1992
Montgomery CountyOpen-Space Plan
1992
Montgomery County
|
Note to Readers: The Montgomery County Open-Space Plan was never officially adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The text and supporting materials are being provide as a service, but the plan does not represent current policy. |
| Agriculture in Montgomery County |  |
To obtain input from citizens regarding the open-space features that they consider important to the uniqueness of the County, a series of public workshops was held in March (Round One) and April (Round Two) of 1992. These workshops were held in four locations throughout the County and one location in the Town of Blacksburg. One hundred and eleven individuals participated in the Round-One workshops, and 103 persons attended the Round-Two workshops.
At the Round-One workshops, participants were divided into small groups. Each group listed all of its members' responses to the question: "What are the natural, cultural, and recreational resources that make Montgomery County and the Town of Blacksburg unique and important to you?" Within each group, the responses were posted for all the members to see. Each group then ranked the responses in order of importance. Following these workshops, responses were divided into categories then grouped into common subjects, or themes. Thus, a response such as "drinking water needs protection" would be placed in the Water-Resources theme under the Natural-Resources category.
After the Round-One workshops, there was a general idea of what resources the citizens believe to be important. But, to provide protection, the Town and the County must determine the citizens' perceptions of the threats to these resources. This was the purpose of the Round-Two workshops.
At the Round-Two workshops, participants again were divided into small groups. Each group was asked to list the dangers that its members believe threaten the six themes that generated the most points at the Round-One workshops (conserve farmland, protect water resources, protect landowner rights, protect scenic views, preserve historic sites and structures, preserve rural community and landscape).
To better understand the perceived threats to open-space resources, the responses generated at the Round-Two workshops were placed into issue groups. An issue group is a collection of perceived threats that have similar characteristics. Thus, if "Runoff from pavement" and "Erosion" were given as threats to the water-resources-protection theme, these responses would be placed under the "Erosion and Runoff Issue" grouping. Forming issue groups allowed hundreds of responses to be arranged into thirty-eight groups.
RESOURCES AND THREATS
This section summarizes the responses from the Round-One and Round-Two workshops. For each of the three categories (Natural Resources, Cultural and Recreational Resources, and Additional Important Concerns), the various themes generated from the Round-One workshops are listed and briefly explained. In addition, the perceived threats to the themes discussed at the Round-Two workshops are noted.
|
|
 |
Figure 2.1 indicates the three most important themes under the Natural-Resources category. To the one hundred and eleven citizens participating in the Round-One workshops these themes are: conserve farmland, protect water resources, and protect scenic views. For each of these a number of related comments were given, including both general and site specific. Here is a synopsis of the comments and threats given for themes under the Natural-Resources category.
Theme 1: Conserve Farmland
|
Description:Although many participants believe farmland protection is important, the reasons given greatly vary. Some responses sway more toward protecting the rural and scenic qualities that farms provide, while other responses call for protecting the agricultural economy of the area. Still, other comments focus on saving the prime agricultural soils by preventing spillover of development onto this land. |
Perceived Threats:Some of the perceived threats to local farmland include: various forms of development encroaching on farmland, the loss of economic viability in farming, overregulation burdening farmers, and an aging farming population. Also expressed is concern over the breaking up of once contiguous farms because of inheritance by multiple surviving family members. |
Theme 2: Protect Water Resources
|
Description:The citizen participants believe various features of our water resources are important. Many responses deal with protecting specific bodies of water, while other comments range from keeping the surface and ground water unpolluted to flooding and wetland concerns. |
Perceived Threats:Some of the threats to the region's water resources, as defined by the Round-Two workshops, include: poor land-use practices that cause erosion, runoff, septic failures, and flooding; poor enforcement; poor water-resource-protection ordinances; and little awareness and understanding about water resources. |
Theme 3: Protect Scenic Views
|
Description:Comments from the citizen participants focus on the need to preserve the scenic beauty of Montgomery County, including its mountain views and numerous vistas. In addition, many locations throughout the community were identified as scenic areas. |
Perceived Threats:Insensitive and incompatible development, inconsistent regulations, pollution and litter, and lack of appreciation for scenic beauty are all general threats to scenic views that participants expressed at the Round-Two workshops.
|
Figure 2.2, which depicts responses regarding the importance of cultural and recreational resources, indicates a strong preference for the preservation of historical resources, recognizing the role they play in defining the character of Montgomery County. Also receiving emphasis is the community atmosphere of the towns and unincorporated communities scattered about the County. Blended into this concern for the man-made or man-altered environments that characterize the heritage of the County is the importance of recreational facilities and sites that are within these communities and often interconnect them.
|
|
 |
Accompanying Figure 2.2 is a synopsis of the comments given for the themes under the Cultural- and Recreational-Resources category. The participants in Round-Two Workshops were not asked for perceived threats to any of the themes under this category.
Description:Comments from workshop participants focus on protecting and preserving historic buildings (examples include homes, churches, mills) and historic sites. Many examples of historic sites and structures were provided by citizens at the workshops.
Description:The citizens attending the Round-One workshops find the small town and rural character of the community to be a major asset. Additional special characteristics identified include the quietness of the area, its remoteness, the scattered village centers, farmhouses, isolated homes, open land scattered with forests, and livestock.
Description:Recreational locations that citizens from Round One believe to be important to the County and Town include: community centers, open recreational spaces, public fishing sites, stocked public ponds, safe family-recreation areas, and trails (biking and walking).
Figure 2.3 clearly shows the strong concern that many of the participants feel for the maintenance of landowner rights. The use of the term "landowner rights" here relates to the loss of fair-market value because of increased land-use regulations or because of negative impacts created by external activities (that is, a change in an adjacent land use that adversely affects one's property). In addition there is concern about the ability to do as one pleases with one's own land. The issue of landowner rights ranked third of all responses given during the Round-One workshops. Citizens also repeatedly expressed the need for planned growth and concerns related to roads and traffic.
Accompanying Figure 2.3 is a synopsis of the comments given for the themes under the Additional-Important-Concerns category. The Round-Two participants were asked only for perceived threats to the Protect-Landowner-Rights Theme.
|
|
 |
Synopsis of Additional-Important Concerns
Theme 1: Protect Landowner Rights
|
Description:Citizens participating in the Round-One workshops believe strongly that landowners should have control over their land, regulations should be fair and equal, trespassing should be controlled, appropriate laws enforced, and just compensation be provided when restricting landowner rights. |
Perceived Threats:Some of the threats to landowner rights as identified by Round-Two workshop participants included trespassing, regulations, adjacent land uses, and road projects. |
|
Description:Round-One participants believe a number of growth and development issues are relevant to the Initiative. They believe sprawl and strip development should be discouraged, land-use density and diversity should be encouraged, and growth should be guided and controlled. |
Perceived Threats: Threats were not solicited for this issue. |
|
Description:Some citizens involved in the Round-One workshops expressed concern about reducing the impact of autos, needing more median-strip plantings and tree-lined streets, eliminating litter along roadways, and providing better bicycling access along roads. In addition, there were many concerns raised about specific road problems including the Blacksburg to Roanoke Direct Link — Smart-Highway project. |
Perceived Threats: Threats were not solicited for this issue. |
Figure 2.4 incorporates the themes receiving the most citizen concern at each of the workshop sites. Water resources and scenic views were natural resources with medium to high importance at all five workshop sites, while farmland conservation was a large concern at four of the five sites. The only place that farmland received a low response was at the Shawsville location, where only eight citizens participated. The protection of individual landowner rights received moderate to high responses at all five workshops. Clearly Montgomery County's and Blacksburg's location, natural features, people, and quality of life make the area a valuable and unique place to live and work. However, a recurrent concern expressed by participants at the workshops was the fragility and temporal nature of the characteristics of County and Town if land conversion continues on its current course.
|
|
 |
©Montgomery County Department of
Planning & Inspections
Last Updated 6 September 2001
Comments and suggestions should be sent to the Planning Department Webmaster