Sidewalks

The discussion of sidewalks in the Town of Christiansburg is anything but new.  This page will provide notes from the Planning Commission and Town Council Minutes where sidewalks were a point of discussion or were voted upon by that group. Copies of all the minutes here are available at myvaresources.com and were obtained through a foia request for these documents.  A close look at the dates involved in these sidewalk discussions shows a pattern where sidewalks become a major talking-point/issue about 6 to 8 months before the next election with very little discussion or action afterwards. But, that is just my assessment. Maybe you see something different.

From 2002 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. April 15, 2002: it was noted in the Planning Commission minutes concerning one CUP that “No conditions were included to add sidewalks, which is a hazard with commercial traffic…”
2. April 16, 2002: The Planning Commission minutes shows a discussion and vote on a rezoning where it is noted that “Planned Housing Developments are viewed as a method to preserve greenspace and also limiting development costs, which leads to the ability to provide sidewalks, lighting, etc.” (Vote to approve the rezoning: 6 Aye 0 Nay.)
3. May 7, 2002: Planning Commission minutes show a discussion and vote pertaining to a Conditional Use Permit where it is stated: “Chairperson Canada asked if sidewalks would be developed. Mr. Smith stated no sidewalks are planned, curb and gutters would be built on both sides of the street. The plans give someone a place to walk but not necessarily concrete. Chairperson Canada stated the issue is not necessarily about it being concrete, but about providing a walking trail. Mr. Terpenny stated curb and gutter standards require forty (40) feet of pavement. Commission Stipes asked if the curbs and gutters were proffered. Mr. Terpenny stated the curb and gutter had not been proffered. Curb and gutters are a substantial cost increase for development. Mr. Smith stated they lose money developing curbs and gutters that cannot be regained on the sale of the units. (Vote to approve the project: Ayes 6, Nays 0.)
4. June 3, 2002 Planning Commission discussion on Code amendment to Chap. 30 “Zoning” of the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to the sidewalk requirement in the Business Districts. “Vice-Chairperson Wade introduced the review of the sidewalk requirements in the Business Districts. Mr. Terpenny wanted to review the sidewalk requirements and hear the intent of the Planning Commission in regards to the requirements. The Code states “sidewalks shall be required for all new developments”. Mr. Terpenny wanted to elaborate on whether the requirement should apply to existing structures. The Planning Commission agreed if no physical change is made to an existing site or building, then no improvements shall be required. The decision would be that of Zoning Administrator to  require sidewalks or present the issue to the Planning Commission.
5. August 5, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting; Mr. Terpenny offered information on an item not on the agenda. “Mr. Terpenny stated he has asked for a site plan including sidewalks, landscaping, etc.” (This in reference to the renovations of the former Collision Plus site on North Franklin St.)

From 2002 Town Council Meeting Minutes:

1. April 2, 2002 Rezoning request from B-1 Limited Business to R-3 Multi-Family Residential Mr. Brian Altizer, plan engineer offered information that included “…there will be a one-way street through the new neighborhood with sidewalks on both sides of the street, public lighting will be proovided.”
2. April 16, 2002 Rezoning from B-1 Limited Business to R-3 Multi-Family Residential request deferred from April 2, 2002 meeting): “The smaller lot sizes will enable the developer to put more money into amenities such as greenspace, sidewalks, and street lighting.: The rezoning request vote: AYES: Ashworth, Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Lester, Weaver. NAYS: None.
3. November 19, 2002 Town Council Citizen Hearing. “Ms. Rebecca Arthur addressed Council concerning the Cullen Court subdivision plat before Council tonight. She is concerned that the currently existing drainage problems will be increased with construction to the neighborhood. Increased traffic, lack of sidewalks, and no streetlights were other concerns she wants addressed. Since the subdivision plat is the only information Council has on hand for this property, which only creates lots. Mayor Linkous asked that Ms. Arthur give Manager Terpenny her list of concerns for him to address once he has had an opportunity to review the development plans.”

From the 2003 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. January 21, 2003 Review of the Comprehensive Plan: “Mr. Wingfield provided a draft of two proposed Mixed Use Districts: Mixed Use-Residential-Commercial and Mixed Use: Commercial-Light Industrial. Mr. Harkrader asked if the Mixed Use Districts were intended as transitional zoning. Mr. Rundgren stated that these are transitional districts. Mr. Harkrader stated provisions should be included to ensure trees are in the front yards and parking is in the rear to protect the character of the neighborhoods. Mr. Harkrader asked if the new N. Franklin Street-Peppers Ferry Road connector route would include medians and Mr. Terpenny stated the new connector route would have medians as well as bike lanes and sidewalks.
2. March 4, 2003 CUP Virginian Drive Agricultural to R-3 Multi-Family Residential. “…Mr. Terpenny stated two additional proffers had been made with the first being to dedicate a trail to connect Huckleberry Trail and the end of Virginian Drive, which could then be extended to the County Frog Pond. Mr. Terpenny stated that the second proffer is to connect the recreational areas to the sidewalk network with walking trails.”
3. December 1, 2003 PC Meeting: CUP for residential in B-3 General Business District – “Vice-Chairperson Wade introduced the request. Mr. Wingfield detailed the location and stated five units would be built. Mr. Helms stated one citizen came into the Town offices with regards to the storm water. Commissioner Carter stated she would like to table the issue to consider the storm water issue. Mr. Barber state adding more pavement will increase the runoff. Commissioner Stipes stated a by-right use could be more intrusive, a CUP request is the opportunity to make a decision to address issues. Vice-Chairperson Wade stated if the issue is tabled that leaves the chance of a business use locating on the property. Commissioner Stipes stated a condition could be placed to insure the development has over-detention of stormwater. Mr. Terpenny stated sidewalks would be required along both streets.
4. December 2, 2003 Planning Commission re: CUP (same one as #2 above): “…Chairperson Canada asked about sidewalks. Commissioner Stipes stated Mr. Neel states sidewalks would be provided on both public streets. Chairperson Canada asked if there was a need to condition to require sidewalks. …”

From the 2003 Town Council Minutes:

