Citizens Concerned with Goochland Growth and Richmond’s Partnership for Smarter Growth teamed last week to present its second in a three part series focusing on Goochland’s villages and their future.

The presentation provided an inside look at village plans in the area that are under construction or planned. Specifically, Maidstone in New Kent County served as the prime example of a village plan, the difficulties involved in constructing it and the benefits it could provide for communities.

Sheila Lovelady, executive director of PSG said the goal of the presentation was to open a community discussion regarding villages, and officials from the New Kent project provided details on their long and winding road that led to revised zoning and an eventual mixed use project in New Kent County.

Developer John Crump said there were similarities between the two counties, with comparable population figures and equally pressing development issues facing them. Their answer was Maidstone, a village type community near the New Kent courthouse that incorporated residential and commercial opportunities.

Crump envisioned his plans after visiting Kent, England and established specific criteria for defining a village. Features such as walkability, cultural activities, recreation access, green space and available shopping were just some of the requirements Crump identified.

Crump said it looked like a workable alternative for New Kent’s development issues. “All of the elements were there,” he said. “A lot of people were against it. Once they saw it, they liked it,” Crump said.

The developer completed the first phase of the project, the commercial aspect of the village, and then focused on the residential. With a slowed economy, only a couple of those units have been built.

Trip Pollard, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said America has developed over the past decades with the emphasis on the automobile. Attempting to build improved roads to accommodate increased driving and commute times is a losing proposition, according to Pollard.

The burden on localities to maintain and build roads is becoming prohibitive, and there is also an environmental cost with increased traffic. He also cited the lost time associated with traffic delays.

Architect John Hopke designed the project and noted the difficulties in constructing a village from scratch. “The villages in England were organically formed over the years,” he said.

New Kent’s’ Director of Community Development George Homewood said the trend started in the 1950s to develop around the automobile is changing and younger people have a different idea. “The next generation does not want to live in the same living arrangement their parents, or them, grew up in,” Hopke said.

“We wanted agriculture and timber to continue to remain viable in the county,” