To bridge or not to bridge, that is the question

To bridge or not to bridge, that is the question

Around midnight on June 4, the Goochland Board of Supervisors voted 4-1, with Susan Lascolette, District 1 in dissent, to defer a ruling on the rezoning application filed by Tuckahoe Bridge LLC until its July 2 meeting. Given the late hour, it was probably prudent to postpone a decision. However, the people who mostly filled the 255-seat board meeting room and had been there for at least five hours, were not happy. The supervisors listened carefully to all comments and clearly had not made up their minds on the case before hand.

The land in question, several parcels totaling 98.22 acres north of Broad Street Road between Manakin and Rockville Roads, has been the subject of contention between developers, property owners, and neighbors for a while. A previous proposal was eviscerated in 2015 and was withdrawn before reaching the supervisors. The current proposal was rejected 4-1 by the planning commission on February 7. After additional discussion between developers and neighbors, a revised proposal with fewer homes, 123 versus the original 147, came before the supervisors. The land is in the Tuckahoe Creek Service District (TCSD), whose water and sewer lines make it able to support homes on lots smaller than the one-acre average shown in the comprehensive land use plan.

Citizen opinions expressed during the public hearing, which ran from 9:20 to 10:50 p.m., were succinct and explored a wide range of topics and viewpoints.  The irony that the proposed development would further urbanize the area seemed lost on the property owners who recalled growing up in Centerville of the past. As presented, Tuckahoe Bridge will not be a “walkable community” enabling residents to stroll to shops and restaurants unless they have a death wish and want to “play chicken” with vehicle zooming along narrow country roads.

The 2035 comprehensive land use plan was invoked often. It can be used to support or refute most land use arguments, sometimes in the same case. Contrary to some of the rhetoric, this state-mandated document, while useful tool to for land use decisions, is not a “covenant between the people and their government”.  This Comp Plan was devised with input from about 200 people and the county’s competent and professional planning staff, few of whom live in Goochland. The other 21,000 or so county residents pay little attention to the Comp Plan and may not know, or care, that it exists. It is a GUIDE not gospel. The supervisors have the discretion to follow or ignore it but seemed reluctant to do either on June 4.

Had as many people attended the public hearing that established the TCSD, there might have been less heartburn over this proposal. As originally justified, the TCSD was created to encourage commercial and industrial economic development in the eastern end of the county. Except for Kinloch, it was not supposed to support residential development.  If that was indeed true, why were the parcels included in Tuckahoe Bridge ever put into the TCSD? Clearly, that land was best suited for residential use.

There were never any guarantees that landowners who put their land into the TCSD would benefit from the inclusion. The county owes these landowners, who voluntarily took the risk that their property would appreciate and become more developable and paid the ad valorem tax, nothing. 

Back to Tuckahoe Bridge. According to the 2035 comp plan, the area in question is designated for medium density residential use. This means an average of one acre per home. The comp plan also shows a “connector” road between Manakin and Rockville Roads, because a traffic engineer decided that one might be needed some time in the future. There is no need for a road there now, or perhaps ever.

As VDOT is slow to build roads, the county, whenever possible, encourages developers to include needed roads in their projects. So, the Tuckahoe Bridge folk included a road in their conceptual plan. The purpose of the connector—to provide another way for traffic to access Ashland Road without going along Broad Street Road—is vague at best. The intersection of Ashland and Rockville Roads is in an oft congested corridor and not signalized why add more vehicles to the mix?

A recent brouhaha by the residents of Parkside Village, a community near the intersections of Ashland and Pouncey Tract Roads, who were outraged to learn that a connector road had been part of their neighborhood since its inception, should be a cautionary tale. It is hard to believe that people shelling out upwards of $550K for homes would welcome cut through traffic in their neighborhood.

