansMontgomeryCounty,2025

Draft-8/12/04

RegionalApproach toTelecommunicationsTowers

Regional Approach to Telecommunication TowersIntroduction

On July 24, 2000 the Montgomery County Board of Supervisorspassed a resolution requesting that the planning staff work with theTowns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg to develop a consistentapproach towards analyzing and processing telecommunicationtower siting requests from a land use perspective.

The staff committee, consisting of staff members from Blacksburg,Christiansburg, Radford, Pulaski and Montgomery Counties meton several occasions and discussed how to develop a regionalapproach to the telecommunication towers issues. The committeehas put together the following items for consideration by therespective Planning Commissions and governing bodies for inclusionin each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. While each jurisdictionis unique in its makeup and citizens, the committee agreed that thefollowing items are consistent with the each jurisdiction's goals tohelp develop a uniform approach toward analyzing and processingtelecommunication tower siting requests from a land use perspective.

The key items that are addressed in this proposal include:

1. Uniform definition and approach to co-location2. Uniform and consistent notification procedures3. Uniform approach to siting of new towers4. Uniform mapping of tower sites5. 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" useof existing structures and sites that could eliminate the need forconstruction of a new tower structure in an inappropriate area. Potentialsites that provide co-location possibilities include but are not limitedto, the following:

A. Existing communication towersB. Buildings (schools, police stations, fire departments,

businesses, etc.)C. Water tanks, sewer and water treatment facilitiesD. Electric transmission towersE. Signs (including pylons, billboards, etc.)F. Parks and ball fieldsG. Industrial parks

The Counties of Montgomery and Pulaski, City of Radford and Townsof Blacksburg and Christiansburg encourage the above type of co-location efforts when placing wireless communication devices in theirlocalities.

2. Uniform and Consistent Notification Procedures

Notification of intent to construct a communication facility refers tothe written notification required for public hearings pursuant to Section15.2-2204 of the VA Code. In addition, the Counties of Montgomeryand Pulaski, City of Radford and Towns of Blacksburg andChristiansburg have agreed to provide written notification to thePlanning Commission of each jurisdiction upon receipt of a requestfor a new communication facility to allow for review and input fromneighboring jurisdictions. Comments received from each jurisdiction

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Regional Approach to Telecommunication Towers 258

Note: This plan has been carried over from the 1990 Comprehensive Plan withoutupdate or change.

will be considered by the jurisdiction having authority over the requestduring their public hearing process.

3. Uniform approach to siting of new towers

Siting of new communication towers in a jurisdiction should bereviewed for their potential effects on surrounding jurisdictions aswell as the jurisdiction in which the structure is to be located. Newlyconstructed towers should be built in locations that will provide theleast negative impact to the citizens of each jurisdiction. MontgomeryCounty encourages the use of monopole and/or "stealth towers" fornew sites that require new construction or "new builds". The followinglocations are listed from most to least preferable when consideringthe siting of communication towers:

A. Industrial parksB. Industrial zoned landsC. Commercially zoned landsD. High density residential landsE. Agriculture/Conservation zoned lands - non-ridge, woodedF. Agriculture/Conservation zoned lands - non-ridge, openG. Medium density residential landsH. Agriculture/Conservation zoned lands - ridgelineI. Low density residential lands

4. Uniform mapping of tower sites

Regional Map - Each jurisdiction has agreed to contribute informationnecessary to compile a regional map showing all tower/antennae sitesand providers using those sites within each jurisdiction. This willallow each jurisdiction access to existing tower information and assessthe possibility of alternative sites. This map may also include allgovernment owned property that may be available for co-locationopportunities.

5. Consistent use of consultants to assist jurisdiction in review ofrequests

Consultants may be used from time to time by the jurisdictions toevaluate the possible alternatives and potential impacts of the requeston the jurisdiction and the surrounding areas. Wherever possible, thejurisdictions will share resources and collaborate on the request toprovide the most beneficial and economically feasible use of aconsultant.

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Regional Approach to Telecommunication Towers 258 Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Regional Approach to Telecommunication Towers 259

CorridorPlans

Montgomery


Adopted: 10/12/04

Joint ComprehensivePlan for theVA 177/ Tyler AvenueCorridor Area

Adopted pursuant to Section 6.3(a) of the Route 177 CorridorAgreement between the City of Radford, Virginia; MontgomeryCounty, Virginia and Montgomery County Public Service Authoritydated March 1, 1993.

Introduction

In 1991, Montgomery County and the City of Radford jointlyasked the New River Valley Planning District Commission (NRVPDC)to study the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area. The study areacovered approximately 2,700 acres in Montgomery County and theCity of Radford located primarily in the upper Connellys Runwatershed. The Corridor Area is shown on the Future Land Use Map(attached Figure 1).

The Corridor Study Area involved landowners, planners, economicdevelopment leaders, utility providers and the general public. Itrecognizes the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area as a growth areawhere the extension of public utilities will provide important economicopportunities. The Corridor Area Study provides a framework forfuture development that allows existing uses to continue and allowsthe expansion of residential and commercial uses withoutencroachment on one another. It also uses the open and highly visiblecharacter of the Corridor Area to its advantage while preserving keyfeatures and insuring that buffers are established between incompatibleuses.

The Corridor Area Study was completed in June 1992, andpresented to Montgomery County and the City of Radford. Acomprehensive agreement was entered into, entitled Haute 177Corridor Agreement dated March 1, 1993, which incorporates theCorridor Area Study. The Route 177 Corridor Agreement took fullforce and effect on June 30, 1993. Pursuant to Section 6.3(a) of theAgreement, this Joint Comprehensive Plan was adopted byMontgomery County and the City of Radford.

The VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area is one area where thereis a clear need for multiple land uses to exist harmoniously. Today,VA 177 / Tyler Avenue is an increasingly heavily traveled highwaythat passes through pastureland, by single-family homes, and individual

business. Ready access to Interstate 81, proximity to industries andinstitutions in the City of Radford, and commuting patterns make theVA 177 / Tyler Avenue Corridor Area a desirable business location.These same qualities, plus the area's scenic appeal make it a desirablelocation for residences. As the City and County grow, there will beconsiderable pressure from both residential and commercialdevelopment in the Corridor.

It is important to realize that development pressure exists in theCorridor today. Several highway- oriented businesses have been builtor expanded in the last several years at Interchange 109. Severalsubdivisions have been platted for single-family home developmentin this same period. A church and a hospital have proposed locatingin the Corridor.

The results of the Virginia 177 /Tyler Avenue Corridor Effort havebeen incorporated into the following Goals and Objectives.

Shared Future Land Use Map

Two maps from the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Study are madea part of this joint comprehensive plan. The Future Land Use Map(attached Figure 1) illustrates the mix of land uses anticipated in thecorridor area. The changes required to achieve this [and use patternwill not occur overnight, but rather will take place over time as publicimprovements and private investment compliment each other in thecorridor. Necessary public improvements include the extension ofutility lines, road improvements, storm water management and otherfuture projects.

The Entrance Plan (attached Figure 2) limits entrance locationsonto VA 177 to those shown on the plan map except where a varianceis approved for a special entrance situation. Frequent curb cuts forindividual residential and commercial entrances slow traffic. Fewerplanned entrance locations allow the large acreage tracts found alongVA 177 to fully develop without impeding traffic flow along thisimportant arterial road.

Both the Future Land Use Map and the Entrance Plan assume thefollowing:

Joint Comprehensive Plan ForThe VA 177 / Tyler Avenue Corridor Area

Montgomery County, 2025--Adopted 10/12/04 Joint Rte.177/Tyler Road Corridor Plan 262

Future Land Use Map (Figure 1)


• Anticipate commercial development at Interchange 109 andalong nearby sections of VA 177 and Lovely Mount Drive.This growth should take place through planned developmentsthat consist of more than stripping of the existing road frontage.

• Recognize three areas that are suitable for high intensitydevelopments. High intensity uses permitted with a specialuse permit include light industry, residential developmentover four (4) dwelling unit per acre, hospitals and health carecomplexes.

• Incorporate an entrance and intersection plan for the corridorfrontage parcels

• Recognize that residential development in this area shouldbe through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Districtand Cluster Development rather than conventionalsubdivisions. Therefore, implementation will necessitateamendments to the Zoning Ordinance.

Joint Review

Both the City and County must provide for joint review of zoningissues and development plans by a joint Site Review Committee(County) / Development Committee (City). This activity was specifiedin the Route 177 Corridor Agreement. Joint review is central to theeffective implementation of the remaining recommendations, andachievement of the future land use patterns illustrated in the attachedfigures.

The City of Radford’s Goals for the Corridor

Achieving the successful implementation of the cooperative planningeffort initiated by the City and Montgomery County in the VA 177/TylerAvenue Corridor Area will require the City of Radford to undertakethe following.

Future Land Use Plan - Modify the Future Land Use Plan in the City'sportion of the Corridor to reflect the central concepts agreed upon bythe City and County, like the location of commercial and residentialdevelopment, the need for measures to reduce the number of futureentrances constructed in the Corridor, and application of the planned


unit development concept in the Corridor setting.

Public Infrastructure - Take necessary steps to provide water andsewer capacity to the County portions of the Corridor. Storm watermanagement in the Corridor should be pursued jointly through thefollowing specific actions:

• Formation of a joint board of City and County officials toaddress storm water issues.

• A detailed engineering analysis should be undertaken of theregional storm water management alternatives, set priorityof regional construction projects, and determine what specificon-site storm water containment requirements are appropriate.

The process of developing public works projects should involvethe public and be accomplished in an efficient and attractive manner.Public projects should meet or exceed the standards set for privatedevelopment and public projects should act as models for landscaping,adherence to the planning process, environmental awareness, andfiscal responsibility.

Zoning Ordinance - Modify the Zoning Ordinance to include districtsthat include the provisions outlined in the Expansion Overlay andPlanned Unit Development Districts.

Recognize that planned unit development will be the structurethrough which ultimate development under the Future Land Use Planwill be achieved along VA 177 / Tyler Avenue and in other portionsof the City and take appropriate steps to insure that the City is ableto adequately guide and facilitate such developments.

The Zoning Ordinance should be modified to incorporate provisionsfor acceptance of voluntary proffers by developers including off-siteimprovements. Such proffers should reflect City objectives; in theTyler Avenue Corridor these would be:

a. Management of storm water.b. Safe and efficient traffic flow.c. Reservation of areas suitable for public facilities.d. Development of water distribution and sewer collection

capacity.

Subdivision Ordinance - The Subdivision Ordinance should promote

adequate internal circulation and interconnect with adjacentdevelopments. The Subdivision Ordinance should provide for dustersubdivisions.

The City of Radford should review the effectiveness of the actionstaken to meet these goals. Where, the measures taken can be appliedto other portions of the City and achieve desired impacts, the Cityshould consider doing so.

Montgomery County’s Goals for the Corridor

Achieving the successful implementation of the cooperativeplanning effort initiated by the City of Radford and MontgomeryCounty in the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area will require theMontgomery County to undertake the following.

Public Infrastructure - The expansion of public water and sewerservices in the corridor area by the PSA will be in accordance withthe terms of the Route 177 Corridor Agreement between Radford,Montgomery County and the PSA.

Storm water management for the corridor area also requires acoordinated approach. Potential actions for consideration by Radfordand Montgomery County include:

• Formation of a joint city/county board to address storm waterissues on Connellys Run including both the east branch andthe west branch.

• Undertake a detailed engineering analysis of the watershedto evaluate storm water management alternatives (such ashigher on-site retention/infiltration standards, in-streammeasures, regional detention, etc.), to set priorities for regionalconstruction projects and to determine what specific on-sitestorm water containment requirements are appropriate.

Expansion Area Overlay District- Develop an overlay district in theZoning Ordinance that would apply to the entire 177 Corridor UrbanExpansion Area. This urban expansion area covers approximately2,200 acre in the county. The overlay district would establish specificdevelopment standards relating to:

• Entrance and Street Design - Limit entrance locations ontoVA 177 in accordance with the Entrance Plan (Figure 34) in


order to preserve effective traffic flow. Provide a varianceprocedure for special entrance situations. Establish minimumright-of-way widths and construction standards for collectorstreets off of VA 177.

• Protection of Steep Slopes and Water Features - Providespecial consideration in the development process for areaswith a slope of 25 percent or greater and areas within 50'of free flowing streams and impoundments.

• Landscaping Plans - Provide landscaping within the frontsetback and buffer yard areas.

• Outdoor Lighting - Limit lighting during hours a businessis closed to that necessary for site security.

• Signage - Integrate signage into the site and the sitelandscaping.

• Utility Placement - Locate utilities underground with certainexceptions.

The intent of the overlay district is both to establish flexiblestandards and to establish a plan review process through which thedeveloper works with the county to maintain the quality of the corridorarea. Similarly, it is expected that county projects will also meet orexceed the standards set for private development. Public projectsshould act as models for landscaping, signage, and adherence to theplanning process, environmental awareness and fiscal responsibility.

Planned Unit Development District (PUD)- Zoning Ordinance thatwould apply in the 177 Corridor Urban Expansion Area. The PUDconcept would allow the negotiation of site-specific standards inexchange for the use of measures that mix land uses, insure adequateopen space and maintain community amenities. The PUD approachwould:

• Create a new zoning district that encompasses residential,commercial or light industrial development.

• Provide for the use of the PUD concept on smaller sizeparcels.

• Designate lands on the zoning map for future developmentas pud's. However, existing low intensity uses like agricultureand family subdivisions would continue by right.

Cluster Development - Revise the existing Cluster Developmentoverlay district in the Zoning Ordinance in order to provide sufficientretention of open areas for both passive and active use to insure thatthe residents and the community benefits.

Recommendations

Guided by the information gathered, including citizen input, theCommittee makes the following recommendations concerning theVirginia 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor:

Emergency Services

Since no written mutual aid agreement exists between MontgomeryCounty and the City of Radford and citizens are very concerned aboutthe timely provision of fire and rescue services in the Corridor, theCommittee has already recommended that "the two governing bodiestake immediate action to initiate development of a mutual aid agreementconcerning fire and rescue services." Due to the importance of thisissue, an interim resolution was passed by the Committee on March16 2000, and given to the two governing bodies. (See Appendix 10for the resolution.)

More specifically, the Committee recommends that the two localitiesdevelop a first-responder's agreement so that each part of the Corridorwould be served by the emergency service agency that can reach itfirst.

Water and Sewer Service

First, given the disparities in data concerning water and sewerflows in the Corridor, the Committee recommends that the CountyPSA and the City continue cooperative efforts to establish a baselineof data on existing flows- If these efforts should be unsuccessful, analternative proposed by the Committee is to have an independent thirdparty measure sewer and water flows to determine daily and peakflows. Third party involvement would be undertaken under a separateagreement.

Development of accurate flow data will contribute significantly


to the effort to insure that maximum peak flows and per-day limitsare not exceeded. It will also allow for more accurate future projections.A third party could also be used to assist in implementing the utilityservices policy recommended below when and if significant disparityexists between the PSA and the City Utility numbers. Ideally, a thirdparty would have continuously recording meters in place.

Secondly, the Committee recommends that the critical flow concernsbe a focus of attention. For example, one critical flow concern is therapid nature of the high volume outflow from the Carilion New RiverValley Medical Center. This is apparently caused by the settings onthe hospital pump, which were required by the Virginia Departmentof Health- The Carilion New River Valley Medical Center and anyother large user present or future, should try to find ways of levelingits outflow, so that the public sewer system is not overwhelmed withdramatic peak flows. The hospital administration should continueworking with the Montgomery County PSA and the VirginiaDepartment of Health to identify helpful options. The Committeerecommends that the methodology for assessing peak flows be re-evaluated.

Given the information provided by the Peppers Ferry RegionalWastewater Treatment Authority (PFRWTA), the Committeerecommends that the PFRWTA be encouraged to explore and evaluatealternatives for providing adequate system capacity. The Committeealso recommends that Montgomery County purchase the requiredcapacity in the PFRWTA's Radford and New River pump stations.

The Committee recommends that the two jurisdictions undertakea storm water management-study of the Corridor. This wasrecommended in the original 1992 study and has not been undertaken.

The PFRWTA has requested a 20-year estimate of future waterand sewer capacity needs for the Corridor. It is recommended that,once the current flows are established, future projections be made bythe Montgomery County PSA and City of Radford Utility staffs basedon the future land use map.

Lastly, the Committee recommends that the City provide serviceto an area of the Corridor in the County which is adjacent to the Citybut outside the Corridor Agreement utility service areas, under aseparate agreement.

Bicycle Routes/Facilities

Citizens provided significant input concerning bicycle facilitiesalong Rt. 177 as well as a route between the City and Radford

University's Selu Conservancy located across 1-81 in MontgomeryCounty. As a result, the Committee recommends the following changesto local bicycle plans:

• The County and City should amend their respective bicycleplans to show Wintergreen Drive (County and City portions)and Lovely Mount Drive (Bike Rt. 76 portion in County) asbike lane facilities with bike lanes to be added at some pointin the future.

• The County should add the segment of Dry Valley Roadfrom Lovely Mount Drive to the Selu Conservancy entrance(approx. 1.3 miles) to its bicycle plan as a bike lane facilitywith bike lanes to be added at some point in the future.

• The County should amend its bicycle plan to change TylerRoad (Rt. 177) from a shared road designation to a bike lanefacility with the bike lanes to be added at some point in thefuture.

Land Use Regulation: Open Space

The current Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance for the Route177 Corridor Overlay District includes a lot requirement, whichspecifies a maximum lot coverage (i.e., by buildings and paved areas)of 50 percent for all underlying base zoning districts. As noted in theOrdinance, the Route 177 Corridor Overlay regulations are intendedto protect the essential characteristics of the Corridor while allowingwell-planned development. The lot coverage requirement was designedto preserve open space in the corridor.

While the original 1992 Corridor Study did not recommend a lotcoverage maximum, it did recognize the concept of Rt. 177 as a"gateway entrance," The original study also acknowledged the roleof appearance and image in such a gateway.

In carrying out its work, the Committee heard from several corridorland owners who expressed concern that the County's 50 percent lotcoverage maximum placed a hardship on those who developed orintended to develop property for business/commercial use. TheCommittee recognizes that there may be alternatives available whichallow the creation/maintenance of an attractive gateway along Rt.177, while permitting a lot coverage/open space requirement forbusiness/commercial development, which is less restrictive than the


current regulation.The Committee recommends the following:

• For underlying residential zoning districts in the Countyportion of the corridor, the maximum lot coverage percentagesshould be made consistent with those of like residentialzoning districts in the County outside the corridor.

• Given the complexity of the maximum lot coverage/openspace issue involving business/commercial-zoned parcels,the Committee does not recommend a specific change.However, the Committee recommends that planning stafffrom the two localities, along with New River Valley PlanningDistrict Commission staff, work to identify alternatives forconsideration by the County and City Planning Commissions,The alternatives identified through this effort should beaimed at maintaining an attractive gateway along Rt. 177,while providing more flexibility to commercial propertyowners.

Future Land Use Process

Future land use is specifically directed by local policies andordinances, such as zoning and subdivision ordinances. The followingrecommendations are made concerning the future land use process:

• That any new development requires site plan review,

• That a Utility Services Policy (see next section) beImplemented to require a Test for Adequate Facilities beforeapproval is given to any site plan or rezoning (to limitdevelopment to that which can be supported by existing orplanned water and sewer infrastructure). This would beenacted through changes in the zoning ordinances for theCorridor. A copy of any submitted plan or rezoning applicationwould go to the County PSA and City Utility staffs forreview and comments. In implementing the AdequateFacilities Test, when the County PSA and City Utilitymeasurements of flows would result in different test outcomes,an option is to call upon an independent third party to provideflow numbers.

• That new development be in conformance with theComprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map.

Cellular and other communication towers are an emerging issuein the Corridor and for localities throughout Virginia. The Committeerecognizes that cellular and other communication towers, regardlessof ownership, constitute land uses, which are subject to local zoningand development regulations. Development of cellular and othercommunication towers in the Corridor is subject to the existing jointreview process earned out by Montgomery County and the City ofRadford, as guided by the Joint Comprehensive Plan and Future LandUse Map for the Corridor, Approval decisions are made based on theunderlying zoning district regulations, A multi-jurisdictional task forcein the region is examining issues and options related to siting ofcommunication towers. The Committee urges that pertinentrecommendations of the task force for dealing with communicationtower development be incorporated into the two localities' developmentregulations and joint review process.

Land Use Planning

Future land use is guided by the Comprehensive Plan, which inturn shapes the Future Land Use Map.

The following section is recommended to be adopted into the JointComprehensive Plan by the City of Radford and Montgomery CountyThis recommends and acknowledges the Utility Services Policy,proposed changes to the zoning ordinance, and a Future Land UseMap. The Utility Services Policy should be adopted as a stand-alonepolicy, implemented through ordinance changes.

The Committee also recommends that the planning commissionsperiodically call upon the County PSA the City's Water and WastewaterUtility to update water and sewer flow levels.

Finally, the Committee recommends that the City of Radford andMontgomery County jointly conduct a feasibility analysis of the high-density Planned Unit Development areas for suitability for jointindustrial development.


RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE JOINTCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MONTGOMERYCOUNTY/CITY OF RADFORD JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(JOINT REVIEW section), TO PROVIDE THAT ALL NEWDEVELOPMENT IN THE 177 CORRIDOR REQUIRE SITE PLANREVIEWS AND THAT ALL SITE PLANS AND REZONINGS(INCLUDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS) ARESUBJECT TO LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR WATERAND SEWER CAPACITY, TO REQUIRE THAT THE LEVEL OFSERVICE REVIEW INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF ANYCAPACITY PREVIOUSLY PURCHASE OR EARMARKED ANDANY SITE PLANS ALREADY APPROVED; AND TO PROVIDEFOR AN EXEMPTION TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICESTANDARDS WHERE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WILL HAVEMINIMAL 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 MontgomeryCounty and the Council of the City of Radford, that their JointComprehensive Plan (Joint Review provisions) be amended as follows:

Joint ReviewBoth the City and the County must provide for joint review of

zoning issues and development plans by a joint DevelopmentCommittee (County) / Zoning Committee (City). This activity wasspecified in the Route 177 Corridor Agreement- Joint review is centralto the effective implementation of the Corridor recommendations,and achievement of the future Sand use patterns illustrated in theattached figures.

Montgomery County and the City of Radford have previouslyestablished a number of documents and policies related to planningand land use in the Corridor. These include The Virginia 177/TylerAvenue Corridor Study (1992), the Future Land Use Map for theCorridor (1992), and this Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Virginia177/Tyler Avenue Corridor Area (1993) and the update of thesedocuments (2000). The governing bodies, planning commissions, andcounty and city staffs rely extensively on these policies in makingdecisions on all land use matters, including rezonings, conditional usepermits, preliminary subdivision plans, preliminary site plans, and

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 thatthe existing zoning is unreasonable and should be changed. Theattached -amendment (Attachment A) should be added to the ZoningOrdinance; it sets out the factors, which should be addressed indeciding whether a proposed rezoning of a piece of property shouldbe approved.

The first factor listed is whether the proposed rezoning is consistentwith the Comprehensive Plan. Many applicants refer only to the LandUse Plan/Map to argue that their proposed rezoning is consistent withthe Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan shows the anticipatedultimate development of the Corridor when it is fully built out. It doesnot provide policies or standards on whether the property should berezoned. Those policies and standards are provided in the text of theComprehensive Plan. Policies for Evaluating Site Plans and RezoningRequests.

Four key policies should be used in evaluating the appropriatenessof site plans and rezoning requests:

1. Require that site plans, rezoning and use permit applicationswhich would bring more intense uses to properties eitherdemonstrate that existing services and infrastructure wouldnot be adversely affected by the new uses, or profferimprovements that would directly satisfy the service andinfrastructure demands which the new uses would create.

2. Support developments and improvements, which strengthenand fulfill the vision for the Corridor, Recognize that Rt.177 serves as a gateway to the City of Radford and RadfordUniversity.

