West Creek v neighbors round next

 

Broad Branch Drive north of R 288 two lane bridge

The sole public hearing at the December 3 meeting of the Goochland Board of Supervisors was the latest salvo in a decades long battle between the West Creek Business Park and various owners of several parcels totaling approximately 1,000 acres to the west and south.

At issue was a proffer amendment for Mosaic, a 500 home 55+ community in West Creek, to adopt a new conceptual plan for 7.153 acres at the intersection of Mosaic Creek Boulevard and Broad Branch Drive to add three lots for detached single-family dwellings. The language of the amended proffer also precludes any road access through the subject land to the approximately 80-acre parcel to the west, which is designated as prime economic development. The amendment was approved 4-1.

HHHunt, the developer of Mosaic, that requested the proffer amendment, contended that any road access through or near its property onto Broad Branch Drive, a two-lane road that seems to have been built to access the Capital One Campus, and is a private road to the north, would be unsafe. It was odd that Capital One does not seem to have weighed in on the matter.

More than a hundred Mosaic residents turned out for both the supervisors’ meeting and a public hearing held by the planning commission on November 21 to express support for the proffer amendment.

Speakers representing owners of the land to the south and west contended that refusal to permit access to Broad Branch drive landlocked their property denying them access to Rt. 288 and the ability to develop them. They also incorrectly contended that the action would preclude them from connecting to the Tuckahoe Creek Service District utility lines. TCSD trunk lines are required to “stub” at the boundary of new construction to allow the next parcel to connect and have done so in Mosaic. 

There were references to alleged promises made to adjacent landowners by the late C. B, Robertson, who created West Creek, that their land would be able connect to the park. They also labeled the proffer amendment as a “spite strip” created specifically to stifle critical competition with West Creek by denying access to its internal roadways and, perhaps most important, Rt. 288. The proffer amendment was characterized as arbitrary and capricious to prevent development.

Jonathan Lyle, District 5, said that he had spoken at length with representatives of the parcels on the outside as well as those from HHHunt and Mosaic residents. Lyle, a marathoner, said that he often runs through Mosaic and has also walked Broad Branch Drive between Mosaic and the two-lane bridge over Rt. 288. “There may be a worse, less accommodating location for a connector onto Broad Branch Drive, but you’d have to look long and hard to find it,” he said of the two lane downhill blind curve.

Lyle said that he opposed the creation of Mosaic believing that it was inappropriate to put residential use in the middle of a prime economic development area, but that things changed when the community built out.  Lyle said that the parcel to the west has been landlocked for a long time and the proffer amendment will not change that. He contended that the adjoining property owners can find solutions that will let them develop their land other than connecting with West Creek. Lyle pointed out that traffic issues on Broad Branch Drive are already bad and adding access to more land bringing more traffic would exacerbate the situation.

No mention was made of the approximately nine-acre parcel on the east side of Broad Branch Road, which is part of West Creek, or how that might develop. Lyle moved to approve the measure and voted for the amendment on the grounds that it is in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of county citizens.

Neil Spoonhower, District 2, who cast the lone dissenting vote, had a different take on the case. He said that, had he been a Mosaic resident, he would support the proffer amendment. However, said Spoonhower, his job is to look out for the greater good of the entire Goochland community. Having gone back and “reviewed the tape” of the 2018 meeting that approved the Mosaic rezoning, he had concerns. Hours before the final public hearing for that rezoning, said Spoonhower, documentation mentioning an “east west” connector was presented to the board in hopes of securing approval for a case that was “teetering” on the brink of rejection.

Perhaps “to tip the scales,” Spoonhower contended, Mosaic developers said they would not build homes on a place indicated on one of the several conceptual plans presented and in the case of public necessity, there would be “mechanisms” perhaps to build the connector.

“That’s the east west connector we’re talking about today. It’s been sitting there since 2018 as a potential plan. I find it outrageous that we’re sitting here talking about a negative proffer. In our own proffer policy, it says reasonable proffers, notwithstanding any other provision or law general or special, the county will neither request nor accept any unreasonable proffer in connection with the rezoning or proffer. It is my belief that this is an unreasonable proffer.

“I’m not saying a road should go there, but there is no way in good conscious this board should prevent a road from potentially going there. I’ve seen nothing that tells me there will be an increase in traffic or significant safety concerns and those will be addressed.”

Spoonhower cited the recent day long economic development workshop when the supervisors declared that economic development in appropriate locations, like the area under discussion, would be its focus for the next four years to keep the rest of Goochland rural and pay the bills.

“So, if I vote for this amendment, not only am I signaling that we’re not as much for economic development but saying out of one side of our mouth that we’re in favor of economic development but not doing everything we can to support it. I also think we’re picking winners and losers and that’s not right either.”

Spoonhower referenced the “Hatfields and McCoys” element of the dispute between West Creek and adjunct landowners. “I don’t know anything about that and that’s between y’all,” he said.

If the landowners outside of West Creek can work together to protest this proffer amendment, why can’t they work together to create their own internal roadway with access to both Hockett Road and Rt. 6 that could make their land more attractive to develop, perhaps more than West Creek? It is unclear how being able to connect to Broad Branch Drive would make the landlocked property easier to develop, because more than one access would be required to meet fire and other codes.

This is the latest instance of a developer “kinda sorta” agreeing to provide connectivity during the rezoning phase based on “conceptual plans”, but never quite building the roads. Then, after homes have been sold, they convince new residents, who never bothered to ask how their community would build out, that if the subject road was built, their safety and serenity would be at risk. This happened in the Parke at Saddle Creek, for the connector road parallel to Broad Street Road between Manakin and Hockett Roads that had been in the major transportation plan for years. When residents of Parkside Village realized that a connector road between Pouncey Tract and Ashland Roads, that was pretty much a condition for its approval, would go through their community, they objected to the road and the plan was reworked.

Rezoning applications tend to be based on conceptual plans that get revised in the plan of development stage, after more detailed engineering has been completed. Often, these require revisions because developers are reluctant to spend money on engineering until rezoning has been secured and is handled administratively by planning staff.