1. March 4, 2003: TC Meeting Minutes: CUP Virginian Drive: addressing additions to conditions: “The additions are: (1) Dedication of a 20ft right-of way for the construction of a public trail connecting the Huckleberry Trail to the end of Virginian Drive;  and (2) Extension of sidewalk system to open recreation areas.
2. August 5, 2003 TC Meeting Minutes: PRIORITY URBAN PROJECTS: Manager Terpenny reported that VDOT is working on funding projections for the 2020 Transportation Plan which was created by VDOTS’s consultants and local government staff. VDOT has requested Christiansburg’s top four priority projects identified in the 2020 plan. Manager Terpenny explained that this does not include projects in the current 6-year plan, such as Route 114. The projects in the 2020 plan are: Installation of a traffic signal at Cambria Street/Ellett Road; installation of traffic signals at Route 8 and I-81 ramps; re-alignment of W. Main/Phlegar/Radford Streets; extension of parkway Drive to S. Franklin Street; Peppers Ferry/N. Franklin connector; urban rebuild of Radford Road; and additional approaches/pedestrial signals/sidewalks at Peppers Ferry/N. Franklin intersection. After much discussion by Council, Council decided on the following four projects: Peppers Ferry/N. Franklin connector road; urban rebuild of Radford Road; realignment of W. Main/Phlegar/Radford streets; and extension of Parkway Drive to S. Franklin Street.
3. November 4, 2003 TC Meeting Minutes: Joint Public Hearing on a CUP by BDMV 114. “…Mr. Keesee introduced Kevin Connor of Gay and Keesee, Inc., who explained the developer’s plans for the property. Mr. Connor began by showing Council pictures of the typical units to be constructed. He explained that the development would have roll curb and gutters, and sidewalks along the right-of-way on one side of the road as a minimum. …”
4. December 2, 2003 rezoning request: “Ms. Beth Umberger asked if sidewalks will be placed in the greenspace. Mr. Woody replied that walking paths are planned for the greenspace area.
5. December 2, 2003 CUP: “… Plans are for five townhomes with sidewalks along the street frontages.”
6. December 2, 2003 Citizen Hearing: “Ms. Beth Umberger expressed her concern with the lack of sidewalks within the town, which would accomodate shool-age children walking to and from school.”

From 2004 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. January 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting: Public Hearing to receive comments on the Christiansburg Comprehensive Plan: “… Mrs. Hess stated that sidewalks should become more of a priority with development and stated that sidewalks should have been required as a condition of the recent First Street Conditional Use Permit request (approved January 6, 2004 for property at 16 First Street): several Planning Commission members stated that sidewalks are already existing at this location.
2. April 26, 2004 PC Meeting: Discussion of the development of new Mixed-Use Districts. “Mr. Wingfield stated that the sidewalk requirement in Business Districts could allow the potential for payment to an account for sidewalks in lieu of their installation when terrain makes installation impractical or when desired connectivity is not being achieved. Mr. Terpenny stated that sometimes physical conditions make sidewalks an unreasonable expense, but he does not want discretion that may be seen as unfair. Mr. Terpenny stated that allowing a payment that is equivalent to sidewalk construction costs is justifiable. The Planning Commission agreed that these were all desirable changes.
3. June 15, 2004 Planning Commission: CUP multi-family residential use in the B-3 General Business District: “Chairperson Wade read the drafted conditions: 1) Storm water shall be detained from a 10-year post-development rate to a 1-year pre-development rate. 2) Sidewalks shall be provided on both street frontages. …”
4. August 3, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting:  (same project as #3 above with 2) as “Sidewalks shall be provided on both street frontages.) Approved unanimously.

From 2004 Town Council Minutes:

1. February 17, 2004 Town Council Meeting: Response to citizen’s stated concerns about downtown parking: “Manager Terpenny commented that part of the Downtown Revitalization plan calls for the removal of the meters at the time the plan is implemented and the sidewalks re-done.”
2. April 6, 2004 Town Council Meeting additional discussion: Councilman Ballengee said he has received questions from the public regarding the condition of the streets in the downtown area. The streets are in need of repaving due to the replacement of underground water lines, which is part of the downtown revitalization process. Mayor Linkous said that Assistant Town Manager Helms is currently looking into erecting a sign to inform the public of the downtown revitalization progress. All underground work and sidewalk replacement must be done before paving the roads. …”
3. April 6, 204 Rezoning Falling Branch Road from Agriculture and R-2 Two-Family Residential to R-3 Multi-Family Residential with proffers: “Mr Tim Wimmer… He believes single-story patio homes are the best use for this property, along with a retention pond, and sidewalks.
4. August 3, 2004 Town Council Meeting, Special discussion: “Mayor Linkous asked Manager Terpenny to give a brief update on the condition of the downtown due to the ongoing beautification project. Manager Terpenny reported that the work is on schedule and the plans for Phase I have recently been completed. Phase I includes underground power lines, landscaping, lights, and sidewalks. …”

From 2005 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. April 27, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: Discussion of realignment of the N. Franklin Street – Peppers Ferry Road Connector Route. “… Mr. Terpenny stated that the Connector Route would have bike lanes, sidewalks, and a 45 mile per hour design speed. Mr. Terpenny stated the Connector Route would alleviate congestion at both the Route 114/Route 460 intersection and at the Cambria Street/Route 460 intersection.
2. April 27, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: Discussion of realignment of the N. Franklin Street – Peppers Ferry Road Connector Route. “… Mr. Neel stated the location of the Connector Route would be better if a residential development is not divided by a 45 mile per hour roadway. Commissioner Carter inquired about the distance from the Connector Route to the railroad. Mr. Terpenny stated the right-of-way is 120 feet including sidewalks and bikeways, however, until it is under design there is not a specific distance between the Connector Route and the railroad. Mr. Conner stated there is a possibility that the sidewalks would be on one side of the Connector Route during the design phase. …”
3. July 1, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP  Planned Housing Development. “… Mr. Neel stated the development is tight on space and additional residential recreational amenities will be included such as sidewalks, which are not required, and the greenspace area being greater than ten percent. … Mr. Conner stated a walkable community with sidewalks is a huge asset. … Mr. Neel stated there would be a distance of 7 to 9 feet to the back of the sidewalk that is considered open space but does not count for greenspace dedication.
4. July 12, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP Planned Housing Development “Commissioner Poff inquired why the steps are not included in the setbacks and Mr. Terpenny stated that the Building Code does not consider steps part of a structure unless they are covered. Commissioner Poff asked if this was a loophole and said that he thought steps would not be the same as a sidewalk. Mr. Wingfield stated that a covered porch must meet the setbacks. Commissioner Poff stated that there is a concern for covering steps leading to a public sidewalk and Mr. Terpenny stated that is correct. Mr. Neel stated that they will try to clarify the proposed conditions to address this concern. Commissioner Canada stated that a property owner may want to enclose a covered porch at a later date and Councilman Barber stated that the homeowner’s association could enforce this. Mr. Rutledge stated that there would be no authority for the Town to enforce it and added that it could be reworded to include covered steps, porches and stops. … Mr. Terpenny stated that he had noted that the proposed 18 foot setback was intended to be a 10 foot setback to cover porches and steps. …Mr Rutledge stated that he was hopefully going to live in the subdivision and added that the developer wanted to provide areas for people to stop on the road and talk and that this was part of the reason sidewalks were being provided. … Mr. Rutledge added that the sidewalks would be maintained by the homeowner’s association. … Mr. Neel stated that he had spoken to Mike Saunders, who works for local VDOT Resident Engineer Dave Clarke, and that Mr. Saunders had spoken to Richmond Main Offices and basically understood that either VDOT standards had to be met or that they could consider all the plan elements such as the use of rolled curb and sidewalks. Mr. Neel stated that 13.5 feet of pavement for the one-way street with rolled curb would mean 16.5 foot width and added that he had been told a 16.5 foot width with pavement and rolled curb was not necessarily desired or needed. Mr. Conner stated that Quin W. Stuart Boulevard off Peppers Ferry Road is constructed in this manner. Mr. Rutledge stated he believed that Quin W. Stuart Boulevard is a public street and Mr. Terpenny stated that this is correct. … Chairperson Simmons inquired if the developer plan rolled curb then sidewalks and Mr. Neel stated that this is correct but that there would be a 7 to 9 foot strip between. Chairperson Simmons inquired whether sidewalks would be on both sides of the streets and Mr. Neel stated that the proposed conditions state that they will be on at least one side, but that the plans include sidewalks on both in all but one section. … Mr. Neel stated that some localities allow developers to use portions of the lots toward greenspace and adds that sidewalks on lots can be counted toward open space. … Mr. Neel stated that thre are other ways value could be added to the development, such as the provision of sidewalks. … Mr. Neel stated that the Town ordinances stated that ten percent dedication may be required and that the development is providing over fifteen percent. Mr. Neel stated that he thought an additional factor to consider was that the open space being dedicated is very usable and accessed through sidewalks and added that it’s up to the Planning Commission to decide what value that adds to the development. … Vice-Chairman Stipes inquired as to how residents in the single-family areas would use the open space and Mr. Rutledge stated that there would be sidewalks and that they could walk or bike to it. Mr. Rutledge stated that approximately 140 single-family units, 180 duplex units, or 300 multi-family units could be built on the property. Mr. Terpenny stated that the property has not received approval to build multi-family units. … Mrs. Cloe stated that a park in the northern portion would be nice and Mr. Rutledge stated that they had looked at this, but believed that the sidewalks were a better investment and added that if they were to lose a few lots and take away the sidewalks it would not be as good a development. … Vice-Chairperson Stipes stated that this leads him to get away from the zoning ordinance and look at how it would effect day-to-day operations of the Town. Mr. Terpenny stated that this is a good thing to do and stated that some planned housing developments have problems and some don’t. Mr. Terpenny stated that in Colonial Heights they subdivisions typically don’t have sidewalks and there are narrow streets. Mr. Terpenny stated that when he visited Colonial Heights, he drove 15 miles per hour and had to slow down when he came to on-coming traffic. … Mr. Rutledge stated that the seven to nine foot grass strip between the street and sidewalk will help to address parking concerns and added that they don’t desire parking in front, but that it can be accommodated. … vice-Chairperson Stipes asked if the development has 15% greenspace excluding sidewalks and trails and Mr. Neel stated the development has 15.6% greenspace. Mr. Conner added if the Connector Route were included, the greenspace would increase to 25.8%. … Councilman Wade stated he would not want to penalize the development if it is including sidewalks.”
5. November 1, 2005 Planning Commission CUP for Planned Housing Development in R-3: “Mr. Terpenny stated the sidewalks in Phase II would be constructed with curb and gutter abutting the street, but Phase I had a three foot separation of grass between the sidewalk and curb. … Commissioner Carter asked about the grass strip between the sidewalks and the streets. Mr. Terpenny stated the standard is with the sidewalk backing right up to the curb. … Commissioner Poff requested to condition to add the three foot strip of grass between the sidewalk and street, … (4) Three foot grass strip shall be provided between sidewalk and curb.”

From 2005 Town Council Minutes:

1. June 7, 2005 Town Council Meeting Conditional Rezoning Cambria St. NW: “There will be one point of entrance into the proposed neighborhood as well as sidewlks, greenspace, walking trails, and passive recreation use.”
2. November 15, 2005 Town Council Meeting: Citizen Comment: “Downtown Business Owner, Joe Simmons, addressed council regarding his concern about the overgrown trees along the sidewalks on Main Street, and the parking meters.
3. December 20, 2005 Town Council Meeting: Mr. Hupper and Mr. Wade – Central Business District Committee Report on “Downtown Revitalization Plan. … The trees would be planted in structural soil underneath the sidewalk, and Mr. Conner agreed to work with Town staff in maintaining the trees, if planted.”