3. Evaluate and act upon site plan, rezoning and use permitapplications on the basis of their timeliness that is, whetherthe uses proposed are compatible with the surroundingcommunity as it now exists, even if the proposed uses areprojected by the Plan as an ultimate development, andwhether the introduction of the new uses at a particular timewould cause deterioration of the surrounding communityinstead of strengthening the community in its transition toits ultimate projected character.

4. Discourage developments and rezonings to more intenseuses which will increase demand on limited water and sewercapacity, unless the necessary improvements are within


local or state improvement plans, or unless the developerprovides improvements which will directly meet the demandscreated by the development,

Related Implementation Policies

1. The policies from the Comprehensive Plan, as listed above, willbe followed to the maximum extent possible.

Level of Service (LOS) standards are to be applied throughoutthe Tyler Avenue/177 Corridor (see map) to all site plans andrezoning applications, including rezoning for planned unitdevelopments (see "Tests for Adequate Facilities.") Such LOSstandards are intended to provide an objective standard fordetermining whether public facilities are adequate to meet thedemands created by new development and proposed rezonings.This standard will be applied consistently to all site plans andrezoning applications to determine their timeliness.

The implementation of the Test for Adequate Facilities requirescalculation of present water and sewer usage levels (seeDefinitions below). Note that once the current flows aredetermined, they should be utilized as a baseline for futurecalculations. The existing water/sewer capacities are determinedby the Route 177 Corridor Agreement (1993).

PSA and City Utility staff should conduct an ongoing assessmentof flow and usage levels. A copy of each we plan and rezoningapplication should be submitted to the Montgomery CountyPublic Service Authority (PSA), the City Utility staff, and thePeppers Ferry Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority, whichwill then provide their findings and recommendations to thePlanning Commission. If the Montgomery County PSA andthe City Utility flow numbers are different enough to impactthe outcome of the Test of Adequate Facilities, an option is tocall upon an independent third party to determine flows forthe Test.

2. The Board/Council specify as part of their zoning policy for thisCorridor that any parcel rezoned to a more intense use or in anyPUD 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

overlay area are exempt from the Level of Service test (no mandatoryhook-up to public water and sewer.) Parcels in the County butadjacent to the City and not in the PUD overlay area, may petitionthe City of Radford for utility service without being subjected tothe Level of Service test.

3. Infrastructure extensions by Peppers Ferry Regional WastewaterTreatment Authority, the Montgomery County PSA and otheragencies will be reviewed by the Planning Commission forcompliance with the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with statelaw The section of the Comprehensive Plan related to Public utilitiesis hereby strengthened to indicate that major sewer line extensionswill be directed into areas where the governing bodies would liketo channel growth and will not be approved for areas where thePlan discourages growth.

Definitions:

1. Existing water/sewer capacityExisting water/sewer capacity shall mean the maximum publicwater/sewer capacity available under the Route 177 CorridorAgreement.

2. Usage levelUsage level is the sum of the average daily flow for the previous12 months (as agreed to by the Montgomery County PSA andCity of Radford Utility Office, or as measured by an independentthird party if significant disparity exists between the PSA andCity), any amount previously purchased or earmarked for specificfuture uses, and the amount projected to be used for currentlyapproved site plans. Usage level shall be tabulated on an ongoingbasis by the PSA and the City Utility staffs.


Adequate Facilities Policy

A,Sewer Facilities

1. Test for Adequate Sewer Facilitiesa. 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 Facilitiesif it does not anticipate sewer usage levels abovethe 80 percent capacity level.

2. For one that would anticipate the sewer usagelevel between 80 and 90 percent to pass the testfor Adequate Sewer Facilities, there must be aplan to expand sewer capacity.

3. For one that would anticipate the usage level at90 percent or above to pass the test for AdequateSewer Facilities, there must be a commitmentof funds to cover planned sewer expansion.

b. If the site plan or rezoning application does not passthe test for Adequate Sewer Facilities, the JointReview should result in recommended denial of theapplication.

2. Conditions for Modificationsa. Where a public sewer system improvement project

is scheduled to be completed within one year of thedate that the Board/Council is expected to considera site plan or rezoning request which will improvethe LOS of the sewer system, giving fullconsideration to the future impact of developmentof vacant lots, the plan or proposed rezoning willpass the test for Adequate Sewer Facilities. Thesewer improvement project may be a state or localproject, or the applicant may offer voluntarily toprovide such improvements. Appropriate publicutility representatives shall make the determinationof whether or not the sewer improvements will becompleted within one year of the date considerationis scheduled for the subject site plan or rezoningapplication.

b. In certain instances, the Joint Review process,Board/City Council and Planning Commission mayconsider such factors as the degree of fiscal impactto the localities, potential employment, and thedegree to which the proposal will achieve theCounty/City's Economic Development goals.

All residential site plan or rezoning requests which would allowfor the creation of not more than five (5) lots for single-familydwellings, excluding ail multi-family developments, are exempt fromthe LOS test for Adequate Sewer Facilities. The number of lots thatcan be created shall be determined on the basis of development criteriain the local zoning and subdivision ordinances.

B. Water Facilities

1. Test for Adequate Water Facilitiesa. 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 Facilitiesif it does not anticipate water usage levels abovethe 80 percent capacity level.

2. For one that would anticipate The water usagelevel between 80 and 90 percent to pass the testfor Adequate Water Facilities, there must be aplan to expand water capacity.

3. For one that would anticipate the usage level at90 percent or above to pass the test for AdequateWater Facilities, there must be a commitmentof funds to cover planned water expansion.

b. If the site plan or proposed rezoning does not passthe test for Adequate Water Facilities, the JointReview should result in recommended denial of theapplication.

2. Conditions for Modificationsa. Where a public water system improvement project

is scheduled to be completed within one year of thedate that the Board/Council is expected to considera site plan or rezoning request which will improve


the LOS of the sewer system, giving fullconsideration to the future impact of developmentof vacant lots, the proposed rezoning will pass thetest for Adequate Water Facilities- The waterimprovement project may be a state or local project,or the applicant may offer voluntarily to providesuch improvements. Appropriate public utilityrepresentatives shall make the determination ofwhether or not the water improvements will becompleted within one year of the date considerationis scheduled for the subject site plan or rezoningapplication.

b. In certain instances, the Joint Review process, theBoard/City Council and Planning Commission mayconsider such factors as the degree of fiscal impactto the localities, potential employment, and thedegree to which the proposal will achieve theCounty/City's Economic Development goals.

c. All residential site plans or rezoning requests whichwould allow for the creation of not more than five(5) lots for single-family dwellings, excluding allmultifamily developments, are exempt from theLOS test for Adequate Water Facilities, The numberof lots which can be created shall be determined onthe basis of development criteria in the local zoningand subdivision ordinances.

Attachment A

Recommended Revision to the Montgomery County/City of RadfordZONING ORDINANCE for Expansion Area Overlay District (177Corridor)

If the application is for a reclassification of property to a differentzoning district classification (a rezoning, including rezoning for aPlanned Unit Development), the report of the Planning Commissionshould contain findings on Level of Service (Tests of AdequateFacilities) and the following matters, as appropriate:

a. Whether and in what respect the proposed zoning districtclassification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

b. Whether and in what respect there are any changed orchanging conditions in the area affected that make theproposed rezoning necessary.

c. Whether and in what respect the range of uses in the proposedzoning district classifications are compatible with the usespermitted on other properly in the immediate vicinity.

d. Whether and in what respect adequate public facilities andservices exist or can be provided to service the uses thatwould be permitted on the property if it were rezoned.


Montgomery

Handbook

Adopted: 10/12/04

MontgomeryCounty, 2025

Montgomery County, 2025

Montgomery County Comprehensive PlanAdopted: 12 October 2004

The Montgomery County, 2025 Handbook consists of the critical features map, the future land use map, and thegoals, objectives, and strategies from the adopted comprehensive plan. It is provided as a reference and is not meantto take the place of the full comprehensive plan.

Page Nos.:Handbook

Page Nos.:MC2025 START END START END START END

1 35 PLU 1.0 PLU 1.2.1 23 82 CRS 1.2.4 CRS 2.1.4 45 175 HHS 1.0 HHS 2.5

2 36 PLU 1.2.2 PLU 1.2.3 24 83 CRS 3.0 CRS 3.2.3 46 176 HHS 3.0 HHS 4.3

3 37 PLU 1.3 PLU 1.3.3 25 99 ECD 1.0 ECD 1.4 47 177 HHS 5.0 HHS 5.5

4 38 PLU 1.4 PLU 1.4.1 26 100 ECD 2.0 ECD 2.2.3 48 189 HSG 1.0 HSG 1.1.7

5 39 PLU 1.4.2 PLU 1.4.3 27 101 ECD 3.0 ECD 3.2.3 49 190 HSG 1.2 HSG 1.3.3

6 40 PLU 1.5 PLU 1.5.3 28 102 ECD 4.0 ECD 4.3 50 197 SFY 1.0 SFY 1.3

7 41 PLU 1.6 PLU 1.6.3 29 116 EDU 1.0 EDU 1.2.2 51 198 SFY 1.3.1 SFY 1.5.3

8 42 PLU 1.6.4 PLU 1.6.5 30 117 EDU 2.0 EDU 2.2.4 52 206 PRC 1.0 PRC 1.3.2

9 43 PLU 1.7 PLU 1.7.1 31 136 ENV 1.0 ENV 1.3.5 53 207 PRC 2.0 PRC 2.5

10 44 PLU 1.7.2 PLU 1.7.4 32 137 ENV 1.4 ENV 2.3 54 219 TRN 1.0 TRN 1.2.1

11 45 PLU 1.7.5 PLU 1.8.3 33 138 ENV 2.4 ENV 2.8.2 55 220 TRN 1.2.2 TRN 1.4.2

12 46 PLU 1.8.4 PLU 1.8.5 34 139 ENV 2.1.1 ENV 2.1.7 56 221 TRN 1.4.3 TRN 2.3.1

13 47 PLU 1.8.6 PLU 1.9 35 140 ENV 2.1.8 ENV 2.1.12 57 222 TRN 2.3.2 TRN 2.5.8

14 48 PLU 2.0 PLU 2.2.1 36 141 ENV 3.0 ENV 3.2.3 58 223 TRN 2.6 TRN 3.2.1

15 49 PLU 2.3 PLU 2.4 37 142 ENV 3.2.4 ENV 3.4.6 59 224 TRN 3.2.2 TRN 4.2.2

16 50 PLU 3.0 PLU 3.1.1 38 143 ENV 3.5 ENV 4.2.2 60 225 TRN 5.0 TRN 5.2.3

17 51 PLU 3.1.1 39 144 ENV 4.3 ENV 5.1.3 61 234 UTL 1.0 UTL 1.2.2

18 66 PNG 1.0 PNG 2.1.4 40 145 ENV 5.2 ENV 5.5.2 62 235 UTL 1.2.3 UTL 1.4.3

19 67 PNG 2.1.5 PNG 3.1.3 41 146 ENV 5.5.3 ENV 5.7.2 63 236 UTL 2.0 UTL 2.3.2

20 68 PNG 3.1.4 PNG 4.1.1 42 147 ENV 6.0 ENV 6.5.3 64 237 UTL 3.0 UTL 4.3

21 69 PNG 4.1.2 PNG 7.3 43 148 ENV 6.6 ENV 7.1.4

22 81 CRS 1.0 CRS 1.2.3 44 149 ENV 7.1.5 ENV 7.3.3

Page Nos.:Handbook

Page Nos.:MC2025

Page Nos.:Handbook

Page Nos.:MC2025

Land Use PoliciesPLU Goal 1.0 Balanced Growth: The County will maintain a balancebetween urban and rural areas by planning for orderly growth tooccur in areas with adequate resources and services to support growth.

PLU 1.1 Planning Policy Areas: Establish boundaries fordistinct urban and rural planning policy areas and identifypreferred development patterns for each planning area to (i)promote growth where it can be supported by infrastructureimprovements; (ii) maintain existing community character;and (iii) preserve agriculture, forestry, and related uses wheremost appropriate based on natural resources and where existingdevelopment and land use patterns support the continuationof these uses.

PLU 1.1.1 Policy Area Designations: Develop apolicy for the periodic consideration by the county oflandowner requests to change policy area designationsin the Comprehensive Plan.

PLU 1.2 Resource Stewardship Areas: Resource StewardshipAreas are generally defined as rural areas of the County thathave high resource value based on soil types, or that areenvironmentally sensitive due to topography or unique landcharacteristics. These areas include national forest land, statelands, private preserves, undeveloped prime agricultural soilsand soils of local importance, agricultural and forestal districts,land that is subject to private conservation easements andconservation zoning and areas of predominantly 25% slopeor greater. This planning policy area is the least denselydeveloped of all of the planning areas and includes manylargely undeveloped areas of the County. (3)

Cross References and Notes:3. While resource stewardship is a theme which runs throughout this plan, specificreferences to the resource stewardship areas are also included in the EnvironmentalResource 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 toOpen Space and Agricultural Preservation (pg. 34); ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, andSurface 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 foundin CRS 1.1 (pg. 22).

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 AgriculturalPreservation (pg. 34); and ENV 6.4 Conservation (pg. 42).

PLU 1.2.1 Resource Stewardship Area Land Uses:

a. The preferred land uses for Resource StewardshipAreas include agriculture, forest uses, outdoorrecreational uses, other natural resource based usesand accessory uses directly related to the support ofthe preferred land uses.

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

c. Private and public conservation efforts and farmlandretention programs, such as agricultural and forestaldistricts, should be focused in Resource StewardshipAreas. (4)

d. Non-residential uses, except those incidental to andsupportive of agriculture, forest, outdoor recreationalor other preferred land uses, will be discouraged inResource Stewardship Areas.

e. Rezoning to allow higher intensity uses in ResourceStewardship Areas will be discouraged.

f. The County may permit new non-agriculturally relatedinstitutional uses by special use permit provided theuse is compatible in scale and intensity withagricultural and rural residential uses, poses no threatto public health, safety and welfare, and if the usehelps preserve farmland, open space or historic, scenicor natural resources.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Land Use Policies 1

PLU 1.2.2 Resource Stewardship Area CommunityDesign:

a. Development densities in Resource StewardshipAreas are based on a sliding scale approach andrange from .05 to 1.0 dwelling units per acre. (5)

b. New residential development proposed in ResourceStewardship Areas should be clustered, or exhibitother conservation design principles, to preserveon-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open spaceor environmental resources. (6)

c. The County will vigorously support "Right to Farm"policies in Resource Stewardship Areas to protectexisting farms and farmers from nuisance complaintsfrom neighboring rural residents. Plats for newresidential lots located in the Resource StewardshipArea shall disclose that the preferred land use in theimmediate vicinity of the new lot is agriculture,forestry, and related uses. (7)

PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Area CommunityFacilities and Utilities:

a. Future sewer and water service extensions toResource Stewardship Areas will be discouragedexcept to resolve existing public health threats orto interconnect existing individual systems. (8)

b. With the exception of public parks and outdoorrecreation facilities, Resource Stewardship Areas willnot be a preferred location for new communityfacilities.

c. Transportation access and improvements in ResourceStewardship Areas will be limited to what is necessaryto serve very low-density development. New ruralresidential subdivisions should be served by internalstreets that connect to existing rural roads to avoidstrip development and to minimize individualdriveway access along existing public roads.

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

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 Spaceand 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 OpenSpace 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 ValueAssessment (pg. 35).

8. Limits on the expansion of utilities into the resource stewardship areas areaddressed in UTL 1.2.5 Growth Boundary (pg. 62).


PLU 1.3 Rural Areas: Rural Areas are generally defined asareas of the County, not generally served by public utilities,where agricultural and rural residential uses are predominantand should be preserved and stabilized. These areas includelow-density rural residential subdivisions and active agricultureon secondary agricultural soils. Agricultural uses in theseareas are often fragmented and subject to encroaching ruralresidential development.

PLU 1.3.1 Rural Area Land Uses:

a. The preferred land uses in Rural Areas are ruralresidential development and agriculture. Ratherthan promoting new rural residential developmentin Rural Areas, the County seeks to maintain therural character of existing rural residentialdevelopments. The County also seeks to maintainexisting agricultural uses in Rural Areas.

b. The County will continue to promote farmlandretention programs, such as agricultural and forestaldistricts, in Rural Areas. (9)

c. New low-density rural residential development willbe permitted, but not encouraged, in Rural Areas.Where such development does occur, the Countywill encourage compact or clustered developmentto preserve open space and natural resources. (10)

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

e. New non-agriculturally based industrial andcommercial uses will generally be discouraged inRural Areas, unless the use is compatible in scale

and intensity with agricultural and rural residentialuses and poses no threat to public health, safety andwelfare. (12)

f. The County may permit new non-agriculturallyrelated institutional uses by special exceptionprovided the use is compatible in scale and intensitywith agricultural and rural residential uses and posesno threat to public health, safety and welfare.

PLU 1.3.2. Rural Area Community Design:

a. New development in Rural Areas shall not exceed0.75 dwelling unit per acre.

b. New residential development proposed in RuralAreas should be clustered, or exhibit otherconservation design principles, to preserve on-sitenatural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space orenvironmental resources. (13)

PLU 1.3.3. Rural Area Community Facilities andUtilities:

a. Future sewer and water service extensions to RuralAreas will be discouraged except to resolve existingpublic health threats or to interconnect existingindividual systems. (14)

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 ForestalDistricts (pg. 34).10. Rural residential cluster development is addressed in ENV 2.1.5: Rural ClusterDevelopment (pg. 34).11. Controlling rural density is addressed in ENV 2.1.9: Urban Growth Boundaries--Urban and Village Expansion (pg. 35).

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 arediscussed 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: PrivateOpen 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 NaturalLandscapes (pg. 37); ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features (142); and ENV 5.4Wellhead Protection (pg. 40).14. Additional references on utilities in rural areas can be found in ENV 2.1.9 UrbanGrowth Boundaries--Urban and Village Expansion Areas (pg. 35), UTL 1.2.5 GrowthBoundaries (pg. 62); and UTL 1.3 Private Systems (pg. 62).


b. With the exception of public parks, recreationfacilities, and solid waste collection facilities, RuralAreas will not be a preferred location for newcommunity facilities

c. Transportation access is via existing collectorhighways. New rural residential subdivisions shouldbe served by internal streets that connect to existingrural roads to avoid strip development and tominimize individual driveway access along existingcollector highways. (15)

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

Cross References and Notes:15. Issues connected to subdivision road systems can be found in TRN 1.3Subdivisions (pg. 55) and TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity (pg.55).

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 onetime a commercial district, many have existing historical structures included in theMontgomery County Survey of Historical Sites, and all have been places peopleidentify themselves as “being from.” A few places already have access to limitedpublic water or sewer, such as Alleghany Springs. However, most are not currentlyserved 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 Planningfor Rural Communities (pg. 21).

PLU 1.4 Rural Communities: Rural Communities aregenerally defined as scattered, small-scale, stable ruralresidential communities of local historic significance. Thesecommunities, often located at crossroads, have specific placenames and have traditionally functioned as community focalpoints. Some of these communities include areas zoned tohigher residential categories than the surrounding the ruralcommunity. Some of these communities also have limitedpublic sewer and/or water service. The existing developmentpattern in these areas should be preserved. (16)

PLU 1.4.1 Rural Communities Land Uses:

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

b. Small-scale, civic, institutional and employment uses maybe permitted in rural communities in locations that enhancethe compact nature of these communities, provided theydo not pose a threat to public health, safety, or welfare, andprovided they are compatible with adjacent land uses.

c. Rezonings to allow higher intensity uses at the edge ofRural Communities will be discouraged. Rezonings maybe considered for residential or non-residential infilldevelopment that enhances the community fabric byaugmenting the core of the Rural Community, provided theproposed development is compatible with adjacent usesand can be supported by existing or improved roads andplanned or existing utilities.


Cross References and Notes:18. Private and individual sewerage systems are addressed in UTL 1.3 PrivateSystems (pg. 62) and UTL1.4 Individual Systems (pg. 62).

Cross References and Notes:19. The placement of park and recreational facilities are discussed in PRC 2.5 PlanReview (pg. 53).20. See TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity (pg. 55) for a discussion oftransportation considerations in subdivisions and developments.

PLU 1.4.2 Rural Communities Community Design:

a. New residential development in Rural Communities shouldbe predominately single family residential. Appropriatedevelopment densities in Rural Areas should be determinedon a case by case basis, depending on existing zoning. Inthe case of a rezoning, the proposal must demonstrate thatdevelopment densities will be of an intensity that is similarto or compatible with surrounding existing development.

b. New development proposed in Rural Communities shouldbe designed to relate to existing community elements andprovide logical connections to existing streets, sidewalksand other features. Design elements should includes agenerally interconnected street network, defined openspaces that serve as exterior rooms, multiple uses withina single building, multiple uses adjacent to one another,building fronts set close to the street, comfortable and safepedestrian access between sites and along sidewalks, on-street parking, and parking lots and garages located behindbuildings.

c. New structures should be of a scale and type that areconsistent with existing structures.

d. New residential development proposed in Rural Communitiesshould exhibit conservation design principles, to preserveon-site natural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space orenvironmental resources.

PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities Community Facilities andUtilities:

a. Future sewer and water service extensions to RuralCommunities will be discouraged except to resolve existingpublic health threats or to interconnect existing individualsystems. (18)

b. With the exception of public parks, recreation facilities,and solid waste collection facilities, Rural Communitieswill not be a preferred location for new community facilities.However, the County does encourage the maintenance,enhancement and where appropriate, the expansion ofexisting community facilities that serve a regional need.(19)

c. Transportation access is via existing collector highways.New development in Rural Communities will be designedto access existing roads. Road improvements may benecessary to ensure safe ingress and egress. Street designmust be compatible with the historic character of the localroads, in terms of pavement width, building setbacks, etc.(20)


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 (pg. 49). Subdivision development isaddressed in HSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods (pg. 48); HSG 1.3 Safe Neighborhoods(pg. 49); and TRN 1.3 Subdivisions (pg. 55).

Cross References and Notes:22. The preservation of open space, agricultural lands, and the rural character arediscussed in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 22); ENV 2.0 Open Space andNatural 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 Protectionof Riparian Features (pg. 37).23. Information on the location public facilities are included in PRC 2.5 PlanningReview (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).

PLU 1.5. Residential Transition Areas: Residential TransitionAreas are generally defined as stable, low density residentialneighborhoods in close proximity to Municipalities and UrbanExpansion or areas of higher density residential developmentoutside of Villages, Village Expansion Areas, and RuralCommunities, such as major subdivisions and mobile homeparks. These areas include undeveloped land that has beenpreviously zoned for residential development. There is limitedpublic sewer and/or water service in some of these areas.

PLU 1.5.1 Residential Transition Area Land Uses:

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

b. The County anticipates residential development ofinfill properties in existing subdivisions and ofundeveloped properties with existing residentialzoning. Development on in-fill properties shouldbe compatible with adjacent development in termsof scale and density and should provide a seamlesstransition from existing to new development. (20)

c. The County should evaluate portions of theResidential Transition areas that have built out atdevelopment levels that are lower than what wouldbe permitted by zoning to determine if there is anybenefit to rezone these areas to be consistent withactual development.

PLU 1.5.2 Residential Transition Area CommunityDesign:

a. New development in Residential Transition Areas

shall not exceed 1 dwelling unit per acre, with theexception of developments served by both publicwater and sewer.

b. New development proposed in Residential TransitionAreas should be clustered, or exhibit otherconservation design principles to preserve on-sitenatural, cultural, historic, scenic, open space, orenvironmental resources. (22)

c. New development in Residential Transition Areasshould be designed to be compatible with existingneighborhoods and subdivisions.

PLU 1.5.3 Residential Transition Area Facilitiesand Utilities: (23)

a. Future sewer and water service extensions toResidential Transition Areas will be discouragedexcept to resolve existing public health threats orto interconnect existing individual systems or whenprovided by private developers

b. With the exception of public parks, recreationfacilities, and solid waste collection facilities,Residential Transition Areas will not be a preferredlocation for new community facilities. However,the County does encourage the maintenance,enhancement and where appropriate, the expansionof existing community facilities that serve a regionalneed.


