This document summarizes the key findings of a housing analysis for Rockingham County. It analyzes the existing housing stock, expected future units, and potential future units. It breaks units down by type, number of bedrooms, value, and lot size. Key findings include that single family homes make up the majority of units, values and lots sizes vary significantly between precincts, and certain precincts have higher proportions of manufactured homes or more diverse housing options.

3. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
1 | P a g e
This Housing Analysis seeks to determine the existing, expected and potential stock of residential housing units
in Rockingham County. For purposes of this study, Housing Stock consists of five categories: housing units on
property zoned for agriculture, timeshare units, all other housing units on residentially zoned property, expected
units, and potential units. Expected Units includes a count of all platted but vacant parcels within residential
subdivisions and any proffered number of units on planned or proffered residential developments. Potential
Units includes all parcels over 2 acres; zoned R‐1, R‐2, R‐3, RV (Rural Village District), or within a town; and not
limited by a proffered number of units.
The number of potential units has been estimated based upon the minimum lot size for single family detached
units in each zoning district. Residential Units and Timeshare Units have been analyzed by unit type, by the
number of bedrooms in the unit, and by value, defined as the land value plus the value of the improvements.
Single family detached units, a subset of residential units, have been analyzed by lot size.
19221
1877
16217
3305
6427
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Housing Stock: Existing, Expected, and Potential
Agriculture Dwelling
Timeshare Units
Residential Units
Expected Units
Potential Units
691
1316
288
986
3146
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000 Potential Lots
Town Units
RV Units
R3 Units
R2 Units
R1 Units
7%
19%
58%
13%
3%
Bedrooms
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom 5 + Bedroom
64%
5%
4%
12%
5% 10%
Unit Type
Single Family Detached Duplexes
Townhouses Apartments
Manufactured Homes Timeshare
Average home value: $186,715 Median home value: $162,500
Housing Values Quartiles:
Less than $117,900 $117,900 to $162,500 $162,500 to $232,700 More than $232,700
Average lot size: 1.055 acres Median lot size: .381 acre
Lot Size Quartiles:
More than 0.595 acre 0.381 to 0.595 acre 0.275 to 0.381 acre Less than 0.275 acre

4. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
2 | P a g e
Housing Types Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
 Edom, North River, and Port Republic districts have the highest percentages of
manufactured homes
 Massanetta Springs and Bridgewater districts have the most diverse housing options
beyond single family detached homes
 Bergton, Melrose, and Cross Keys districts are the only precincts with only single family
detached dwellings

5. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
3 | P a g e
District Precinct
Agriculture
Dwelling
Single Family
Detached
APT/
Condo
Town‐
house
Duplex
MFD
Home
Time‐
share
1 Bergton Precinct 536 13 0 0 0 0 0
1 Broadway Precinct 0 944 334 213 73 32 0
1 Fulks Run Precinct 1155 103 2 0 0 5 0
1 Lacey Spring Precinct 646 92 0 0 0 1 0
1
Little North Mountain
Precinct
564 15 8 0 0 0 0
1 Plains Precinct 661 134 0 0 0 3 0
1 Tenth Legion Precinct 732 77 0 0 0 5 0
1 Timberville Precinct 0 730 151 92 10 17 0
2 Dayton Precinct 0 499 126 0 0 0 0
2 Edom Precinct 1276 323 100 14 4 181 0
2 Mt Clinton Precinct 960 268 2 0 0 5 0
2 Silver Lake Precinct 893 662 6 48 127 0 0
2 Singers Glen Precinct 2198 97 1 0 0 2 0
3 Cross Keys Precinct 313 36 0 0 0 0 0
3 Crossroads Precinct 144 797 177 69 148 0 0
3 Grottoes Precinct 0 763 119 90 0 3 0
3 Keezletown Precinct 757 55 1 0 0 1 0
3
Massanetta Springs
Precinct
73 682 206 196 431 0 0
3 Melrose Precinct 640 67 0 0 0 0 0
3 Port Republic Precinct 1037 95 0 0 0 124 0
4 Bridgewater Precinct 0 1274 391 52 72 1 0
4 Montezuma Precinct 708 316 6 0 9 0 0
4 Mt Crawford Precinct 0 131 27 12 0 0 0
4 North River Precinct 752 129 168 0 0 258 0
4 Ottobine Precinct 1520 212 0 0 0 13 0
5 Elkton Precinct 0 883 237 18 10 5 0
5 McGaheysville Precinct 788 612 25 0 68 7 0
5 South Fork Precinct 757 103 0 0 5 70 0
5 Stony Run Precinct 355 1185 0 6 7 5 1877
5 Swift Run Precinct 1752 226 0 0 0 78 0

6. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
4 | P a g e
Housing Values Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
 Crossroads precinct (79%) has the largest percentage of homes within the highest
quartile of home values
 Port Republic precinct (65%) and North River precinct (64%) have the largest
percentages of homes within the lowest quartile

7. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
5 | P a g e
District Precinct 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
1 Bergton Precinct 1 8 5 0
1 Broadway Precinct 589 487 378 142
1 Fulks Run Precinct 38 37 22 12
1 Lacey Spring Precinct 17 34 27 15
1 Little North Mountain Precinct 10 7 5 1
1 Plains Precinct 37 45 37 18
1 Tenth Legion Precinct 37 28 13 4
1 Timberville Precinct 563 338 86 12
2 Dayton Precinct 159 150 182 134
2 Edom Precinct 275 139 119 71
2 Mt Clinton Precinct 15 50 77 133
2 Silver Lake Precinct 36 211 257 330
2 Singers Glen Precinct 18 30 33 19
3 Cross Keys Precinct 0 2 7 27
3 Crossroads Precinct 12 51 187 941
3 Grottoes Precinct 423 370 156 26
3 Keezletown Precinct 1 12 12 34
3 Massanetta Springs Precinct 160 236 557 540
3 Melrose Precinct 13 19 24 11
3 Port Republic Precinct 141 31 22 24
4 Bridgewater Precinct 292 448 655 395
4 Montezuma Precinct 14 72 96 153
4 Mt Crawford Precinct 53 44 33 40
4 North River Precinct 249 79 29 30
4 Ottobine Precinct 54 90 64 17
5 Elkton Precinct 561 324 193 80
5 McGaheysville Precinct 82 241 235 154
5 South Fork Precinct 82 45 36 15
5 Stony Run Precinct 129 701 912 1142
5 Swift Run Precinct 55 57 98 85

8. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
6 | P a g e
Lot Size Only Includes Single Family Detached Units
 Bergton, Cross Keys, and Keezletown have the highest percentages of lot sizes within
the 4th
quartile.
 Dayton, McGaheysville, and Broadway have the most equal distribution of units within
each lot size quartile.
 Timberville and Elkton districts have the highest percentage of homes within the lowest
quartile.

9. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
7 | P a g e
District Precinct 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
1 Bergton Precinct 0 0 0 13
1 Broadway Precinct 240 293 279 168
1 Fulks Run Precinct 0 0 9 95
1 Lacey Spring Precinct 1 4 8 79
1 Little North Mountain Precinct 1 0 1 13
1 Plains Precinct 4 16 20 94
1 Tenth Legion Precinct 0 151 25 52
1 Timberville Precinct 401 0 236 67
2 Dayton Precinct 155 146 144 73
2 Edom Precinct 47 21 103 176
2 Mt Clinton Precinct 1 9 123 135
2 Silver Lake Precinct 100 199 276 87
2 Singers Glen Precinct 1 3 16 77
3 Cross Keys Precinct 0 0 1 35
3 Crossroads Precinct 92 167 0 206
3 Grottoes Precinct 323 306 80 58
3 Keezletown Precinct 0 0 5 51
3 Massanetta Springs Precinct 135 45 945 125
3 Melrose Precinct 1 1 16 49
3 Port Republic Precinct 0 2 33 61
4 Bridgewater Precinct 304 459 432 146
4 Montezuma Precinct 29 64 105 130
4 Mt Crawford Precinct 20 22 62 39
4 North River Precinct 0 2 58 69
4 Ottobine Precinct 2 47 86 78
5 Elkton Precinct 514 169 157 113
5 McGaheysville Precinct 103 147 148 215
5 South Fork Precinct 17 11 29 48
5 Stony Run Precinct 176 793 798 54
5 Swift Run Precinct 1 5 21 199

10. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
8 | P a g e
Housing Stock Does Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties or Timeshare Units
 Stony Run Election Precinct (Massanutten Resort) has the most existing units – primarily
timeshare units
 Massanetta Springs Precinct is expected to nearly double the number of existing units
 Elkton has the greatest potential number of units, while Fulks Run has the greatest
potential percentage increase

11. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
9 | P a g e
District Precinct Existing Expected Expected Growth Potential Potential Growth
1 Bergton Precinct 14 0 0% 0 0%
1 Broadway Precinct 1596 130 8% 366 23%
1 Fulks Run Precinct 109 1 1% 212 194%
1 Lacey Spring Precinct 93 0 0% 65 70%
1 Little North Mountain Precinct 23 0 0% 31 135%
1 Plains Precinct 137 0 0% 155 113%
1 Tenth Legion Precinct 82 3 4% 72 88%
1 Timberville Precinct 999 75 8% 0 0%
2 Dayton Precinct 625 27 4% 35 6%
2 Edom Precinct 604 210 35% 144 24%
2 Mt Clinton Precinct 275 13 5% 51 19%
2 Silver Lake Precinct 834 432 52% 89 11%
2 Singers Glen Precinct 100 0 0% 64 64%
3 Cross Keys Precinct 36 0 0% 13 36%
3 Crossroads Precinct 1191 110 9% 0 0%
3 Grottoes Precinct 975 1 0% 372 38%
3 Keezletown Precinct 59 0 0% 7 12%
3 Massanetta Springs Precinct 1493 1410 94% 837 56%
3 Melrose Precinct 67 2 3% 34 51%
3 Port Republic Precinct 218 83 38% 60 28%
4 Bridgewater Precinct 1790 103 6% 588 33%
4 Montezuma Precinct 335 1 0% 181 54%
4 Mt Crawford Precinct 170 1 1% 0 0%
4 North River Precinct 387 236 61% 18 5%
4 Ottobine Precinct 225 7 3% 280 124%
5 Elkton Precinct 1158 94 8% 1785 154%
5 McGaheysville Precinct 712 158 22% 559 79%
5 South Fork Precinct 178 0 0% 79 44%
5 Stony Run Precinct 2884 196 7% 81 3%
5 Swift Run Precinct 295 12 4% 242 82%

12. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
10 | P a g e
Housing Types Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
Elementary
School
Agriculture
Dwelling
Single Family
Detached
APT/
Condo
Town‐
house
Duplex
MFD
Home
Time‐
share
Cub Run 1392 982 417 275 489 173 0
Elkton 929 810 237 13 0 6 0
Fulks Run 1659 112 2 0 0 5 0
John C. Myers 936 1005 334 213 73 32 0
John Wayland 733 2067 524 53 79 1 0
Lacey Spring 1706 195 0 0 0 5 0
Linville Edom 965 244 5 0 0 11 0
McGaheysville 534 1606 10 6 52 14 1877
Mountain View 3618 958 68 0 6 6 0
Ottobine 1263 193 0 0 0 12 0
Peak View 800 950 187 0 122 257 0
Plains 1378 911 159 92 10 21 0
Pleasant Valley 832 284 25 59 123 1 0
River Bend 1761 358 0 5 10 145 0
South River 694 848 119 90 0 127 0
 Approximately half of
the units in the
McGaheysville School
District are Timeshare
Units, which have no
impact on public
schools
 Cub Run and John C.
Myers Districts have
the most non‐SFD units
 Linville, Lacey Springs,
and Ottobine have the
highest percentages of
SFD units

13. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
11 | P a g e
Housing Values Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
Elementary School 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
Cub Run 371 324 753 855
Elkton 551 305 151 64
Fulks Run 39 45 24 11
John C. Myers 604 504 394 156
John Wayland 471 666 903 689
Lacey Spring 55 68 55 22
Linville Edom 55 85 84 31
McGaheysville 196 871 1058 1243
Mountain View 59 125 367 487
Ottobine 50 84 4 17
Peak View 264 148 161 779
Plains 613 404 138 37
Pleasant Valley 93 257 75 58
River Bend 133 100 164 113
South River 564 400 176 43
 Peak View has the
highest percentage of
homes within the 4th
quartile
 Plains and Elkton have
the highest
percentages of homes
within the 1st
quartile
 Riverbend and John
Wayland have the most
equal distributions of
housing values within
each quartile

14. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
12 | P a g e
Lot Size Only Includes Single Family Detached Units
Elementary School 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
Cub Run 241 205 328 244
Elkton 474 108 79 149
Fulks Run 0 0 7 105
John C. Myers 240 324 249 223
John Wayland 489 748 571 344
Lacey Spring 2 5 47 141
Linville Edom 20 19 68 142
McGaheysville 236 955 253 241
Mountain View 21 226 435 282
Ottobine 1 44 80 68
Peak View 60 379 487 276
Plains 406 178 132 206
Pleasant Valley 100 27 80 83
River Bend 54 106 44 193
South River 323 314 108 109
 Fulks Run has the
highest percentage of
units within the 4th
quartile
 Elkton has the highest
percentage of units
within the 1st
quartile
 John C Myers and Cub
Run have the most
equal distribution of lot
sizes within each
quartile

15. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
13 | P a g e
Housing Stock Does Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties or Timeshare Units
Elementary School Existing Expected Expected Growth Potential Potential Growth
Cub Run 2303 1258 55% 541 23%
Elkton 1071 65 6% 1886 176%
Fulks Run 119 1 1% 212 178%
John C. Myers 1658 130 8% 387 23%
John Wayland 2729 130 5% 698 26%
Lacey Spring 200 3 2% 145 73%
Linville Edom 255 5 2% 104 41%
McGaheysville 3368 211 6% 294 9%
Mountain View 1038 238 23% 231 22%
Ottobine 155 5 3% 256 165%
Peak View 1352 610 45% 786 58%
Plains 1192 75 6% 192 16%
Pleasant Valley 483 448 93% 45 9%
River Bend 510 42 8% 178 35%
South River 1183 84 7% 432 37%
 Elkton school district
has the most growth
potential
 Cub Run,
McGaheysville, and
John Wayland districts
have the most existing
units
 Cub Run has the most
expected growth

16. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
14 | P a g e
Housing Types Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
Company Name
Agriculture
Dwelling
Single Family
Detached
APT/
Condo
Town‐
house
Duplex
MFD
Home
Time‐
share
Timberville Volunteer Fire
Company
950 867 159 92 10 20 0
New Market Volunteer Fire
Department
231 17 0 0 0 0 0
Bridgewater Volunteer Fire
Company
1253 2244 550 64 81 2 0
Weyers Cave Volunteer Fire
Department
396 20 0 0 0 0 0
Port Road Station 1081 1583 551 265 579 257 0
Grottoes Volunteer Fire Company 1103 895 119 90 0 127 0
McGaheysville Volunteer Fire
Company
1122 1837 26 6 80 81 1877
Elkton Volunteer Fire Company 2466 1167 237 18 10 84 0
Hose Company #4 2664 1288 108 62 131 187 0
Singers Glen Volunteer Fire
Company
2188 99 1 0 0 2 0
Bergton Volunteer Fire Company 627 13 0 0 0 0 0
Broadway Volunteer Fire Company 2704 1198 336 213 73 38 0
Clover Hill Volunteer Fire Company 2441 295 0 0 0 18 0
 Less than half of the
housing units served by
either the Port Road
Station or the
McGaheysville
Substation are Single
Family Detached units
 Bergton, Weyers Cave,
and New Market
stations serve the least
diverse unit types

17. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
15 | P a g e
Housing Values Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
Company Name 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
Timberville Volunteer Fire Company 609 386 123 29
New Market Volunteer Fire Department 2 8 7 0
Bridgewater Volunteer Fire Company 521 710 978 736
Weyers Cave Volunteer Fire Department 7 3 1 9
Port Road Station 411 360 769 1507
Grottoes Volunteer Fire Company 565 401 189 75
McGaheysville Volunteer Fire Company 291 965 1154 1301
Elkton Volunteer Fire Company 617 405 314 176
Hose Company #4 363 406 435 545
Singers Glen Volunteer Fire Company 15 28 40 19
Bergton Volunteer Fire Company 1 8 5 0
Broadway Volunteer Fire Company 649 577 451 180
Clover Hill Volunteer Fire Company 65 129 91 28
 The majority of homes
in the Timberville
District are within the
1st
quartile
 Nearly half of the
homes in the Port Road
station are within the
4th
quartile
 Hose Company #4 has
the most balanced
distribution of homes
across the quartiles

18. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
16 | P a g e
Lot Size Only Includes Single Family Detached Units
Company Name 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
Timberville Volunteer Fire Company 406 167 132 162
New Market Volunteer Fire Department 0 0 0 17
Bridgewater Volunteer Fire Company 508 691 631 414
Weyers Cave Volunteer Fire Department 0 0 2 18
Port Road Station 226 214 763 380
Grottoes Volunteer Fire Company 323 308 109 155
McGaheysville Volunteer Fire Company 283 950 321 283
Elkton Volunteer Fire Company 528 175 123 341
Hose Company #4 149 227 503 409
Singers Glen Volunteer Fire Company 1 3 21 74
Bergton Volunteer Fire Company 0 0 0 13
Broadway Volunteer Fire Company 241 297 261 399
Clover Hill Volunteer Fire Company 2 50 102 141
 All units in the Bergton
and New Market
districts are within the
4th
quartile
 Timberville and Elkton
stations have the
highest percentages of
homes within the 1st
quartile

19. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
17 | P a g e
Housing Stock Does Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties or Timeshare Units
Company Name Existing Expected
Expected
Growth
Potential
Potential
Growth
Timberville Volunteer Fire Company 1147 157 14% 181 16%
New Market Volunteer Fire Department 17 0 0% 0 0%
Bridgewater Volunteer Fire Company 2945 131 4% 822 28%
Weyers Cave Volunteer Fire Department 20 0 0% 0 0%
Port Road Station 3047 1606 53% 837 27%
Grottoes Volunteer Fire Company 1230 84 7% 446 36%
McGaheysville Volunteer Fire Company 3711 272 7% 699 19%
Elkton Volunteer Fire Company 1512 106 7% 2048 135%
Hose Company #4 1749 757 43% 358 20%
Singers Glen Volunteer Fire Company 102 2 2% 64 63%
Bergton Volunteer Fire Company 14 0 0% 0 0%
Broadway Volunteer Fire Company 1857 181 10% 633 34%
Clover Hill Volunteer Fire Company 313 8 3% 338 108%
 McGaheysville, Port Rd,
and Bridgewater
stations serve the most
existing homes
 The Elkton Volunteer
Fire Company district
has the potential to
increase by 135%
 The Clover Hill
Volunteer Fire
Company district has
the potential to more
than double (109%)
 Port Road station is
expected to grow the
most (53% increase)

20. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
18 | P a g e
Housing Types Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
Company Name
Agriculture
Dwelling
Single Family
Detached
APT/
Condo
Town‐
house
Duplex
MFD
Home
Time‐
share
Bergton Station, Broadway
Emergency Squad
627 13 0 0 0 0 0
Bridgewater Volunteer Rescue
Squad
1333 2252 550 64 81 2 0
Broadway Emergency Squad 3884 2152 495 305 83 63 0
Clover Hill Volunteer Rescue Squad 2440 295 0 0 0 18 0
Elkton Emergency Squad 2467 1166 237 18 10 84 0
Grottoes Volunteer Rescue Squad 1614 908 119 90 0 127 0
Harrisonburg Rescue Squad 3415 2959 675 327 726 439 0
McGaheysville Station Elkton Vol.
Rescue Squad
875 1658 10 6 64 81 1877
New Market Rescue 19 289 19 0 0 0 0 0
Singers Glen Volunteer Rescue
Squad
2283 101 1 0 0 2 0
 Harrisonburg Rescue
Squad district includes
the City of
Harrisonburg. Housing
Units with the City are
not included in this
report.
 New Market and
Bergton rescue districts
serve the least variety
of unit type
 Harrisonburg rescue
squad serves the most
non‐SFD units (besides
McGaheysville, which
serves mostly
Timeshares)

21. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
19 | P a g e
Housing Values Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
Company Name 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
Bergton Station, Broadway Emergency Squad 1 8 5 0
Bridgewater Volunteer Rescue Squad 527 712 978 736
Broadway Emergency Squad 1299 995 587 215
Clover Hill Volunteer Rescue Squad 65 129 91 28
Elkton Emergency Squad 617 405 314 175
Grottoes Volunteer Rescue Squad 566 402 191 84
Harrisonburg Rescue Squad 761 814 1264 2072
McGaheysville Station Elkton Vol. Rescue Squad 263 883 1079 1275
New Market Rescue 19 2 8 8 1
Singers Glen Volunteer Rescue Squad 15 30 40 19
 The Harrisonburg
rescue squad serves
the most homes within
the 4th
quartile
 Broadway and Elton
squads serve the most
homes within the 1st
quartile
 Bridgewater district
has the most equal
distribution of homes
within each quartile

22. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
20 | P a g e
Lot Size Only Includes Single Family Detached Units
Company Name 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
Bergton Station, Broadway Emergency Squad 0 0 0 13
Bridgewater Volunteer Rescue Squad 508 691 633 420
Broadway Emergency Squad 648 465 422 617
Clover Hill Volunteer Rescue Squad 2 50 102 141
Elkton Emergency Squad 528 175 123 340
Grottoes Volunteer Rescue Squad 323 308 109 168
Harrisonburg Rescue Squad 406 506 1296 751
McGaheysville Station Elkton Vol. Rescue Squad 250 884 262 262
New Market Rescue 19 0 0 0 19
Singers Glen Volunteer Rescue Squad 2 3 21 75
 All units in the Bergton
and New Market
districts are within the
4th
quartile
 The Elkton squad
serves the highest
percentage of homes
within the 1st
quartile
 The Bridgewater
district has the most
equal distribution of
units within each
quartile

23. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
21 | P a g e
Housing Stock Does Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties or Timeshare Units
Company Name Existing Expected
Expected
Growth
Potential
Potential
Growth
Bergton Station, Broadway Emergency Squad 14 290 2071% 0 0%
Bridgewater Volunteer Rescue Squad 2953 131 4% 787 27%
Broadway Emergency Squad 3096 209 7% 938 30%
Clover Hill Volunteer Rescue Squad 313 8 3% 338 108%
Elkton Emergency Squad 1511 106 7% 2048 136%
Grottoes Volunteer Rescue Squad 1243 84 7% 446 36%
Harrisonburg Rescue Squad 4911 2370 48% 1276 26%
McGaheysville Station Elkton Vol. Rescue Squad 3500 104 3% 495 14%
New Market Rescue 19 19 0 0% 0 0%
Singers Glen Volunteer Rescue Squad 104 2 2% 64 62%
 The Harrisonburg
Rescue Squad district
has the most expected
growth (not including
any expected growth
within the City of
Harrisonburg)
 The Elkton district has
the greatest potential
number of units and
the highest potential
percent increase
(136%)
 Clover Hill Volunteer
Rescue Squad has the
second highest
potential percent
increase (108%)

24. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
22 | P a g e
Housing Types Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
Sheriff
Patrol Zone
Agriculture
Dwelling
Single Family
Detached
APT/Condo Townhouse Duplex MFD Home Timeshare
5 6963 900 45 14 4 198 0
6 2934 2236 576 265 647 388 0
7 3518 639 1 0 12 153 770
8 5782 1662 100 60 136 19 0
10 0 1274 391 52 72 1 0
11 0 945 334 213 73 32 0
12 0 499 126 0 0 0 0
13 0 883 237 18 10 5 0
14 0 759 119 90 0 3 0
15 11 995 0 6 0 0 1107
16 0 730 151 92 10 17 0
 Sheriff Patrol Zones 1
through 4 are wholly
within the City of
Harrisonburg and are
not included in this
study.
 Nearly half of all units
served by Patrol Zones
7 and 15 are timeshare
units
 District 6 serves the
greatest variety of
housing types

25. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
23 | P a g e
Housing Values Do Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties
Sheriff Patrol Zone 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
5 416 316 270 142
6 631 607 994 1689
7 242 182 476 667
8 211 503 557 701
10 292 448 655 395
11 589 487 379 142
12 159 150 182 134
13 561 324 193 80
14 423 366 156 26
15 29 665 609 610
16 563 338 86 12
 District 16 has the
highest percentage of
homes within the 1st
quartile
 Districts 6 and 7 have
the highest
percentages of homes
within the 4th
quartile

26. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
24 | P a g e
Lot Size Only Includes Single Family Detached Units
Sheriff Patrol Zone 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile
5 55 43 160 641
6 310 339 923 661
7 55 143 109 331
8 152 343 641 524
10 304 459 365 146
11 240 293 240 169
12 155 146 125 73
13 514 169 87 113
14 323 304 75 57
15 158 692 121 24
16 401 151 111 67
 Over 50% of the homes
within districts 5 and 7
are within the 4th
quartile
 Over 50% of the homes
in districts 13 and 16
are within the 1st
quartile
 Districts 11 and 12
have the most equal
distribution of units
within each quartile

27. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
August 2015
25 | P a g e
Housing Stock Does Not Include Agriculturally Zoned Properties or Timeshare Units
Sheriff Patrol Zone Existing Expected Expected Growth Potential Potential Growth
5 1144 137 12% 758 66%
6 3921 1905 49% 1426 36%
7 1567 31 2% 441 28%
8 1972 625 32% 645 33%
10 1790 173 10% 588 33%
11 1597 142 9% 366 23%
12 625 27 4% 35 6%
13 1158 77 7% 1785 154%
14 971 1 0% 372 38%
15 1913 113 6% 15 1%
16 999 75 8% 0 0%
 District 6, with the
most existing units, is
expected to increase by
49%
 District 8 is expected to
increase by 32%
 District 13 has the
potential to increase by
154%
 District 5 has the
potential to increase by
66%

28. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
Appendix A: Subdivision Housing Stock Detail
August 2015
26 | P a g e
SUBDIVISION
ELECTION
DISTRICT
UNIT TYPE EXISTING EXPECTED
ALGER LANE TOWNHOMES 1 Apartment 13 0
BROADLAND 1 Single Family Detached 4 0
BROADMOOR VILLAGE 1 Single Family Detached 18 3
BROADVIEW 1 Single Family Detached 14 0
BROADWAY SOUTH 1 Single Family Detached 48 0
COYOTE RUN 1 Single Family Detached 41 29
FARMVIEW ESTATES 1 Single Family Detached 4 0
GAP VIEW 1 Single Family Detached 17 0
GREGORY TURNER 1 Single Family Detached 2 0
GRIFFIN 1 Townhouse 25 0
HALLER M. BOWMAN 1 Single Family Detached 5 0
HEARTHSTONE HILL 1 Single Family Detached 9 0
HERITAGE HILLS 1 Single Family Detached 72 18
HERITAGE VILLAS 1 Townhouse 68 0
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE 1 Single Family Detached 26 1
I & J HEIGHTS 1 Single Family Detached 2 0
LACEY HEIGHTS 1 Single Family Detached 44 3
LEGION HILLS 1 Single Family Detached 109 22
LIVING WATERS 1 Single Family Detached;
Townhouse
6 46
LONE PINE VILLAGE 1 Townhouse 10 0
LONE PINE VILLAGE II 1 Single Family Detached 8 1
MOUNTAINEER HEIGHTS 1 Single Family Detached 63 27
NEFF & MEYERS 1 Single Family Detached 83 0
NORTHERN RIDGE 1 Single Family Detached 7 0
PINELAND 1 Single Family Detached 12 0

29. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
Appendix A: Subdivision Housing Stock Detail
August 2015
27 | P a g e
SUBDIVISION
ELECTION
DISTRICT
UNIT TYPE EXISTING EXPECTED
RIDGEVIEW 1 Townhouse 50 0
RIGGLEMAN APARTMENTS 1 Apartment 16 0
RUSTIC KNOLL 1 Single Family Detached 32 8
SMITHLAND HEIGHTS 1 Single Family Detached 10 0
SPOTSWOOD MANOR 1 Single Family Detached 41 0
SUNSET VILLAS 1 Townhouse 28 0
THE ORCHARDS 1 Townhouse 40 0
TIMBER HILLS 1 Single Family Detached;
Apartment
85 0
TIMBERCREST 1 Single Family Detached 51 6
TRIMBLE HEIGHTS 1 Duplex 4 40
TRUMBO 1 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
4 0
VIOLA G. LOHR 1 Single Family Detached 5 0
WALNUT RIDGE 1 Single Family Detached;
Duplex; Townhouse
89 0
WEST VIEW 1 Single Family Detached 27 3
WINDERMERE 1 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
65 1
APPLE ORCHARD 2 Single Family Detached 14 2
BELMONT 2 Single Family Detached 466 22
CEDAR POINT TOWNHOMES 2 Townhouse 27 10
CHARLES A. FLICK 2 Single Family Detached 10 1
COVENANT HEIGHTS 2 Single Family Detached;
Duplex; Townhouse
118 3
DALE HEIGHTS 2 Single Family Detached 5 0
DAPIKE 2 Single Family Detached 6 1

30. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
Appendix A: Subdivision Housing Stock Detail
August 2015
28 | P a g e
SUBDIVISION
ELECTION
DISTRICT
UNIT TYPE EXISTING EXPECTED
DAYTON WEST 2 Single Family Detached 3 2
FOTH 2 Single Family Detached 2 1
GOOD AND KEARNS 2 Single Family Detached 6 1
GRANDVIEW HILLS 2 Single Family Detached 28 0
HAMPSHIRE ESTATES 2 Single Family Detached 3 2
HARTMAN 2 Single Family Detached 12 0
J. WILSON LEE 2 Single Family Detached 2 1
KAUFFMAN 2 Single Family Detached 4 0
LORD'S ACRE 2 Single Family Detached 4 0
MEADOWBROOK 2 Single Family Detached 34 109
MONTE VISTA 2 Single Family Detached 109 11
SHANDS HILL 2 Single Family Detached;
Apartment
47 18
SKYVIEW ESTATES 2 Single Family Detached 18 7
SOUTH BREEZE ESTATES 2 Single Family Detached 52 12
SOUTHSIDE HEIGHTS 2 Duplex 64 2
SOUTHSIDE HEIGHTS
TOWNHOMES
2 Townhouse 42 0
SPRING HILL 2 Single Family Detached 11 1
WARREN S BURKHOLDER 2 Single Family Detached 9 2
WILLOW WEST 2 Single Family Detached 71 12
WINDY HEIGHTS ESTATES 2 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
7 8
WOODLAND ESTATES 2 Single Family Detached 4 0
ALFRED E. BOYERS 3 Single Family Detached 4 1
AMBROSIA TOWNHOMES 3 Townhouse 12 0

31. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
Appendix A: Subdivision Housing Stock Detail
August 2015
29 | P a g e
SUBDIVISION
ELECTION
DISTRICT
UNIT TYPE EXISTING EXPECTED
BARRINGTON 3 Single Family Detached 169 1
BATTLEFIELD ESTATES 3 Single Family Detached 136 13
BRIARCREST 3 Single Family Detached 6 0
BRIDLEWOOD 3 Single Family Detached 21 9
C & W 3 Single Family Detached 12 0
CROSSROADS FARM 3 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
155 0
CULLISON CREEK 3 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
34 6
FK POWERS 3 Single Family Detached 4 2
GLENN‐LOUISE 3 Single Family Detached 4 0
GRACE LEE ESTATES 3 Single Family Detached 24 0
GREAT OAKS 3 Single Family Detached 16 0
GREENPORT 3 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
25 35
HAMLET HILL ESTATES 3 Duplex 4 0
HEATHERTON 3 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
19 0
HIGHLAND PARK 3 Single Family Detached 118 21
KENTSHIRE ESTATES 3 Single Family Detached 24 2
LAKE POINTE 3 Single Family Detached 45 5
LAKE POINTE VILLAGE 3 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
33 3
LAKEWOOD 3 Single Family Detached 257 13
LEONARD EDWARD
ARMSTRONG
3 Single Family Detached 4 0
MADISON VILLAGE 3 Single Family Detached 96 54

32. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
Appendix A: Subdivision Housing Stock Detail
August 2015
30 | P a g e
SUBDIVISION
ELECTION
DISTRICT
UNIT TYPE EXISTING EXPECTED
MAGNOLIA RIDGE 3 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
80 15
MASSANETTA SPRINGS COTTAGE
COMMUNITY
3 Single Family Detached 51 24
MILL RACE COURT 3 Townhouse 9 0
MISTY MEADOWS 3 Duplex 64 0
OAKDALE TOWNHOMES 3 Townhouse 10 0
PRESTON LAKE 3 Single Family Detached;
Townhouse
61 758
ROSEDALE 3 Duplex 80 0
SHADY CREEK 3 Single Family Detached;
Duplex; Townhouse
34 0
SHANNON ACRES 3 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
3 0
SHERWOOD FOREST 3 Duplex; Apartment 94 0
SPRING OAKS 3 Townhouse 111 19
SUNRISE 3 Single Family Detached 4 0
TAYLOR GROVE 3 Townhouse; Apartment 105 0
TAYLOR SPRING 3 Townhouse 128 0
THE GLEN AT CROSS KEYS 3 Duplex 54 20
THE HILL GROUP DEVELOPMENT 3 Single Family Detached 8 1
THE KNOLLS 3 Single Family Detached 11 0
TOWN & COUNTRY LANDING 3 Duplex 12 0
TWIN GABLES 3 Townhouse 17 0
WELSTONE 3 Single Family Detached 2 1
WHISPERING HILLS 3 Single Family Detached 15 0

33. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
Appendix A: Subdivision Housing Stock Detail
August 2015
31 | P a g e
SUBDIVISION
ELECTION
DISTRICT
UNIT TYPE EXISTING EXPECTED
ASHBY VILLA 4 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
39 0
BRENTWOOD MANUFACTURED
HOME
4 Manufactured Home 36 58
BRIDGEPORT 4 Single Family Detached;
Apartment
63 0
BRIDGEPORT VILLAGE 4 Single Family Detached 58 0
BUTTERMILK RUN ESTATES 4 Single Family Detached 4 0
C.E. SHIFLETT ESTATE 4 Single Family Detached 6 2
C.W. ALLMAN & W.O. MINNICK 4 Single Family Detached 1 1
CANNERY WOODS 4 Single Family Detached 3 0
CLOVER HILL RURITAN 4 Single Family Detached 7 0
COUNTRY ESTATES 4 Single Family Detached;
Apartment
20 0
COUNTRYSIDE 4 Single Family Detached 16 0
FAIRFIELD ACRES 4 Single Family Detached 8 0
FOXCROFT 4 Single Family Detached 73 0
GRANDMA'S 4 Single Family Detached 8 0
GREENFIELD 4 Single Family Detached 27 0
H & H ESTATES 4 Single Family Detached 21 0
LILLY GARDENS 4 Single Family Detached 29 0
MILLVIEW ESTATES 4 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
22 8
NORTH RIVER LANDING 4 Single Family Detached;
Townhouse
15 0
OAK MEADOWS 4 Single Family Detached 48 1
OLD MILL LANDING 4 Single Family Detached 68 1

34. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
Appendix A: Subdivision Housing Stock Detail
August 2015
32 | P a g e
SUBDIVISION
ELECTION
DISTRICT
UNIT TYPE EXISTING EXPECTED
PARKSIDE VILLAGE 4 Single Family Detached 21 40
RIVER HEIGHTS 4 Single Family Detached 4 0
SADDLEBROOK PLANTATION 4 Single Family Detached;
Townhouse
46 1
SAGEFIELD 4 Single Family Detached 16 0
SANSTON SITES 4 Single Family Detached 84 0
STONE SPRING ROAD ESATES 4 Single Family Detached 2 5
SUGAR CAMP 4 Single Family Detached 5 0
SUNSET 4 Single Family Detached 31 2
SUNSHINE 4 Single Family Detached 12 0
THE ALLEN 4 Single Family Detached 15 0
THE SPRINGS AT OSCEOLA 4 Single Family Detached 10 95
TWIN PINE ESTATES 4 Single Family Detached 29 1
W.D. EVERS 4 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
5 0
WINDSOR ESTATES 4 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
111 1
WINDSOR WEST 4 Single Family Detached;
Townhouse
81 51
WRIGHT 4 Single Family Detached 11 1
ANSELL 5 Single Family Detached 1 0
ASHBY GLEN 5 Single Family Detached 23 1
BERNARD F ALLEN 5 Single Family Detached 17 0
DONNAGAIL 5 Single Family Detached;
Apartment
109 1
DOWNEY KNOLLS 5 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
7 16

35. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
Appendix A: Subdivision Housing Stock Detail
August 2015
33 | P a g e
SUBDIVISION
ELECTION
DISTRICT
UNIT TYPE EXISTING EXPECTED
ELKWOOD 5 Single Family Detached 62 7
GRASSINGTON PLACE 5 Single Family Detached 3 6
GREENVIEW HILLS 5 Single Family Detached 125 70
HELEN C. TAYLOR 5 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
5 0
LIBERTY HEIGHTS 5 Single Family Detached;
Apartment
31 14
MANORWOOD ESTATES 5 Single Family Detached 25 3
MASSANUTTEN UNIT 1 5 Single Family Detached 69 1
MASSANUTTEN UNIT 10 5 Single Family Detached 18 14
MASSANUTTEN UNIT 2 5 Single Family Detached 67 24
MASSANUTTEN UNIT 3 5 Single Family Detached 175 15
MASSANUTTEN UNIT 4 5 Single Family Detached 239 30
MASSANUTTEN UNIT 5 5 Single Family Detached 72 4
MASSANUTTEN UNIT 6 5 Single Family Detached 60 7
MASSANUTTEN UNIT 9 5 Single Family Detached 36 18
MOUNTAIN MEADOW ESTATES 5 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
38 8
OVERBROOK 5 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
41 127
PEAKVIEW 5 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
14 0
PINEY MOUNTAIN ACRES 5 Single Family Detached 104 12
QUAIL RUN 5 Single Family Detached;
Duplex; Townhouse
71 8
RIVER BEND 5 Single Family Detached;
Manufactured Home
12 4

36. Rockingham County Housing Analysis
Appendix A: Subdivision Housing Stock Detail
August 2015
34 | P a g e
SUBDIVISION
ELECTION
DISTRICT
UNIT TYPE EXISTING EXPECTED
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE 5 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
69 2
SPOTSWOOD VILLAGE 5 Single Family Detached;
Duplex
27 0
STONY RUN 5 Single Family Detached 34 1
SUMMIT 5 Single Family Detached 3 0
THREE LEAGUES 5 Single Family Detached 37 3
VILLAGE GREEN 5 Single Family Detached 3 6
VILLAGE WOODS 5 Single Family Detached 60 0
WAVERLY FARMS 5 Single Family Detached 5 1
WAVERLY NUMBER 2 5 Single Family Detached 8 7
WHISPERING PINES 5 Single Family Detached 28 1
WILLOW OAKS 5 Single Family Detached;
Duplex; Townhouse
14 32
WINDSONG HILLS 5 Single Family Detached 10 0
WOODBRIDGE 5 Single Family Detached 64 16
WOODSTONE MEADOWS 5 Single Family Detached 26 0