1st Quarter / Spring 2001
Why Have a Comprehensive Plan?
What is Included in a Comprehensive Plan?
Starting the Process: Preliminary Community Meetings and Mail In-Survey
Who Participated in the Community Meetings
Preliminary Meeting Results
Jagged, imperfect and lovely, the goal lies here. This is the estate of our independence. Walt Kelly (Pogo, 1953)
In 1990, Montgomery County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan, which was meant to guide growth for the final decade of the 20th century. Parts of the adopted plan were addressed during the years between 1990 and 2001; for others, the solutions escaped the grasp of those charged with defining and solving the county’s problems. Some of the goals, objectives, and policies included in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan reflected those included in the two previous Comprehensive Plans (1977 and 1983) and are likely to make an appearance in the revision currently underway, including issues of affordable housing, environmental protection, and preservation of agriculture and agricultural lands. As Montgomery County has grown from 29,780 in 1950 to 58,000 in 1975 to 83,629 in 2000, the issues Montgomery County has faced have also grown, both in terms of number and complexity. The challenges for those of us who live and work in Montgomery County are: how we ultimately define the issues we face; how we frame the goals, objectives, and policies to address these issues; and the degree to which we are willing to come together in order to produce a Comprehensive Plan which reflects our common values.
Comprehensive Planning, ultimately, is the art of coming together to determine the future of our communities and the allocation of our resources.
The comprehensive plan is mandated under the Virginia Code, §15-2-2223. The responsibility for the creation of a locale’s compre-hensive plan falls to the local planning commission (and, by extension, the planning depart-ment). According to the Virginia Code, the purpose of the compre-hensive plan is to “guide and accomplish a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the inhabitants.”
In the introduction to the 1983 Montgomery County Comprehen-sive Plan, the authors asked, “Why have a plan,” and the answer they gave is still applicable 18 years later:
“Because no one can turn back the clock. When people first settled this area, they were independent because they had to be. Today, there are more people, and people live closer together. This means less inde-pendence because we have to live together in communities. There is a price each of us pays for living in a particular community. Planning tries to make that price as fair as possible by trying to anticipate the consequences of develop-ment.”
Montgomery County is unlikely to stop growing, and to pretend otherwise is little more than a fool’s errand. However, how we grow is very much within our control. The 2001 Comprehensive Plan will provide a mechanism for establish-ing the parameters of growth by helping us determine what we want to be, where we want to go, and how we want to get there. However, the new plan will only be effective if it is developed through citizen involvement and input. Comprehensive planning is based on active citizen involvement in communities, in local government, and in the planning process. As the authors of the 1983 plan noted:
“...the comprehensive plan increases citizen involvement in local government. By adopting such a plan, the county government lets citizens know what changes they can likely expect in the future; whether they live in an area expected to grow rapidly or slowly; and what level of services they can reasonably expect. A plan does not increase government control over county residents but it does increase the accountability of county officials to the citizens. The plan reveals the government’s general intentions for all to see. Citizen then have a standard by which to rate government performance.”
Active participation takes a number of forms: answering surveys and questionnaires; participating in public meetings, committees, and neighborhood/community focus groups; writing letters to the editor, to the Board of Supervisors, and to the Planning Commission; and learning and thinking more about the issues facing Montgomery County. Over the course of the next year, the Montgomery County Planning Commissioners and the Planning Department staff will be holding a number of public meetings in each of the planning districts (Mt. Tabor, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville) as well as conducting additional surveys. The meetings and surveys will be announced in advance in the newspaper, on the Planning Department web site (http://plan. montva.com/pihome.html), and in the Planning Commission’s newsletter. (Note: if you would like to be added to the newsletter mailing list, or know someone who would like to be added, give us a call in the Planning Department, at 540-382-5750.)
Under the Virginia Code, §15-2-2223, certain features of the comprehensive plan are mandated, while others are optional. The comprehensive plan is a map and supporting documents (plats, charts, and descriptive matter) which “designate the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan and shall indicate where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be.” Beyond that, the content of the comprehensive plan is variable, and may include:
Under the Virginia Code, jurisdictions are not limited to the materials included in the list, which function as suggestions rather than mandatory components. Jurisdictions may also add additional categories or subject matter to their comprehensive plans. The 1999 Montgomery County Comprehensive Plan included specific sections (goals, objectives, and policies) to address individual concerns in each of the four planning districts (see below) and a separate bikeways/walkways plan, as well as the more traditional sections covering economic and residential growth, housing, transportation, and public facilities:
The components of the 2001/2002 Montgomery County Comprehensive Plan will include sections on the four planning areas (Mt. Tabor, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville). What else it includes will depend, in large part, on citizen input during the process.
