A bridge too far

The February 7 meeting of the Goochland Planning Commission was a great example of organized citizen engagement. Thanks to well researched comments and collaboration among opponents to rezoning applications, the Commission was able to hear two contentious and complicated cases and deal with other issues in about three hours.

The Commissioners unanimously approved a master plan for two three story 100,000 square foot office buildings adjacent the Sheltering Arms rehabilitation hospital under construction south of Broad Street Road in West Creek, roughly opposite the Wawa.

A rezoning case for land north of Broad Street Road between Manakin and Rockville Roads that proposed to build 147 homes on 98.2 acres was up next. The land in question was the subject of a similar proposal in 2015, which was withdrawn after the planning commission did not recommend its approval.

The new proposal, dubbed Tuckahoe Bridge—please can developers get a little more creative and stop naming things Tuckahoe or Manakin?—included unrural amenities including sidewalks and dark sky compliant streetlights.

One of the landowners, Brenda Ellis Wiley (full disclosure, GOMM’s Ellis kin are from Michigan and Canada) explained that her father was Otto Ellis, the unofficial mayor of Centerville who owned the now defunct Ellis store that graced the corner of Manakin and Broad Street Roads for many years. The land in question, she said, is the last remnant of her family farm and she wanted to develop it in a way that would enhance the Centerville Village. “I grew up here and went to Goochland High School. I care what happens to this land,” she said.

Wiley and Elizabeth Turner Baker, owner of another of the subject parcels, said that they have paid the TCSD as valorem tax on their property since 2002 and need the return on their investment that creation of Tuckahoe Bridge would bring.  They contended that Main Street Homes, the builder they selected for the project have an excellent reputation for creating quality communities.

Property owners were not forced to put their land into the TCSD, nor were they guaranteed a return on their investment. The real mystery is why this property was included in the Centerville Village and the TCSD in the first place. The TCSD was allegedly created to spur commercial growth and, except for Kinloch, not for residential use.

A high-density residential development on the edge of the Centerville Village does little to enhance the area. Indeed, on the map of the Centerville Village accompanying the application, “Tuckahoe Bridge” looks like it was dropped from a helicopter instead of harmonizing with existing conditions, fields and homes on large lots.

The proposed Tuckahoe Bridge project, just inside the circle on the upper left corner.

At some point in the future, denser development of this property than envisioned by the 2035 Comp Plan may be appropriate, but not while there is ample vacant land in the heart of the village core.

“Second verse, same as the first” broadly sums up the proposal. A residential street with driveways every 75 feet or so was touted as the connector road recommended by county transportation plans. It would become a cut-through between Manakin and Rockville Roads to avoid the Broad Street corridor.

Long time Centerville Fire-Rescue volunteer Larry Barker said that St.  Mathews Lane and Echo Meadows Drive already allow emergency responders to move easily between Rockville and Manakin Roads and contended that homeowners in the proposed neighborhood would not take kindly to fire trucks and ambulances traversing their community, especially with lights and sirens in the middle of the night. He added that demand for emergency medical service is increasing and the county must hire additional responders to compensate for the fall off in volunteers, more people will make the situation worse.

 A few months ago, residents of Parkside Village, also approved with a connector road between Pouncey Tract and Ashland Roads, complained about cut-through traffic. They were surprised and angry to learn that connector was part of their neighborhood from the start. How long before buyers in Tuckahoe Bridge have the same objections?

Additional traffic generated by Tuckahoe Bridge would further degrade the service level of the intersection at Rockville and Ashland Roads, already a bottleneck at busy times of the day. Improvements would be left up to VDOT as funding permits. Mitigation of the malfunction junction at Rt. 288 and Broad Street Road, which is a far busier and more regionally significant interchange, approved and funded a few years back, will not be completed for at least another year.

James Theobald, the attorney representing Tuckahoe Bridge, contended that the comp plan merely “suggests” one unit per acre. Higher densities up to 2.5 units per acre, he said, are appropriate for land served by public water and sewer and to combat sprawl.” The comment generated laughter from the standing room only crowd.

The proposed homes, said Theobald, would have lot sizes of 75 by 150 feet and sell for $600k and up. Based on that home price, gross revenue for the project would be approximately $88.2 million dollars. To be sure, development costs to build roads, a bridge, sidewalks and so forth will be significant.