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 inPLU 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).

c. Transportation improvements in these areas willgenerally be limited to routine maintenance andenhancements needed to improve public safety.Countywide or regional transportation improvementsthat may affect Residential Transition Areas shouldbe designed to minimize and/or mitigate potentialnegative impacts on these areas.

PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas: These are "areas ofinterest" associated with the designated Villages. These arenatural expansion areas for the Villages that may potentiallybe served by future public sewer and water extensions.Preliminary boundaries should be set based on utility serviceareas, physical and natural features that define the "area ofinterest" and existing zoning. Local community planningefforts should determine final boundaries.

PLU 1.6.1 Village Expansion Areas Planning Process.The County will develop a planning process to workjointly with residents of each village and surroundingarea to define a specific village expansion boundaryand to prepare a village plan to guide futuredevelopment. Upon completion, each village planshould be adopted as an amendment to the countywideComprehensive Plan. (24)

PLU 1.6.2 Village and Village Expansion ZoningAmendments. Review and revise the Zoning Ordinanceto create mixed use, "traditional neighborhood design"development options that will facilitate compacttraditional design of new projects in Villages andVillage Expansion areas. (25)

PLU 1.6.3 Village Expansion Area Land Use:

a. Village Expansion Areas are intended to provide analternative to scattered rural residential developmentand to provide an opportunity to enhance the vitalityof existing villages by providing for compatibleexpansions of residential and employment uses.Village expansion areas are adjacent to existing


Cross References and Notes:26. Compact development and Traditional Neighborhood Designs are addressed in PLU3.0: 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).

Cross References and Notes:27. Historic preservation is addressed in CRS 1.1: Historic Villages, Districts, andCorridors (pg. 22).28. Environmental and open space preservation is addressed, more specifically, inENV 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 Preservationof 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 3.1.4Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities (pg. 20); PNG 4.0: Villages andSmall 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 andNeighborhood 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 3.2.1Consolidated Collection Sites (pg. 64).

villages where appropriate new development can beaccommodated while retaining the viability andcharacter of the historic village core.

b. A mix of appropriately scaled residential, non-residential and community uses are anticipated inVillage Expansion Areas.

c. Specific land use recommendations will be developedas Village Plans and Village Expansion Area plansare developed and adopted.

PLU 1.6.4 Village Expansion Area CommunityDesign:

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

b. Compact development and a range of housing typesare encouraged in Village Expansion Areas as longas new development is sensitive to existing villagecharacter and design. (26)

c. Development in Village Expansion Areas should bedesigned to complement and augment the historiccharacter and development pattern of the adjacentexisting village by becoming a natural "extension"of the existing village. New development in theexpansion areas should relate closely to the existingvillage and should be an "organic" continuation ofthe historic fabric of the village. Design elementshould include a generally interconnected streetnetwork, define open spaces that serve as "exteriorrooms," multiple uses within a single building,multiple uses adjacent to one another, building frontsset close to the street, comfortable and safe pedestrianaccess between sites and along sidewalks, on-street

parking, and parking lots and garages located behindbuildings.

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

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

f. Street design must be compatible with the historiccharacter of the local roads, in terms of pavementwidth, building setbacks, etc.

PLU 1.6.5 Village Expansion Area Facilities andUtilities:

a. Extensions of sewer and water lines from existingvillages into Village Expansion Areas will bepermitted in accordance with the adoptedComprehensive Plan Amendment for each village.(29)

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


Cross References and Notes:31. Transportation is addressed in TRN 1.3 Subdivisions (pg. 55) and TRN 1.4Connectivity and Access Management (pg. 55).

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 boththe sense of community within the Villages and strengthens the Villages’ role as afocal point for surrounding communities. The importance of community assets isalso addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design (pg. 16); PNG 3.1.1 Multi-use ofFacilities (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 LivableCommunities (pg. 45); HHS 4.2 Emergency Care Facilities (pg. 46); HHS 4.3Emergency Response Facilities and Staff (pg. 46); HHS 5.0 Human Services andFacilities (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 (PLU1.6), Urban Expansion Areas (PLU 1.7), and Municipalities (Blacksburg andChristiansburg) represent the primary targeted areas for future development. It shouldbe noted, however, that not all types of growth and development are appropriate forall focused growth areas and projects will continue to be evaluated on a case by casebasis 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 RuralCommunities (pg. 20).

c. Roads serving new development in VillageExpansion Areas should be designed to tie into andenhance the existing street network serving theadjacent village. New roads and road improvementsand should be designed to accommodate pedestriansas well as motor vehicles, rather than allowingmotor vehicles to cause and unsafe and unpleasantpedestrian environment. (31)

PLU 1.7. Villages: These are larger rural communities wherelimited mixed-use development activity has historically occurredand public utilities are available. They are separate and distinctfrom each other and from nearby towns. Villages usually havea higher density, identifiable core that includes a mix ofresidential, business, industrial, and institutional use in atraditional development pattern. Villages have served as, andwill continue to serve as, focal points for surrounding ruralareas. (32) These include: Belview, Elliston-Lafayette, PlumCreek, Prices Fork, Riner and Shawsville. (33)

PLU 1.7.1 Village Planning Process. The County willdevelop a planning process to work jointly with residentsof each village and the surrounding area to define aspecific village expansion boundary and to prepare avillage plan to guide future development. Uponcompletion, each village plan should be adopted as anamendment to the countywide Comprehensive Plan.(34)


Cross References and Notes:35. Additional information and guidelines for community design and traditionalneighborhood designs (TND) are addressed in PLU 3.0: Community Design (pg.16).36.Small business development is addressed in CRS 1.3: Historic Preservationand Tourism (pg. 23); ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy (pg. 28); and ENV2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives (pg. 34).37. Village planning is also addressed in PNG 4.0. Villages and Rural Communities(pg. 20).

PLU 1.7.2 Village and Village Expansion ZoningAmendments. The County should review and revisethe Zoning Ordinance to create mixed use, "traditionalneighborhood" development options (35) that willfacilitate compact traditional design of new projectsin Villages and Village Expansion areas.

PLU 1.7.3 Village Area Land Use:

a. Villages should be predominately residential butmay include a "downtown" area of business,commercial and institutional uses at densities higherthan found in surrounding rural areas. New small-scale business, commercial, and employment usesmay be appropriate in villages provided they aresmall-scale buildings with a pedestrian orientedstreet front.

b. New small-scale industrial and employment usesmay be appropriate in villages provided they arelocated adjacent to similar uses and are designed tominimize any negative impact on the existing villagethrough limitations in scale, height, bulk andoperations, as well as provision of buffers. (36)

c. Specific land use recommendations will be developedas Village /Village Expansion Area Plans aredeveloped and adopted. (37)

PLU 1.7.4 Village Area Community Design:

a. The viability and historic character of existingvillages shall be maintained by encouraging

preservation of historic structures and preservation ofthe historic pattern of developed and undevelopedareas that define the village and its boundaries. (38)

b. New infill development may be appropriate providedit maintains the compact traditional design of patternsof existing villages and provided developmentdensities are generally consistent with adjacentproperties.

c. A mix of housing types may be appropriate in villagesprovided new development is compatible in scaleand character with existing structures. Alternativehousing types such as "granny flats" and live-workunits shall be encouraged in villages to expand therange of housing options available to Countyresidents. (39)

d. New development in the Village Areas shall conformto future Village Plans that will be adopted as partof the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Until suchspecific plans are adopted, all new developmentwithin the village shall related closely to the existing,historic fabric of the village. Design elements shouldinclude a generally interconnected street network,defined opens spaces that serve as "exterior rooms",multiple uses within a single building, multiple usesadjacent to one another, building fronts set close tothe street, comfortable and safe pedestrian accessbetween sites and along sidewalks, on-street parking,and parking lots and garages located behindbuildings.

e. Street design must be compatible with the historiccharacter of the local roads, in terms of pavementwidth, 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 addressedin PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 16).40. Context-sensitive street designs and standards is addressed in TRN1.3.4 (pg. 55).


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

PLU 1.8.1 Industrial and Business Location Study:The County Planning Department should work withthe Department of Economic Development to identifylocations for new industrial and businesses parks and/orthe expansion of existing parks in Urban ExpansionAreas. (46)

PLU 1.8.2 Corridor Planning: The County shouldidentify major transportation corridors within UrbanExpansion Areas that posses unique potential forresidential and non-residential development and initiatea corridor planning process to develop detailed landuse policies and design guidelines to guide developmentin these key corridors. (47)

PLU 1.8.3 Urban Expansion Area Land Use:

a. Urban Expansion Areas are the preferred locationfor new residential and non-residential developmentoccurring in unincorporated areas of MontgomeryCounty.

PLU 1.7.5 Village Area Facilities and Utilities:

a. Villages are served by public sewer and waterfacilities. The extension of utilities to surroundingareas may be permitted in accordance with individualVillage and Village Expansion Plans. (41)

b. Villages are a preferred location for new communityfacilities and public investments. Additionally, theCounty supports the maintenance, enhancement andwhere appropriate, the expansion of existingcommunity facilities located in villages. (42)

c. Transportation access to Villages is usually viaexisting major collector or minor arterial highways,with a network of smaller streets serving the villagecenter. New development in or adjacent to Villagesmust connect to and reinforce the traditional villageroad network. (43)

d. New roads and road improvements within a VillageAreas should be designed to accommodatepedestrians as well as motor vehicles, rather thanallowing motor vehicles to cause an unsafe andunpleasant pedestrian environment. (44)

e. Stormwater management plans for new developmentshould consider the impact of the development’sstorm water on the Village and Village ExpansionArea as a whole and provide adequate storm watermanagement facilities which work with the Village’soverall stormwater management plan andrequirements. (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, TRN1.3.4: Context-Sensitive Street Design (pg. 55).44. Street design standards are discussed in PLU 3.1.1(b) (pg. 16).See HSG 1.3: SafeNeighborhoods (pg. 49); TRN 1.3.4: Context-Sensitive Street Design (pg. 55); andTRN 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 StormwaterManagement (pg. 64).

Cross References and Notes:46. Economic development siting and facility requirements are addressed in ECD1.3 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 Villagesand/or other jurisdictions: 1) US 460/Rt 11 passes through the Villages ofElliston/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.8passes through Riner. Corridor plans are meant to address development along thestretches of road between the two towns and villages and to work, in tandem, withthe comprehensive plans of the two towns and the Village Plans. They are not meantto supersede existing town or village plans.


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 sewerfacilities (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).

b. Urban Expansions Areas will accommodate a fullrange of residential unit types and densities.

c. Major employment and commercial uses should belocated in Urban Expansion Areas, in proximity tomajor transportation corridors. The County’s majorindustrial parks located in Urban Expansion Areasshould be expanded. (48)

PLU 1.8.4 Urban Expansion Area CommunityDesign: (49)

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

b. The County will encourage high quality residentialand non-residential design in Urban ExpansionAreas. The County shall evaluate developmentproposals in Urban Expansion Areas to ensure thatproposed development is compatible with existingcommunities and uses and is designed to minimizeany negative impact on these existing neighborhoods.Such new development should be designed to providea "seamless" transition from the existing developmentto the new.

c. The County will encourage development of planned,mixed use, pedestrian and transit friendlycommunities in Urban Expansion Areas that wouldcombine office, commercial, residential, recreationaluses into a single development, with strongconnections between all sites and all uses, especiallypedestrian access along the public street network.

d. The County will encourage the use of developmentoptions (cluster, compact, mixed-use, etc. ) thatmake better use of the land concentratingdevelopment away from on-site scenic, natural,historic or open space resources. In particular, theCounty will encourage residential developmentdesigns that provide neighborhood scale open space.Such open space elements should not be "left over"areas, but rather should be key, central focal pointsof the neighborhood, designed as true communityspaces that are well defined by the street networkand adjacent buildings.

e. Development in Urban Expansion Areas will becompatible with and complimentary to developmentwithin corporate limits.

PLU 1.8.5 Urban Expansion Area Facilities andUtilities:

a. Urban Expansion Areas are or will be served bypublic sewer and water service provided by theCounty or by the towns and the City, by mutualagreement.

b. Urban Expansion Areas will be the primary focusfor public facility investments occurring outside thetowns, the City, or the Villages. Urban ExpansionAreas will be the preferred location for newcommunity facilities that cannot be located in towns,the City, or the Villages. (50)

c. Transportation improvements within the UrbanExpansion Area will be designed to tie into theexisting street network serving the City and thetowns. (51)

Cross References and Notes:48. Economic development siting and land use requirements are addressed in ECD3.0: Location and Land Use (pg. 27).49. Additional policies governing new development are addressed in PLU 2.0: NewDevelopment (pg. .48); and guidelines for community design are addressed in PLU3.0: Community Design (pg. 16). See, also, footnote #46 (pg. 11).


PLU 1.8.6 Municipal Coordination/Cooperation.The County will work with the municipalities(Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford) to identify areasof existing development that are accessed by municipalroads, served by municipal utilities and that can bestbe served by municipal services (law enforcement,trash collection, etc. ). Additionally, the County andthe municipalities will identify undeveloped areaswithin the Urban Expansion Area that are likely tohave similar characteristics once they are developed.The County will promote the orderly inclusion of suchareas into the municipalities through utility agreementsand mutually acceptable boundary line adjustments.In turn, the municipalities will use cash proffers orother revenue sharing agreements to insure that newdevelopment in such areas pays its “fair share” of thecost of providing county facilities and servicesassociated with new growth. Presently the Countycooperates with each municipality in the review ofproposed developments located close to municipalboundaries. The County will work with themunicipalities to coordinate comprehensive planningfor areas located close to municipal boundaries. (52)

1.9 Focused Growth Targets: In order to maintain a balance betweenurban and rural areas, the County targets 80% or more of futuredevelopment within the unincorporated areas to occur within theExpansion Areas, Villages, Village Expansion Areas, and the ResidentialTransition Areas. Conversely, the County targets 20% or less of futuredevelopment within the unincorporated areas to occur within the RuralCommunities, 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 specificchapters, including: PNG 1.0 Local and Regional Cooperation (pg. 18); CRS 1.1Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors (pg. 22); ECD 1.1 Montgomery CountyRegional 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: Partnershipand 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 AffordableHousing (pg. 48); PRC 1.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration (pg. 52); SFY1.5 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); andUTL 4.0: Stormwater Management (pg. 64).


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

PLU 2.1 Criteria for Evaluating Rezoning Applications:All residential rezoning requests will be evaluated using thefollowing minimum criteria:

a. Location. The property must be located within a Village,Village Expansion Area or Urban Expansion Area, with theexception of Rural Residential zoning.

b. Public Utilities. The applicant must demonstrate that theproposed development will be served by public sewer(preferably both public water and public sewer), and thatsuch service is either currently available or is planned andapproved by the County and scheduled for construction tothe site within a defined time period consistent with theother provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; with anynecessary extensions to be funded by the applicant.

c. Road Access. The property must have adequate and saferoad access, with any necessary improvements provided bythe applicant. Entrances onto existing public roads must beadequately spaced to provide safe access and maintainadequate capacity of the existing roadway. The applicantmust dedicate any right-of-way necessary for future wideningof such existing road.

d. Public Facilities and Amenities. The applicant must providea concept development plan of the entire property, showingfuture land uses, roads, walkways and trails, open spaces,public facility sites and the like.

e. Interparcel Access. The concept plan must show one ormore street connections to all adjoining properties that arenot blocked by natural barriers. The applicant must constructthese connections at the time such portion of the conceptplan is developed. Interparcel access will not be requiredif the adjacent property is located in a Rural Area or a RuralStewardship/Conservation area unless such a connection isidentified on a Countywide or regional transportation plan.

f. Pedestrian Access. The rezoning proposal must include

provisions for pedestrian mobility within the site and safe andconvenient connections for pedestrian traffic to adjacentsites and adjacent public roadways and trails.

g. Buffers. Landscaped buffers must be provided at all edgesof the site that abut existing or planned uses of lowerintensities.

PLU 2.2. Proffer Guidelines: The County will work with thedevelopment community to develop a framework for profferguidelines to be used in the evaluation of rezoning applications.

PLU 2.2.1 Proffer Guideline Principles: The Countywill consider the following principles in evaluatingand developing capital facility proffer guidelines to beused in conjunction with conditional zoning (rezoning)applications:

a. Percentage of Capital Costs: Proffers for publicfacilities and amenities will be encouraged for eachresidential rezoning, and are expected to have a totalvalue that is sufficient to represent a significant"down payment" on the cost of the various capitalfacilities that will be constructed to serve the newresidents.

b. Calculation of Capital Costs: At the County'sdiscretion, residential capital facility costs may beestimated on the basis of capital costs for the averageunit 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 facilityproffer the land, facility or fund must be dedicatedor deeded to the County or to another regional, stateor federal agency which will ensure that it is usedfor the benefit of County citizens at large and musthave a measurable value that can be quantified.

d. Capital Facilities Proffer Principles: To ensure thatthe proffer process is reasonable, effective andmanageable, any proffer guidelines development by


the County should be based on the following principles:

i. Consistency of content. Proffers should benegotiated and accepted on a consistent basisfrom one project to another. Uniformstandards for capital facilities, based uponthe Comprehensive Plan and CIP should befollowed in determining appropriate proffersfor a particular project.

ii. Consistency of format. The County shoulddevelop a consistent format for profferstatements with consistent style andterminology so that proffers are comparable.

iii.Rational Nexus. All proffers should have adirect and rational relationship to needscreated by the project itself. To the maximumextent feasible, proffers should be built orotherwise allocated so as to directly benefitthe particular project.

iv. Coordination. Proffers from neighboring oradjacent developments should be coordinatedto the maximum extent possible in order toensure compatibility and consistency, and toavoid redundancy and conflict.

e. Transportation Proffers: Proffers for roads and roadimprovements are considered a separate item, notincluded within the guideline due to the Statesresponsibility for public roads. Road proffers shouldbe based upon the specific needs of the site and itssurrounding road network.

f. Types of Capital Facilities Proffers: The County'sproffer guidelines should be comprehensive andmay include the following types of proffers asappropriate 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.

g. Other Types of Proffers: The County profferguidelines should also allow for a variety of othertypes of proffers that will enhance the quality ofdevelopment in the County including:

i. Reservation of sites for private, non-profitcommunity facilities;

ii. Phasing of development

iii. Impact mitigation;

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 willbe evaluated with respect to their impact on the critical,sensitive, special, and historical resources delineated on theCritical Features Map.

PLU 2.4 2232 Review Policy: Develop a policy for the reviewby the county, in accordance with Section 15.2-2232 of theCode of Virginia, of proposed new community facilities andexpansion of existing community facilities. Such constructionand expansions require careful consideration by local decisionmakers to assure that the needs and interests of the communityare fulfilled in the most appropriate manner. The policy shouldinclude (1) a definition of public facility, (2) a list of whattypes of facilities are exempt from 2232 review, (3) applicationrequirements for agencies and individuals submittingprojects/proposals subject to 2232 applications, and (4) anoutline of how the County will process 2232 applications,including how administrative determinations will be maderegarding features shown.


PLU Goal 3.0 Community Design: To maintain and enhance qualityof life, the County will promote design principles for new developmentthat are based on the traditional development patterns that createdmany treasured communities in Montgomery County.

PLU 3.1 Traditional Neighborhood Design: The Countywill develop traditional residential development options to beincluded in the County's Zoning Ordinance.

PLU 3.1.1 Traditional Neighborhood Design ZoningOrdinance Amendments: The County will developzoning districts based on the following key principlesof Traditional Neighborhood Developments:

a. Organization and Structure:

i. The organizing framework of a TND is an areaof land that constitutes a five minute walk, ora circle of about one-quarter mile radius (about150 acres). Commercial and higher densityresidential uses should be focused within sucha core area.

ii. The neighborhood has a discernible center,often a square or a green, a busy or memorablestreet corner, and/or a prominent civic building(a transit stop can be located at this center). Thecenter may be surrounded by a mixed-useretail/office core area.

iii.Most of the dwellings are within a five-minutewalk of the neighborhood center, an average ofroughly 1,500 feet, producing a total area ofapproximately 150 acres.

iv.Small playgrounds or "pocket parks" are locatedwithin 500 feet of every dwelling.

v. To the extent possible, an elementary school isclose enough so that most children can walkfrom their home.

vi. Development is located in environmentallysuitable areas, designed to preserve importantenvironmental and cultural resources reinforcedthrough a system of parks and public andinstitutional uses and, a formal neighborhoodgovernance association to decide and/or adviseon matters of maintenance, security and physicalchange (taxation remains the responsibility ofthe County).

b. Streets

i. The neighborhood is served by manytransportation modes, including motor vehicle,pedestrian, bicycle and transit; motor vehiclesand parking lots do not dominate.

ii. The neighborhood’s streets form a connectednetwork, providing a variety of pedestrian andvehicular routes to any destination, whichdisperses traffic. (The streets are laid outgenerally in a "grid" pattern, forming blocks ofabout 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 usedinstead.

iii.The circulation network includes streets, alleys,sidewalks and paths.

iv.The streets are relatively narrow and shaded byrows of trees, often with on-street parking, whichslows traffic, creating an environment suitablefor pedestrians and bicycles.

v. Buildings in the neighborhood center are placedclose to the street, creating a feeling of "humanscale" and a strong sense of place.

vi.Parking lots and garage doors rarely front thestreet; parking is at the rear of buildings, usually

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Handbook--Land Use Policies 16

accessed by alleyways.

vii.Certain prominent sites at the termination ofstreet vistas or in the neighborhood center arereserved for civic buildings that provide sitesfor community meetings, education, religiousor cultural activities.

c. Land Uses

i. The neighborhood has a mix of uses so thatresidents have opportunities to live, recreate,learn, worship, and even work and shop in theirneighborhood

ii. There is a variety of dwelling types, densitiesand costs - single family houses, townhouses,apartments and accessory units -- for all kindsof people, including younger, older, singles,families, lower income, upper income, etc.

iii.There are a variety of shops and offices at thecore or the edge of the neighborhood to supplythe weekly needs of a household.

iv.A small ancillary building is permitted withinthe backyard of each house, which may be usedas a rental unit, an "in-law" suite, or place towork (e.g. office or craft workshop).


Government and Planning: Goals

Cross References and Notes: 1. Local and regional cooperation are built into the full extent of this plan. Significantsections addressing local and regional cooperation are included the following: PLU1.8.6 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 WorkforceDevelopment (pg. 100); ECD 3.0 Location and Land Use (pg. 27); EDU 2.0 LivelongLearning 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 andCollaboration (pg. 52); SFY 1.5 Regional Opportunities (pg. 51); TRN 1.2 MetropolitanPlanning Organization (pg. 54); TRN 2.0 Highway System (pg. 56); TRN 3.0 MassTransit (pg. 58), TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation (pg. 59); UTL 1.1 RegionalCooperation (pg. 61), UTL 2.2 Telecommunications Towers (pg. 63); UTL 3.0 SolidWaste Management (pg. 64); UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management (pg. 64); and UTL4.2 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 64)

Cross References and Notes:2. As with local and regional cooperation, public participation is one of the keystonesof 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 anumber 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 HistoricPreservation (pg. 22); CRS 3.0 Cultural Facilities and Fine Arts (pg. 24); ECD 1.1Montgomery County Regional Indicators Program (pg. ); ECD 2.0 WorkforceDevelopment (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 LivableNeighborhoods (pg. 48); SFY1.0 Public Safety (pg. 50); TRN 1.0 Land Use andTransportation (pg. 54); and UTL 3.0 Solid Waste (pg. 64).

PNG 1.0 Local and Regional Cooperation: Think regionally inorder to better provide public goods and services more efficiently andeffectively. In many cases this will involve the County workingcooperatively with the two towns of Blacksburg and Christiansburgand possibly Virginia Tech. In other cases this will involve the Countyworking cooperatively on a regional basis with other New RiverValley governments (Radford, Floyd County, Giles County and/orPulaski County) and possibly local governments in the RoanokeValley. (1)

PNG 2.0 Citizen Participation: Increase citizen participation in localgovernment and provide more opportunities for public service. (2)

PNG 2.1 Involving the Public: Promote more active citizeninvolvement in the local government process through the useof innovative approaches and increased education and outreach.(3)

PNG 2.1.1 Citizen Review: Use Citizen AdvisoryCommittees (CACs) to study and evaluate issues andadvise local government decision makers.