The major sticking point in the application—many speakers indicated that they wanted to get to “yes” on this development—was the density. As presented, there would be an average of 1.25 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, about a third acre. Some lots would be larger or smaller depending on the final survey. Current residents contended that is just too many homes for the area regardless of the availability of water and sewer.  A plan with 98 homes, adhering to the one unit per acre, was more acceptable. Given the need for roads, buffers, etc., the 98 home sites would be less than one acre, but still less dense than the proposal. In fact, some speakers contended that there would have been little opposition had the number of homes been 98. As currently zoned, 26 homes could be built on the land.

Main Street Homes, the developer in the case, who everyone lauded for its willingness to talk and reputation for building high quality communities, contended that it needs the 123 homes with a $550k starting price point, to cover the cost of building the connector road. The “bridge” over the Tuckahoe Creek wetland will cost approximately $5 million, with significant other up-front costs for turn lanes and extension of utility lines.

The “bridge” was described as a series of culverts through a wetland. Given recent torrential rains, perhaps leaving the drainage in this area alone might be a better idea than fiddling with Mother Nature.

Opponents contended that the density in this zoning category, residential planned unit development (RPUD), is not appropriate for the subject property and does not represent transition from the higher density expected in the core of the Centerville Village. (Speaking of village core density, yet another community meeting on the mixed-use rezoning application for Manikintowne is scheduled for June 18 at Company 3 from 6 to 8 p.m.) Tuckahoe Bridge was characterized as leapfrog development dropped in a rural area, not ratcheting down the densest development at the village core toward its edge.

The overall question, “what benefits does this bring to Goochland?” had different answers. Opponents contended that building 123 versus 98 homes would generate at $3.31 per resident (not a typo) in fiscal benefit to the county. Supporters of the project contended that more high-quality homes will bring young families who want to experience our schools and other amenities. (Clearly this person missed the comment that there are currently three education cottages at Randolph elementary, whose attendance boundaries will change after the new Goochland Elementary is built around 2024). Opponents contended that there is no public necessity for a high-density residential enclave here, but would support one with 98 lots, built without the connector road, which would make fewer lots economically feasible for the developer.

Traffic engineer Eric Strohacker, speaking on behalf of Tuckahoe Bridge, LLC, agreed that the connector road will be used as a cut through and the overall impact on area traffic would not be all that bad as he tap danced around the level of service indicators. Bottom line on all of this, there will be more cars on the road, expected improvements to the north side of the Broad/Manakin interchange generated by development behind Satterwhite’s (looks like survey stakes are already in the ground there) will help.

RPUD, one speaker contended, may be appropriate in some places, but there is “no rational purpose” for it on the outer edge of the Centerville Village and no compelling reason to set the recommend density of the comp plan aside.”

Supporters of the project contended that increased property values will enable the county to fund increased demands on public services. Some contended that they have lived in the county for years and seen lots of new subdivisions that had no impact on traffic. Others said that traffic on Manakin Road, for instance, has gotten so bad that they no longer feel safe walking their horses along the road, or even letting their children go out to collect the mail

Most of the supervisors expressed reservations about the road. Lascolette was the only one who said outright she could not support the road. Bob Minnick, District 4, observed that if 85 percent of Goochland is to be kept rural, one of the main tenets of the comp plan, the growth must go in the other 15 percent, essentially the TCSD. He opined that, as presented, the connector road is of little value to the county.

Ken Peterson, District 5 said that the supervisors’ job is easy “make a decision that pleases everyone and go home.” He also pointed out that they represent those who own the land, live near it and the other 21,000 who are not in the room.

The developer, Vernon McClure, said he would prefer a deferral to take another look at the application.

If the connector road is removed from the application, it may be possible to reduce the number of homes to 98, with about half accessed from Rockville Road, the remainder from Manakin Road.

On July 2, the Board will permit McClure to present his final offer and vote it up or down with no public hearing. County Attorney Tara McGee said that, if the density is not greater than that presented for the June 4 pubic hearing, that is acceptable.