Full circle

People buy homes in good faith that the conditions to which they agreed at the outset, will be upheld to protect their long-term investment in the community.

An example of this is Creekmore Park, an upscale residential community on the north side of Rt. 6 between West Creek and the Richmond Country Club. It was zoned for residential use in 2002. At the same time 8.06 acres between Rt. 6 and Creekmore homes was zoned residential office (R-O) to accommodate several low-slung medical office buildings.

People bought homes in Creekmore Park with full knowledge and understanding that, at some point in the future, medical offices would be built at the southern edge of the community. For whatever reason, a plan of development was never filed for the R-O use.

Fast forward to 2017, when a proposal to build a two story 48,000 square foot self-storage facility on the subject property was met with such strong opposition from the Creekmore Park homeowners that it was recommended for denial at the planning commission phase and withdrawn. In 2014, the supervisors rejected a rezoning application for retail use on the east side of Creekmore Road, agreeing with Creekmore Park residents that retail operations were not compatible with the Goochland Comprehensive Land Use plan or their community. Triplex dwelling units have been built there.

Last fall, an application to rezone the R-O  property, which is comprised of two lots, for broader business use,once again met with strenuous opposition from Creekmore Park homeowners contending that business zoning there would open the door to unknown and inappropriate uses.  They contended that R-O should be retained. The developer explained that rezoning was sought to accommodate a prospective buyer who needed a building with more than the five thousand square foot limitation in R-O. 

The supervisors deferred a decision on the application to March and initiated an ordinance amendment to increase the maximum square footage on R-O to 7,500 square foot per structure, which they approved a few minutes before the Creekmore Park case began.

Many Creekmore Park homeowners spoke in support of the final R-O proposal, which they said was far superior to previous iterations, during the public hearing, with the sole objection to the access point onto Creekmore Road. As presented, this would be a right turn only exit from the parking lot, not to be used during afternoon rush hour. Homeowners contended that prohibition cannot be enforced. Don Sharpe, District 4, suggested that some sort of timed gate could discourage use of this access point.

The applicant said that, given the size of the project at build out, approximately 37,000 square feet, county planning staff would require a second access point for public safety. Signage to discourage westbound traffic from turning onto Creekmore Road to enter the offices will be needed.

Ken Peterson, who represents District 5, which includes the subject property, said that this has come full circle. The land was initially zoned R-O with two access points. Creekmore Park homeowners wanted the zoning to remain R-O. If the lot line was not removed, the smaller parcel’s access point, in both directions, would be to Creekmore Road. The supervisors changed the R-O zoning rules to allow the developer to accommodate its client with existing zoning.

“This board had held the line on R-O consistent with the original plan, which was approved before a single home was built. We have quality developer with a quality project and a quality tenant. The hold-up is the intersection, which is an issue at peak hours.  It’s not perfect. I wish there was a way to do something about the intersection. The county wrestles with this traffic every day. It’s our job to decide what’s in the best interest of the county. I want to thank everyone for getting us to where we are today.”

Board Chair Susan Lascolette, District 1, said that applicant has made concessions to create a good project, but traffic, which is not in the county’s purview, is a problem.

John Lumpkins, District 3, moved to approve the amend proffered conditions as presented. Neil Spoonhower seconded; the aye vote was unanimous.

Kudos the to the residents of Creekmore Park for being engaged and the developer for working with them. The action by the board to amend R-O zoning to “get to yes” and build middle ground in the issue shows its commitment good governance.

This decision should provide a bit of certainty for Creekmore Park homeowners as they know what will be built between their homes and Rt. 6.