PNG 2.1.2 Neighborhood Networks: Use ofneighborhood networks as a tool for providingneighborhoods review and input on planning projects,public input into county issues, and requests to boththe Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

PNG 2.1.3 Community Facilitators Program. Usethe Community Facilitators' Program, established underthe comprehensive planning process to provide citizensgreater input into county issues.

PNG 2.1.4 Community-Based Meetings: Organizecommunity-based meetings, in partnership with existingcommunity organizations, to inform and educate peopleon the issues and to seek their input. Community-basedmeetings should be held at different geographic locationsaround the county.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Planning & Government 18

Cross References and Notes:4. Most, although not all, of the goals included in Montgomery County, 2025 havea public information component. In some cases, the specific approaches require thegeneration and distribution of materials; in other cases the specific approach requiresdistribution of existing materials available from other agencies. While most publicinformation developed by Montgomery County originates from Office of PublicInformation, 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 coordinatorsfor the Montgomery County Public Schools to design programs and classroommaterials which would enhance students' understanding of local issues while workingwithin the existing Standards of Learning framework.6. Citizen Academies are currently used by the Sheriff’s Department, although theapproach could be used to increase interest in other areas of government, includingplanning, parks and recreation, and water quality and monitoring. Citizen academiesare designed to provide members of the general public with a broader range oftraining and knowledge, while increasing the public’s understanding and interactionwith different parts of the governmental process.

Cross References and Notes:7. Multi-use of public facilities recognizes that the public’s ability to use publicfacilities in a variety of fashions contains long-term costs while providing the publicwith greater opportunity, whether it is adult education and job training classes beingheld 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 facilitiesis addressed in CRS 2.0 Montgomery Floyd Regional Library (pg. 23); EDU 1.1.2Facilities Renewal Program (pg. 29); EDU 1.2.2 New Facilities (pg. 29); and EDU2.2 Nontraditional Educational Facilities (pg. 30).

PNG 2.1.5 Public Hearings. Hold joint public hearingswith the Blacksburg Planning Commission or theChristiansburg Planning Commission on projectsimpacting both the county and the town.

PNG 2.2 Informing the Public: Inform citizens about howlocal government works, how local government interacts withstate and federal government, and how they can make theirviews known to local government decision makers.

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

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

PNG 2.2.3 Citizen Academies: Use of citizenacademies as a tool for informing the public about howlocal government works. (6)

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

PNG 3.1 Multi-use of Facilities. Develop and adopt acountywide policy for the multi-use of public facilities, includingthose owned by county government, parks and recreation, theMontgomery/Floyd Regional Library, and the MontgomeryCounty Public Schools. (7)

PNG 3.1.1 Multi-use Agreements. Develop and adoptan agreement on the multi-use of publicly ownedfacilities (government buildings, libraries, schools, fireand rescue squad stations, and parks and recreationalfacilities) by individuals and community-basedorganizations, including standardized use regulations,policies, and fee structures.

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

PNG 3.1.3 New Facilities. Require that all new facilitiesbe designed in such a way as to promote andaccommodate multi-use by individuals, governmentagencies, and community-based organizations, incompliance 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:8. The Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities Initiative is also addressedin the Educational Resources Chapter (EDU 1.2, pg. 116).

Cross References and Notes:9. Montgomery County, 2025 includes six designated villages: Belview,Elliston/Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville. The village planswill become part of the this plan as they are adopted. Village planning is also addressedin PLU 1.7.1: Village Planning Process (pg. 9). Other village and rural communityissues are included in CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 22); EDU 1.1.1 Local andNeighborhood Facilities (pg. 29); and PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs(pg. 53).10. Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) standards are addressed, in greaterdetail, in PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 19)11. Livable neighborhoods and communities are central to residents’ 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 zoningstandards regarding setbacks and mixed uses), 3. Preserve historic resources (findnew uses for old buildings), 4. Respect local character in new construction (askfranchises and chain stores to fit in, landscape commercial areas, control signs,disguise communication towers), and 5. Reduce the impact of the car (design streetsfor 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 LivableCommunities (pg. 46); HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg. 45); and HSG 1.0 LivableNeighborhoods (pg. 48).

PNG 3.1.4 Community-Based Schools and PublicFacilities Initiative. Study the feasibility ofimplementing the Community-based Schools and PublicFacilities initiative, based on the Florida and WestVirginia models, which allows for the provision ofgovernment, health and human service based servicesthrough the rural schools and public facilities (Elliston-Lafayette, Shawsville, Riner, Belview, and Prices Fork).(8)

PNG 4.0 Villages and Rural Communities: Retain the viability andcharacter of villages and rural communities found throughout theCounty. (9)

PNG 4.1 Planning Process: Involve residents of villages andrural communities in proactively planning for their future.Village and community residents need to be informed ofplanning tools such as "mixed uses" and "cluster development"in order that they can decide what may or may not be appropriatefor their village/community.

PNG 4.1.1 Livable Communities. Develop policieswhich encourage the adoption of TraditionalNeighborhood Design (TND) (10) and other designguidelines into the design process in order to maintainand produce livable communities. These principlesprovide a framework for and a greater potential benefitfrom cluster, mixed use, and planned unit development,especially in the context of villages and smallcommunities. (11)


Cross References and Notes:12. See footnote #8 for additional references.13. Examples of rural communities in the county are Alleghany Springs, Ellett, LongShop, Lusters Gate, McCoy, Pilot, Graysontown, etc. Planning and Rural Communitiesis addressed in PLU 1.3 (pg. 3).14. Corridor Planning is also addressed in PLU 1.8.1 Corridor Planning (pg. 11), andTRN 2.4 Access Management (pg. 57).

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 Strategiesportion 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 1.3.2Capital Facilities and Funding (pg. 51).

PNG 4.1.2 Planning for Villages: Formulate a planningprocess whereby the County will jointly work with theresidents of each village to prepare a village plan toguide their future development. Each village plan wouldbe amended to the countywide Comprehensive Plan.(12)

PNG 4.1.3 Planning for Rural Communities:Formulate a planning process where by ruralcommunities may apply to the County for assistancein preparing a community plan to guide their futuredevelopment. (13)

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

PNG 4.3 Zoning Changes: Review and revise the ZoningOrdinance in order to support the future development ofvillages and small communities.

PNG 5.0 Corridor Planning: Identify areas of the county with uniquegrowth characteristics that are appropriate for corridor planning andplan for them using the VA 177/Tyler Avenue Corridor plan as amodel. (14)

PNG 6.0 Tax Structure and Legislative Changes and Priorities :Reduce County dependence on the local real estate tax, while expandinglocal control of land use decisions and opportunities.

PNG 6.1 Legislative Priorities: Work with the VirginiaAssociation of Counties (VaCo) and the Virginia MunicipalLeague (VML) in their efforts to diversify the revenue sourcesavailable to local governments, while expanding local controlof land use decisions and opportunities.

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

PNG 6.1.1 Planning and Legislative Priorities. Workwith the Board of Supervisors and CountyAdministration to expand planning-based options inMontgomery County, including transfer of developmentrights, an adequate public facilities ordinance, and otherinnovative planning tools.

PNG 7.0 Growth Impact: Use financial options, including cashproffers, as a way to encourage new development to pay its "fairshare" for the impacts of capital facilities costs associated with newdevelopment.

PNG 7.1 Cash Proffers: Develop cash proffer guidelines toaddress County capital facility needs such as schools, parks,libraries and fire & rescue facilities. (15)

PNG 7.2 Capital Improvements Program (CIP): Continuepractice of annually developing a five-year CIP to identifyfuture 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 toapprove APFOs.


CRS 1.0 Historic Preservation Goal: Promote the preservation ofthe historical and cultural integrity of the built and natural environment,including individual structures, districts, and historically significantlandscapes and viewsheds. (1)

CRS 1.1 Historic Villages, Districts, and Corridors: Developand revitalize historically significant districts, villages (Riner,Prices Fork, Lafayette, Elliston, Shawsville, and Merrimac),and corridors (US 460/Rt 11 and Catawba).

CRS 1.1.1 Certified Local Government Program.Establish a countywide Certified Local Governmentprogram, as outlined under the Historic PreservationAct of 1966, including maintaining and updating theinventory of historic structures in Blacksburg,Christiansburg, and Montgomery County. Establishinga countywide Certified Local Government programwould require a cooperative effort between MontgomeryCounty, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg, as well as theCity of Radford. (2)

CRS 1.1.2 Historic Signage. Establish a systematicprogram, through the Department of Historic ResourcesLocal Marker program, to provide historic markers,town markers, and appropriate historical signage, aswell as an online and printed guide to the local markers,throughout Montgomery County, Blacksburg, andChristiansburg, in order to preserve the history of thearea and promote the development of a viable history-based tourism industry. (3)

CRS 1.1.3 Historic Villages and Rural Communities.Maintain the viability and historic character of existingvillages and rural communities by encouragingpreservation of historic structures and preservation ofthe historic pattern of developed and undeveloped areasthat define the villages, rural communities, and theirboundaries.(4)

CRS 1.2 Preservation of Individual Properties. Promotethe historic preservation of individual structures by providinglocal technical assistance to local landowners and developers.

CRS 1.2.1 Historic Preservation Easements. Targetspecific areas of the county for conservation and historicpreservation easements, allowed under the VirginiaHistoric Preservation Easement Program (1996), therebypreserving both historic structures and districts bypreserving the context in which they are situated andby affording long-term legal protection.

CRS 1.2.2 Regional Survey of Historic ResourcesDatabase and GIS Layers. Provide direct access toinformation on individual properties, withinMontgomery County, to property owners byestablishing, maintaining, and updating the CountySurvey of Historic Resources GIS database. (5)

CRS 1.2.3 Public Information. Provide publicinformation on historic preservation and historicpreservation easements to individual landowners anddevelopers, including access to forms and a list of localpreservation and easement specialists.

Cultural Resources: Goals

Cross References and Notes:1. Issues surrounding historic preservation are also addressed in the Planning andLand Use Policies (pages 35-50), specifically PLU 1.2.1 (f), PLU 1.3.2(b), PLU1.4.2(d), PLU 1.5.2(b), PLU 1.6.4(d), PLU 1.7.4(a), and PLU 1.8.4(d). Flexible roadstandards is addressed in TRN 1.5 (pg. 56).2. The Certified Local Governments Program, established under the Federal HistoricPreservation Act (1966) is administered by the Virginia Department of HistoricResources (DHR). Program requirements and benefits are available from the DHR.3. State provisions for historic markers are included in sections 10.1-2209 and 10.1-2210 of the Code of Virginia.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Cultural Resources 22

Cross References and Notes:4. Land use policies for rural communities, villages, and village expansion areas areincluded 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 resourcesin Montgomery County in 1986. The survey culminated in the designation of 10historic districts throughout Montgomery County, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg,including four village districts in the unincorporated portions of the County. Thesurvey has not been updated since the initial survey. The initial database would bebased on the Worsham survey.

CRS 1.2.4 Preservation Incentives: Density Bonuses.Provide incentives, including density bonuses, todevelopers to encourage the preservation of significanthistoric structures and viewsheds on property slatedfor development.

CRS 1.2.5 Preservation Incentives: Taxes. Proactivelypromote historic preservation by education landownersabout the various state and federal tax benefits forhistoric preservation. Provide tax incentives, includinga historic preservation land use tax program, whichwould allow for a reduction in real estate taxes forstructures and properties which contribute to historicdistricts or viewsheds.

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

CRS 2.0 Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library: Provide increasedaccess to high-quality library facilities throughout MontgomeryCounty. (7)

CRS 2.1 New and Existing Facilities and Programs. Provideadequate public library facilities, based on population growthtrends and need, throughout Montgomery County.

CRS 2.1.1 Library Facility Standards. Work withthe Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library Board toestablish a set of criteria for determining future physicallibrary needs, including the resiting and upgrade ofexisting facilities and the siting of new facilities.

CRS 2.1.2 Public Information: Events and Programs.Establish a countywide public-information approachto the provision and promotion of library-based culturaland educational events and programs (special readings,art shows, book clubs, literacy and adult educationprograms, etc.).

CRS 2.1.3 Public Information: Technology. Workwith the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library Boardto develop a library-based technology plan that willprovide increased open access to technology-basedpublic information, including: the provision of local,wired, public meeting rooms where citizens can watchand participate in public meetings; greater public web-access; and increased electronic access to governmentforms, reports, and other documents.

CRS 2.1.4 Library-Based Community Space. Workwith the Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library Boardto develop of community meeting space in existingfacilities and the design community multi-use facilitiesin new and rehabilitated facilities.

Cross References and Notes:6. Tourism is supported by ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy (pg. 28). Eco- andAgri-tourism are addressed in ENV 2.1.7 (Rural Development Initiatives (pg. 34).

Cross References and Notes:7. The Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library is also addressed in PNG 3.1: Multi-Use of Public Facilities (pg. 19), PNG 3.1.4: Community-Based Schools and PublicFacilities Initiative (pg. 20); EDU 1.2: Community-Based Schools and PublicFacilities (pg. 29) and EDU 2.2.4: Montgomery/Floyd Regional Library (pg. 30)


CRS 3.0 Cultural Facilities & Fine Arts: Provide increased accessto and support of cultural facilities and opportunities, including bothpublic and private museums, fine arts facilities, and performing artsvenues.

CRS 3.1 Cultural Facilities, Programs, and Events. Workwith local organizations to provide increased cultural displays,programs, and events at publicly-owned venues, including theCounty Government Center, Coal Mining Heritage Park andScience Center, parks and recreation facilities, and schoolfacilities.

CRS 3.1.1 Public Gallery / Exhibition Space.Continue to provide gallery / exhibition space for localartists and artisans. Montgomery County currentlyprovides publicly accessible gallery and exhibitionspace in the County Government Center, through acooperative arrangement with the Blacksburg ArtsCouncil, for local artists and artisans.

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

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).

CRS 3.2 Heritage Parks & Trails System. Continue todevelop the of Heritage Parks and Trails System to connectpublic, nonprofit, and private heritage and cultural sites ornodes (Coal Mining Heritage Park at Merrimac and the FarmHeritage Park at Riner), while providing venues for localcultural events (Coal Mining Heritage Day, Riner HeritageDay, etc.), artisans (an artisans' market), and performers (smallperformance and demonstration facilities) celebrating elementsof Montgomery County's heritage. (8)

CRS 3.2.1 Coal Mining Heritage Park. Continue toimplement the master plan for the Coal Mining HeritagePark, in partnership with the Coal Mining HeritageAssociation and other interested individuals andorganizations.

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

CRS 3.2.3 Farm Heritage Park. Create a master planfor 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 AgriculturalExtension Service.


ECD 1.0 Economic Development, Land Use, & Quality of Life.Actively promote economic development in the region, which takesa sustainable approach to the environmental, social, cultural, andeconomic integrity of the county and which contributes to the qualityof life.

ECD 1.1 Montgomery County Regional Indicators ProgramDesign and implement a regional indicators program,incorporating physical, social, cultural, and economicbenchmarks, in order to provide local jurisdictions (MontgomeryCounty, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and the City of Radford)with a method of defining success, tracking progress, andflagging problems to be addressed. (1)

ECD 1.1.1 Quality of Life Committee. Appoint aQuality of Life Commission, to oversee the formation,implementation, and maintenance of the MontgomeryCounty Regional Indicators Program. Membershipshould represent all of the stakeholders and be drawnfrom current county commissions and boards (PlanningCommission, Economic Development Commission,Human Relations Council, etc.), citizen organizations,and the educational and business communities. (2)

Economic Resources: GoalsECD 1.2 Mixed Use Development. (3) Encourage the use ofmixed-use and campus design approaches to new businessand industrial developments.

ECD 1.3 Future Land Use Requirements. Require theexpansion of future economic development to be located inareas of the county which are designated as urban expansion,village expansion, or villages.

ECD 1.4 Economic Development Strategic Plan: Workwith the Economic Development Department and theEconomic Development Commission to actively update andimplement the applicable portions of the EconomicDevelopment Strategic Plan, including areas concerned withland use, workforce development, and business retention andgrowth. (4)

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Economic Resource 25

Cross References and Notes:1. The Planning Commission initially explored the use of indicators in 2002, inconjunction with a project by graduate students in the Virginia Tech Urban Affairsand Planning Environmental Planning Studio course. A preliminary list of indicatorshave been included in the introductions of each chapter and an index of indicatorsis included in the appendix. Additional references to the indicators program areincluded 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 indicatorswhich are generally used to gauge a locale’s overall quality of life, including economicopportunity 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 theHealth and Human Resources chapter: HHS 2.0 Quality of Life (pg. 45).

Cross References and Notes:3.. Additional references to mixed use development are included in: PNG 4.0 Villagesand Rural Communities (pg. 20); PLU 1.6 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 7); PLU 1.7Villages (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 StrategicPlan for four subjects:

a) Workforce (Join forces with a regional-wide workforce development taskforce; survey target industries to assess labor market demand; Develop an actionplan to increase the available IT skilled workforce; Advocate for a ComprehensiveVocational Training Facility to serve the County; Connect vocational trainingwith the needs of existing targeted industries).b) Development (Expand the main industrial parks available industrial property;Develop new shell building in Christiansburg; Develop minimum investmentcriteria for locating in Montgomery County’s available industrial parks; Identifysites with the greatest marketing potential/appeal and focus resources; Establishviable real estate development partnerships to encourage speculative buildingon sites; Educate communities about Economic Development Department’smarketing and client management strategies).c) Program (Mobilize community resources to support local business development;Cooperate with Blacksburg and Christiansburg to interview and profile localbusinesses; Develop local industry database, with linkages, as a marketing tool;Encourage local participation in regional initiatives; Publish inventory of localresources; Promote business retention and expansion programs).d) Marketing and Recruitment (Create a technology zone; Enroll local businessleaders in target marketing efforts; Restructure incentives in ways that favor thedevelopment of industries in target sectors and the creation of primary and/orfamily wage jobs.

ECD 2.0 Workforce Development: Develop a local workforce withthe skills, training and experience necessary to succeed and advancein the job market of the future. (5)

ECD 2.1 Public Education and Workforce Development:Actively promote technical and professional training andworkforce development for current and future workers inMontgomery County, which is necessary for future success.

ECD 2.1.1 Community Technical Education/Knowledge Capital Task Force: Recognizing thatknowledge-based capital is one of the region's strengths,appoint a task force to 1) evaluate knowledge-basedcapital in the Montgomery County MSA, as well ascurrent student and adult educational and vocationaltraining opportunities and facilities; 2) develop a longrange plan for workforce development that addresseslong-range needs and objectives; and 3) design andpromote training and retraining programs which willbenefit students, workers, and area businesses andinstitutions. (6)

ECD 2.1.2 Vocational / Technical Skills: Work withhigh school vocation / technical directors, guidancecounselors, and others in the Montgomery CountyPublic Schools to provide new programs and strengthenexisting programs intended to develop marketable skillsets for non-college bound students.

ECD 2.1.3 Worker Retraining:Working with the area businesses, the MontgomeryCounty Public Schools, New River CommunityCollege, and the two universities, provide programs

to retrain existing workers to meet the challenges andneeds of a changing economy.

ECD 2.2 Future Workforce Development: Provide new workerswith the skills and training necessary to succeed in the future.

ECD 2.2.1 Technical and IT Training: Increase thenumber 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 Countyand the New River Valley new workers with target industryskills.

ECD 2.2.3 Retention of College Graduates: Retain ITskilled individuals graduating from local universities andcolleges in the local work force.

Cross References and Notes5. 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, livingwage, accessibility, and expanded opportunities are addressed in HHS 2.2: EconomicDevelopment (pg. 45).6. The task force should be made up of members from the Montgomery County PublicSchools, the New River Community College, Virginia Tech, Radford University, localbusinesses, the Montgomery County Economic Development Department, theMontgomery County Economic Development Commission, and the Board ofSupervisors, and representatives from Blacksburg and Christiansburg. The CommunityTechnical Education/ Knowledge Capital Task Force is cross listed as EDU 2.1.1 (pg.30)


Cross References and Notes7. Issues surrounding business location and land use are also addressed in the LandUse Policies, included in the Government and Land Use Chapter. For more specificinformation, 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 sitingof 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 inTRN 1.4 Connectivity and Access Management (pg. 55).

ECD 3.0 Location and Land Use: Identify appropriate locationsfor new businesses to start and existing businesses to expand. (7)

ECD 3.1 Industrial & Business Parks: Identify locations fornew industrial and business parks and/or the expansion ofexisting parks.

ECD 3.1.1 Product Inventory: Set county objectivesfor locations and square footage to be developed inorder to have "product" in inventory.

ECD 3.1.2 Partnership Agreements: Workcooperatively with other localities in the developmentof regional business and industrial parks.

ECD 3.2 Zoning. Review and revise the Zoning Ordinanceto allow for innovative approaches to the design andorganization of industrial, light industrial, and business parksand business districts.

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

ECD 3.2.2 Two-Plus Story Structures: Considerincreasing the intensity of selected business parks bygoing 2+ stories in height rather than single storybuildings.

ECD 3.2.3 Smaller Sites: Promote the developmentof smaller (2 to 5 acre) industrial sites within businessand industrial parks.

Cross References and Notes8. The Zoning Ordinance defines flex industrial as Light industrial activities thatoccur in buildings of no more than two stories in height, with one or more loadingdocks, 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 CRS1.0 Historic Preservation (pg. 22).10. Technology infrastructure, including telecommunications towers, is also addressedin UTL 2.0 Electric, Telecommunications, and Gas Utilities (pg. 63).11. Fiber-optic networks are also addressed in UTL 2.3: Broadband/Fiber-opticNetworks (pg. 63).


ECD 3.2.4 Flex-Industrial Zoning: Review and revisethe County Zoning Ordinance to allow flex-industrialuses, by special use permit, in the GB General Businessand M-1 Manufacturing zoning districts within theVillages, Village Expansion and Urban ExpansionAreas. (8)

ECD 3.1.6 Research & Development Zoning: Reviewand revise the County Zoning Ordinance to allowresearch & development uses in the M-1 Manufacturingzoning district.

ECD 3.3 Downtown Revitalization: Encourage the adaptationand reuse of existing buildings in downtown locations. (9)

ECD 3.2.1 Technology Zone: Consider developmentof a technology zone for downtown Christiansburg.(10)

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

ECD 3.2.3 Downtown Courthouse: Maintain CountyCourthouse in downtown Christiansburg.

ECD 4.0 Attraction & Retention of Business and Industry: Attractnew and retain existing businesses and industries that can best createviable job opportunities for all, expand the local tax base and maintainthose qualities that make the County a highly desirable place to liveand work.

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

ECD 4.1.1 Entrepreneurial Economy: Encourageentrepreneurship and small business startups by countyresidents, including industrial, commercial, tourism-based, recreational and agricultural enterprises.(12)

ECD 4.1.2 Expansion Incentives: Develop financialincentives for existing businesses that meet growthobjectives. Financial incentives for growth of existingbusinesses should be equivalent to financial incentivesused to attract new businesses.

ECD 4.1.3 Visitation Program: Continue visitationprogram with existing businesses.

ECD 4.2 External Focus: Attract new businesses and industriesto 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 developmentof good air transportation service in order to completein a global economy. (13)

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

ECD 4.2.3 Retail Quality: Recognize that the presenceof upscale retailers is an important consideration formany locational decisions. Therefore supportdevelopment of a quality regional mall.

ECD 4.2.4 College Graduates Data: Include collegestudents that have graduated or are going to graduatein labor market figures.

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

Cross References and Notes13. 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 Structureand Legislative Changes and Priorities (pg. 21). Issues related to public fundingsources, 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).


Cross References and Notes12. Small business development issues are also addressed in the EnvironmentalResources and Cultural Resources chapters of this plan. For additional referenceson Agriculture-related economic development, see ENV 2.1.7 Rural DevelopmentInitiatives (pg. 34). Cultural and historic tourism and historic tourism corridorsare addressed in CRS 1.3 Historic Preservation and Tourism (pg. 23). Recreationaltourism and enterprises are addressed in PRC 2.4 Commercial RecreationalFacilities (pg. 53).