From 2006 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. March 20, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP Chrisman Mill Rd: “Chairperson Simmons inquired if sidewalks and curb and gutter were planned and Mr. Chris Smmith stated that they would like to have curb and gutter.” Chairperson Simmons inquired if curb and gutter were going to be included as proffers and Mr. Chris Smith stated that they weren’t. Mr. Terpenny stated that there would be private three foot wide sidewalks connecting the structure to the street or driveway and added that if sidewalks were included in the street detail they would fall back to Town standards.  … Commissioner Booth stated that the developer had mentioned a $250,000 to $280,000 price range and stated that he believed public sidewalks and underground utilities should be required.
2. March 27, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP Chrisman Mill Rd.: “Commissioner Booth stated that he believed conditions that do not contradict with the proffers that should be included are public sidewalks, curb and gutter, and underground utilities. Commissioner Canada stated that he would like to see public sidewalks. … Commissioner Canada stated that he would like to see developments that have curb and gutter, public sidewalks, usable greenspace and that are compatible to the surroundings … Commissioner Carter stated that the Town requires businesses to build sidewalks and stated that on Republic Road she believed there should have been sidewalks due to the large number of people walking. Commissioner Carter stated that the Town should consider requiring developers to install sidewalks. Mr. Terpenny inquired if Commissioner Carter meant all residential use or just multi-family use and Commission Carter stated that it could be based on the amount of traffic put onto a public street. Mr. Terpenny stated that the Town has considered this before and that it could be studied if Council would want it considered. … Chairperson Simmons stated that Cambria Crossing will have sidewalks on at least one side of each street.”
3. June 19, 2006: CUP: “Chairperson Simmons inquired as to the Planning Commission’s view on requiring curb and gutter and sidewalks. Mr. Fralin stated curb and gutter and sidewalks cost a lot of money and that they did not fit his model as he was trying to provide affordable housing. … Commissioner Booth stated he thought curb and gutter and sidewalks were a good standard and that the Town should be trying to move in that direction. … Commissioner Carter stated when she was running for reelection to Town Council, she heard a lot of citizens say they wanted sidewalks. … Mr.Terpenny stated there are extra engineering design costs for sidewalks and that there will always be a maintenance cost. Mr. Terpenny added that former Town Manager John Lemley always told him that he thought the money could be better spent. Commissioner Canada stated he believed parks and other amenities were more important. Commissioner Booth stated that the proposed conditions mention sidewalks and Mr. Terpenny stated that there were private sidewalks connecting the house to the street or driveway. … Mr. Fralin stated that he felt that he could install rolled face curb, but that he believed sidewalks would drive the costs to the point that housing affordability would be hurt. Commissioner Booth stated that he agreed that the Town should try to be an affordable  community and that he could accept rolled curb without sidewalks and the Planning Commission concurred. … Commissioner Vanhoozier inquired as to the cost of sidewalks and Mr. Terpenny stated that $5,000 per lot is an approximate figure. Mr. Fralin said that he generally estimates $3,000 per lot plus carrying costs and Mr. Terpenny stated that $3,000 to $5,000 per lot sounds correct. Mr. Rice stated that more concrete in a development means that there will be more storm water and Mr. Terpenny added that it means the storm water will move faster.”
4. June 20, 2006: CUP: “Commissioner Canada inquired about requiring sidewalks within the development. Mr. Terpenny stated the Planning Commission had considered requiring sidewalks for the development. … (# 3 of conditions) “Sidewalks shall be required for the development”. … Commissioner Vanhoozier stated he thought the developer said they would be installing sidewalks. Mr. Terpenny stated the Planning Commission may not want to be too restrictive and that the developer may want to install sidewalks but does the Town want to require them. Commissioner Booth asked if a homeowner’s association could maintain sidewalks. Mr. Terpenny stated he did not have an issue as long as the sidewalks are out of the public right-of-way. Commissioner Booth asked if the sidewalks were in the 50 foot right-of-way, it could not maintain them. Commissioner Vanhoozier asked about using the roll-top curb and gutter. Mr. Terpenny stated there would need to be eight feet between the sidewalk and the curb and gutter. … Commissioner Carter inquired about the walkway included in Windsong Heights. Mr. Terpenny stated the walkway is to go to the street or driveway. Commissioner Carter inquired about the sidewalks in the Lion’s Gate. Commissioner Canada inquired about the proposed sidewalks in Cambria Crossing. Mr. Terpenny stated sidewalks along one side of the street are proposed for Cambria Crossing. Mr. Terpenny added Lion’s Gate was intended as a gated community and the sidewalks may not be public. … Mr. Terpenny stated the Planning Commission could add a condition that if sidewalks are installed, the Homeowner’s Association has to maintain them outside of the public right-of-way. Commissioner Canada stated this may be a burden on the developers. Chairperson Simmons asked Mr. Chris Smith if he intended to put sidewalks in the development. Mr. Smith stated there have been compromises on the lot sizes, that curb and gutter will be added but there is no intention of installing sidewalks. … Vice-Chairperson Stipes stated he would like to see sidewalks, however it is not appropriate to require sidewalks if the Ordinance does not require sidewalks. Commissioner Vanhoozier added the neighbors have generally been satisfied with the request. Commissioner Carter added that citizens have commented on the sidewalks not being maintained once they are built.” (PC voted unanimously to pass without sidewalks being required.)
5. August 21, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting: Discussion of planned housing developments and other potential Code changes: “Commissioner Vanhoozier stated the sidewalks need to be kept clear.

From 2006 Town Council Minutes:

1. May 16, 2006: Town Council Meeting: Street Committee (Ashworth & Barber): “2. Request for sidewalk, drainage, and retaining wall on Lester. Councilman Ashworth asked Town Manager Terpenny to report on this request. Manager Terpenny reported that the Street Committee and Town Engineering Department studied this request, and the Engineering Department provided an estimate for the project. The project would include capping the sidewalk, installing a handrail and paving to control water drainage, and the Engineering Department estimates a cost of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) to complete the project. Councilman Barber made a motion to proceed with the project, seconded by Councilwoman Carter. Council voted on the motion as follows: AYES: Ashworth, Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Wade. NAYS: None.”
2. June 20, 2006: Town Council Meeting: Town Manager update on Downtown Renovation: “Town Manager Terpenny reported that the Town hopes to have a contract for sidewalks by the end of the summer. The next phase of street paving will be from the courthouse to the intersection of East Main and Roanoke Street.
3. July 18, 2006 Town Council Meeting: Town Manager update on Downtown Renovation: “Town Manager Terpenny reported that the paving bids for Main Street, and the streets included in the annual paving program, would go out later this week. The sewer work along Main Street has been completed, and once the Town receives approval from VDOT, paving and sidewalk work towards the west end of Main Street will be put out to bid.

From 2007 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. July 16, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: ” Ms. Davis further explained the site will not be finalized with paving and sidewalks until the gas line is in place.”
2. **Please note that these minutes, in particular are full of holes where discussions are noted but not recorded. No evidence was found to indicate any further discussion of sidewalks occurred during the year. More information may or may not be found in the 2007 Town Council Minutes which follow.**

From 2007 Town Council Minutes:

1. January 16, 2007: Town Council Meeting: “2. Council Discussion on Downtown Revitalization. Vice-Mayor Huppert reported that the Town met with H.T. Bowling Construction last week to discuss the contractor’s timeframe for downtown sidewalk and streetscape construction. They plan to begin sidewalk construction, including posting and lightpoles, this week. … Councilwoman carter commented that it is important to install handicapped sidewalking at regular intervals along Main Street. manager Terpenny agreed, commenting that handicapped accessible parking is already included in the sidewalk plan.
2. September 18, 2007: Town Council Meeting: Citizen Comment: “Tacy Newell, Christiansburg resident and downtown business owner, addressed Council regarding the Town ordinance governing sidewalk sales. Ms. Newell said that, as she reviewed the sidewalk ordinance, she realized that the ordinance needs updating and clarification. She asked that Town Council review and revise the sidewalk portion of the ordinance to make it more accommodating to downtown business owners. Manager Terpenny said that there have been no changes to the sidewalk ordinance since the 1970′s, and agreed that some revisions may be necessary. … Councilman Canada said he has some concerns about the Town’s ordinance governing sidewalk usage and asked that this matter be placed on the October 2, 2007 Town Council agenda for discussion.
3. October 2, 2007 Town Council Meeting: Town Manager Report: “Sidewalk Sale Ordinance – At Councilman Canada’s request, Manager Terpenny addressed the concerns regarding the sidewalk sale ordinance. Council’s primary objection to the ordinance is that sidewalk sales must be sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, named as the Christiansburg Chamber of Commerce in the ordinance, which incidentally, no longer exists. Councilman Canada suggested that a written permit and certificate of insurance be obtained through the Town Manager, with the sale being sponsored by a properly licensed Town merchant. While changes to the ordinance do not require a Public Hearing, Town Attorney Waddell said she would like to review Council’s suggestions and draft an amended ordinance for Council to review before taking action on this matter.
4. November 6, 2007 Town Council Meeting: “Discussion on the proposed changes to the sidewalk sale ordinance. Mayor Ballengee said that the Town’s attorneys have revised this ordinance according to Council’s direction. A  copy of the revised ordinance is attached herewith and made a part of these minutes. Councilman Canada made a motion to adopt the revised Sidewalk Sale Ordinance as presented, seconded by Councilman Wade. Council voted as follows: AYES: Barber, Canada, Carter, Hupper, Stipes, and Wade. NAYS: None

From 2008 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. January 10, 2008: CUP “Mr. Neel stated he did not anticipate architecture would be a concern because the site is off the street, sitting on top of a hill. Mr. Neel added the 20% front yard greenspace and parking requirements will also be mte. Vice-Chairperson Vanhoozier inquired about sidewalks. Mr. Neel stated sidewalks are a requirement.

From 2008 Town Council Minutes:

1. January 15, 2008: Town Council Meeting: Street Committee Report: “2. Plat of Variable Width Sidewalk Access & Maintenance Easement Dedication in the New River Center, shoppers Way and N. Franklin Street. … This request is for the sidewalk access and maintenance easement dedication for the Olive Garden property.
2. November 3, 2008 Town Council Meeting:  Citizen input: “Tacy Newel-Foutz brought to Council’s attention a problem with frequent sewer back ups along portions of Main Street. These back ups, she believes, are from the recent downtown renovations. She also said she previously made the Town aware of a hairline crack in the sidewalk near the front of her building, but has received no response on this matter.
3. December 16, 2008 Town Council Meeting: Public Hearing: Tacy Newell-Foutz spoke of her concerns regarding the traffic system at the nearby middle school, lack of sidewalks in the area, and hazardous deep ditches along the side of the road leading to the middle school.

From 2009 Planning Commission Minutes (very few are available):

1. No mention of sidewalks is documented.

From 2009 Town Council Minutes:

1. June 2, 2009: Town Council Meeting: “Update on Community Development Block Grant. Councilman Stipes reported that the Street Committee is recommending sidewalk, pedestrian, and handicap access improvements to areas along Roanoke Street and Park Street, to be constructed using Community Development Block Grant funds. These improvements are included in the Action Plan that will be submitted in August 2009, with approximate funds of one hundred twenty-five thousans dollars being made available in October 2009. “
2. July 7, 2009 Town Council Meeting: Public Hearing 1. “2009 Action Plan addressing sidewalk improvements along Roanoke and Park Street – Community Development Block Grant.  Councilman Stipes and Councilman Vanhoozier of the Street Committee presented Council with the 2009 Action Plan required for the Community Development Block Grant application, which will be valid for five years.  The Action Plan outlines sidewalk renovation and sidewalk installation along Roanoke Street, South Main Street, and Park Street, that will be undertaken during the program year beginning July 1, 2009 and ending June 30, 2010, using Federal funds granted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Community Development Block Grant.  The Town is expected to receive approximately one hundred four thousand dollars ($104,000), which is intended to be used primarily to benefit low-income and moderate income neighborhoods, and the Town as a whole.   The Action Plan will be submitted in August, after the required thirty-day public comment period, with funds available in October.  A detailed engineering study will be conducted to determine the exact locations for improvements.
3. August 4, 2009 Town Council Meeting: “CDBG Update: Councilman Stipes reported that the thirty-day public comment period for the CDBG Action Plan has
   closed.  The application will be submitted in August, with funds available in October.   The Street Committee will work with Town staff to determine the best use of funds, which are only usable in areas identified as moderate to low income.  Councilman Stipes said he will provide periodic updates to Council.  Councilman Showalter asked about other recreation grants that may be available.  Councilman Stipes said the most utilized recreational grant is a 50/50 match through VDOT.  This grant can be used for sidewalks.

From 2003 Comprehensive Plan, adopted without change for 2008:

1. (P.62) Future extension of the Huckleberry Trail is planned as part of the N. Franklin Street-Peppers Ferry Road connector route (a Virginia Department of Transportation thoroughfare project), which is discussed in the Transportation Chapter. This route will feature a bicycle lane and sidewalks to be utilized as an extension of the trail. The longterm plans for the trail include connecting to downtown Christiansburg (including access to the Christiansburg Recreation Center, Christiansburg High School, and the planned aquatic center) and to the 90-acre Montgomery County Park on County Drive.
2. (P.77) Virginia Route 114/Peppers Ferry Road Project: Scheduled to begin in 2007, the Virginia Route 114/Peppers Ferry Road project will four-lane the entire portion in Town and outside the corporate limits to Dominion Drive as well as provide sidewalks, landscaped medians, left and right turn lanes, two storm water management facilities, crosswalks, and roadside landscaping.
3. (P.77) N. Franklin Street/ Peppers Ferry Road Western Connector Route Project: The Christiansburg Town Council adopted a resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to include a N. Franklin Street/Peppers Ferry Road NW western connector road in its Six-Year Plan. Though not funded at this time, the connector is a priority locally and will assist in the alleviation of traffic congestion on both heavily traveled commercial corridors. The four-lane new alignment connector would provide bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Preliminary engineering for the project has previously been conducted.
4. (P.78) Radford Street Improvements: The Town has indicated that improvements to Radford Street are a long-term objective including widening and the addition of bicycle lanes and sidewalks.
5. (P.80) Future extension of the Huckleberry Trail is planned as part of the N. Franklin Street- Peppers Ferry Road connector route, which is discussed in this chapter. This route will feature a bicycle lane and sidewalks to be utilized as an extension of the trail. The longterm plans for the trail include connecting to downtown Christiansburg (including access to the Christiansburg Recreation Center, Christiansburg High School, and the planned aquatic center) and to the 90-acre Montgomery County Park on County Road. The Downtown Trail between College Street and Depot Street opened in 2002.
6. (P.105) Central Business
   The downtown area’s commercial uses are characterized by professional services, retail, and restaurants, which serve the concentration of government offices. Sidewalks, parking and overall curb appeal will be highlighted for investment by the Town in the areas of publicly owned property in order to create more opportunities for pedestrian traffic in the downtown.
7. (P.113 )Virginia Route 114/Peppers Ferry Road Project: Scheduled to begin in 2007, the Virginia Route 114/Peppers Ferry Road project will
   four-lane the entire portion in Town and continue outside the corporate limits to Dominion Drive. The project will provide sidewalks, landscaped medians, turn lanes, two storm water management facilities, crosswalks, and roadside landscaping. Implications of these road improvements include improved circulation within the Town limits as well as opportunities for further growth. The Peppers Ferry Road widening will accommodate existing and future volumes of traffic in the northern part of Town.
8. (P.113) N. Franklin Street/ Peppers Ferry Road Western Connector Route Project: The Christiansburg Town Council adopted a resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to include a N. Franklin Street/Peppers Ferry Road NW western connector road in its Six-Year Plan. Though not funded at this time, the connector is a priority locally and will assist in the alleviation of traffic congestion both heavily traveled commercial corridors. The four-lane new alignment connector would provide bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Preliminary engineering for the project has  previously been conducted.
9. (P.113) Radford Street Improvements: The Town has indicated that improvements to Radford Street are a long-term objective including widening and the addition of bicycle lanes and sidewalks. The project should encourage investment by private property owners and spur redevelopment as well as new construction on the western side of Town.
10. (P.124) TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: Goal: Provide for a system of streets, sidewalks, parking areas, traffic controls and other related facilities, which will provide safe, convenient and reliable movement of people and goods.
11. (P.126) j. Explore the creation of a fund that would allow developers to make contributions in lieu of building a sidewalk in front of properties that do not provide connectivity. This fund could then be used to rehabilitate existing sidewalks or extend existing sidewalks into appropriate areas.
12. (P.131) d. Build sidewalks or multi-use paths to public sites including parks and recreation centers.

From the Christiansburg Town Charter

1. § 4.09. The town council shall have the power to require the payment by the abutting property owners benefited by the installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks, at half of the cost thereof. Such payments shall be made upon their real estate and collectable in the same manner as is herein provided for the collection of taxes. (1 954, c. 240)
2. § 4.1 0. The town council shall have the exclusive authority to determine the grades for all streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and alleys not in conflict with the State Department of Highways, and shall have the right to require permits for, and control of any opening in any street under its jurisdiction. (1954, c. 240)

3. § 6.04. The town council shall have the power and authority to prevent injury or annoyance from anything dangerous, offensive, or unhealthy, to provide by general ordinances of the town what are nuisances, to cause abatement of any nuisance so declared to be by the general laws of the State or by the general ordinances of the town and the town shall have the authority to compel the abatement of nuisances within the town, or upon property owned by the town without the corporate limits, at the expense of the person, or persons causing the same, or of the owner or occupants of the grounds or premises whereon the same may be, and to collect said expenses by suit or motion; to require all lots, lands, and other premises within the town to be kept clean and sanitary, free from all stagnant waters, weeds, filth, fire hazards and unsightly deposits, or to make them so, at the expense of the owners or occupants thereof, and to collect said expenses by suit or motion, or by distress and sale; to regulate or prevent slaughter houses, or other noisome or offensive businesses within said town, the keeping of hogs or other animals, poultry or fowl therein, or the exercise of any dangerous or unwholesome business, trade or employment therein; to compel the abatement of smoke or unnecessary noises; to regulate the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of billboards, signs, and advertising, and to generally define, prohibit, abate, suppress, and prevent, all things detrimental to the health, morals, or safety, convenience or welfare of the inhabitants of the town; and to require all owners or occupants of property having sidewalks in front thereof to keep the same clean and sanitary, free from all weeds, snow, or other obstructions. (1 954, c. 240)

From Christiansburg Town Code:

1. Sec. 3-4. Painting signs on sidewalks. It shall be unlawful for any person to paint signs on sidewalks. (Code 1973, § 303; Ord. of 1-19-99)

2. Sec. 5-3. Fowl straying on streets or sidewalks. It shall be unlawful for any person in the Town to permit fowl kept by him or under his control to stray on the streets or sidewalks of the Town. (Code 1972, § 4-3)

3. Sec. 6-89. Regulations generally. … (b) Repair of streets, sidewalks. All streets and sidewalks disturbed or damaged in the construction or maintenance of such cable lines shall be promptly repaired by the grantee at its expense and to the satisfaction of the Town Manager.

4. Sec. 10-63. Prohibited discharges or connections to the storm sewer system. (a) It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Article to do any of the following, except as may be allowed in subsection (b) below: (1) Cause or allow any illicit discharges, including but not limited to the discharge of sewage, gray water, industrial wastes or other wastes, into the storm sewer system, or any component thereof, or onto driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, or any other areas draining to the storm sewer system.

5. Sec. 24-3. Sweeping and depositing certain materials in streets, etc. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to deposit or cause to be deposited upon the sidewalks, streets, roads, lanes or alleys or in any catchbasin or drain paper, rags, old shoes, clothing, tin cans, bottles, hit or vegetable peelings, dead animals, leaves or any other refuse or waste.

6. Chapter 25 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS

7. Sec. 25-4. Grading–Plans to show elevation or lowering. Whenever the paving, grading or making of sidewalks or streets anywhere in the Town is ordered by the Town Council, it shall be the duty of the Town Manager, when in his opinion such street or sidewalk should be so graded as to raise or lower the same materially with reference to the property of abutting lot owners, to make his plans of such improvement, showing accurately in feet and tenths of feet the elevation or lowering of the street with reference to such adjacent property. (Code 1972, §25-4) State law reference(s)–Grading streets, etc., Code of Virginia, §15.1-368 et seq.

8. Sec. 25-5. Same–Waiver of damages by property owners. Before proceeding with the work mentioned in Section 25-4, the Town Manager shall obtain from the owners of the property to be affected by such change of grade a written waiver of all damages. If such property owners refuse to sign such waiver, the Town Manager shall report the situation to the Town Council and receive authority from that body before proceeding with the work. (Code 1972, §25-5)

9. Sec. 25-6. Tampering with barriers or lights; driving on streets or sidewalks under construction. No person shall remove any barrier, light or other guard placed across the streets or sidewalks of the Town while paving, grading, macadamizing or any other improvement or activity is in progress, or ride or drive over any street or sidewalk so guarded. (Code 1972, § 25-9)

10. Sec. 25-8. Projecting eaves and gutters. All houses which are built on the line of the street or so that their eaves project over the sidewalk shall be so provided with gutters that there shall be no drip from the eaves upon the sidewalks. All gutters, the water from which may be emptied upon the streets, shall be so constructed as to discharge such water at or below the surface of the ground. (Code 1972, § 25-12)

11. Sec. 25-10. Roller skates in fire districts. It shall be unlawful to skate on roller skates on the sidewalks in either the first fire district of the Town, as described in Section 9-2 or in the second fire district of the Town, as described in Section 9-3. (Code 1972, § 25-14)

12. Sec. 25-15. Protection of sidewalks. (a) No motor vehicle shall be driven onto, over or across any sidewalk crossing, curbing or guttering, unless such crossing, curbing or guttering has first been bridged with sufficient timbers to be protected from injury. (b) No hard substance of a greater weight than 200 pounds shall be handled upon the sidewalks, curbing or guttering unless such sidewalk, curbing or guttering is first sufficiently covered with wood to be protected from injury. (c) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to properly constructed and reinforced driveway entrances. (Code 1972, § 25-19)

13. Sec. 25-17. Planting shade trees. (a) No person shall plant any shade tree in the streets or sidewalks of the Town without the previous consent of the Town Manager, who shall designate the proper line for same. No North Carolina poplar, weeping willow, Lombardy poplar or cottonwood tree shall be planted in the streets or alleys of the Town nor within ten feet of the lines of the same.

14. Sec. 25-21. Removal of snow and ice from sidewalks. It shall be the duty of the occupant of any property in the Town which has a sidewalk of brick, wood or concrete abutting on such property to have all snow removed from such sidewalk within 24 hours after plowing of the street has been completed. The same obligation shall exist with respect to ice or sleet on sidewalks, except that ice and sleet that cannot be removed without injury to the sidewalk shall be covered within the time herein required with sawdust, ashes or other material which will render the sidewalk safe for travel. When there is no occupant of such property, the owner of the property shall have the snow, ice and sleet removed or covered as provided for herein. If the owner of such property cannot be found, the Town Manager shall cause such sidewalk to be cleaned or covered and may, after notice, proceed against such owner for the costs of the work. (Ord. of 3-1 7-87, §25-25)

15. Sec. 25-22. Obstruction of streets and sidewalks. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, no person shall obstruct a street or sidewalk by placing or permitting thereon any bench, bar, shelf, barrel, carriage, cart, wagon, goods, box, merchandise or other article or fixture whatsoever, whether for exhibition, sale or other purposes. (b) Sidewalk sales may be sponsored by any properly licences Town merchant provided a written permit for such sale is obtained from the Office of the Town Manager not less than 15 days prior to the date of the sale. A certificate of insurance in an amount specified by the Town Manager to save the Town harmless from any personal injuries or property damage sustained as a result of the sale shall be a prerequisite to the issuance of a permit. At least 60 percent of the sidewalk, on the street side of the walk, shall be left unobstructed during the sale. The Town Council may prescribe additional rules and regulations governing the conduct of sidewalk sales if deemed necessary by the Council. (Code 1972, § 25-26; Ord. 2007-3 of 1 1-6-07)

16. Sec. 25-23. Unloading merchandise. Merchants and others while receiving goods may place the same on the sidewalk next to the building in front of their premises; provided, that not more than three feet of such sidewalk and no part of the street is so occupied. Such occupations shall be for such reasonable time as may be necessary for such reception or delivery. (Code 1972, § 25-27)

17. Sec. 25-24. Hand trucks, wheelbarrows and handcarts on sidewalks. No person shall use any hand truck, wheelbarrow or handcart on any sidewalk except in receiving or delivering goods across the sidewalk. (Code 1972, § 25-28)

18. Sec. 25-66 Generally. Whenever any person proposes to take up or disturb any paving, curbing or guttering in any of the streets or sidewalks of the Town or to dig into the streets or sidewalks for the purpose of laying or repairing sewer, water or gas pipes or to erect poles or for any other purpose, such person shall, before proceeding with such work, make application in writing and obtain a permit from the Town Manager to do such work and shall post such bond as may be required of him. No such permit shall be issued unless in case of absolute necessity. No unnecessary delay shall be permitted in the completion of such work, and in no case shall such work be done in such manner as to obstruct the streets or endanger persons or property. (Code 1972, § 25-6)

19. Sec. 25-67. Restoration of pavement. When any excavation made pursuant to Section 25-66 has been completed, the person who caused such excavation to be made shall immediately cause the street or sidewalk to be restored to as good condition, in the opinion of the Town Manager, as it was before the excavation or opening was made. Such repairs shall be continued until the earth is completely settled and the grade of the street conforms to its proper cross section. (Code 1972, § 25-7)

20. Sec. 25-68. Barriers and lights required. a) Whenever any excavation has been made in any of the streets or sidewalks of the Town or any obstruction placed thereon under the provisions of this chapter, the person causing such excavation or obstruction shall, where necessary to prevent accident to persons or property while work is progressing, have such excavation or obstruction guarded by proper barriers, and during the nighttime shall provide light by lanterns or other sufficient means over such excavation or obstruction as provided in this section. Where such excavation is in the nature of a trench or ditch, such lights shall be placed continuously along the line of such excavation at no greater distance apart than 100 feet. (b) All barricades shall be painted either traffic yellow or red and shall be so maintained to serve as a warning. When the barricade is in use in the daytime, a red flag shall be erected from the highest portion of same to serve as an additional warning. After dark, any barricade in use shall have a yellow lantern or yellow light upon same, kept burning the entire period such barricade is in use or in place over any opening. When doors over any opening are closed or lids replaced, all barricades and signals shall be removed and put out of the way, allowing free and unobstructed passage over the doors or lids. In all cases the use of all openings shall be restricted to the shortest possible time, so as not to inconvenience the public. In no case shall a barricade be left in place all day or all night. (Code 1972, §§ 25-8,25-32)

21. Sec. 26-1. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish certain subdivision standards and procedures for the Town and such of its environs as come under the jurisdiction of the governing body as provided for by the Code of Virginia, as amended, and Section 4.01 of the Town Charter. These are part of a long range plan to guide and facilitate the orderly beneficial growth of the community and to promote the public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare. More specifically to provide for the harmonious and economic development of the Town, in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town; for coordination of streets, alleys, and parkways and other public areas within the subdivision with other existing and planned streets, alleys and public areas within the Town; for adequate open spaces for traffic, recreation, light and air, [and] the width, grading, elevation, drainage and paving of such areas; the planting of trees and shrubs; the construction of sidewalks, curbs and gutters; the provision for laying and maintaining gas, sewer, water, electric and telephone lines, works, pipes and easements and for a distribution of the population and traffic which will tend to create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare of the citizenry of the Town. (Code 1972, § 26-1)

22. Sec. 30-71. Frontage and yards. … (last paragraph) Sidewalks shall be required for all new non-residential development. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may waive this requirement in circumstances that sidewalks do not provide desired connectivity and/or are not physically practical due to site limitations provided the owner/developer makes a contribution in an amount approximate to the sidewalk installation cost to the Town of Christiansburg to be utilized for sidewalk improvements and/or repairs in other locations. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may refer the decision regarding the connectivity and/or practicality to the Planning Commission should there be any doubts. The Town Manager/Town Engineer shall make the determination of the approximate sidewalk installation cost. (Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04; Ord. 2007-1 of 4-3-07)

23. Sec. 30-82. Frontage and ayrds. … (last paragraph) Sec. 30-71. Frontage and yards. … (last paragraph) Sidewalks shall be required for all new non-residential development. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may waive this requirement in circumstances that sidewalks do not provide desired connectivity and/or are not physically practical due to site limitations provided the owner/developer makes a contribution in an amount approximate to the sidewalk installation cost to the Town of Christiansburg to be utilized for sidewalk improvements and/or repairs in other locations. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may refer the decision regarding the connectivity and/or practicality to the Planning Commission should there be any doubts. The Town Manager/Town Engineer shall make the determination of the approximate sidewalk installation cost. (Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04; Ord. 2007-1 of 4-3-07)

24. Sec. 30-92. Yards. {B-1 Limited Business District} (e) Sidewalks shall be required for all new development. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may waive this requirement in circumstances that sidewalks do not provide desired connectivity and/or are not physically practical due to site limitations provided the owner/developer makes a contribution in an amount approximate to the sidewalk installation cost to the Town of Christiansburg to be utilized for sidewalk improvements and/or repairs in other locations. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may refer the decision regarding the connectivity and/or practicality to the Planning Commission should there be any doubts. The Town Manager/Town Engineer shall make the determination of the approximate sidewalk installation cost. (Code 1972, § 30-70; Ord. of 5-2-89; Ord. of 6-20-89; Ord. of 7-2-91; Ord. of 6-2-98; Ord. 2004- 4 of 9-7-04, § 30-70)

25. Sec. 30-98. Frontage, yards and height … ( Pertains to Central Business District B-2 : last paragraph) … Sidewalks shall be required for all new development. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may waive this requirement in circumstances that sidewalks do not provide desired connectivity and/or are not physically practical due to site limitations provided the owner/developer makes a contribution in an amount approximate to the sidewalk installation cost to the Town of Christiansburg to be utilized for sidewalk improvements and/or repairs in other locations. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may refer the decision regarding the connectivity and/or practicality to the Planning Commission should there be any doubts. The Town Manager/Town Engineer shall make the determination of the approximate sidewalk installation cost. (Code 1972, § 30-76; Ord. of 6-20-89; Ord. of 6-2-98; Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04, § 30)

26. Sec. 30-103. Frontage and yards. … (pertains to General Business District B-3) … (f) Sidewalks shall be required for all new development. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may waive this requirement in circumstances that sidewalks do not provide desired connectivity and/or are not physically practical due to site limitations provided the owner/developer makes a contribution in an amount approximate to the sidewalk installation cost to the Town of Christiansburg to be utilized for sidewalk improvements and/or repairs in other locations. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may refer the decision regarding the connectivity and/or practicality to the Planning Commission should there be any doubts. The Town Manager/Town Engineer shall make the determination of the approximate sidewalk installation cost. (Code 1972, § 30-81; Ord. of 5-2-89; Ord. of 6-20-89; Ord. of 7-2-91; Ord. of 6-2-98; Ord. 2001- 5 of 11-6-01 ; Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04, § 30-81)

27. Sec. 30-129. District provisions. (Pertains to Floodplain Districts, FP*) 5. Streets and sidewalks. Streets and sidewalks should be designed to minimize their potential for increasing and aggravating the levels of flood flow. Drainage openings shall be required to sufficiently discharge flood flows without unduly increasing flood heights. (Code 1972, § 30-107; Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04, §30-107)

(That’s all for now:)