Benefits to the county were touted as cash proffers, which help fund capital projects, but are a drop in the bucket of costs for new schools and fire-rescue stations. A realtor contended that there is a shortage of homes the county and Tuckahoe Bridge would bolster inventory. It is unclear why that is a benefit to Goochland.

Opponents cited blatant disregard of one home per acre medium density recommend by the 2035 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. “Do they think we’re idiots?” thundered usually soft-spoken District 1 Commissioner John Myers. “The comp plan recommends medium density here with one acre lots, this is 50 percent more.”

Jonathan Lyle contended that the Tuckahoe Bridge proposal is very similar to the one proposed, and rejected, in 2015. “What has changed,” he asked. “There’s not less traffic. Using recommended Comp Plan density 98 homes are appropriate. What benefit are the additional homes to Goochland County?”

Others contended that the comp plan is “not to be discarded by developers” but should be used for balanced development to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The comp plan calls for medium, not suburban density in this area.

Another observed that the proposals will increase traffic by 130 percent and Tuckahoe Bridge is not as advantageous to Goochland as it is to the developer.

Tuckahoe Bridge will add more children to the school system. Already over capacity, Randolph Elementary School would need to add more “education cottages” to handle the increase. These structures, the speaker contended, offer less protection from tornadoes and other hazards than a building.

Paul Costello said that the applicant had the right to request a zoning change but contended that good zoning protects the community. Using RPUD (residential planned unit development) on the subject property is a violation of the 2035 comp plan and is not a matter of public necessity or good policy and planning.

District 3 Commissioner Carter Duke said that he had concerns about the rights of land owners and appreciated wanting a return on their “investment” in ad valorem tax but could not support density far in excess of comp plan recommendations.

District 5 Commissioner Tom Rockecharlie said that the comp plan was not created in a vacuum and should be respected. He opined that the proposed street does not qualify as the connector road in the county’s transportation plan.

The vote was 4-1 against recommending approval. Board Chair John Shelhorse, District 4 dissented.

The second rezoning application sought to create a residential community for 67 homes on 56.3 acres roughly behind the Goochland Branch Library in Courthouse Village on the Reed Marsh property. The parcel is able to access public water and sewer, available through agreements between the county and the Virginia Department of Corrections.

A portion of the subject land is currently zoned R-3, which permits small lot construction without rezoning. The applicant’s representative explained that, to keep the homes at a “relatively affordable” $400K price point, additional lots are needed. The lots would be a minimum of twenty thousand square feet with 12 acres dedicated to open space. Ponds to meet the state’s stormwater management requirements will be in the open space.

Sidewalks will be installed. The applicant contended that the location, near schools, shopping, the YMCA, and restaurants, supports the notion of walkability that is encouraged in the village section of the comp plan. Efforts will be made to renovate and sell the existing home on the property for residential use, if salvageable.

As the 2035 comp plan did not address sewer and water availability in Courthouse Village, staff opined that density higher than recommended could be considered. The staff report expressed concerns about the failure of the application to include left and right turn lanes as this is located at a busy intersection.

There was no mention of the impact of the roundabout at the intersection of Fairground and Sandy Hook Roads will have on traffic in front of the administration building. Right now, most vehicle travelling between Rt. 6 and Sandy Hook and Fairground Roads goes through the Sandy Hook, Rt. 6 corner. The roundabout, which will connect with Rt. 6 further west, should remove a good bit of that traffic from the Rt. 6/ Sandy Hook Road intersection.

Meyers said that he walked the property and found that the rear of the property was marshy, perhaps not a good location for the wastewater pump station or usable open space. He too opposed the density. “This has too much of a city look. Every developer pushes the envelope to see what they can get away with. They (developers) have rights, but citizens have rights too. Agreeing to 50 percent more density than stated in the comp plan makes us look stupid.”

Citizen objections included density they believe is too high for the area; destruction of a wetland habitat; and traffic issues.

This application was also denied recommendation for approval by a 4-1 vote with Shelhorse in dissent.

Both applications could be heard by the Board of Supervisors, who make the final decision, as early as March 5.