EDU 1.0 Educational Facilities and Opportunities: Provide highquality, lifelong educational opportunities and facilities throughoutMontgomery County.

EDU 1.1 New and Existing Educational Facilities: Addresscurrent and future educational facility and program needs inMontgomery County through a cooperative approach betweenMontgomery County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, citizens,the business community, and the Montgomery County PublicSchools.

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

EDU 1.1.2 Facility Standards. Develop and adopt amutually acceptable planning standard for schoolfacilities, including renovation standards and a mobileclassroom policy.

EDU 1.1.3 Facilities Renewal Program: Design andincorporate a Facilities Renewal Program into theMontgomery County Capital Improvements Program,which would allow for large scale renewal, renovation,and expansion of existing facilities to meet futureneeds, including: physical upgrade, systemic upgrades(i.e. electrical, hvac, roofs), and facility changes forprogrammic upgrades (renewal/rehabilitation ofscience, vocational and technological facilities), whilerecognizing the need for multi-use facilities. (3)

Educational Resources: GoalsEDU 1.1.4 Landbanking: Land bank sufficient landfor future educational uses, including the expansion ofexisting facilities and the construction of new facilities.

EDU 1.1.5 Decommissioned & AbandonedStructures: Develop a policy for publicly owned,decommissioned or abandoned structures, includingfacilities owned by Montgomery County, theMontgomery County Public Schools, and otherapplicable agencies and departments.

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

EDU 1.2.1 New Facilities. Develop a policy for thedesign of new school facilities which wouldaccommodate multi-use, including a combination ofcommunity-based human, health, recreational, andgovernment services. (5)

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

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Educational Resource 29

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 CommunitySpace (pg. 23); and PRC 1.1.4 Facility Sharing (pg. 52).

Cross References and Notes:2. The retention of Village-based facilities underscores the observation that “Villageshave served as, and will continue to serve as focal points, for surrounding ruralareas” (PLU 1.7, pg 43). Village Area Facilities and Utilities are addressed in PLU1.7.5 (pg. 11). Additional information on Villages (PLU 1.6, pg. 41) and VillageExpansion Areas (PLU 1.7, pg. 43) can be found in the Planning and Land Usechapter.3. The capital improvements program is also addressed in the plan implementationportion of the Introduction; PNG 7.2 Capital Improvements Program (pg. 21); PRC2.1.2 Recreational Priorities and Funding (pg. 53); and SFY 1.3.2 Public SafetyFacilities and Funding (pg. 51).

EDU 2.0 Lifelong Learning. Adopt a countywide approach to lifelonglearning needs, including: 1) the development of adult education andjob training facilities and programs; 2) development and provisionof child care programs and facilities (pre-K, K-12 before and afterschool programs and facilities, and at-risk youth programs andfacilities); and 3) nontraditional educational programs and facilities.

EDU 2.1 Job and Vocational Education. Explore theexpansion of university, community college, vocational, andtechnical programs in Montgomery County through the reuseof abandoned or decommissioned educational facilities andfunded through public/ private partnerships.

EDU 2.1.1 Technical and Vocational TrainingOpportunities. Prepare a study, in conjunction withEconomic Development, Montgomery County SocialServices, and the Montgomery County Public Schools,that examines current and future technical training andvocational training needs in Montgomery County andrecommends possible approaches to the provision ofnew or upgraded vocational and technical trainingfacilities and programs. (6)

ECD 2.1.2 Community Technical Education/Knowledge Capital Task Force: Recognizing thatknowledge-based capital is one of the region's strengths,appoint a task force to 1) evaluate knowledge-basedcapital in the Montgomery County MSA, as well ascurrent student and adult educational, technical, andvocational training opportunities and facilities; 2)develop a long range plan for workforce developmentthat addresses long-range needs and objectives; and3) design and promote training and retraining programswhich will benefit students, workers, and areabusinesses and institutions. (7)

EDU 2.2 Nontraditional Educational Facilities. Continueto develop nontraditional educational facilities (such as theCoal Mining Heritage Park and Science Center, the FarmingHeritage Park, the Christiansburg Institute, Blacksburg’sHeritage Community Park and Natural Area, and theMontgomery County Museum) to provide expandededucational opportunities through public/private partnerships.

EDU 2.2.1 Coal Mining Heritage Park EducationalFacilities . Continue to develop the historic andscientific educational facilities and programs in theCoal Mining Heritage Park, (8)

EDU 2.2.2 Farming Heritage Park EducationalFacilities: Develop the historic and agriculturaleducational facilities at a Farming Heritage Park,including the establishment of facilities and programssupporting agricultural extension, 4-H, and FutureFarmers of America.

EDU 2.2.3 Christiansburg Institute andChristiansburg Community Center. Support thedevelopment of alternative educational and museumfacilities and programs at the Christiansburg Instituteand Christiansburg Community Center (originalChristiansburg Institute), focusing, specifically, on theneeds of minority communities in Montgomery County.(9)

EDU 2.2.4 Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library.Provide continuing support for the Montgomery-FloydRegional Library, including the development of newfacilities, the revitalization of existing facilities, andthe expansion of the technical infrastructure in supportof adult educational opportunities. (10)

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Educational Resources 30

Cross References and Notes:6. Technical and Vocational Training is also addressed in: ECD 2.0 WorkforceDevelopment (pg. 26) and HHS 2.4 Technical and Vocational Education Facilitiesand Programs (pg. 45).7. EDU 2.1.2 is cross listed as ECD 2.1.1: Community Technical Education/ KnowledgeCapital Task Force (pg. 26).

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 HighStreet in Christiansburg, are outside of the jurisdiction of this plan, the work performedbenefits all Montgomery County residents. In the past, Montgomery County has beenasked to support and lend expertise to the development process of both institutions.Participants in the Cultural and Educational Facilities workgroup felt strongly thatthis support should be recognized and continued.10. The Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library is also addressed, in greater detail, inCRS 2.0 (pg. 23).

Environmental Resources: Goals

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Environmental Resources 31

Cross References and Notes:9. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are also encouraged in other sections of theEnvironmental Resource Goals, including: ENV 1.5: Water Quality (pg. 32); ENV 3.1Agricultural Programs and Practices (pg. 36); ENV 5.5.2 Groundwater: Best ManagementPractices (pg. 40); ENV 6.5.3 Karst: Erosion and Sediment Control (pg. 42); ENV 6.6Karst: Best Management Practices (pg. 43); and ENV 7.1.5 Stormwater and ErosionBest Management Practices (pg. 44).10. The environmental layers are part of a larger GIS system which MontgomeryCounty 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)

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 SepticSystem 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); ENV5.7.2 Well Testing (pg. 41); UTL 1.3 Private Systems (pg. 62); and UTL 1.4 IndividualSystems (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).

ENV 1.0 Natural Resource Stewardship: The County is committedto preserving, conserving, and managing its natural resources, as asustainable asset, for the benefit of its citizens and future generations.

ENV 1.1 Stewardship: Encourage funding of Departmentof Forestry and Virginia Extension Service programs to helpencourage good stewardship of Montgomery County’s natural resources.

ENV 1.2 Resource Management: Encourage the use ofForestry and Agriculture Best Management Practices (BMP’s).(9)

ENV 1.3 Environmental Planning and Mapping: Developa natural and critical resources geographic information systemto facilitate effective environmental planning in Montgomery County, including: Critical Resources Map; ComprehensivePlan; Land Use Policy Map; Comprehensive Plan GISSignificant historic structures and districts (see CulturalResources chapter); Groundwater and surface water resources;Floodplains; Karst terrain; Soils; Vegetation; Geology andgeologic features (other than karst); Rare and endangeredspecies; Well and septic systems; Agricultural and ForestalDistricts; Conservation easements; and State and federallands. (10)

ENV 1.3.1 Environmental GIS Program: Initiateda mapping program to produce large-scale mapsoptimal for environmental planning for the entirecounty. Maps should be produced at a scale of 1:2,400with a 5-foot contour interval for the fast growth areas

of the county, and a scale of 1:4,800 with a 10-footcontour interval for slow growth areas of the County.ENV 1.3.2 Well and Septic GIS Data: Work with theNRV Health Department to expand a current FloydCounty program for gathering GPS data on new septicand well systems into Montgomery County. Use theGPS data to develop a GIS-based location map forseptic systems and wells that can tie into the databaseto easily monitor areas where septic failures and wellcontamination are concentrated. (11)

ENV 1.3.3 Bedrock Geology Maps: Create bedrockgeology maps, similar to Geology of the BlacksburgQuadrangle, Virginia, for areas of Montgomery Countyin the following United States Geological SurveyQuadrangle Maps: Eggleston, Newport, McDonaldsMill, Glenver, Elliston, Ironto, Radford North, RadfordSouth, Riner, Pilot, Check, Indian Valley, and AlumRidge. Priority should be given to the fast developingareas around Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford.

ENV 1.3.4 Karst GIS Database: Identify and provideinformation that will be useful in land use decisionmaking for each sinkhole, sinking creek, cave, karstspring, etc. This information should include, at aminimum, the precise location (recorded by GPS), type,and size of the karst feature, as well as issues of concernthat may require future monitoring of the feature. (12)

ENV 1.3.5 Floodplain Mapping: Improve and updateexisting floodplain mapping data through continuedrequests to FEMA, while utilizing the resources ofeducational institutions, to re-delineate Countyfloodplain boundaries. (13)

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, andSurface 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).

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 (BrushMountain, Prices Mountain, and Paris Mountain).


ENV 1.4 Wildlife Corridors: Establish green spaces, includingcorridors and greenways, that promote viable wildlife habitat.

ENV 1.5 Water Quality: Develop and initiate water resourcemanagement and Best Management Practices (BMPs) topreserve and maintain ground and surface water quality. (14)

ENV 1.6 Air Quality: Routinely monitor air quality in theCounty to determine if air quality is declining.

ENV 1.6.1 Mass Transit: Encourage the use anddevelopment of mass transit systems in the County. (15)

ENV 1.6.2 Monitoring Station: Work with theDepartment of Environmental Quality and areauniversities to establish an air monitoring station in theMontgomery County.

ENV 1.7 Species Protection: Protect threatened and endangeredplant and animal species in the County. Wildlife habitat

management is a critical component due to the increasingdevelopment in the county.

ENV 2.0 Open Space and Natural Resource : To work with countyresidents to conserve the natural resources and agricultural characterof the land in the county. (16)

ENV 2.1 Private Open Space: Encourage the preservationof the rural and agricultural character of private land withinthe County through cooperative efforts with local landowners.

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service DistrictsENV 2.1.2 Community Development AuthoritiesENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal DistrictsENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale ZoningENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster ZoningENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.7 Rural Development InitiativesENV 2.1.8 Use Value AssessmentENV 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 anddevelopment of additional active and passive parklands andopen space with the cooperation of Blacksburg, Christiansburg,Virginia Tech, and other related entities.

ENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition ProgramENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and VirginiaScenic Byways

ENV 2.3 Viewsheds: Develop and enact a plan of action forthe protection and preservation of the scenic byways andtransportation corridors, rivers, tributaries, and ridgelines. (17)

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service DistrictsENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities


ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale ZoningENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster ZoningENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.7 Rural Development InitiativesENV 2.1.8 Use Value AssessmentENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and

Village Expansion Areas]ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition ProgramENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and Virginia

Scenic Byways

ENV 2.4 Forest Land: Minimize the loss of the County’sproductive forestlands.

ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal DistrictsENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.7 Rural Development InitiativesENV 2.1.8 Use Value AssessmentENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and



Scenic Byways

ENV 2.5 Agriculture: Maintain the agricultural land in varioustypes of active production and discourage its conversion toother land uses.

ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal DistrictsENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale ZoningENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster ZoningENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.7 Rural Development InitiativesENV 2.1.8 Use Value AssessmentENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and



Scenic Byways

ENV 2.6 Open Space Corridors : Create a countywidegreenway plan which would include a riverside protectionplan for the New, Roanoke, and Little Rivers and theirtributaries.

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service DistrictsENV 2.1.2 Community Development AuthoritiesENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal DistrictsENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale ZoningENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster ZoningENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban and

Village Expansion Areas]ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition ProgramENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational


Scenic Byways

ENV 2.7 Land Trust Support Objective: Support, throughpolicy and funding measures, land trusts for the New RiverValley that coordinate conservation easement programs andother land conservation transactions, such as the donation andpurchase of easements. Develop a program for the County tohold interest in conservation easements.

ENV 2.1.6 Conservation EasementsENV 2.1.11 Educational and Informational


Scenic Byways

ENV 2.8 Inter-Authority Planning Cooperation: Initiatecooperation among Montgomery County, Blacksburg,Christiansburg, Radford, Virginia Tech, Radford University,as well as surrounding counties to coordinate their plans toprevent gaps in rivershed and viewshed protection projectsand stretch open space protection budgets by pooling talentsand resources.

ENV 2.8.1 Representative County Planning Group:Create a team of county representatives responsible forbringing county interests to the attention of the VirginiaTech, Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford planningagencies.

ENV 2.8.2 Cooperative Area Plans: Create andimplement action plans for those areas identified inObjective 8, Milton Herds 2002 report, as well as those

Cross References and Notes:18. Development in the agricultural and forested areas of the County are discussedin 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.


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" (April2004) Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and FarmlandPreservation Task Force.22. Rural development initiatives represent one part of the County’s entrepreneurialeconomy. Additional references to small businesses is included in ECD4.1.1:Entrepreneurial Economy (pg. 28).

areas identified by the Representative County PlanningGroups.

ENV 2.1.1-12 Approaches to Open Space and AgriculturalPreservation: (18)

ENV 2.1.1 Special Service Districts: Special ServiceDistricts (SSDs) are created by passage of an ordinanceby the Board of Supervisors. They require an organizedplan and dedicated board to carry out the goals, whichcould be tailored to open space preservation. SSDs canbe used to preserve open space by allowing a designatedboard to purchase development rights with the moneyraised from special real estate taxes.

ENV 2.1.2 Community Development Authorities:Community Development Authorities (CDAs) are verysimilar to Special Service Districts but are allowedspecifically to raise funds to purchase easements anddevelopment rights. The other key difference is thatAuthorities can take on long-term debt allowing themto issue revenue-generating bonds as a means ofproducing income.

ENV 2.1.3 Agricultural/Forestal Districts:Agricultural/Forestal Districts are rural zones that havebeen reserved for the production of agricultural productsand timber. Established as a local planning tool in the1970s by the General Assembly, they are establishedaccording to state guidelines with the approval of thelocal governing body. A district constitutes a voluntaryagreement between landowners and the governmentthat no new, non-agricultural uses will take place in thedistrict. An agricultural/forestal district provides muchstronger protection for farmers and farmland than doestraditional zoning, because it assures that the Use ValueAssessment will continue to be available to landownerswithin the district. Participation in an agricultural/forestaldistrict can also provide protection from local nuisanceordinances. To encourage agricultural/forestal districtparticipation and to reflect the 8-year commitment bylandowners, the County should consider local tax

incentives above and beyond those currently providedthrough the Land Use Assessment program. (19)ENV 2.1.4 Sliding Scale Zoning: (20) Sliding ScaleZoning is a method of zoning requiring that the largerthe initial size of the parent parcel prior to subdividing,the lower the permitted density. The permitted densitydecreases on a sliding scale as the size of the parentparcel increases. The rationale is that higher densitiesshould be allowed on smaller tracts because they aredifficult to farm and may have already moved out ofagriculture and into the residential land market.Minimum lot size is usually set at 1 acre or a maximumof 2 acres and a large number of acres can be utilizedfor open space.

ENV 2.1.5 Rural Cluster Zoning: Rural Cluster Zoningallows a relatively significant amount of residentialdevelopment to occur in rural and farming areas whileat the same time ensuring that such development isdesigned and laid out to have the least possible impacton the landscape and to preserve large chunks of openspace land even after development is complete.

ENV 2.1.6 Conservation Easements: ConservationEasements are restrictions placed on a parcel of landby its owner that limit how the land may be used in thefuture. Based on the owner’s decision, a conservationeasement may be used to prevent the future conversionof land from its present state to residential, commercial,or other uses. The placement of a conservation easementon a land parcel is totally voluntary and, in most cases,results in tax benefits for the owner. Conservationeasements may be used alone or in combination witha local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program.(21)

ENV 2.1.7 Rural Development Initiatives: (22)

Cross References and Notes:23. Overall approaches to public information is addressed in PNG 2.2: Informing thePublic (pg. 19).24. Scenic Byways is also referenced in TRN 2.6 (pg. 58)


Economic Development is normally associated withindustrial and commercial enterprise efforts, but thebasic approach can also be applied to the agriculturaland forest industries. Such efforts can include agri-tourism and eco-tourism, development and promotionof alternative and/or local markets and the developmentof alternative products or production techniques. RuralEconomic Development Initiatives are a part of thisreport because they are voluntary and address thefundamental benefit of making open space land usesmore economically competitive and intensive in orderto achieve long term conservation.

ENV 2.1.8 Use Value Assessment: Use ValueAssessment is a popular program in Virginia that hasbeen used by many localities since the 1970s. Use ValueAssessment is a system by which property taxes arebased on the current use of the land, rather than on itspotential market value as developable (residential,commercial, or industrial) land. This change in tax rateoften provides farmers with enough additional incometo continue farming, when they otherwise would haveto sell their land to pay their taxes. It is also known asLand Use Assessment.

ENV 2.1.9 Urban Growth Boundaries [Urban andVillage Expansion Areas] : Urban Growth Boundaryconsists of invisible lines drafted by planners to signifyareas beyond which future growth in the city shouldnot pass. The boundary is often drawn outside of existingpolitical boundaries, such as city limits. Land withinthe boundaries is designated as “urbanizable land.”

ENV 2.1.10 Public Land Acquisition Program: PublicLand Acquisition Program is a fund created by a countyfor the express purpose of purchasing public open spacefor use as parks, or recreational corridors.

ENV 2.1.11 Educational and InformationalDistribution Program: To give the residents ofMontgomery County access to open space preservationinformation from the county, state and national level,which they can use to protect their land fromdevelopment. One of the fundamental problems withopen space protection is that most landowners are

unaware of the tools available for the protection oftheir land, and those that have had some exposure tothese tools only have a partial understanding of howthey work. This strategy is essential for the success ofopen space preservation, because until landowners aremore familiar with the available tools, the County willcontinue to meet resistance from many of the County’sresidents. (23)

ENV 2.1.12 Conservation Easements and VirginiaScenic Byways: Virginia Byways are existing roadswith significant aesthetic and cultural values, leadingto or lying within an area of historical, natural orrecreational significance. Virginia Byways designatecorridors of regional significance. Accordingly, theCounty actively supports the retention of agricultural,forest, and open space uses along Virginia Byways.(24)

Cross References and Notes:25. Floodplains are addressed in ENV 4.0: Floodplains (pg. 38). Erosion and SedimentControl is addressed in ENV 7.0: Stormwater and Erosion Control (pg. 43) and UTL4.0 Stormwater Management (pg. 64).26. Riparian buffer easements are addressed in ENV 7.3.3 Tax Incentives for RiparianBuffer Easements (pg. 44). Riparian areas are addressed in ENV 3.2.7 Protection ofRiparian Features (pg. 37).


ENV 3.0 Streams, Rivers, and Surface Waters: The county iscommitted to working to maintain and to enhance the quality of itsmany streams and rivers for human health, habitat vitality, and saferecreational opportunities. Furthermore, the county is committed toensuring that the problems such as flooding, erosion, and sedimentationwill be minimized. (25)

ENV 3.1 Agricultural Program and Policy: Encouragefarmers and landowners to work with existing governmentagencies, such as Skyline Soil and Water District, and programsand to learn about and use Best Management Practices (BMP’s)to protect surface water qualities.

ENV 3.1.1 Floodplain Ordinance: Enhance thefloodplain ordinance to require that riparian buffersremain undisturbed at a specified distance from theedge 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 thatincludes provisions to preserve the natural forestedvegetation along the corridors of all perennial streamsand rivers.

ENV 3.1.3 Environmental Quality Corridors:Develop an Environmental Quality Corridor (or WaterQuality Corridor or Creek Overlay District likeBlacksburg) that requires the preservation of riparianbuffers as a foundational component.

ENV 3.1.4 Agricultural Best Management Practices:Work with farmers to locate and obtain grant fundingfrom resources such as the Virginia Agricultural BestManagement Practices Cost Share or the USDA’sEnvironmental Quality Incentives Program. Theseincentives encourage the use of Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) including riparian buffers, fencingof livestock, and providing alternative watering sourcesfor livestock.

ENV 3.1.5 Environmental Education and Outreach:Develop an educational and outreach program tailoredto farming practices near impaired waters to assistfarmers in sharing information and learning aboutalternative techniques.

ENV 3.1.6 Agricultural and Forestal Districts:Strengthen the quality of the Agricultural and ForestalDistrict (AFD) management plan review to ensure thatwater quality goals are an essential element on propertiesin the AFD. Enlist the assistance of Extension Servicestaff, the Skyline Soil and Water Conservation Districtstaff, and other advisory bodies in clarifying the reviewprocess.

ENV 3.1.7 Skyline Soil and Water ConservationDistrict: Work with the Skyline Soil and WaterConservation District to identify county needs andparticipate in district programs. In order to facilitatethe programs of the District and to demonstratecommitment to the partnership, the County shouldincrease funding resources (currently $4000) to theDistrict equivalent to at least half of the amount providedby the highest paying county (currently Floyd Countyat $11,455) in the District.

ENV 3.1.8 Extension Service: Work with the countyExtension Service to disseminate information innewsletters to farmers and to organize educationalsessions on maintaining water quality while enhancingagricultural practices.

ENV 3.2 Vegetation and Soil: Develop initiatives andordinances that maintain and enhance of the integrity of surfacewater bodies during development and redevelopment projectsby minimizing clearing of vegetation and disturbance of soils.

ENV 3.2.1 Impervious Surface: Amend zoningordinance to reduce the percent of coverage frombuildings, parking, and other impervious surfaces.

ENV 3.2.2 Vegetation: Increase incentives formaintaining existing vegetation during development.

ENV 3.2.3 Compliance Incentives: Adjust the feeschedule to allow for a reduction in fees for quality


development proposals that comply with the purposesof this objective.

ENV 3.2.4 Maintaining Water Quality: Establishstandards for water quality improvement during thedevelopment or redevelopment of properties locatedwithin Urban Expansion Areas, and other areas targetedfor development and redevelopment, throughreplacement of improperly maintained BMPs,replacement of inefficient sanitary sewer lines or failingseptic systems, and, where appropriate, revegetationalong streams.

ENV 3.2.5 Commercial and Industrial Runoff: Locateaway from the County's water bodies thosenonresidential activities that use, store, or manufacturesignificant 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 naturallandscapes and apply them in the evaluation of rezoningand/or special use permit applications.

ENV 3.2.7 Protection of Riparian Features: Whereappropriate, require rezoning and special use permitapplicants to describe in general detail the naturalcharacter of significant creeks, rivers, lakes, and ponds(as characterized on United States Geological SurveyMaps) located on the property, as well as the 100-yearfloodplain. Require applicants for such rezonings and/orspecial use permits to explain how the significant surfacewater bodies and related shorelines to be retained uponcompletion of the project will be protected duringconstruction.

ENV 3.2.8 Shrink/Swell Soils: Amend applicableCounty Ordinances to require a shrink/swell soils studyfor development and construction. (27)

ENV 3.3 Individual Septic System Work to reduce septicleaching problems by encouraging proper locating,maintenance, and testing of septic tank systems.

ENV 3.4 Public Awareness: Address water resource concernsin the County by developing networking opportunities forcitizen groups and school programs to share information and pool resources, and enlist their aid in the Virginia Departmentof Environmental Quality’s stream water quality monitoringprograms.

ENV 3.4.1 Grants: Assist organizations in locatingand obtaining grant funding for various projects for theCounty’s streams and rivers.

