Working through the details

 

Goochland supervisors work hard to serve our citizens. They deal with a wide range of issues and make hard choices that do not please everyone.

Their August 7 meeting included illustrations of this. Kudos to board members for publicly explaining the rationale behind their decisions.

At the start of the afternoon meeting, Neil Spoonhower, District 2, weighed in on the proposal to build a truck stop near the Gum Spring I64 interchange in Louisa County. The project has met with robust opposition from people who live near the site in both Goochland and Louisa Counties. (The Louisa County Planning Commission voted unanimously against recommending this project for approval at its August 8 meeting. That county’s board of supervisors will make the final decision.)

Spoonhower, who attended community meetings about the proposed truck stop, said that he has been working closely with his peer in Louisa to share his concerns and those of his constituents on the subject. Spoonhower said that enthusiasm he expressed about the new Goochland Fire-Rescue Station 8, located on Whitehall Road near its intersection with Dogtown Road, was misinterpreted as support for the truck stop and an indication that Goochland would handle all fire-rescue incidents generated by it. Station 8’s apparatus consists of one ambulance.

“While I’m not a fan of this project, I also not a fan of telling another community what to do in their community.” Spoonhower said that he has spoken with Goochland Fire-Rescue Chief Ferguson and Louisa officials to create a plan, if the truck stop is approved, to ensure that public safety resources meant for Goochland residents are there for them. “I’ve worked too hard to bring a station to District 2 to not let it be used for our citizens first. The board is engaged and working very hard on this.”

(The Holly Grove Volunteer Fire Department in Bumpass, has, in a July 21 post on its Facebook page, stated that it is the closest fire department to the proposed truck stop and is staffed and equipped to respond to emergencies there.)

Major incidents on I64 often involve mutual aid responses from several jurisdictions.

A public hearing at the end of the evening session provided more insight into supervisors’ decision-making process.

At issue was the granting of a waiver to exempt Lockhart Green, a 14-lot subdivision, approved last year, from building a left turn lane into the community from River Road that was proffered in its rezoning case.  However, final engineering revealed that they did not own enough land to accommodate it, and a neighboring landowner declined to sell land for the lane. Without the waiver, the subdivision could not be built.

Residents of the Wickham Glen and Rivergate communities, which abut Lockhart Green, opposed the rezoning that allowed 14 lots, rather than fewer lots allowed by right. As approved, Lockhart Green will have setbacks from River Road and vegetative buffers along the boundaries with neighboring communities. The rezoning case was approved when county zoning code, which was recently changed, required left turn lanes for subdivisions of five or more lots, but reserved the right of the board to grant waivers. The planning commission voted 3-2 to deny recommendation of waiver approval.

Assistant Director of Community Development Ray Cash explained that considerations in granting waivers include site distance at the entrance, history of rear end crashes, and traffic volume on the “receiving roadway” in this case River Road. Safety of the road was the main concern and bone of contention among board members.

Each of several iterations of Lockhart Green, as it moved through the rezoning approval process, included the left turn lane, until it asked for the waiver. VDOT does not require a turn lane at the site, but Goochland has the power to impose stricter rules on its roads.

Andy Condlin, counsel for Tuckahoe Lands, LLC, the developer of Lockhart Green, explained that developers do not perform detailed engineering or surveys before zoning approval is obtained because it is expensive. He said that when this work was done on the Lockhart Green property, the developer realized that the left turn lane “would not fit” on available land. He waited to request the waiver in case the amendments to the county’s access management plan increased the number of lots requiting the left turn lane to twenty, rather than the 10 that was approved when the ordinance was amended.

Condlin contended that criteria including site distance, road alignment, traffic volume, speed limit, and grade changes, indicate that removing the left turn lane will not adversely impact safety. He also contended that most of the traffic from the private schools uses Blair Road, several miles west of the Lockhart Green site. He contended that the waiver request did not break a “promise” made during the original rezoning that, even if the land was developed by right for 12 lots, it would need a waiver for the turn lane.

Opponents contended that, as the county grows, so will traffic on River Road. Traffic studies presented by the applicant contended that River Road can accommodate the increased traffic from Lockhart Green and that site distance on River Road allows a safe left turning action. They were skeptical about traffic counts used to justify removal of the left turn lane and had concerns about the increasing number of young, inexperienced drivers using River Road to access private schools in the corridor. They urged the board to put safety considerations in the corridor first.

One gentleman said that doing engineering after obtaining approval was backwards.

Jonathan Lyle, District 5 reflected on the extended journey of this property to final rezoning, when it was approved 4-1 by the board, with the left turn lane. His focus in land use is safety. “Those decisions we make today will impact the future.” He contended that the left turn lane in the long run is in the best interest of the county to improve safety. “Until we say no, we’re going to continue to see people make applications then ask for changes once they’ve been approved.”

“I am looking towards the future. Decisions we make today will have an impact. I do not think this is in the best long-term interest of the county and diminishes safety,” said Lyle. “Staff says turning lanes always improve traffic flow and safety. I want to set a standard that we are consistent that turn lanes are a good thing and there are situations when waivers are warranted. I am of the opinion that this is not one of them.”

Board Vice Chair Tom Winfree District 3 said that he believes that the subdivision will be developed with at least 9 lots and that additional traffic generated by Lockhart Green is a “drop in the bucket”. “The real safety concern is the rest of the traffic on the road. If we have a safety issue, look at what we can do to improve overall safety with speed limits. They will put in a right turn lane, which makes for a nice, wide, safe formal entrance. I’ve driven it myself, it’s probably one of the best areas for site distance on River Road. The safety issue is not that significant.”

Jonanthan Christy, District 1 said that “we’re asking this developer to fix all of River Road’s problems for a six-home threshold. That sets a dangerous precedent of tyrannical tactics to drive government will. I was originally against this but feel that the developer has expended a lot of effort to make the left turn work. They failed but offered a lot of proffers. I don’t see the impact offsetting safety.”

Neil Spoonhower, District 2 said the planning commission allows applicants to vet projects and see where they go. “I can’t count the number of times that the board has made different decisions than the planning commission, both for and against. We get better projects by the time they get here from the planning commission. I think this would be a better project with the left turn lane, but not because of safety, that is a very safe corridor. I would have approved the project because this is a safe area, and it was a better project because you have more homes, more buffers, and open space than required. People who say we’re doing this as a favor to the developer to increase profit are ignorant of the facts and insulting. I’ve never made a decision based on profit but on what’s best for the entire county long term.”

Board Chair Charlie Vaughters, District 4 pointed out that the waiver request has come about after considerable thought by staff who looked closely at the waiver request before it moved onto the planning commission, including visits to the site at peak afternoon traffic hours.

Ordinances include waivers that allow wiggle room when appropriate. “I have gone to this site. I’ve not only driven but walked it. That is what I think citizens want from their supervisors,” said Vaughters. “The site distance is outstanding; you’d be hard pressed to find better site distance. Traffic volume is far from what VDOT considers dangerous. This makes a waiver justifiable. I want to stress that we call Goochland unique for cases like this where we have the right, as elected officials, to think through all the facts as presented, as we’ve questioned, as we’ve asked the applicant to go back and forth with us to reach decisions that make sense.”

The waiver was approved 4-1 with Lyle in dissent.

Our supervisors do not rubber stamp matters that come before them. Goochland is fortunate to have elected officials who, while they may not agree, make thoughtful decisions even if they may not, please everyone.