A cautionary tale

At its June 3 meeting, the Goochland Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution “requesting the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board consider restricting through truck traffic on Hemsby Road (Rte. 1246), Stradsett Road (Rte. 1247), Brandiston Street (Rte. 1248), Park Village Boulevard (Rte. 1251), Yare Street (Rte. 1253), and Village Trail (Rte. 1254) in the Parkside Village subdivision.”

Parkside Village, a 55+ residential community of single family detached homes, lies in the county’s northeast corner. It was rezoned from agricultural to residential and commercial use about 12 years ago. At that time, Goochland did not have mixed-use zoning, so the developer instead put different zoning options on adjoining tracts of land. The first iteration—there have been many—of land use here included building homes near M-1, industrial limited, and B-1, business general, zoning. The site included a convenience store/carwash that was in place before any homes were built. Parkside Village is near the active Vulcan Quarry on Johnson Road.

Parkside Village today (Pouncey Tract to left)

This was near the end of the Great Recession, a low point in economic activity in Goochland. The developer convinced the supervisors that, even though the subject property was in an area that had been designated for industrial use decades earlier, it was unlikely that would continue into the future. (See https://goochlandva.us/roc for details about the Rockville Road Opportunity Corridor) It seemed like a good idea at the time.

The first plat included a spine road, with no homes fronting it, between Ashland and Pouncey Tract Roads. Two access points are required for all subdivisions with more than 49 lots. The spine road was promoted at the time, as necessary to relieve pressure on the Ashland/Pouncey Tract intersection, which was, and remains a bottleneck and is in Hanover County. The June 3 staff report now contends that heavy truck traffic should use the signalized intersection at Ashland and Pouncey Tract Roads.

As people moved into Parkside Village, they discovered to their dismay that the spine road would be go behind their homes and protested to the county. It is unclear if the developer did not include a build out illustration of Parkside Village with all approved roads, in its marketing materials, or if homebuyers did not understand that a “through street” could attract vehicles, especially large dump trucks servicing area quarries.

Parkside Village at beginning. Blue line spine road, Pouncey Tract to left

In response to this concern, the Parkside Village internal roads were redesigned in a circuitous manner to thwart through traffic, which has not solved the problem. Residents have complained for more than a year that large vehicles use residential streets as a “cut through” creating dangerous conditions on internal roads not designed to accommodate them, hence the resolution to restrict through truck traffic. This applies only to trucks and tractor trailers driving through with no business in Parkside Village. It does not apply to pick-up or smaller trucks used to make deliveries or provide services to residents.

If the signage restrictions are not sufficient, further measures including traffic calming devices could be deployed.

In addition to the traffic issues, there has been rigorous opposition to several proposed business uses by residents of Parkside Village even though commercial uses were approved in the initial rezoning.

Parkside Village is not alone in this situation. GOMM predicts that when the parcels at the corner of Manakin and 250 in Centerville, currently a mulch yard, are developed, residents of the Parke at Saddle Creek will object, even though the zoning for commercial use and the subdivision were approved at the same time.

This is a cautionary tale going forward for our supervisors.  When they approve rezoning for a subdivision, they must remember that people will live in those homes, pay taxes, and vote. All too often, developers gloss over objections raised by current citizens, leading to unintended consequences for the county to sort out later. It would be helpful if, before voting, each supervisor would explain how they reached their decision, to help citizens better understand their vision for the county. It would also be nice to know if supervisors would like to live in the neighborhoods they approve.

While some opponents of rezoning applications can be classified as NIMBYs (not in my backyard), or BANANAs (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) others raise legitimate concerns about the impact of land use changes on people who live nearby.

Developers should be required to begin commercial development in a mixed-use project before homes are built, or at least make those plans an obvious part of their marketing materials, so  residential buyers know what they are getting into at the outset.

While we hope people take the time to perform ample due diligence before buying property, especially given the gracious plenty of information available on the internet, that does not seem to be the case. All too often, buyers take the marketing fables spun by developers as gospel then whine “no one told us” when they discover things not to their liking after they move in and expect “the county” to fix them.

This leads to angry phone calls, emails, and other communications between citizens and supervisors that might have been avoided had better decisions been made earlier in the process.

Board members realize early in their term of elected office that, no matter how hard they work, they cannot please everyone. Decisions based on complete, detailed data about rezoning applications would go a long way to preventing some of this heartburn.