ENV 3.4.2 Technical Data/ Resources for IdentifyingProblem Areas: Provide technical data and resourceswhere available to allow citizen groups to identifycurrent and potential future problems or concerns.

ENV 3.4.3 Citizen Involvement: Enlist the aid ofcitizen groups in community clean up efforts such asAdopt-A-Highway, Adopt-A-Stream, Broomin’ andBloomin’, Save Our Streams, etc.

ENV 3.4.4 Public Information: Activities, Meetings,and Events: Maintain a list of contact information forlocal citizen groups involved in water quality issues,and work with citizen groups to communicate activities,meetings, and other events to a central office so thatinformation can be disseminated to other citizen groupleaders.

ENV 3.4.5 Citizen Water Quality Monitoring: Identifygroups that have a significant interest in surface waterin the County including, but not limited to, anglinggroups, outdoor recreation groups and/or companies,watershed or water quality protection organizations,science and ecology classes in public schools, etc. Holdthe training sessions and obtain commitments fromvolunteers to perform regular monitoring of streamsthat are of particular interest to them.

ENV 3.4.6 Save Our Streams: Work with the VirginiaNatural History Museum, Fish and Wildlife Service,Virginia Tech departments, and/or DEQ officials to

Cross References and Notes:27. Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (2000 Edition) Section R401.4 SoilTests (effective October 1, 2003)


continue implementation of the Save Our StreamsProgram, including develop training sessions andmonitoring kits for interested county volunteer monitorsand schools.

ENV 3.5 Government Cooperation: Work with the Townsof Blacksburg and Christiansburg, the City of Radford, andneighboring counties to ensure consistency and compatibilityof goals, objectives, and strategies in the water quality planningprocess.

ENV 3.5.1 Regional Roundtable: Enlist the aid of theNew River Valley Planning District Commission,Roanoke Valley Regional Commission, and the RoanokeRiver Corridor Committee to develop regionalroundtables to plan for and to address water qualityconcerns.

ENV 4.0 Floodplains: Montgomery County seeks to maintain andenhance the integrity of its floodplains through improved publiceducation, public safety, governmental cooperation, ordinances, anddata.

ENV 4.1 Partnership and Regional Cooperation: Continueto build partnerships with public agencies to preserve andenhance floodplains in the County.

ENV 4.1.1 Regional Cooperation: New River Valley:Enhance collaboration with the New River ValleyPlanning District Commission through regularparticipation in regional meetings.

ENV 4.1.2 Regional Cooperation: Roanoke & JamesRiver Watersheds: Develop working relationship withlocal governments in the Roanoke Valley to preserveand protect floodplains within the headwaters of theRoanoke and James Rivers.

ENV 4.1.3 Public Education: Work to educate propertyowners, builders, lenders, and others of the negativeeffects of building within the floodplain. Educationprograms should be developed in collaboration withthe relevant agencies listed above.

ENV 4.2 Floodplain Program and Policy: Developprograms/policies/ordinances that will encourage developersand builders to avoid developing within or directly adjacentto the floodplain.

ENV 4.2.1 Flood Damage Prevention OverlayDistrict: Enhance the Flood Damage Prevention OverlayDistrict of the zoning ordinance to require that riparianbuffers remain undisturbed at a specified distance fromthe edge of all streams within a designated floodplain(e.g., minimum of 100 feet) as well as to encouragegreater buffers through incentives such as tax relief orland use valuation.

ENV 4.2.2 Code Enforcement: Continue to enforceapplicable county, state and federal regulations withinthe designated 100-year floodplain.

Cross References and Notes.28 Hazard Mitigation and the New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan are alsoaddressed in SFY 1.1.4: NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 50) and UTL 4.2: RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan (pg. 64). A copy of the NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan isavailable from the New River Valley Planning District Commission.

Cross References and Notes29. Issues surrounding septic systems are also addressed in UTL 1.4: IndividualSystems (pg. 62).


ENV 4.3 Public Safety: Reduce and/or eliminate the long-term risks to human life and property from flooding and itseffects through the use of timely data. (28)

ENV 4.3.1 Regional & Local Hazard MitigationPlan: Continue to work with the New River ValleyPlanning District Commission to develop a local hazardmitigation plan.

ENV 4.3.2 Flood Mitigation Measures: Followingcompletion of the local hazard mitigation plan (whichmay include prioritized areas), apply for FloodMitigation Assistance Program funds (dependent onsuccessful completion of strategy 2) to acquire orrelocate structures from floodplain areas and to constructcertain types of minor and localized flood controlprojects. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds maybe sought following a hazard declaration and assistancemay be sought through the New River Valley PlanningDistrict Commission.

ENV 5.0 Groundwater: Montgomery County is committed tomaintaining an abundant and clean supply of subsurface water resources.

ENV 5.1 Septic System and Well Water Testing: Work withthe New River Valley (NRV) Health Department to developa process for locating and testing well water quality and septicsystems on a regular basis to ensure that groundwater qualityis consistently monitored and that contamination risks areminimized. (29)

ENV 5.1.1 Tracking Septic System Maintenance:Develop an official process in conjunction with theNRV Health Department and certified private septicsystem maintenance firms to track septic systemmaintenance throughout the County. The process couldinclude the following components but may includeothers deemed appropriate by the partnershipparticipants: Private firms should report the name,address, date of pumping, overall quality of the septicsystem, and other information deemed necessary bythe participating parties. The Health Department shouldmaintain the records provided by the private firms inthe upcoming statewide database system for ease ofreference and use. Once the database is established, thehealth department with other agencies can identifyseptic systems that have not been pumped and sendreminders to landowners (much like the private firmsdo now for past customers).

ENV 5.1.2 Septic System/ Well Testing with RealEstate Transactions: Implement a county process withthe NRV Health Department, which would require thatwell testing and/or septic system testing reportsaccompany every real estate transaction involving septicsystems or well water resources.

ENV 5.1.3 Monitoring of Alterative OnsiteWastewater Treatment Systems: Assist the NRVHealth Department in identifying engineering firmsthat install, monitor, and maintain alternative onsitewastewater treatment systems in the County. Work withthe engineering firms to participate in the septic system


maintenance partnership to share information about thelocation and condition of the alternative systems. Sincethese systems are regularly monitored, the necessaryinformation should be readily available.

ENV 5.2 Education: Educate landowners on various factorsto consider in choosing and maintaining onsite wastewatertreatment systems, and encourage connections to public sewer systems where possible.

ENV 5.2.1 Septic System Maintenance: Identifyseptic tank owners who have not regularly maintainedtheir septic systems through the process outlined inobjective one. Beyond sending postcard reminders,disseminate educational pamphlets and bookletsdeveloped by the Virginia Water Resources Center toeducate reluctant septic tank owners of the benefits ofregular maintenance procedures.

ENV 5.2.2 Alternative Wastewater ProcessingSystems: Work with the NRV Health Department topromote alternative wastewater processing systems thattreat effluent before discharging the waste intosurrounding soils. These systems are particularly suitedto Montgomery County given the incompatibility ofcounty soils with traditional systems. These systemsshould be promoted in new developments and especiallyfor homes that have experienced a septic system failure.

ENV 5.3 Groundwater Quality Protection Programs andPolicies: Develop and/or update ordinances, policies, andprograms that ensure responsible land use in karst terrain forthe protection of groundwater quality.

ENV 5.3.1 Septic System Maintenance: Update theprocess for applying for Building Permits to requirethat a proof of septic system maintenance accompanythe application.

ENV 5.3.2 Drainfield Requirements: Review thezoning ordinance to ensure that lots in areas that requireseptic tank waste disposal systems are large enough toaccommodate two drain fields one of which can beused for repair drainage fields when the first field fails.

ENV 5.3.3 Connection to Public Sewer: In caseswhere public sewer is available, require hook-ups tothe system for new units, even where the zoningordinance would otherwise allow septic systems. Whereexisting septic systems fail and sewer systems areaccessible, require hook-ups to the system instead ofa septic system repair job.

ENV 5.4 Wellhead Protection: Complete all twelve stepsfor the wellhead protection process as identified by the VirginiaGroundwater Protection Steering Committee within 5 years ofthe adoption of this plan.

ENV 5.4.1 Well-Head Protection Program: Implementa Well-Head Protection Program, including: 1) Establisha Wellhead Protection Advisory Committee and appointa project leader; 2) Determine the appropriate areas toinclude in wellhead protection areas, based on the 1993Wellhead Protection Program report for MontgomeryCounty; and 3) Identify management strategies tomitigate the impact of land uses within the protectionarea on the water source. (Consult Montgomery County’s1993 Proposed Wellhead Protection Program and theVirginia Ground Water Protection Steering Committee’s1998 Implementing Wellhead Protection publication.)

ENV 5.4.2 Public Involvement: Encourage publicinvolvement in the development and implementationof the wellhead protection program by includinginterested citizens on the advisory committee and holdingpublic information and comment sessions incommunities that might benefit from a wellheadprotection program.

ENV 5.5 Conservation: Encourage landowners to conservewater and consider the impacts of their water use on othersin their region.

ENV 5.5.1 Public Information: Develop anddisseminate educational materials to the public on waterconservation measures for both private and businessuses.

ENV 5.5.2 Best Management Practices. Strategy:Work with local farmers to identify best managementpractices for crop watering during drought years. Enlist


the aid of area universities, the Farm Bureau, and otherinterested parties in developing educational materialsand disseminating the information.

ENV 5.5.3 Wastewater/water Recycling andReclamation Programs: Investigate waterrecycling/reclamation practices and advocate suchpractices where applicable in the County.

ENV 5.6 Development: Minimize the coverage of impervioussurfaces to allow rain percolation through strategies such aslow-impact development and stormwater management planningand concentrate new development in areas where public watersupplies and sewer systems exist or are planned.

ENV 5.6.1 Groundwater Identification: Identify areasof the County where groundwater resources are abundantand encourage rural development and redevelopmentin proximity of these water resources. Consider theseareas for designation as expansion areas and/or urbangrowth areas.

ENV 5.6.2 Adequate Facilities Policy: Develop anadequate facilities policy for the County modeled afterthe Route 177 Corridor Overlay District to ensureadequate levels of service for public water supplies.

ENV 5.6.3 Cooperative Urban/Suburban Planning:Coordinate planning efforts with the towns of Blacksburgand Christiansburg and the City of Radford to encourageinfill development in and around the towns and city.

ENV 5.7 Monitoring: Implement a monitoring program forwell systems in areas that may be affected by mine drainage(notably, near Brush Mountain and Price Mountain) or otherareas that are at a particular risk of contamination to ensurepublic health and safety.

ENV 5.7.1 Water Quality: Work with the NRVDepartment of Health, area universities, citizen groupsor other appropriate resources on developing a regularmonitoring schedule to keep track of water qualityconcerns in wells near closed mines.

ENV 5.7.2 Well Testing: If contaminated well systemsare identified due to monitoring efforts in the County,work with the NRV Department of Health, areauniversities, and/or citizen groups or other appropriateresources to test wells in the surrounding area to ensurethat other nearby wells are checked for health risks.


ENV 6.0 Karst Goal: Montgomery County is committed to managingkarst terrain in such a manner so as to: 1) protect groundwater andsurface water resources from contamination; 2) reduce potential forproperty damage resulting from subsidence, or other earth movement,and sinkhole flooding; 3) protect the health, safety, and welfare of thepublic; and 4) protect the habitat of rare, threatened, and endangeredanimal species and ecosystems that depend on the environmentalquality of Montgomery County’s karst terrain.

ENV 6.1 Planning: Identify and map bedrock geology, karstterrain, and sensitive karst terrain at a scale appropriate forenvironmental planning. Incorporate these maps into theplanning tools used by the county.

ENV 6.2 Program and Policy: Adopt policies and proceduresthat preserve, protect, and restore significant karst features inMontgomery County.

ENV 6.2.1 Karst Ordinance: Adopt a Karst orCarbonate Area Ordinance that includes:

a. Programs, policies, and/or amendments toestablished ordinances that will preserve andrestore Karst Feature Buffers around karstterrain recharge features (e.g., sinkholes,caves, sinking creeks).

b. Programs, policies, and/or amendments toestablished ordinances that will establishsubstantial (one thousand [1000] feet)minimum distances from which undergroundstorage tanks and hazardous waste must bekept from karst terrain recharge features(e.g., sinkholes, caves, sinking creeks).

c. Programs, policies, and/or amendments toestablished ordinances that prohibit trashdumps in karst terrain recharge features,especially, but not limited to sinkholes.

d. Programs, policies, and/or amendments toestablished ordinances that substantiallyincrease the minimum septic system standardsset by the New River Valley Department ofHealth to ensure greater groundwaterprotection in karst areas.

ENV 6.3 Public Awareness: Promote public awareness ofkarst related issues by providing public information on karstgeology and water quality.

ENV 6.4 Conservation: Encourage and facilitate the applicationof permanent open space land conservation tools to protectareas of the County identified as sensitive karst. Potential openspace tools include, but are not limited to, agricultural-forestaldistricts conservation easements, large lot zoning, sliding scalezoning, rural cluster zoning, public land acquisition, and thepurchase of development rights. Each of these tools is detailedin the open space section of this plan.

ENV 6.5 Stormwater Management: Maintain the pre-development drainage patterns (including the quantity andtiming) of runoff draining into karst terrain features.

ENV 6.5.1 Karst Feature Overlay Districts: Amendthe Montgomery County Subdivision and Zoningordinances to include a Karst Feature Overlay District(or Limestone Overlay District). Development withinthis district should maintain pre-development drainagepatterns on the site and the quantity and quality ofstormwater runoff entering karst terrain features on,and adjacent to, the site. In addition, the constructionof any structure in an area determined by a GeophysicalStudy to be susceptible to subsidence that would beharmful to the public safety or the safety of futureresidents should be prohibited if the potential harmcannot be mitigated.

ENV 6.5.2 Low Impact Development: Amend theMontgomery County Subdivision and Zoning ordinancesto allow and strongly encourage the use of Low ImpactDevelopment (LID) techniques. It will be necessary tocarefully screen the LID tools to ensure that thosetechniques used in Montgomery County are appropriatefor use in karst terrain (please refer to the Karst-LIDWorkgroup study being conducted by the NorthernShenandoah Planning District Commission, contactdetails in Appendix II).

ENV 6.5.3 Erosion and Sediment Control: Amendthe County Erosion and Sediment Control ordinanceto protect karst recharge features and encourage landdevelopers to implement additional Best Management

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).


Practices (BMPs) to limit the clogging of karst rechargefeatures by sediment.

ENV 6.6 Conservation Best Management Practices:Encourage the use of both agricultural and silvicultural BMPsand cost share programs in karst areas, especially theConservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

ENV 6.6.1 Karst and Ground Water BestManagement Practices: Work with the Skyline Soiland Water Conservation District, the Natural ResourcesConservation Service, the Farm Service Agency andthe Virginia Department of Forestry to help improvevoluntary implementation of karst and groundwaterprotection BMPs.

ENV 6.6.2 Conservation Reserve EnhancementProgram: Strongly encourage landowner participationin the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programand work with the sponsoring agencies to achieve asa high a participation rate as possible.

ENV 6.7 Governmental Cooperation: Work with the townsof Blacksburg and Christiansburg, the City of Radford, andthe neighboring counties to provide a regional approach toland use management decision-making in karst terrains andkarst impacted groundwater and surface water resources.

ENV 6.7.1 Regional Karst, Groundwater, andSurface Water Roundtables: Enlist the aid of theNRV Planning District Commission and RoanokeValley-Alleghany Regional Commission to developregional roundtables to plan for and address karst terrainand related groundwater and surface water issues.

ENV 6.8 Water Quality: Gauge and establish baseline waterquality data at all major springs.

ENV 6.8.1 Hydrological Studies: Perform hydrostudies (dye trace) to delineate recharge areas for major(>0.5 MGD) springs and water supply wells serving> 10 residences or industries.

ENV 7.0 Stormwater & Erosion Control: County is committed tomanaging stormwater and erosion in order to protect surface waterquality and aquatic habitat vitality, to guard against the loss of landmassand to maintain and enhance human health and safety. (30)

ENV 7.1 Stormwater and Erosion Management Program.Develop a proactive stormwater management program designedto address stormwater runoff in watersheds and villages.

ENV 7.1.1 Village Planning and StormwaterManagement. Work with the County Engineer todevelop a stormwater management plans in tandemwith each of the six village plans (Belview, Elliston-Lafayette, Plum Creek, Prices Fork, Riner, andShawsville).

ENV 7.1.2 Comprehensive Watershed ManagementStudy. Conduct a local comprehensive watershedmanagement study for Montgomery County and reviseordinances to address results.

ENV 7.1.3 Stormwater Management Database.Create a database of projects, integrated with theCounty’s GIS, that would track projects and activities,including timber operations, which contribute to runoffand erosion.

ENV 7.1.4 Stormwater Management Ordinance.Develop, adopt, and implement a stormwatermanagement ordinance, in line with Phase II of theVirginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program(VPDES), including 1) provisions for water qualityassessment in site designs and reviews; 2) provisionsfor strengthening current stormwater management anderosion control requirements; and 3) and provisionswhich reflect new Virginia Storm Water PollutionPrevention Plan Requirements (SWPPP) which wentinto effect July 1, 2004.

ENV 7.1.5 Stormwater and Erosion BestManagement Practices. Develop a Best ManagementPractices approach to water management fordevelopment and redevelopment, including the use ofLow Impact Development (LID) techniques (clustering,limiting impervious surfaces, use of innovativepavement, etc.).

ENV 7.1.6 Public Awareness and Education. Developan erosion/ stormwater management public awarenessprogram.

ENV 7.2 Stormwater Authority. Examine the feasibility ofdeveloping of a joint Stormwater Utility (Stormwater Authority),including fee structure, for Montgomery County, Blacksburg,Christiansburg, and Radford.

ENV 7.3. Compliance. Investigate alternative means ofencouraging compliance with erosion and sedimentation control.

ENV 7.3.1 Enhanced Inspections. Utilize buildinginspectors to enhance compliance with the Erosion andSedimentation Ordinance. Additional building inspector

man-hours required for erosion and sediment controlinspection may be funded through a stormwater utilityfee.

ENV 7.3.2 Pre-Construction Notices. Implement anon-site erosion control pre-construction notice toencourage public enforcement of the Erosion andSedimentation Ordinance. This notice is intended tohelp ensure that erosion and sediment control measuresare properly installed, by including a list of permitconditions and plan requirements prior to construction.Additionally, the public will be put on notice that suchconstruction has been permitted while construction siteswithout such a notice have not.

ENV 7.3.3 Tax Incentives for Riparian BufferEasements. Provide a tax exemption for land designatedas a riparian buffer, if held under a perpetual easement.Riparian buffers protect streams and shorelines fromerosion and prevent sedimentation of waterways. Suchan exemption is provided for under Article 5, Chapter36 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia.


Health and Human Services: GoalsHHS 1.0 Sustainable and Livable Communities: Promotedevelopment patterns in Montgomery County which enhance thediversity; recognize the interrelatedness of land use, economicdevelopment, quality of live, social, health, and environmental issues;and enable the development of a livable and sustainable communityfor all citizens. (1)

HHS 2.0 Quality of Life: Promote a fair and equitable approach toquality of life issues, including housing, jobs, transportation, education,and community amenities. (2)

HHS 2.1 Affordable Housing. Montgomery County shouldpromote affordable housing and livable neighborhoods andcommunities. (3)

HHS 2.2 Economic Development. Establish and support aneconomic development policy that : 1) provides a living wage;2) encourages diversity and accessibility; 3) increases accessto job training and retraining opportunities; and 4) expandsopportunities for job advancement and improved quality oflife for all citizens.

HHS 2.3 Transportation. Provide increased access to andvariety of public transportation opportunities for all citizens,

with a special emphasis on job-related transportation for thedisabled and for lower income individuals and families. (4)

HHS 2.4 Technical and Vocational Education Facilities andPrograms. Expand technical and job related training through apartnership with Virginia Tech, Radford University, New RiverCommunity College, and the Montgomery County Public Schools,as well as other public and private vocational and job trainingprograms in Montgomery County through the reuse of abandonedor decommissioned educational facilities and funded throughpublic/ private partnerships. (5)

HHS 2.5 Community Facilities. Equitably distribute new culturaland recreational facilities throughout Montgomery County inorder to provide greater access to social, cultural, and recreationalopportunities to all county residents.

Cross References and Notes:1. Sustainable and livable communities is also addressed in HSG 1.0: LivableNeighborhoods (pg. 48) and HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 49).2. While much of this plan deals with improving citizens’ quality of life, specificreferences are contained in ECD 1.0: Economic Development, Land Use, and Qualityof Life (pg. 25).3. The work group promoted the following affordable housing strategies: 1) mixedincome developments through the implementation of a 25% affordable housingrequirement for all new developments such that the units will be interspersed throughoutthe development rather than encouraging ghettoization (clustering of affordable unitsin one area); 2) development of smaller housing stock (starter homes) of 1,000-1,500square feet on smaller lots by providing developers with density bonuses; 3) accessorydwelling development in higher density areas in order to provide greater access toand dispersion of rental units; 4) provision of individual eldercare opportunities forfamilies by allowing accessory dwellings on all lots in the county used for residentialpurposes; 5) mixed-use developments which allow residential, commercial, institutional,and/or industrial uses within a single development; 6) encourage increased developmentand density in areas where public utilities and services area available; and 7) establishand enforce a property maintenance in order to address housing standards in MontgomeryCounty.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Health & Human Resource 45

Cross References and Notes:4. Public transportation is addressed in TRN 3.0 Mass Transit (pg. 58) and TRN 4.0Alternative Transportation (pg. 59).5. Education and Technical/Vocational Training are addressed in ECD 2.0: WorkforceDevelopment (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 ExpansionAreas (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, andRecreational Resources.

HHS 3.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration: Promote regional,local, and intergovernmental cooperation in the development anddistribution of health and human services, with a special emphasis onpublic/private cooperation and collaborative efforts. (7)

HHS 3.1 Interjurisdictional Cooperation: Work with the NRVPlanning District Commission to establish a interjurisdictionaltask force to assess and monitor health and human service relatedissues both in Montgomery County and in the New River Valley.

HHS 3.1.1 County Office on Cooperation: Establish anoffice that would provide: 1) linkages between public andnonprofit agencies and between jurisdictions; 2) grant-writing resources for public/nonprofit partnerships; 3)generation of public information for public and nonprofitagencies.

HHS 1.3 Public Information: To facilitate the distribution ofpublic information concerning health and humans service relatedissues, services, and facilities.

HHS 1.3.1 County Office on Information. Work withthe Montgomery County Public Information Office todevelop appropriate and effective approaches to thedevelopment and distribution of social and health servicerelated information

HHS 1.3.2 Geographic Information System. Createappropriate geographic information system layers whichtrack affordable housing, distribution of social and healthservices, demographic information (income, commutetime, household size, etc. by block, block group, andvoting district), and emergency management information.

HHS 4.0 Medical and Mental Health: To promote and, when possible,help facilitate the equitable distribution of medical and mental healthservices and facilities, including hospitals, clinics, special care facilities,and fire and rescue services throughout the county, with a special emphasison underserved populations or areas of the county. (8)

HHS 4.1 Health Care Facilities. Identify and designate areasappropriate and adequate for the location of long- and short-termmedical and mental health care facilities, with a special emphasison the siting of long term eldercare facilities.

HHS 4.2 Emergency Care Facilities. In conjunction with theHealth Department, the Free Clinic, and other public and nonprofitagencies, develop and site an emergency health care clinic inunderserved portions of the County, most notably in the Shawsville-Elliston-Lafayette area.

HHS 4.3 Emergency Response Facilities and Staff. Continueto support the development of adequate fire and rescue facilitiesand ongoing training of fire, rescue, and law enforcement staffthroughout Montgomery County.

Cross References and Notes:7. Montgomery County recognizes the grants are often more successful when theyincorporate a regional approach and have the support of local governments andgovernment agencies. In addition, governments can offer certain services, such asGIS, that may be beyond the scope, ability, or budget of social, human, health, andmental health organizations.

Cross References and Notes:8. The Community-Based Schools and Public Facilities initiative offers one possiblesolution to the siting of health and human service facilities in the County. Specificdiscussion of the program is included in PNG 3.1.4 Community Based Schools andPublic Facilities Initiative (pg. 20) and EDU 1.2: Community Based Schools andPublic Facilities (pg. 29). Public safety facilities are addressed in SFY 1.3: FutureCapital Facilities (pg. 50).


HHS 5.0 Human Services and Facilities: To promote and, whenpossible, help facilitate the development and equitable distribution ofelder, 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 designateareas appropriate and adequate for the location of humanservice facilities, including group homes; emergency carefacilities, such as shelters; transitional care and housing facilities,and rehabilitation facilities.

HHS 5.2 Elder Care Facilities. Identify and designate areasappropriate and adequate for the location of elder care facilities,including retirement communities, long-term care facilities,

adult daycare facilities, and other special use facilities specificto the needs of the senior population.

HHS 5.3 Child and Youth Care Facilities. Identify anddesignate areas appropriate and adequate for the location ofchild and youth care facilities, including child care centers,after school centers, child and youth group homes, and otherspecial use facilities specific to the needs of children, youth,and families.

HHS 5.4 Location. Explore the design and implementationof a "Trust Program" which would allow landowners, in specificareas of the county, to gift their property to health and humanservice organization if they so choose in exchange for taxrelief.

HHS 5.5 Adequate Funding: To promote adequate publicand private funding for public health and human services andfacilities.

Cross References and Notes.9. See footnote # 8 (pg. 46).


Housing: GoalsHSG 1.0 Livable Neighborhoods: Promote affordable, safe, livableneighborhoods for all residents. (1)

HSG 1.1 Affordable Housing. Promote affordable, qualityhousing for all income levels. (2)

HSG 1.1.1 Regional Housing Study. Work with theNew River Valley Planning District Commission andmember jurisdictions, including Virginia Tech andRadford Universities to do a comprehensive analysisof current housing conditions, housing affordability,and the impact of a large student presence on theavailability of affordable housing in the region, anddetermine the best approaches to insuring the availabilityof quality housing across income levels.

HSG 1.1.2 Adequate Zoning for Future Growth.Conduct a zoning study to determine residential landuse requirements for the next 20-25 years, in five yearincrements, including an evaluation of product type(single family attached and detached, multi-family, andmanufactured; own/rent, price/rent categories) andestimated land required for each type of housing; andrezone sufficient lands, in appropriate areas (those areasserved by public water and sewer) to accommodatefuture growth.

HSG 1.1.3 Affordable Housing Incentives. Provideincentives for affordable housing development. (3)

HSG 1.1.4 Public/Private Partnerships. Promote thedevelopment of public private partnerships to addressthe needs of moderate, low, and very low incomeresidents. (4)

HSG 1.1.5 Public Information. Provide publicinformation on programs that encourage thedevelopment of housing for moderate, low, and verylow income individuals and families and programs thatwould promote affordable homeownership, including:1) Below market interest programs; and 2)Homeownership counselling, credit counseling, andsavings programs (Individual Development Accounts)(5)

HSG 1.1.6 Very Low Income and TransitionalHousing Needs: Conduct a study of housing for verylow income and transitional housing in MontgomeryCounty and the Metropolitan Statistical Area

HSG 1.1.7 Grants Office. Promote the developmentof a regional grants office, through the New RiverValley Planning District Commission, to develop joint-sponsored grants and public/private partnerships toaddress issues of affordable housing, housing for thevery low income, and transitional housing in the region.(6)

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Housing Resources 48

Cross References and Notes:1. Livability, sustainability, and quality of life go hand-in-hand. While the planimplicitly addresses all three, specific references can be found in PNG 4.1.1: LivableCommunities (pg. 20); PLU 3.0 Community Design (pg. 16); ECD 1.0: EconomicDevelopment, 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 recommendationsfrom Wu Li and Dr. T. Koebel of Virginia Tech’s Housing Institute.3. 1) Reducing pre-development approval times; 2) Reducing the impact of governmentregulations on building cycle time; 3) Facilitating the development of Low IncomeHousing 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 developersto advise the county on the impediments they face in developing affordable housing.

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, lowincome is defined as 80% of the area’s median family income, and very low incomeis 50% of the area’s median family income.” In 2000, the US Census Bureauestablished the County’s median family income at $47,239. Given this, the lowincome 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 housingand Section 8 housing programs. It should be noted, however, that the percentageof median varies based on the size of family and eligibility may be affected by localhousing prices and other considerations.5. General approaches to public information are addressed in PNG 2.2: Informingthe 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).

HSG 1.2 Manufactured Housing and Housing Parks:Actively encourage the development and maintenance of livablemanufactured housing parks inorder to facilitate a communityethos.

HSG 1.2.1 Manufactured Housing Park Standards.Develop prototype standards for improving site design,including landscaping and buffering standards, amenitiesstandards, and public facility standards.

HSG 1.2.2 Maintenance Standards. Developmaintenance standards for mobile home parks and HUD-code housing units.

HSG 1.2.3 Recycling/Salvage Program. Develop arecycling/salvage program for old, obsoletemanufactured housing that would encourage replacingoccupied, obsolete mobile homes and discourageabandonment and neglect.

HSG 1.3 Safe and Livable Neighborhoods. Promote the useof safe and livable neighborhood designs in residentialdevelopment. (7)

HSG 1.3.1 Mixed Use Neighborhoods. Encouragethe development of planned, mixed use, pedestrian andtransit friendly neighborhoods, which would combineoffice, commercial, residential, recreational uses intoa single development.

HSG 1.3.2 Public Information: Provide residents anddevelopers information on "safe neighborhood," transit-oriented, and traditional neighborhood (TND) designand development.

HSG 1.3.3 Safe Neighborhoods and Transportation.Encourage intra- and inter-connectivity of roads,bikeways, and walkways in new residentialdevelopments in order to promote increased sense ofcommunity and safety, while decreasing trafficconcentration.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Housing Resources 49

Cross References and Notes:7. The concept of safe and livable neighborhoods is implicitly embedded in the landuse policies associated with Villages (PLU 1.7, pg. 9), Village Expansion Areas (PLU1.6, pg. 7), and Urban Expansion Areas (PLU 1.8, pg. 11), as well as the CommunityDesign policies (PLU 3.0, pg 16; see, also, footnote # 1 (pg 48) for other references.

Cross References and NotesNote: the EMSSTAR report (2003) is available, upon request, from the MontgomeryCounty 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 Fireand Rescue Strategic Plan recommendations should be reviewed and adopted intothis plan.4. See EMSSTAR Recommendations 3.1.3 and 3.3.3

SFY 1.0 Public Safety Goal: Promote and facilitate the provisionof superior law enforcement and emergency services (fire and rescue)in order to insure that people have a safe and secure community inwhich to live, work and raise their families.

SFY 1.1 Management Structure: Establish a single clearmanagement structure for planning and policy setting whilestriving to achieve consensus among fire, EMS and otherhealth and safety related constituency groups in formulatingpublic policy, procedures and protocols. (1)

SFY 1.1.1 Advisory Board: The "Fire and RescueTask Force "should be formally commissioned by theBoard of Supervisors as an advisory board workingwith the Emergency Services Office and reportingregularly to the Board of Supervisors. Moreover, thenew Advisory Board should be broadened to includelaw enforcement representation. (2)

SFY 1.1.2 Fire and Rescue Strategic Plan: Developand ratify a comprehensive strategic plan for fire andEMS services in Montgomery County. This plan shouldbe based on sound demographic and other data. Fundingdecisions should be made based upon this plan andupon compliance with other requirements establishedby the Board. (3)

SFY 1.1.3 Response Performance Goals: Establishresponse performance goals and such other fire andEMS performance goals as may be desired using inputfrom the fire and EMS agencies, county staff, themedical community and the public. (4)

SFY 1.1.4 NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan: Review thedraft NRV Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by NRVPlanning District Commission staff for adoption by theCounty in order to satisfy FEMA requirements for a hazardmitigation plan. (5)

SFY 1.1.5 GIS Support: Continue County GIS supportfor both law enforcement and emergency services activitiesespecially in order to provide compatible and readilyavailable geodata in support of law enforcement andemergency services activities throughout the County.

SFY 1.2 Public Involvement: Recognize and support the roleof citizen volunteers in the delivery of law enforcement andemergency services throughout Montgomery County. Moreover,promote a better understanding of law enforcement and emergencyservices issues by all County residents.

SFY 1.2.1 Fire and Rescue Involvement: Support thevital role of volunteers in the delivery of emergencyservices (fire and rescue) throughout Montgomery County.

SFY 1.2.2 Law Enforcement Involvement: Supportprograms that increase public involvement andunderstanding of the law enforcement process such as theSheriffs Citizen Academy and Neighborhood WatchProgram. (6)

SFY 1.3 Future Capital Facilities: Use the response performancegoals, the future land use policies/map from the ComprehensivePlan, projections for future traffic and road improvements fromthe MPO, and other pertinent data to develop a plan to locate andfund future law enforcement and emergency services facilitiesthat are necessitated by a growing County population. (7)

Public Safety: Goals

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Public Safety 50

Cross References and Notes:5. The New River Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan is also addressed in ENV 4.3Floodplains: 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.

SFY 1.3.1 Cash Proffers: Develop a cash profferguideline to address County capital facility needs forlaw enforcement and emergency services facilities.

SFY 1.3.2 Capital Facilities and Funding: Continueto work, annually, through Capital ImprovementsProgram to identify future capital facility needs and themeans for funding them.

SFY 1.3.3. Animal Shelter: Provide adequate, humaneanimal control services and facilities.

SFY 1.4 New Development: Proactively consider public safetyissues in the County’s review and approval of new residential,commercial, industrial and institutional developments.

SFY 1.4.1 Site Plan Review: Involve the EmergencyServices Coordinator in the site plan review process formajor residential, commercial, industrial and institutionaldevelopments proposed for the unincorporated portionsof the county.

SFY 1.4.2 Street Signs and House Numbers: Workwith county departments e.g. General Services (street

signs) and Building Inspectors (house numbers) toinsure that new structures can be easily located in thefield by emergency and law enforcement personnel.

SFY 1.5 Regional Opportunities: On selected issues, a regionalapproach may provide services more efficiently and effectively.In some cases this may involve the County workingcooperatively with Blacksburg, Christiansburg and VirginiaTech. In other cases this may involve the County workingcooperatively with other New River Valley governments andpossibly local governments in the Roanoke Valley.

SFY 1.5.1 Regional Swift Water Rescue Team:Evaluate the feasibility of County support for a regionalswift water rescue team.

SFY 1.5.2 MERIT Emergency CommunicationsCenter: Evaluate the feasibility of County participationin a Montgomery Emergency Response InformationTeam (MERIT) Emergency Communications Centerserving the county, Blacksburg, Christiansburg andVirginia Tech.

SFY 1.5.3 Regional Training Facility: Evaluate thefeasibility of County participation in the developmentof a regional training facility for use by fire, rescue andlaw enforcement personnel.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Public Safety 51

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 implementationportion 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 RecreationalPriorities and Funding (pg. 53).

Recreational Resources: GoalsPRC 1.0 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration: To encouragethe multi-use of existing facilities, while encouraging regionalapproaches to new recreation opportunities, which provide the broadestrange of recreational experiences to all residents of MontgomeryCounty, including those who live in Christiansburg and Blacksburg.(1).

PRC 1.1 Local Cooperation: Continue to work with theTowns of Blacksburg and Christiansburg and with countyschools to develop regional policies, facilities, and programsfor the benefit of all residents of Montgomery County.

PRC 1.1.1 Joint Meetings: Initiate regular meetingsbetween town and county recreation directors followedby joint meetings of the three recreation commissions.

PRC 1.1.2 Large Town Policies: Investigaterecreational policies of other Virginia counties withlarge towns in order to evaluate alternative plans ofaction for county recreation.

PRC 1.1.3 Regional Master Plan: Develop a “regionalmaster plan” to avoid duplication of similar facilitiesand programs between towns and county.

PRC 1.1.4 Facility Sharing: Coordinate facility sharingand "program-sharing" between the county, the countyschools and the towns through cooperative agreementsand/or a uniform policy on the use of recreationalfacilities. (2)

PRC 1.1.5 Regional Parks Authority: Evaluate thefeasibility of establishing a Regional Parks Authority.

PRC 1.1.6 Special Events. Work with neighboringjurisdictions and local organizations to organize andsponsor special events, including festivals and concerts.

PRC 1.2 Private / Non-Profit: Work with private and non-profit civic clubs to develop new and enhance existing sportleagues throughout the County (e.g., New River United SoccerAssociation).

PRC 1.2.1 Sports Needs: Determine the needs anddesires of existing sport leagues in the county and theappropriate role of the county in meeting these needs.

PRC 1.2.2 Public/Private Partnership Facilities:Develop clear policies for the future use of facilitiesthat are constructed and/or maintained with fundingfrom non-profit groups.

PRC 1.3 Cooperative Agreement: Work to establishcooperative agreements with Virginia Tech, Radford Universityand the City of Radford for facility sharing that will benefitall citizens of Montgomery County.

PRC 1.3.1 Kentland Farms: Work with Virginia Techto open the 4+ miles of New River frontage torecreational use by both students and county residents.

PRC 1.3.2 Trail Linkage: Develop a trail system thatwill link to the City of Radford and the two universitiesto better meet the needs of the student population andcity residents (e.g. Kentland Farms river access andDedmon Center & Bissett Park).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Recreational Resources 52

Cross References and Notes:1. Local and Regional Cooperation are a central theme to this plan. Additionalreferences 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 addressedin PNG 3.0 Access (pg. 19).

PRC 2.0 Recreational Facilities and Programs . To provide a broadvariety of recreational opportunities and traditional and special usefacilities for all citizens of Montgomery County, with special attentionto the recreational needs of youth, young adults, and senior citizens.(3)

PRC 2.1 Outdoor Facility Master Plan (OFMP): Revise,formally adopt, and use the Outdoor Facility Master Plan asa guide for the development of new parks and recreationalfacilities, including pocket, neighborhood, village, and regionalparks, as well as special use facilities, trails, and heritage parks.

PRC 2.1.1 Recreational Priorities and Funding:Decide on the top projects in the OFMP and developfunding strategies for them including incorporationinto the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), use of grantfunds and other sources of funding.

PRC 2.1.2 Cash Proffers: Evaluate cash proffers asa funding tool for recreation facilities identified in theOFMP that are necessary to meet the recreational needsof an increasing county population.

PRC 2.1.3 Operational and maintenance needs:Broaden the OFMP to better address indoor facilitiesas well as operational and maintenance needs.

PRC 2.1.4 Village Plans: Work with residents in eachof the villages to address recreational needs in theirVillage Plans, including community, neighborhood,pocket, and tot parks and walkway/bikeway facilities.(5)

PRC 2.2 Accessibility: Make existing recreational facilitiesaccessible to all county residents, both in terms of how thefacilities are accessed and used.

PRC 2.2.1 Facility Location: Develop major facilitiesin areas that are accessible by major roads therebyproviding the opportunity for existing and/or future busservices.

PRC 2.2.2 Facility Accessibility: Develop a plan toensure that existing and new facilities are accessible toall Montgomery County residents, with special attentionto the needs of differently-abled residents, by meetingthe accessibility standards established under the Americanswith Disabilities Act (ADA).

PRC 2.3 Trails: Provide a high quality trail network, based ona series of trails and activity or education nodes, throughout thecounty, which offers both increased individual and familyrecreational opportunities and alternative transportation routesbetween jurisdictions and outlying villages. (6)

PRC 2.3.1 New River Trail Linkage: Support New RiverValley Planning District Commission efforts to developa multi-jurisdictional plan for linking the HuckleberryTrail to the New River Trail via Christiansburg andRadford.

PRC 2.3.2 Business/Industrial Park Trail: Developbikeway/walkway trails in existing and proposedbusiness/industrial parks.

PRC 2.3.3 Trails and Nodes: Develop recreation facilitiesin collaboration with the County and Towns master plansfor trails (including bikeways and walkways).

PRC 2.4 Commercial Recreational Facilities: Encourage thedevelopment of for-profit, privately-owned recreational facilitiesin the County when they are sited in appropriate locations.

PRC 2.5 Planning Review: Involve the Parks & RecreationCommission in the review of rezoning and special use permitrequests for recreation facilities desiring to locate in theunincorporated areas of the County.

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Recreational Resources 53

Cross References and Notes:3. Recreational facilities include traditional regional parks, multi-use sports facilities(developed in conjunction with the public schools), community and neighborhoodparks, Heritage Parks and Trails, pocket parks, and tot parks, as well as special usefacilities.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 1.6Village Expansion Areas (pg. 7); and PNG 4.0 Villages and Small Communities (pg.20).

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).

Cross References and Notes:1. Specific transportation land use policies are include in the Planning and Land Usechapter, including Resource Stewardship Areas (PLU 1.2.3 [c][d])(pg. 2); RuralAreas (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 ExpansionAreas (PLU 1.6.4 [c][f] and PLU 1.6.5 [c])(pg. 8); Villages (PLU 1.7.4 [d][e] andPLU 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 forRoad 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 Neighborhoodsand Transportation (pg. 49).2. The provision of public information is one of the central themes of MontgomeryCounty, 2025. Additional information on the plan’s approach to public informationis included in PNG 2.2: Informing the Public (pg. 19).3. Corridor planning is addressed in PLU 1.8.2: Corridor Planning (pg. 11).

TRN 1.0 Land Use and Transportation Goal: Coordinate land useplanning with transportation planning in order to reduce trafficcongestion and to balance development needs with the desire forlivable communities. (1)

TRN 1.1 Public Information and Outreach: Actively promotepublic participation in the transportation planning and decision-making processes and public use of transportation opportunitiesin Montgomery County by: 1) providing for public inputopportunities; 2) maintaining and publicly distributingtransportation-related GIS data in order to track changes inland use and transportation opportunities; and 3) providingaccess to a broad range of transportation related informationto increase public understanding and awareness and promotepublic use of the transportation modes offered in MontgomeryCounty. (2)

TRN 1.1.1 Transportation Related PublicInvolvement: Increase public involvement intransportation-related decisions, including: 1) workwith the MPO and other local jurisdictions to developa policy to encourage significant public input andinvolvement in transportation and corridor planning;and 2) work with local organizations to encouragesignificant public input and involvement in local corridorand village planning initiatives. (3)

TRN 1.1.2 Transportation Map (GIS) and Public

Information: Provide an annually updated MontgomeryCounty Transportation Map, legibly labeled, whichwould include all road names, route numbers, walkway/bikeway routes, public transit stops, park and ride lots,airports, and other transportation information generatedby Montgomery County and the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO). (4)

TRN 1.1.3 Transportation Related PublicInformation: Provide broad-based public access toprint and electronic based transportation-relatedinformation, including Montgomery CountyTransportation Map, annually updated; MontgomeryCounty GIS data and online mapping service;Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) data,meeting minutes, and reports; roadway maintenanceproblems and directions for notifying the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation (VDoT) whenmaintenance problems arise; Park and Ride facilitiesand information; and bikeway, walkway, and HeritageTrail information.

TRN 1.2 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO):Provide ongoing, long-term support of and assistance to theMetropolitan Planning Organization.

TRN 1.2.1 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan:Provide input on County land use issues into the MPOsongoing transportation planning process and the MPOspreparation of the 2030 Long-Range TransportationPlan, which will address: 1) future road improvementsfor arterial and collector roads, including flexible,context-sensitive road design standards; 2) mass transit;and 3) Heritage Trails, bikeways, and walkways. (5)

Transportation Resources: Goals

Cross References and Notes:4. The County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) provides both County staffand County residents with a powerful analytic tool. Additional information on theGIS system is included in Cultural Resources (CRS 1.2.2, pg. 22), EnvironmentalResources (ENV 1.3, pg. 31), Public Safety (SFY 1.1.5, pg. 50), and Utilities (UTL1.4.3, pg. 62).5. The Heritage Trail system, bikeways, and walkways are addressed in TRN 4.2Walkway/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).

Montgomery County, 2025--Handbook--10/12/04 Transportation Resources 54

TRN 1.2.2 Cooperative Review: Develop acooperative review policy/ agreement wherebyMontgomery County would include the MPO, alongwith other localjurisdictions, and vise versa in addressing transportationissues for new, major developments.

TRN 1.3 Subdivisions: Proactively review, on a regular basis,the Subdivision Ordinance with respect to those issues thatinvolve both land use and transportation. By regularlyreviewing the subdivision ordinance, the county can establishproactive policies which address land use and transportationissues, including cul-de-sacs, street continuation andconnectivity, and right-of-way standards. (6)

TRN 1.3.1 Cul-de-sac: Review the SubdivisionOrdinance requirement limiting the number of lotspermitted on a dead end cul-de-sac rather than limitingthe linear feet of the cul-de-sac.

TRN 1.3.2 Street Continuation and Connectivity:Require that the arrangement of streets in newsubdivisions: 1) make provisions for connectivity andfor the continuation of existing streets into adjoiningareas; and 2) delineate future street extensions onsubdivision plats in order that lot purchasers are awarethat the streets in their subdivisions are likely to beextended to adjoining properties. (7)

TRN 1.3.3 Right-of-Way Standards: Require newlots, created by subdivision, abut streets meeting VDoTright-of-way standards. This requirement leads to thededication of additional right-of-way when lots areplatted along existing streets with substandard right-of-way widths. Exceptions are made for familysubdivisions and lots with private access easements.

TRN 1.3.4 Context Sensitive Street Designs. Workwith VDoT to develop road standards which allow for

context sensitive street designs in Villages and urbanizedareas. (8)

TRN 1.3.5 Pedestrian Oriented Facilities. Require theprovision of pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, walkways,trails, etc.) in new developments in the Village, VillageExpansion, Residential Transition, and Urban ExpansionAreas. (9)

TRN 1.4 Connectivity and Access Management: Provide forthe safe, orderly, and efficient flow of traffic along roads classifiedas major and minor arterials by 1) incorporating accessmanagement strategies in the review of development proposals;and 2) asking the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) toassist in evaluating ingress, egress, and connectivity requirements. This requirement would limit the burdening of any one roadwith only one ingress and egress and encourage connectivity.Presently such a requirement exists only for the 177 CorridorPlanning Area.

TRN 1.4.1 Strip Development: Discourage stripdevelopment, particularly of commercial properties, alongimportant transportation corridors by designating areasthat can be zoned to serve as compact centers fordevelopment, including village and urban centers andmajor road intersections.

TRN 1.4.2 Commercial Access: Require that high volume/high turnover commercial establishments (drive-thrurestaurants and convenience stores for example) locatewithin other commercial development where access tothe facility is from the development, not from the majorthoroughfare.

Cross References and Notes:6.See footnote #1 (pg. 54).7. Street continuation and connectivity are central themes in the County’s approach totransportation planning. Additional references can be found in the Planning and LandUse chapter (see note #1 for specific references); and HSG 1.3.3 Safe Neighborhoodsand Transportation (pg. 49), as well as other portions of this chapter.

Cross References and Notes:8. The need for a flexible, contextual approach to road standards is especially importantin the Villages and Rural Communities where historic patterns of development differfrom existing state road standards and where the historic fabric of the community couldbe disrupted or destroyed if current standards were strictly applied. Additional informationon transportation issues and contextual road standards as they apply to rural communitiesand 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] (pgs5, 10-11). In addition, street sensitive design is also addressed in the Proposed RevisionVirginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements (published inthe Virginia Register on May 3, 2004) and Draft Virginia Department of TransportationSubdivision Street Design Guide (Appendix B of the Road Design Manual) dated12/19/20039. 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).


TRN 1.4.3 Shared Access: Encourage shared accessfor roads classified as major and minor arterials andmajor and minor collectors.

TRN 1.5 Road Standards: Encourage flexibility in theapplication of road design standards. The application of anystandards should consider a roads context and setting and theimpact of the proposed design upon the community and theenvironment.

TRN 1.6 Cash Proffers: Evaluate the development a CashProffer System, in partnership with Blacksburg andChristiansburg, to address the impact of new development onthe transportation system and provide funding to alleviatefuture problems. (10)

TRN 1.7 Comprehensive Plan Compliance. Actively reviewall transportation and land use projects and proposals todetermine compliance with the applicable sections of thecomprehensive plan and land use policies.

