Thursday, December 18, 2008

Don't stop thinking about tomorrow

The 2028 Comprehensive land use plan

After nearly two years of meetings, discussions and tweaking, the 2028 comprehensive land use plan (comp plan) made it to a public hearing before the board of supervisors at its December 2 meeting.

There were only a few speakers, mostly from two groups: Citizens Concerned with Goochland Growth (CCGG) and Americans for Prosperity. Though the two groups had different objections to the proposed comp plan, they agreed in their contention that the comp plan is not ready for adoption.

The supervisors voted to defer a vote until their February meeting. The delay will allow them to review citizen input.

Created by state mandate decades ago, the comp plan is intended to be a guide for land use decisions. It is supposed to reflect citizen vision about how the county will grow in the ensuing 20 years.

Both CCGG, a local grassroots organization, and Americans for Prosperity, a national group whose Goochland members spoke at the hearing, despaired that the comp plan revisions reflected the input of only a few people.

The number of people who attended the public hearing represents .00374 percent of the county’s population. An initial county-wide round of meetings held in the spring of 2007 were well-attended. Follow-up meetings held about a year ago generated little interest.

In truth, few people care about land use matters until they see a bulldozer on an adjoining lot, by which time is it way too late to change things. Also, Goochland citizens tend to have little faith that their elected and appointed officials care about their wishes.

The proposed 2028 plan, which may be viewed at www.goochland.va.us is an easy read and includes a great deal of interesting information about the county.

Detailed information about decisions that comprise the comp plan, such as how village boundaries were drawn, on the other hand, seems to have been lost in the mists of time.

The village concept

Goochland’s comp plan is based on something called the village concept. On paper, this approach to land use planning sounds great.

Simply put, the village concept encourages development in eight areas designated as villages. These are: the River Road corridor, Manakin, Centerville, Crozier, Courthouse Village, Oilville, Sandy Hook, Georges Tavern/Fife and Hadensville. This is supposed to take development pressure off of the more rural areas.

People who live inside of village boundaries are often surprised to learn that they indeed live in a village. Other than lines drawn on a land use map, or a mailing address, it’s sometimes hard to tell that you’re in a village.

When rezoning applications were filed for land located inside the Sandy Hook Village, a circle centered on the intersection of Whitehall and Sandy Hook Roads, local residents asked “what village?”

They were especially incensed to learn that property inside that magic circle could be rezoned for acre and a half home sites with little regard to the impact on traffic, soils and aquifers.

Those subdivisions rezoned under the 2023 plan are on the books and will be built when the economy improves.

When land was rezoned for a mixed-use project in the heart of the Manakin Village in 2007, local residents strenuously objected. People contended that they live close enough to stores and services in Henrico to fulfill their needs. Peace and privacy of country living is more important than being able to walk to store to buy a loaf of bread they said.

Yet, the 2028 plan states that Manakin will develop into a major village as water and sewer, presumably supplied by the Tuckahoe Creek Service District, become available. Is this a reflection of citizen vision?

While the county seat, Courthouse Village has many of the true attributes of a small town, utility capacity, supplied by the Department of Corrections, is severely limited. Recent nearby rezonings added more rooftops to the area that attracted businesses like a shopping center and the county’s first fast food restaurant.

Accessed only by already overburdened two lane roads that will not be improved any time soon, appropriate high-density growth in Courthouse Village seems unlikely.

Centerville, served by public water and sewer, should be the focus of highest density development in the county but the supervisors repeatedly balk at creating multifamily zoning options there. They seem to fear creation of housing projects that will swarm with school-aged children.

Although the supervisors and department of community development have discussed the idea of creating a master plan for the Centerville Village, for at least four years, no action has been taken. In the interim, land is rezoned on a case by case basis with little thought to the village as a whole.


Oilville, says the 2028 comp plan, will develop into a major village in the next 20 years.

Given that the county is in talks with VDOT about taking over the wastewater treatment plant at the rest area, this village deserved a little more attention in the revision process. Since the 2023 plan was adopted, the only development in Oilville has been a strip shopping center and a “cookie cutter” subdivision with little or no relation to each other.

The comp plan does state that care should be taken to preserve the existing village characteristics of Oilville whatever those may be.


The 2028 plan contains language to discourage development in the area west of Lickinghole Creek. This seems to be the principal effort to preserve some vestiges of the county’s ruralness.

Speakers at the hearing contended that the county’s rural preservation (RP) zoning option, which sets aside 50 percent of a parcel to be left undisturbed in perpetuity, can balance development with maintenance of a rural view shed.

There is more to preserving rural character than setting houses well back from roads so they don’t spoil the view.

Given land values in Goochland, even at their current depressed prices, the folks who live in RP subdivisions have quite different world views from their rural neighbors.

Already, far too many people who move to “the country” because they like to see cows and horses do not realize, until it’s too late, that horses neigh, cows moo, they both poop and manure smells.

These newcomers are surprised to learn that agriculture can be a noisy, smelly and sometimes unsightly business. When upscale subdivisions are plunked down next to farms, friction can result. The farmer tends to lose. If he sells his land to a developer, he becomes a villain.

Land use decisions must balance the property rights and the public good.

Several supervisors commented that discouraging development anywhere in the county could deprive a long time landowner of realizing the appreciation on long held property that had been counted on to fund retirement.

Differentiating between people who want to sell a few lots and those who buy large tracts for speculative purposes is fraught with peril.

As the 2010 census and resulting redistricting draw near, the voice of the rural citizen could be muted.

Growth in the eastern end of Goochland will likely change district boundaries in such a way that the voice, and clout, of truly rural residents will become severely diluted. Discouraging residential subdivisions west of Lickinghole Creek will only make this problem worse. But permitting leapfrog development in areas that cannot support it is a problem too.


Everyone wants to protect the rural character of Goochland. Sounds great, but exactly what does that mean and how do you do it?

The 2028 comp plan tap dances around the issue. Without a common vision on the part of the board of supervisors, little will change.

The plan has lots of lofty language about visions and strategies, which are meaningless without a unified sense of purpose by the governing board.

If the supervisors continue to vote their whim, citing the comp plan as Holy Grail when it supports their view or denigrating it as “just a guide” when they want to vote in a contrary way, the whole process is an exercise in futility.


Read the comp plan, think about it, call your supervisor and share you opinion before that bulldozer shows up.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I share Mrs. Warwick's frustration with the "aimless" language in the Goochland Co. Comp. Plan. I have criticized its failure to recite spedivic data about the County and its failure to engage in realistic growth projections, both of which might be of similar concern to Mrs. Warwick.

She and I may disagree on where certain areas of the County OUGHT to go, but the draft Comp. Plan does not take us there in either case. I find the lack of specific targets and the predominance of wistful "hand-wringing" to be a sad waste of time and effort.

Watkins Ellerson
Hadensville