More houses on busy roads

 

Following lengthy public hearings that ended a bit before 11 p.m., Goochland supervisors approved two rezoning applications for new subdivisions at their July 3 meeting.

The evening agenda was quite full, in contrast to the June public hearing portion, which lasted only a few minutes. It included a presentation by members of the Central Virginia Transportation Authority and the Richmond Regional Transportation Authority about road projects in Central Virginia, and a renewal of a conditional use permit (CUP) for Portico Restaurant on River Road.

Lockhart Green

A rezoning application filed by Tuckahoe Lands LLC to permit 14 homes on14.28 acres on the north side of River Road between the Wickam Glen and Rivergate communities was  approved 4-1 by the supervisors after twice being recommended for denial by the planning commission.

The land in question had been zoned A-2 at the rear and R-1 on the portion fronting River Road. Residents of both Wickham Glen and Rivergate vigorously opposed the proposal. Indeed, many attended the public hearing, despite its being held on the eve of Independence Day and others expressed opposition in writing to the supervisors before the meeting.

The developer could have subdivided the land into 12 lots by right—what is permitted under current zoning—with no buffers to protect the view shed from River Road, and no $9,810 cash proffer per home as included in the 14-lot version. The subdivision will be served by public water and sewer, necessary for smaller lots, with density that averages out to one lot per acre in land use math.

During about forty minutes of public hearing, opponents contended that the size of the proposed lots, an average of .63 acre after twenty percent of open space is deducted, does not harmonize with larger lots around it. Rivergate residents contended that the 15-foot buffer between their neighborhood and Lockhart Green will plunk new homes literally in their back yards destroying the peace and privacy they have come to enjoy. The homes will be connected to public water and sewer.

“This is not Pouncy Tract Road,” one speaker declared. Others were concerned that accessory items like play sets could be very close to the lines.

Rivergate residents raised concerns about people from Lockhart Green trespassing to use its amenities, especially the lake, and asked for a six-foot fence and dense evergreen buffers to separate the neighborhoods. Concerns about exacerbation of existing drainage issues was also raised. Wickam Glen residents echoed the Rivergate concerns about drainage worried that a proposed stormwater collection basis could overflow and destroy a century old farm pond in their enclave. There is a TCSD utility easement between the subject property and Wickham Glen that must be kept open.

Both adjoining neighborhoods decried the encroachment of smaller lots in the area, contending that infill development violates the comprehensive plan, will detract from the scenic byway beauty of River Road, and have a negative impact on their property values.

One speaker alluded to a third development alternative but gave no specifics.

The applicant contended that stormwater mitigation is highly regulated by the EPA and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to ensure that it does not negatively impact surrounding property.

The more lots, the more “economically feasible” the project is, the applicant admitted when asked why 14 lots were sought. “If all of us wanted half acre lots and look out our windows onto private areas of our neighbors, we’d all still be in Henrico," one speaker observed.

Charlie Vaughters, District 4, said that he considers the by-right subdivisions popping up in other parts of the county to be pockmarks on the beauty of the county. He also doubted that with a starting price for minimum 3,500 square foot, estimated to start at $1.5 million, homes there would be a scourge on the River Road corridor.

John Lumpkins, District 3 said that if the board denied the rezoning request, it would dare the developer to either build the 12 lot by right version or perhaps explore the “third” option. The Board, said Lumpkins, cannot compel a landowner to do anything.

Ken Peterson, District 5 observed that the board was in an awkward position. Approval of the application would go against the community, the comp plan, and planning commission. Denial would expose the neighbors to a different outcome.  He moved to deny the application. Susan Lascolette, District 1, seconded.  That motion was voted down 4-1. A vote to approve the application carried 4-1 with Peterson in opposition.

 

Village at Hidden Rock

The board then turned its attention to a rezoning application filed by Truett Real Estate Investments, LLC for 49.372 acres on Fairground Road, approximately ¼ mile west of its intersection with Maidens Road from A-2 to R-1 zoning. Following the approval of the Courthouse Village small area plan, this parcel, on the edge of Courthouse Village, is eligible for single family residential zoning that permits a density of less than two units per acre. As presented, the density is .81 units per acre, no more than 40 lots.

