The May 2 meeting of the Goochland County Planning
Commission was devoid of the drama that plagued these sessions in recent months.
This could be due to its current members—all appointed by the sitting
supervisors—or the items on the agenda.
Some were:
A conditional use permit application was filed by Tamra and
Douglas Adams for their 126 acre property at the corner of Fairgrounds Road and
Route 250. They plan to host weddings; establish an equestrian facility and bed
and breakfast; and expand the existing Montessori school located there.
Designated a rural enhancement area, the proposed uses are
ideal for this location. Unlike the change in use of Dover Hall on Manakin Road
to a commercial event venue, whose public hearing drew many irate neighbors,
there was no opposition to the Adams’ proposal.
According to environmental planner Leigh Dunn, who made the
staff presentation on the matter, the property has been the site of wedding and
similar events for the past few years without the blessing of the county. No
complaints of any sort have been made by its neighbors about these activities.
As the property currently has limited septic capacity porta-
potties are required for larger gatherings. Health department and other code
requirements must be observed. Dunn said that some additional parking spaces
will be created. Outdoor activities will cease at 11 p.m. and no fireworks will
be allowed. Open air music will be “aimed” away from neighboring homes. Other
requirements will be dealt with by staff in the plan of development process.
The Commissioners voted unanimously to approve this CUP for
a ten year period.
Pouncey Tract Partners filed an application to rezone 49
acres in the extreme northeast corner of Goochland to residential planned unit
development (RPUD) from its current zoning, which includes M-1, B-1 and A-2.
The intent is to build no more than 124 homes that target the 55 plus age
group.
Scott Gaeser, managing partner of the applicant, contended
that, although the county’s current comprehensive land use plan designates this
area for commercial and industrial use, the market disagrees.
The only new construction there was the Aw Shucks complex
about two years ago, which also extended the Tuckahoe Creek water and sewer
lines to the edge of the TCSD.
Meanwhile, across the county borders in both Henrico and
Hanover, residential development oozes westward. Gaeser said that it is time
for Goochland’s comp plan to reflect the reality of the ground—that the
northwest corner is best suited for homes rather than industry.
Gaeser explained that the homes will be built in the woods
with commercial uses nearby. They will be energy efficient and include exterior
maintenance.
Located near a rock quarry, the new community, the Parke at
Pouncey Tract, will provide full disclosure of that fact in all of its
marketing and closing documents. This should prevent homeowners from
complaining about the occasional blasting that is part of the quarry mining
operation, as happened with buyers of high end homes nearby in Henrico. (Did
those people really never wonder where all those gravel-filled dump trucks driving
along Pouncey Tract Road came from?)
The application included cash proffers of $3,473 per unit,
with no contribution for schools or roads. Gaeser contended that very few
children will live in the proposed community, even though state law requires
that a percentage of the homes be available without age restrictions.
“No one moves to that part of Goochland to put their kids in
school with a new Henrico elementary school a mile down the road,” he said.
Improvements already made to Pouncey Tract Road near Aw
Shucks and interior roads built for the residential development will provide
more transportation benefits to the county than a cash payment, Gaeser
contended.
In the middle of the staff presentation, additional proffers
were distributed to the Commissioners by principal planner Tom Coleman. This
action harkens back to the bad old days when land use proffers were written on
the fly during meetings so that the commissioners, and public, had no time to
review them before voting.
Joe Andrews, District 4, requested a deadline for proffer
submissions so they can be read and understood by the Commissioners before public
hearings. In his latest arrogant disregard, Coleman said that the new proffers
had been received two days before the meeting and had not been included in the
packet. Andrews declared that it is not “asking too much to have them included
in the packet.”
Duncan Van Ness, a principal in the group that developed the
Aw Shucks property, spoke in support of Gaeser’s application. He is party to
the agreement that paid to extend TCSD utility lines to POuncey Tract Road in
return for the first nine commercial connection fees. Van Ness contended that
the change to residential connection fees would reduce his reimbursement for
extending the utility lines by about half a million dollars.
Gaeser said that he was not involved in that agreement.
However, he said that the portion of the subject property that will remain in commercial
use contains up to 14 parcels, which could enable Van Ness to recoup his
investment.
The Commission agreed that the utility connection agreement
was outside of its purview and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
rezoning.
The real question here is why was this matter even brought
up to the planning commission? The connection fee agreement involved the
county, Van Ness, and the Economic Development Authority. County staff should have
dealt with this in another venue rather than leave him no option but to ask the
question during a zoning hearing.
It will be interesting to see how the supervisors deal with
this proposal. If they agree to the residential rezoning in an area designated
for business and industrial use will it open the flood gates for home building
and reduce business opportunities in the TCSD? Homes cost the county far more
in services than they generate in tax revenue, unlike land used for business or
agricultural purposes.
If the supervisors decline to approve the change will this
corner of the county continue to lie fallow? If the proposal is rejected could
the transition to residential use threaten future commercial or industrial uses
there?
Then, there is the proffer question. Will the supervisors
insist on the full cash proffer for every rezoned residential lot even though
few children are expected to be added to the school population?
According to Gaeser, the other three Parke communities in
the county, although not age restricted, have added very few children to the
school system, yet paid full cash proffers.
The more than 300 upscale apartments currently under
construction in West Creek are not assessed cash proffers because the land was
rezoned before the cash proffer policy was established. Few children are
expected to live there.
Sometime in the not too distant future, Goochland needs to
build an elementary school in the eastern part of the county. The existing
elementary schools, all built around a half century ago, also need to be
replaced or seriously renovated. Cash proffers, which generate $7,040 per residential
building permit, are a small fraction of the cost of building a school.
Currently, there is much discussion in the region about cash
proffers. Some contend that they are needed to help defray infrastructure cost
of new residential development. Others believe that they only make homes more expensive.
Henrico does not use cash proffers; schools and public libraries seem to pop
out of the ground there like mushroom after a spring rain.
A review of the cash proffer policy is in order especially
with regard to the creation of multi-family zoning categories. Luxury
apartments may not generate many school children, but town houses, for
instance, will.
2 comments:
An alert reader pointed out that a five acre parcel of land in West Creek, whose value could be around $1 million, was proffered to the county as a site for a future fire-rescue station in connection with the apartments. Perhaps in kind donations of land, or roads, would be a valid alternative to cash proffers.
I find the argument that cash proffers for development of "The Parke at...." are unnecessary given past effects on student enrollment short sighted. There is only one opportunity for the county to collect proffers on homes/buildings, yet the structures will likely remain for generations. Who can say how many students per household there may be after a home is sold several times and surrounding market conditions change?
Post a Comment