Montgomery County staff outline village-level findings, urge focus on infill and zoning update

Montgomery County planning staff gave the Planning Commission an update on the Montgomery Matters comprehensive-plan process on Aug. 13, saying the county is now in the village-planning phase and will use village meeting feedback to shape a draft future land use map and a subsequent zoning ordinance rewrite. "We are a little over a year and a quarter into our update, and we are in our village planning stage," staff member Justin said.

The county has held four of six planned village meetings and plans two more: Shawesville on Aug. 21 and Plum Creek on Sept. 4 (with a rain date of Sept. 9 at the government center). Staff also announced a countywide open house on Oct. 22 and a joint Planning Commission–Board of Supervisors meeting on Oct. 6 to present preliminary future-land-use findings. Staff said they are targeting adoption of the comprehensive plan in early 2026, with village plans to follow.

Why it matters: the village-level work will inform both the plan’s future land use map and a later zoning-ordinance rewrite, which staff say is necessary to translate community preferences into enforceable regulations. Commission members repeatedly pressed staff on how village feedback will be converted into standards developers must meet.

Staff described the village meetings as open-house events with stations for village visioning, growth and land use, visual preference surveys and a parks master-plan crosswalk. Attendees could leave written comments, participate in dot surveys and use an online mapping tool (social pinpoint) to drop pins on county maps. Staff said mailed postcards (about 300–500 per village) and social media have driven attendance.

Early takeaways: residents expressed wariness about growth driven by new construction and a strong preference for redevelopment, adaptive reuse and infill as the primary forms of village change. Staff presented a high-level developable-land analysis that excluded already developed parcels, publicly owned parkland, lands under conservation easement, areas with slopes over 25% and mapped flood-hazard zones. The remaining land was classified with two tiers: land potentially developable (including areas flagged as prime farmland or climate-resilient) and a smaller area considered priority developable once prime farmland or sensitive features are removed.

Staff reported examples of village-level results: Bellevue has the most land within existing village boundaries (about 51% identified as developable; about 12% remains when prime farmland and climate-resilient areas are removed). Elliston-Lafayette showed about 17% developable, with roughly 2% in the priority-developable category after removing prime farmland. Plum Creek was reported as about 16% developable and roughly 7% priority-developable after exclusions. Price’s Fork showed about 43% developable but only about 2% meeting the priority-developable criteria because much of that land is classified as prime farmland. Riner’s village was reported as about 34% developable and about 10% priority-developable. Staff noted some numerical results in the transcript were unclear and said parcel-level analysis was not performed; figures were presented as a county-level, bird’s-eye view rather than a parcel-specific assessment.

Commissioners asked whether the analysis accounts for vacant buildings, utility infrastructure (water/sewer) and transportation access. Staff said the current land-availability mapping does not include parcel-level vacancy, utility service or transportation capacity. Justin said staff will incorporate redevelopment and infill candidates when preparing the future land use map and acknowledged that adding a water/sewer or transportation overlay would further reduce the acreage considered immediately developable. "We will be looking at properties that could potentially be redeveloped," Justin said, noting that community input from the mapping exercises helps identify underutilized or blighted parcels.

On implementation: staff reiterated that the comprehensive plan sets the vision while the zoning ordinance provides regulatory “teeth.” They said funding is already earmarked for a zoning rewrite and a draft request for proposals exists; the county intends significant community engagement and participation from the development community during the zoning update. Justin and commission members discussed incentives and public–private partnerships used elsewhere in the county (for example, adaptive reuse projects) as tools to encourage redevelopment in villages that lack large amounts of priority-developable land. Justin also said transportation and utility investments would be necessary to make some outlying developable parcels attractive to developers.

Public and stakeholder engagement metrics: staff reported higher participation than the previous village planning round: Bridal Fork (60 attendees; 35 social-pinpoint interactions), Riner (55 attendees; 33 interactions), Bellevue (17 attendees; 7 interactions), and Elliston-Lafayette (37 attendees; 38 interactions). Staff said mailed postcards to residents within village boundaries have been an effective outreach method.

Discussion versus action: the presentation was an informational work-session update; the commission did not take formal action on land-use designations. Staff identified next steps and advised the commission that final recommendations will be drafted in parallel with village plans. Staff said they will present preliminary future-land-use findings at the Oct. 6 joint meeting and will bring draft plan chapters and visual-formatting options to the commission and the Board of Supervisors for iterative review.

Questions and areas remaining open: commissioners asked how aesthetic preferences from visual surveys would translate into developer requirements; staff said the zoning rewrite could introduce flexible design standards, overlay districts, height limits and parking-location requirements but that specific regulatory language will be developed during the zoning process. Commissioners also pressed for follow-up on prior village-plan commitments (for example, sidewalk and trail connectivity); staff noted easements and right-of-way dedicated by earlier developments already exist at several sites, and funding or VDOT coordination is often the limiting factor in completing physical connections.

Ending note: staff urged continued community participation via the Montgomery Matters website and social-pinpoint mapping, and said they will return to commission and supervisors with draft future-land-use materials in October.