This hearing was the culmination of a long process that began nearly two years ago when the applicant proposed a 20-lot subdivision. Neighboring land owners opposed this contending that 40 wells and septic drain fields would have a negative impact on their ground water. The applicant then proposed extending public utilities to the site, removing the groundwater issue, which also made the project able to support smaller lot sizes and more homes.

Opposition remained robust. The main areas of contention were adding more vehicles to already treacherous traffic on Fairground Road and the terminus of an internal stub road required by VDOT.

As presented, The Village at Hidden Rock will have internal sidewalks, a minimum 100-foot landscaped buffer with neighbors and Fairground Road, and 200 foot left and right turn lanes from Fairground Road. Right of way along the entire third mile frontage on Fairground Road will be donated to accommodate future widening, and connectivity to county trails. The project will pay the full cash proffer of $13,781 per lot.

In addition, the entire third mile of Fairground Road frontage will have eight-foot-wide paved shoulders and 10 feet wide grass shoulders before the ditch. The applicant contended that these road improvements adequately compensate for the traffic the project will add to Fairground Road.

Minimum square footage is 1,800 for single story homes, 2,500 for two story homes. The initial price point was estimated at $425k.

Initially, the internal stub road terminated on the boundary with land to the north, whose owners opposed its location. In addition to being wetlands, the stub road concept is an invitation to extend the village into the rural enhancement area, whose sanctity is allegedly protected by concentrating residential growth in village boundary. It would seem to make more sense—but remember we’re dealing with VDOT here—to have the stub road lead back into the village.

However, after much wrangling, the location of the stub road was changed, allegedly at the eleventh hour, to the border of land owned by Margaret and Richard Allison, who learned of the change on the day of the hearing. The Allisons were irate. There was some conversation about who should have notified them. Andrew Browning, speaking for the applicant, apologized. Going forward, county policy should dictate that adjoining landowners of any property in the rezoning process should be informed of any changes well in advance of public actions, and the developer should also do it as a courtesy.

During about thirty minutes of public hearing, only one person, a Chesterfield resident who is believed to be somehow involved in marketing the project, spoke in favor. She dragged out the tired contention that the homes will be affordable for teachers and other public sector workers. The same sentiment was expressed during rezonings for Swann’s Inn and Reed Marsh, where homes now sell well north of $500k.

Every other speaker decried the dangerous conditions on Fairground Road and frequent serious accidents which often close the road—one of three main routes to Courthouse Village—to through traffic. They implored the board to do whatever it can to get the speed limit along the entire length of Fairground Road reduced to 45 mph. In the past few weeks, one speaker said, there have been four major accidents in the corridor.

Thanks to a comment, the applicant proffered $40k, to be paid upon recordation of the subdivision plat, for future improvements to Fairground Road.

Ben Slone, whose property adjoins the subject parcel, reminded the supervisors that the Code of Virginia encourages localities to plan for the future development of communities, that transportation systems be carefully planned with adequate highways. He said that, according to the Goochland Sheriff’s Office, accidents on Fairground Road occur at the rate of 1.27 per week. Adding more cars from this project, despite contentions from traffic engineers that its vehicles will have minimal impact on the overall mess, will make it worse, said Slone.

The supervisors, all of whom claim to drive it often, acknowledged the hazardous nature of Fairground Road and its burgeoning traffic. Spoonhower said that he gets more calls about this road than any other. Fairground Road, he contended, is going to get “fixed” by development. He alluded to other developments in the corridor which have made significant improvements to the road on their frontage, as the “best spots” on the road.

“While it may not sound like a lot, improvements to a third of a mile is significant. I think any chance we have to see improvements is worthwhile. Land use cases are about what’s right for an area at the time,” Spoonhower said.

Susan Lascolette, District 1, cast the sole dissenting vote. “We have hundreds of homes coming up in Courthouse Village. It seems like we’ve traded walkability paths, sidewalks, for safety on the roads. I don’t think it’s a trade off we can take right now. We need to be considering the safety of our citizens who are traveling Fairground Road and not worry so much about the walkability factor, which is not going to save and lives or property damage.”

Perhaps the best we can hope for it that all rezonings in the Fairground corridor will be required to improve road frontage.

An unintended consequence of these two cases could be a further lack of citizen engagement.