Montgomery
County has taken the first step in the comprehensive plan-ning process by holding
a series of community meetings (Mt. Tabor, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville)
during March and administering the first of a series of citizen surveys. The
preliminary meetings were informal; involved citizens, members of the Planning
Commission, and the Board of Supervisors; and were intended to provide a starting
point for the planning process. At each meeting, participants were asked what
they liked and disliked about the county, what they saw as the biggest issues
facing the county, and to offer up some tentative solutions. The surveys were
published in both newspapers and copies were distributed through the county’s
collections facilities. The survey asked respondents the same questions asked
of the meeting participants.
| March 20 | Shawsville/Elliston/Lafayette/Ironto | 11 participants (8%) |
| March 22 | Mt Tabor/Northfork/Catawba/Ellett | 34 participants (26%) |
| March 27 | Riner/Belview/Pilot/Graysontown | 28 participants (21%) |
| March 29 | Prices Fork/McCoy/Merrimac/ Belview | 10 participants (8%) |
| Mar 20-Apr 10 | Mail-in Survey | 48 participants (37%) |
The Planning Commission and Department asked participants at the four public meetings, held in March, and the respondents to the mail-in survey four questions: 1) What did they most like about Montgomery County; 2) What did they most dislike about Montgomery County; 3) What were the issues facing Montgomery County; and 4) What were some possible solutions to the issues facing Montgomery County. One hundred and thirty-one people participated in the meetings or mail-in survey. Study Methodology In the four meetings, participants were separated into groups and worked with a facilitator to generate lists of responses to each question. Their responses were analyzed using content analysis which meant cataloging individual responses (through the examination of keywords and phrases) into subject groups. The categories were, in part, determined by examining subject headings used in previous comprehensive plans or were previously designated for the current comprehensive plan. For example, all comments related to traffic, traffic congestion, road conditions, road maintenance, and road planning/con-struction were grouped under the heading of Transportation. Similarly, all comments dealing with libraries, heritage parks, historic preservation, museums, and cultural events at the two universities were grouped under cultural facilities. The results were based on comment frequency (the number of comments grouped in each category). In some cases, comments mentioned more than one category. In these cases, the comment was included in the category which functioned as the primary focus of the comment.
Not surprisingly, the majority of participants (both in the public meetings and the mail-in survey) cited environmental and scenic qualities as the county feature they most liked. Some mentioned the mountains, the rivers and streams, and open and undeveloped ridge lines, while others talked about the diversity of wildlife and plants. In fact, the top four categories (scenic qualities, rural character, outdoor recreational opportunities, and open space/ agricultural lands) are closely related. The responses, however, did vary by area and by the features in a given area. The word choice depended, in large part, on the features surrounding the given planning district. For example, the respondents from the Mount Tabor planning district, which includes the Montgomery County portion of the Jefferson National Forest, were far more likely to use the term “open space” or talk about “undeveloped ridge lines” while the folks in the Riner area, which has far more agricultural land and working farms, were more likely to use the terms “Ag and Forestal districts,” “agricultural lands,” and “farmland,” although both groups were talking about essentially the same thing. Of the remaining categories of likes, three dealt with the quality of people in Montgomery County (people, small towns, and community groups), while the remainder dealt with county, state, and federal facilities, including the schools, libraries, universities, and the collection facilities.
Not surprisingly, transportation issues topped the list of dislikes, with planning and zoning issues a close second. The traffic congestion on 460 and at the intersection of 460 and 114 were the two most common com-plaints. Participants concerns about traffic congestion were also mirrored in their complaints about mall sprawl and the unfettered growth in the mid-county area. Planning and Zoning issues ranked second, and participants concerns about the lack of or inconsistency of planning and zoning could also be seen in their comments about sprawl, over-development, and residential, commercial, and economic development and growth. Of the issues surrounding planning and zoning, most participant comments dealt with three primary areas: the impact of lax zoning, the ease at which zoning could be changed, and the lack of enforcement of zoning regulations (especially for junk cars and residential developments on agricultural lands). It should be noted that the specific concerns cited by participants pointed to developments which were built prior to the passage of the new zoning ordinance. That fact, however, should not minimize their level of concern. In addition, participants were concerned about the county’s perceived failure at upholding or following the 1990 Comprehensive Plan and questioned the county’s commitment to comprehensive planning. Local government, taxes, and the inequitable distribution of fiscal resources ranked fourth and fifth in participants list of dislikes. For some of the respondents, the concern for inequitable distribution of resources was evidenced by the lack of specific public facilities in their communities: a library in the Shawsville district and new, modernized, or adequate schools in Shawsville and Riner. Environmental degradation, especially in terms of the impact of non-point source pollution of ground water, inadequate methods of sewage treatment (potentially failing septic systems), and illegal dumps, most notably along secondary roads, underscored the major complaint about the lack of or sparsely located collections facilities (public services).
