The Montgomery County Planning Commission voted to recommend a change to the county’s Comprehensive Plan Wednesday evening, which could set the stage for a controversial plan to bring hundreds of new homes to the New River Valley. But officials stressed the plan is not final.
“It does not approve any development on the property, and it does not change the zoning designation of the property,” said Brea Hopkins, Planning Director for Montgomery County. “When we consider a rezoning request, one of things we consider is it’s in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the underlying designation for future land use.”
The plan has received ample pushback from community members, with some expressing concerns about increased traffic, environmental impacts and a strain on local resources.
Have the day's biggest stories arrive in your inbox every day at 8 p.m.
Planning commissioners will consider the rezoning separately during a meeting next month.
Developers are proposing that the county’s planning commission rezone approximately 633.72 acres of land off Route 11/460 in Shawsville. The property has been owned by the same family since the 1830s and has primarily been used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, the historic Fotheringay Home that was built in 1796 is also located on the land and there are two rental homes on the property at the end of Barnett Road. Due to its historical significance, the family wants to keep a large portion of the land as agricultural property and has proposed an “Open Space” designation.
With the rezoning plan, just under half of the land (307.2 acres) would be kept as open space, while the rest would be divided into lots for homes as part of the Elliston Lafayette Village. A total of 473 homes are being proposed, with a mix of single-family and estate lots. This property is near Eastern Montgomery High School and Eastern Montgomery Elementary.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, the goal is “to address the long-range development of a community, a county, or a region. They focus primarily on land use and land quality issues: where to locate industrial, commercial, or residential growth; how to protect the physical and historical environments; and where to site the nuts and bolts infrastructure (schools, roads, water and sewer lines, parks, and other community facilities).”
Community members have already written to the commissioners with their thoughts on the matter and spoke during the public hearing at Wednesday’s meeting. Some are in support of the development, citing a need for affordable housing and economic growth in Eastern Montgomery. The potential for increased tax revenue to improve local schools and infrastructure was also noted as a possible positive outcome.
“I’m excited for the idea that we won’t hear rumblings of school consolidation, said Zach Milton of Elliston. ”I hope we get young families who want to be involved in our community, and I look forward to a expansion of opportunities for residents."
Others expressed their opposition, mentioning potential negative environmental impacts, increased traffic and a disregard for residents in the area. Concerns about affordability and ethical and historical preservation were also raised.
“You will singlehandedly change the culture of our town and our composition, and we don’t want it,” said Paige Williams of Shawsville.
The Board of Supervisors will take up the plan change at a meeting in April and the rezoning proposal in May.
