Keeping it rural

 

          A standing room only crowd filled Bethel United Methodist Church on Monday evening, April 10 for a community meeting about a conditional use application filed by Richmond Farmland LLC for 145.18 acres on the west side of Cardwell Road between Sheppard town and Taylor Roads.

Opponents fill Bethel Church

 The property is under a conservation easement, held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation https://www.vof.org/ that was placed on the land by the late Faye Kilpatrick in 2009. She was passionate about preserving Goochland’s rural and equestrian heritage.

A conservation easement is a mechanism whereby a property owner voluntarily agrees to conditions that restrict development in perpetuity, not until a future owner finds them inconvenient. Such easements allow certain specified land uses to protect natural resources and open space from development forever.

Three planning commissioners, Tom Rockecharlie, District 5, Kurt Pituck, District 4, and Carter Duke, District 3, as well as District 3 Supervisor John Lumpkins, were also in attendance.

          Community meetings are the first step in Goochland County’s land use change process. The purpose of these sessions, which are run by the entity seeking the change known as “the applicant”, is to explain the proposal and gather feedback from adjoining property owners, neighbors, and interested parties.

          These meetings typically begin with a brief introduction by a member of the county’s community development staff, after which the applicant or its representative, often an attorney specializing in land use matters, explains the proposed land use. This is followed by questions and comments from attendees. In a perfect world, this feedback would be used to tweak the application to make it more acceptable.

          Zanas Talley, counsel for the applicant, began his presentation about the CUP application—addition of a place of public assembly and wedding venue that could host up to 250 people—with an allegedly recent photo of the existing barn. Attendees said that improvements to the barn, which would be used to host events, started some time ago.

Zanas Talley point to existing barn on conceptual plan

          Three slides into the prestation, Tally lost control of the meeting and spent the next 90 minutes fielding questions and batting away comments that did not agree with his narrative, that the proposal will enhance the rural nature of the subject parcel. There was strenuous objection to his contention that an amendment to the VOF easement has been approved.

          In addition to renovating the approximately 7,800 square foot barn, a 9,575 square foot concrete pad (non-permeable, which could cause runoff) will be available for outdoor celebrations including wedding ceremonies. Other parts of the property would be used for livestock, vegetable production, and a vineyard/winery. Parking for more than 100 cars is indicated on the conceptual plan.

The hay barn

The applicant proposes to build a 9,500 square foot two-story single-family dwelling as the primary residence of at least one of the owners (Tally was a little vague as to exactly who would live there). The home would also be used as a “hosted short-term rental” in conjunction with the wedding venue, which is included in the CUP application.

 The VOF easement specifically limits any primary and secondary dwelling units to an aggregate of no more than 8,000 square feet. It also clearly prohibits large-scale commercial activities, or any commercial activity not related to agricultural use. Tally did not explain how an event venue is related to agriculture.

The conceptual plan clearly labels the 25 feet—less than the length of a school bus—between the barn and property line, as a vegetative buffer, presumably to screen neighboring parcels from activity at the barn.

Talley contended that the proposed wedding venue would fill a “middle market” void in Goochland, between high end and modestly priced event options. A few minutes online would have disabused him of this notion. Goochland already has wedding venues for every budget. Even though Tally insisted that his client did market research on the need for this event space, he presented no evidence.     

          Tally repeatedly contended that the proposed venue is an amenity badly needed by the area community. The “community” filling the church seemed unaware of this need and robustly rejected the notion that hosting up to 250 people on land that has been in agricultural use for generations would enhance its rural nature.

A citizen remarked that, in addition to the 250 guests, caterers, and others involved in staging these events would add traffic and disruption to a bucolic area. Hours of operation would be from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday to Thursday and extend to 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Tally said that the venue would use contractors and have no employees. Does this mean that the venue would be rented out lock stock and barrel without any oversight from the applicant to ensure that CUP conditions are met?

          Although Tally said that the venue would not be marketed to any specific ethnic group, attendees seemed to believe that it would host multi-day, elaborate Indian weddings.

          A member of the Kilpatrick family explained that the existing barn, used for passive hay storage only, was sited near the property line to preserve the view shed while not impinging on the privacy of neighboring land owners. She contended that commercial use of the barn violates county setback regulations for non-agricultural operations.

          It would seem as though a hay barn, built to keep hay dry, would not be sound-proofed. Hay bales tend to be pretty quiet. Talley showed what seemed like a stock photo of a barn wedding, with doors at both ends of the structure wide open. How would open doors contain sound?

How do open barn doors contain sound?

Tally said that the barn would be renovated to enclose all wedding activities, except ceremonies on the concrete pad. He said that outdoor weddings could include “wedding music”. Did he mean the traditional Wagner and Mendelssohn, perhaps played by a string quartet? He did not elaborate.

          According to remarks made by area residents, Richmond Farmland LLC began work, much of which violates easement conditions, more than a year ago without permits or making any effort to let the neighbors know what was going on. Trees, some on neighboring property, were taken down; improper land disturbance fouled an existing pond. A fire to dispose of resulting debris was started in clear violation of the statewide seasonal burn ban.

A nearby property owner said that if he had done any of those things without a permit, he would have been heavily sanctioned by the county and wanted to know why little or nothing has been done to the applicant. “You all should be ashamed of yourselves,” the neighbor said.

          The conceptual plan indicates that grapevines would be planted along much of the parcel’s Cardwell Road frontage for the vineyard. The CUP application references a vineyard/winery in proposed uses. Some citizens contended that this would lead to establishment of a winery with industrial structures and a tasting room. These uses would be justified as accessory to agricultural production.

          The line on the CUP application to estimate traffic generated by the wedding venue is blank. Concerns about the proximity of the site to Randolph Elementary School were raised.

          Talley claimed that the applicant was unaware that permission was needed to start work, even though the easement, which is part of the deed, states that VOF permission for many of the actions taken, must be obtained before any work is started. Does that mean that the applicant did not bother to read the easement, or just ignored it? Goochland County issued a stop work order on February 23, 2023. Curiously, the CUP application does not seem to be dated.

           

          Larry Page, who owns property on the opposite side of Cardwell Road, expressed outrage at the proposal. He contended that the proposed wedding venue is not a rural or agricultural use. Page and other nearby landowners said that they would think long and hard about putting easements on their property if VOF approves the easement amendment.

          The applicant, who Talley contended has experience in business, either failed to perform adequate due diligence about the easement restrictions on using the land for a wedding venue or chose to ignore it. The applicant’s blatant disregard for neighboring property owners, as evidenced by reports of removing trees, destroying fences, and other incursions, provides no comfort that operations going forward will be different.

          The CUP application could by on the June planning commission agenda. This is far from over. Stay tuned for updates.