The issues participants chose, in most cases, reflected their likes and their dislikes. Topping the list of issues was the preservation of open space and farmland--a choice which reflected participants enjoyment of the county’s scenic and environmental qualities and underscored their dislike of residential developments on agricultural lands, the loss of open space, and their concern with planning and zoning issues. It is interesting to note that open space and farmland preservation was the only category to be listed by all five participant groups. Growth and development, closely related to open space and farmland preservation, ranked second, while transportation concerns ranked third. While participants comments for the dislikes question raised concerns about congestion and the 460/114 interchange, the comments made for the issues question dealt with road maintenance (including mowing, repairing ditches and road surfaces, and concerns about the lack of connectivity). Environmental quality issues, ranked 4th, covered a broader range of subjects, including the impact of non-point source pollution in karst terrain, flood plains, and outdoor lighting. As with dislikes, planning and zoning, ranked 5th, centered on three primary concerns: 1) the need for proactive enforcement of zoning laws; 2) the need for proactive planning; and 3) the need for interjurisdictional cooperation. Participants ranked issues surrounding the county government and government services (trash collection, fire and rescue, and equitable distribution of funds) sixth. The majority of concerns in this category fell into three distinct categories: 1) a general distrust for government officials; 2) concerns about the government’s inability to listen and/or communicate with county residents; and 3) the government’s inability to work with other jurisdictions. Recreation issues, which ranked seventh, included indoor and outdoor physical recreation, as well as cultural recreation. While participants like the recreational opportunities afforded by Jefferson National Forest, they indicated that they wanted more parks, more trails, and more bikeways/walkways in the county. In addition, a number of participants, citing the Christiansburg Recreation Center as an example, expressed an interest in having a similar facility for county residents. Those participants who mentioned cultural recreational facilities most commonly referenced the lack of adequate library facilities outside of Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Economic development issues (too much) and housing issues (not enough) rounded out the list of the top ten. Participants felt that the county needed to place more emphasis on the development of small businesses rather than large scale operations and on the development of affordable stick-built housing.
Planning Department Activities
The beginning of 2001 marked the beginning of the public end of the comprehensive planning process, as well as the continuation of a number of major and minor projects. In January and February, the Planning staff gathered background information and prepared maps in anticipation of the first round of community meetings in late March (see pages 1-6). However, the revision of the comprehensive plan was not the only project in the works during the first quarter of 2001. At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission held public hearings and recommen-ded technical changes in the 1999 Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the Commission conducted a special work session on January 29th (as well as during their regular sessions in February and March) to consider 23 policy changes to the Zoning Ordinance. In March, the Commission completed their discussion of the policy changes and directed the staff to prepare the necessary text amendments, which were scheduled to be considered in April. Once again, the Planning Department is advertising for a full-time GIS coordinator since Alan Moore, the part-time coordinator, resigned in February. Work, however, continues on setting up the GIS lab, including the purchase of appropriate hardware, software, and a global positioning unit, and coordinating the aerial photography (orthophotos) of the county with Blacksburg and other local jurisdictions. Wireless communication towers are, again, an issue in 2001. In February, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft Comprehensive Plan amendment on telecommunications towers. In addition, the Planning Department prepared an RFP to hire a consultant to assess wireless telecommunications facilities in Montgomery County. Work continues as well on the CDBG grant for Yellow Sulphur Springs and the development of the Blacksburg Industrial Park, on the construction of the Link Trail at the Coal Mining Heritage Park (paid for, in part, by monies from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation), and on the 2001 CIP. Minor projects, in the Planning Department, included work on the Planning Department’s web page, Rural Additions, the Blacksburg/ Christiansburg Area Transportation Study, and redistricting.
A Retirement and a New Face
As of May 31st, Phyllis Conner, the longtime senior program assistant for the Planning Department, is retiring. Her daily presence in the department will be sorely missed. The department, however, is fortunate to have a new program assistant, Brea Hopkins. Brea previously worked in Pulaski County and brings a wealth of experience to her new job. The department is holding a reception for Phyllis on May 31st, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. and all are welcome.
Redistricting
Every 10 years, following the completion of the US Census, Montgomery County redraws the voting districts to match current population. The county currently has 83,629 residents, separated into seven districts. In January, the Board of Supervisors discussed using a Redistricting Committee to research and propose alternatives, mirroring their approach in 1991. The members of the Redistricting Committee, (consisting of voting members from each of the Supervisors districts and four non-voting members representing the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party) were appointed in February and started work in March. (MS)
CDBG Grant
Montgomery County applied for a 2000 CDBG funding for job creation and retention at Yellow Sulphur Springs Resort, of which 50% have to be made available to LMI individuals. County did not receive funding. Montgomery County began the process of applying for 2001 CDBG funding for job creation and retention via extending public water and sewer to the undeveloped addition to Blacksburg Industrial Park in early February 2001.This extension of services would also allow Yellow Sulphur Springs Resort to connect to public water and sewer. Montgomery County submitted the application on April 18th 2001. A response from the state should come mid to late June if everything goes as scheduled.(KB)
©Montgomery County Department
of Planning & Inspections
Last Updated 20 June, 2001
Comments and suggestions should be sent to
the Planning Department Webmaster