TRN 2.0 Highway System: Manage, enhance, and maintain thecurrent network of transportation in order to maximize safety andefficiency and facilitate economic development, while reducing naturaland built environmental impacts.

TRN 2.1 Maintenance: Encourage the Virginia Departmentof Transportation and Montgomery County to approach efficientand effective maintenance of existing public roads as a firstpriority, in order to extend roadway surface life, minimizetraffic congestion, and increase public safety during all seasonsand under all weather conditions. It is important to maintaincurrent transportation routes as the most cost effectivealternative to building new roads. Maintenance of our roadswill provide a safe travel surface, eliminate hazards to pedestrianand vehicular traffic, and protect the financial investment inthe roadway system by preventing progressive deteriorationof the pavement and shoulders.

TRN 2.2 Safety: Encourage law enforcement to enforce speedlimits, stoplights, and all other traffic laws in order to effectivelyprotect: 1) the public health, safety, and welfare; 2) residents'quality of life; and 3) the fluidity and efficiency of both ourvehicular and our pedestrian transportation systems. (11)

TRN 2.2.1 Law Enforcement Personnel: Encouragelocal and regional jurisdictions to increase the numberof law enforcement personnel, in order to moreeffectively enforce the law and provide a higher qualityof life and a safer atmosphere to the MontgomeryCounty citizens.

TRN 2.3 Alleviating Traffic Congestion and Accidents.Identify congestion and accident prone routes and intersectionsand adopt policies to alleviate congestion, increase safety, anddecrease car trips.

TRN 2.3.1 Problem Intersections and Routes:Identify problematic intersections and routes inMontgomery County, and work with the MetropolitanPlanning Organizations and The Transportation SafetyCommission to find solutions.

Cross References and Notes:10. Proffers are addressed, more fully, in PLU 2.2: Proffer Guidelines (pg. 14).

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 safeneighborhoods, addressed in HSG 1.3: Safe Neighborhoods (pg. 49).


TRN 2.3.2 Park-and-Ride: Work with the MPO todevelop a regional park-and-ride lot strategic plan whichwould : 1) provide facilities in outlying areas ofMontgomery County and adjacent jurisdictions; 2)evaluate existing, under utilized parking lots for parkand ride opportunities; and 3) establish a publicawareness program to encourage increased usage ofpark-and-ride facilities.

TRN 2.4 Access Management: Encourage the practice ofaccess management both in Montgomery County and regionally,which will deter expensive road improvements, allow saferdriving conditions while decreasing traffic congestion, andincrease safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

TRN 2.4.1 Corridor Planning and AccessManagement: In cooperation with the New RiverValley Planning District Commission, develop a regionalapproach to the corridor planning process (e.g. The 177Corridor Plan) which incorporates access managementtechniques, (12)

TRN 2.5 Interstate 81 Corridor Improvements: Support themulti-year Environmental Process currently being conductedby the Virginia Department of Transportation and the corridorimprovements identified in the 1998 Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDoT) study to meet the future needs countyresidents and those passing through the county on Interstate81. (13) Any proposal for improvements to the Interstate 81corridor must address the following eight issues of significanceto Montgomery County:

TRN 2.5.1 Smart Road: The future Smart Roadinterchange should be evaluated and incorporated intothe design and construction of any improvements.

TRN 2.5.2 Scenic Beauty: Encourage green mediansand discourage soundwalls in order to maintain scenicbeauty throughout the corridor. (14)

TRN 2.5.3 Rail Alternatives: Require a detailed studyand serious consideration of passenger (Trans Dominion)and freight rail service alone the entire Interstate 81corridor, including possible improvements in adjacentstates. (15)

TRN 2.5.4 Toll Free Local Traffic: Structure tollpolicies to exempt local traffic: 1) within the BlacksburgMSA (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Radford) and2) between the adjoining Blacksburg MSA and theRoanoke MSA.

TRN 2.5.5 Toll Facility: Location Locate toll facilitieswhere they will not have an adverse impact on localhighways. For example, the Fluor proposal locates atoll facility at mile marker 116 thereby dumpingsignificant traffic onto the local streets of Christiansburg.

TRN 2.5.6 Stormwater Management: EncourageVDoT to work with appropriate local governments inthe design and construction of regional stormwatermanagement facilities along the corridor. (16)

TRN 2.5.7 Agricultural & Forestal Districts (AFDs):Discourage expansion of right-of-ways beyond whatwas identified in VDoT's 1998 concept study in orderto minimize the impact on Agricultural and ForestalDistricts (AFDs) in Montgomery County. (17)

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) withthe two private proposals (Fluor and Star Solutions) for improvements to the Interstate81 corridor submitted under the Public Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPTA).The two proposals are vastly different from each other and neither proposal correspondsto the concept study for Interstate 81 corridor improvements developed for VDoTin 1998. Moreover VDoT is beginning a multi-year Environmental Process todetermine the purpose, need, and scope of corridor improvements. Therefore, anyproposal decision should not be made until the Environmental Process is complete.

Cross References and Notes:14. Scenic beauty, in the form of viewsheds, is a significant advertising resource forMontgomery County. The I-81 corridor functions as both an introduction to and aninvitation to travellers to stop and explore the County. The preservation of access toviewsheds 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 Preservationand 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: Stormwaterand Erosion Control (pg. 148).17. Agricultural and Forestal districts are addressed in ENV 2.1.3: Agricultural andForestal Districts (pg. 34) and ENV 3.1.6: Agricultural and Forestal Districts (pg.34).


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 theexisting Blacksburg Transit (BT) transit service in order tomaximize safety and efficiency while minimizing environmentaldegradation.

TRN 3.1.1 Efficient Transit: Encourage BT to providemore efficient and well-planned service routes, with"safe" bus stops and "safe" access to those bus stops,including: 1) well-planned service routes to decreasetime spent waiting for the bus; 2) lit and well markedbus stops; and 3) and sidewalks or walkways/ bikewaysto access bus stops safely rather than walking on theshoulder of a busy road.

TRN 3.1.2 Transit Service Extension: Request thatthe Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) evaluatemass transit extensions as part of the 2030 long-rangetransportation plan including the extension of the TwoTown Trolley service between Blacksburg andChristiansburg to include Radford. (19)

TRN 3.2 Future Service: Encourage the provision of a masstransit service in commercial areas and between jurisdictions(Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Radford) and between MSAs(Blacksburg and Roanoke) to alleviate congestion and decreasethe number of personal car trips.

TRN 3.2.1 Micro-shuttle: Ask the MetropolitanPlanning Organization (MPO) to evaluate micro-shuttleservice to area businesses within the core shoppingarea. This study would evaluate cost, demand, efficiency,and transit route tie-ins. A shuttle service would simplybe 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 wouldhave a shuttle stop in front of their store, the jurisdictionsserved by the commercial area, and Chamber of


Cross References and Notes:18. Park and Ride facilities for outlying areas and public awareness programs forcarpooling are addressed in TRN 2.3.2 (pg. 57)19. Public transit services provide transportation for lower income and disabledcommuters to travel to work and to the commercial areas in the County, as suggestedin HHS 2.3: Transportation (pg. 45).

TRN 2.5.8 Rest Areas: Encourage the construction ofadequate rest areas, which provide separate facilitiesfor cars and trucks, through out the corridor.

TRN 2.6 Virginia Scenic Byways: Virginia Byways areexisting roads with significant aesthetic and cultural values,leading to or lying within an area of historical, natural orrecreational significance. Montgomery County, in conjunctionwith Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) and theDepartment of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), will workto identify, evaluate and designate roads in the county thathave important and unique scenic value and experiences,provide diverse landscape experiences, provide linkages andaccess, provide leisurely motoring experiences, and areregionally significant.

Commerce. Ideally, the micro-shuttle would be operatedby BT and would tie into existing bus routes.

TRN 3.2.2 Valley Metro Service: Establish clearbenchmarks to measure the success or failure of ValleyMetro's demonstration project for express bus servicebetween Blacksburg and downtown Roanoke.

TRN 3.2.3 Alternate Transit Transfer Site: EncourageBlacksburg Transit and Virginia Tech to evaluate analternative to the existing transit transfer area on campusat Burress Hall. While Burress Hall serves the VirginiaTech population well, it does not purposefully serveother users of the BT transit system. The idea is to makemass transit more usable by all citizens; therefore findingan additional off-campus transit transfer site would bevery beneficial.

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).

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 differentprovisions 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 expansionareas (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 inneighborhood and community design (PLU 3.1.1[b][i-v], pg. 16), providerecreational opportunities (PRC1.3.2 and 2.3, pgs.52-53), and provide additionalcommuting opportunities to the large scale economic and industrial areas (PRC2.3.2, pg. 53).

TRN 4.0 Alternative Transportation: Support viable alternativemodes of transportation (walking/ biking trails) and provide connectivityto existing transportation networks. Walking and biking trails are animportant alternative mode of transportation that can reduce congestionfrom the use of private cars. By managing the existing trails networkand providing connectivity to other modes of transportation, theCounty can develop a comprehensive transportation network thatbalances safety, mobility, cost, and environmental impact. Whenwalkway and bikeways interconnect, people are more likely to usethem to get to and from work, shopping, etc. The Huckleberry Trail,Mid-County Park Market Place Connection, and New River Trailsare walkways/ bikeways that should be linked with other local andregional walkway/ bikeway systems. (20)

TRN 4.1 Commercial/ Public Use: Evaluate sidewalk andbike rack requirements for commercial and public usedevelopments in order to encourage the use of alternativetransportation and alleviate congestion.

TRN 4.2 Bikeways, Walkways, and Trails: Encouragecoordination between the County, Blacksburg, Christiansburg,and regional jurisdictions in order to provide connectivity ofall bikeways, walkways and Trails.

TRN 4.2.1 Bikeways, Walkways, and TrailsCoordination: Use the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) framework to create coordinationcommittee to study the connectivity of the bikeway,walkway, sidewalk, and heritage trail network..

TRN 4.2.2 Walkway/ Bikeway Update: Work withthe Metropolitan Planning Organization to review andupdate the Bikeway, Walkway, and Heritage TrailsPlan.


TRN 5.0 Multi-Modal Transportation Goal. Encourage, maintain,and enhance air and rail transportation service in Montgomery Countyand the New River Valley. The New River Valley provides Virginiawith a rich resource of educational institutions. With those institutionscome high technology industries and businesses. Public transportationrail and air links between southwest Virginia, the State Capital, andWashington, D.C. are essential for the continued growth and prosperityof the New River Valley and would help spawn new economic growthin the more rural western sections of the state. New corporations andhigh tech industries would take a more favorable look at locating inVirginia with this type of statewide transportation initiative.

TRN 5.1 Air Transportation: Maintain and enhance thecomplementary roles of the three airports serving MontgomeryCounty: 1) Virginia Tech / Montgomery Executive Airport forcorporate and general aviation needs; 2 New River ValleyAirport for air freight needs, and 3) Roanoke Regional Airportfor full-service air passenger needs.

TRN 5.1.1 Low Cost Carrier Strategy: SupportVirginia Tech's efforts to attract a low cost air carrierto the Roanoke Regional Airport.

Cross References and Notes:21. The Corning Rail Spur is one example.

TRN 5.2 Rail Transportation: Maintain and enhance NorfolkSouthern rail service to businesses, industries, and people inMontgomery County.

TRN 5.2.1 Industrial Rail Spurs : Support increasedrail service and spurs to the industrial areas and parksin the county. (21)

TRN 5.2.2 Interstate 81 Freight Diversion Strategy:Support state efforts to promote rail alternatives tothrough truck traffic on Interstate 81. This willnecessitate consideration of rail improvements in nearbystates in conjunction with improvements to“bottlenecks” in Virginia in order to providecompetitive, long haul rail service.

TRN 5.2.3 Trans Dominion Express Strategy: Supportstate efforts to promote high speed passenger rail servicefor southwestern Virginia.


UTL 1.0 Water & Sewer Goal: Provide a planning framework forthe provision of public and private water and sewer, so that the waterand sewer projects are consistent with the County's land use policieswhile ensuring adequate, safe drinking water and proper,environmentally safe disposal of wastewater/sewage for all Countyresidents.

UTL 1.1 Regional Cooperation: Approach the provision ofpublic water and sewer from a regional perspective in orderto provide these services more efficiently and effectively andto provide alternative sources in the event of individual systemfailures. (1)

UTL 1.1.1 Regional Water Authority: Work to obtainfull membership for Montgomery County in theBlacksburg, Christiansburg & VPI Water Authority.

UTL 1.1.2 Water Supply Study: Work through theNew 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 1.1.3 System Interconnect: Evaluate thefeasibility of interconnecting the major public watersystems in Montgomery County and Radford, includingthe land use implications. (3)

UTL 1.1.4 Institutional Arrangements: Evaluateexisting authorities, service areas and jurisdictionalagreements with regards to greater regional cooperationinvolving the Blacksburg, Christiansburg & VPI WaterAuthority, RAAP/Montgomery County and the City ofRadford.

UTL 1.1.5 Regional Wastewater Authority: ContinueCounty membership in the Peppers Ferry RegionalWastewater Treatment Authority. Evaluate the feasibilityof a regional approach to wastewater treatment involvingthe Peppers Ferry Authority, the Blacksburg VPISanitation Authority and the Crab Creek STP operatedby Christiansburg.

UTL 1.2 Public Systems: Continue to provide safe and reliablewater and sewer utilities at reasonable cost through the PublicService Authority (PSA) and through line extensions from thetowns and Radford. Provide for the orderly extension of publicwater and sewer service to designated growth areas and toareas with designated public health problems. (4)

UTL 1.2.1 Water Supply: Study the feasibility ofdeveloping an independent and reliable source of safedrinking water for County residents by continuing towork with the Radford Army Ammunition Plant(RAAP).

UTL 1.2.2 Project Priorities: Work with the PublicService Authority (PSA) to evaluate and prioritize the22 outstanding water and sewer projects added to theComprehensive Plan by amendments in 1999 and 2002.Among the factors to consider in establishing prioritiesare: engineering feasibility, financing feasibility,

Cross References and Notes:1. Regional cooperation is one of the linchpins of Montgomery County, 2025. Specificinformation on regional approaches is included in the Introduction and in PNG 1.0:Local and Regional Cooperation (pg. 18). Regional cooperation and efforts are alsoaddressed in other portions of this chapter, most notably in terms of Public Waterand 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 (UTL4.0, pg. 64).2. Surface and groundwater quality are addressed in ENV 3.0: Streams, Rivers, andSurface Waters (pg. 36); ENV 5.0: Groundwater (pg. 39); ENV 5.3: GroundwaterQuality Protection Programs (pg. 40); ENV 5.4 Well-Head Protection (pg. 40); ENV6.0 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 followingLand Use Policies: PLU 1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Areas (pg. 2); PLU 1.3.3 RuralAreas (pg. 3); PLU 1.4.3 Rural Communities (pg. 5); PLU 1.5.3 Residential TransitionAreas (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 MunicipalCoordination/Cooperation (pg. 13); and PLU 2.1(b) Criteria for Evaluating RezoningApplications--Public Utilities (pg. 14).

Utilities: Goals

Cross References and Notes:4. Specific policies addressing the provision and extension of public utilities in theseven land use policy areas are included in the Planning and Land Use Chapter: PLU1.2.3 Resource Stewardship Areas (pg. 2); PLU 1.3.3 Rural Areas (pg. 3); PLU 1.4.3Rural Communities (pg. 5); PLU 1.5.3 Residential Transition Areas (pg. 6); PLU1.6.5 Village Expansion Areas (pg. 8); PLU 1.7.5 Villages (pg. 11); PLU 1.8.5 UrbanExpansion 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 Utility Resources 61

compatibility with established service areas andcompatibility with identified Comprehensive Plangrowth areas, designated health problem areas, and theinterest of current homeowners in having PSA waterand/or sewer.

UTL 1.2.3 Financing: Work with the PSA to developa proactive funding plan for implementation of the topranked projects. (5)

UTL 1.2.4 Acquisition: Upon the request of a privateutility or of a significant proportion of the homeownersin a subdivision, evaluate the feasibility of the PSAacquiring and operating the private water or sewersystem, which serves the subdivision. Cost sharing byhomeowners may be required when a private water orsewer system is acquired by the PSA at the homeownersrequest.

UTL 1.2.5 Growth Boundary Strategy: In complianceand coordination with the County's land use policies,restrict public water and sewer access to futuredevelopment outside designated growth areas eventhough the lines may be present in the area.

UTL 1.3 Private Systems: Evaluate the construction andoperation of private systems for selected areas outside ofdesignated growth areas on a case by case basis.

UTL 1.3.1 Alternative Wastewater Systems: Evaluatethe feasibility of using alternative wastewater systemsin selected areas of the County instead of extendingpublic sewer lines. Determine the long-termresponsibilities of public and private interests in orderto insure that regular maintenance is performed onalternative systems.

UTL 1.3.2 Private System Standards: Require anyprivate systems to be constructed to Health Departmentand/or PSA specifications.

UTL 1.4 Individual Systems Objective: Support the properuse of individual wells and private septic systems in areas ofthe County that do not have public water and sewer and arenot expected to have public water and sewer in the foreseeablefuture. (6)

UTL 1.4.1 Public Information: Provide residents withinformation on the proper (health and environmentallysafe) use of individual wells and septic systems. (7)

UTL 1.4.2 Well Testing: Work with the ExtensionService to periodically repeat their successful 1992household water quality educational program forindividual well users. (8)

UTL 1.4.3 Utility Database and GeographicInformation System (GIS): Work with the HealthDepartment and other sources of information to mapthe location of current individual wells, septic systemsand potential hazards to groundwater, in order to bebetter able to predict and prevent future health problems.

Cross References and Notes:5. This should be done in conjunction with UTL 1.2.2: Project Priorities (pg. 61).

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 RealEstate Transactions (pg. 39); ENV 5.4: Well-Head Protection (pg. 40); and ENV5.7.2: Well Testing (pg. 41).


UTL 2.0 Electric, Telecommunication and Gas Utilities Goal:Provide for the orderly extension of electric service, telecommunicationservice (land line, wireless and/or cable) and natural gas service ina manner that supports growth and development without negativelyimpacting the natural environment.

UTL 2.1 Underground Lines: Require underground utilitylines and utility easements in new subdivisions.

UTL 2.2 Telecommunication Towers: Retain the RegionalApproach to Telecommunication Towers amendment to theComprehensive Plan in 2001. (9)

UTL 2.2.1 Co-location: Support the siting of newantennae, microwave dishes, etc. on existing structuressuch as existing communication towers, tall buildings,water tanks, electric transmission towers, signs, etc.This allows for the "highest and best" use of existingstructures and sites that could eliminate the need forconstruction of a new tower structure in an inappropriatearea.

UTL 2.2.2 Uniform Approach to Siting of NewTowers: (10) Siting of new communication towers ina jurisdiction should be reviewed for their potentialeffects on surrounding jurisdictions as well as thejurisdiction in which the structure is to be located.Newly constructed towers should be built in locationsthat will provide the lease negative impact to thecitizens of each jurisdiction. Montgomery Countyencourages the use of monopole and/or "stealth towers"for new sites that require new construction or "newbuilds". The following locations are listed from mostto least preferable when considering the siting ofcommunication towers:

A.Industrial parks (Urban Expansion, VillageExpansion, and Villages);

B.Industrial zoned lands (Urban Expansion, VillageExpansion, and Villages);

C.Commercially zoned lands (Urban Expansion,

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 2.3 Broadband/Fiber Optic Networks: Provide greater accessto broadband capabilities the Urban and Village Expansion Areas, andVillages in Montgomery County. (11)

UTL 2.3.1 NRV Telecommunications Plan: Review andAdopt the New River Valley Telecommunications Plan (2004).

UTL 2.3.2 Open-Access Service Network: Work with theNew River Valley Planning District Commission and regionaljurisdictions to establish a regional three tier (inter-county, intra-county, and local access) fiber-optic open-access service network,designed to deliver Open Access TCP/IP transport services, inthe New River Valley. The network and phasing of the projectwould be based on the New River Valley Planning DistrictCommission’s Proposed Fiber-Optic Network (2004).

Cross References and Notes:9. The 2001 Regional Approach to Telecommunications Towers amendment tothe 1990 Comprehensive Plan has been carried over to Montgomery County, 2025and is included at the end of this chapter.


Cross References and Notes:10. The uniform approach to the siting of new towers was referenced in the decisionfrom the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the Court found in favor of MontgomeryCounty. 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 theNew River Valley Planning District Commission and can be accessed at:http://www.nrvpdc.org/NRVTelecomPlan/NRVTelecomPlan.html.

UTL 3.0 Solid Waste: Provide for the collection, recycling anddisposal of solid waste to satisfy the needs of the County and toprovide for the well being of County residents and the environment.

UTL 3.1 Solid Waste Management: Continue to provide acomprehensive solid waste management program to addressthe immediate and long-term solid waste recycling and disposalneeds of the County.

UTL 3.1.1 Regional Cooperation: Continue toparticipate in and support the operation of theMontgomery Regional Solid Waste Authority(MRSWA) and the New River Resource Authority(NRRA).

UTL 3.1.2 Recycling Education: Encourage increasedquality and quantity of recycling through education incooperation with MRSWA.

UTL 3.1.3 Virginia Tech: Encourage Virginia Tech tofully fund the on-campus recycling program includingthe recycling of white office paper.

UTL 3.2 Collection System: Provide for the orderly collectionof solid waste and recyclables in the County.

UTL 3.2.1 Consolidated Collection Sites: Increasethe number of manned consolidated sites in the Countyafter first determining, from a countywide perspective,the best locations for additional manned sites that mostefficiently and effectively meet the needs of countyresidents. After expanding the system, close down theremaining 2 unmanned green box sites.

UTL 3.2.2 Curbside Pickup: Continue to allow privatecompanies to provide for curbside pickup of householdtrash in residential areas of the County.

UTL 3.2.3 Volunteer: Continue to support volunteercleanup efforts including the spring cleanup of roadsidetrash through the Bloomin’ and Broomin’ program.

UTL 3.2.4 Brush-to-Mulch Strategy: Continue toprovide for brush-to-mulch recycling at the old Mid-County Landfill Site.

UTL 4.0 Stormwater Management: Effectively manage stormwaterrunoff and erosion in order to protect properties, surface water qualityand aquatic habitat to maintain and enhance human health and safety.

UTL 4.1 Watershed Approach: In cooperation withBlacksburg and Christiansburg, develop a regional stormwatermanagement initiative, based on watershed boundaries, toeffectively manage stormwater runoff.

UTL 4.1.1 Stormwater Ordinance: Consider foradoption of a local stormwater management programto manage both the quantity and quality of runoff. Suchprograms are permitted as a local option under VirginiaStormwater Management Law. Coordinate with, andencourage, Blacksburg and Christiansburg to adoptsimilar ordinances.

UTL 4.1.2 Regional Stormwater Facilities: Withinthe watershed approach, evaluate the efficiency andeffectiveness of fewer, larger detention facilities withmore stringent maintenance responsibilities.

UTL 4.1.3 User Fees: Consider, in cooperation withBlacksburg and Christiansburg, a stormwater utilityapproach or an impervious surface fee approach orother types of user fees to pay for the development andmaintenance of regional stormwater facilities.

UTL 4.2 Village Planning and Stormwater Management.Work with the County Engineer to develop a stormwatermanagement 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 andadopt the regional hazard mitigation plan currently beingdeveloped by the New River Valley Planning DistrictCommission (NRVPDC) along with the participation of localjurisdictions. (14)

Cross References and Notes:12. Stormwater management is discussed in greater detail in ENV 7.0, including astormwater 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). Specificstrategies included in ENV 4.0: Floodplains (pg. 38) and SFY1.5: RegionalOpportunities (pg. 51) reflect specific suggestions included in the NRV HazardMitigation Plan.


Critical Features


Future Land Use


Montgomery County, 2025: Montgomery County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan

Documents

Transcript of Montgomery County, 2025: Montgomery County, Virginia Comprehensive Plan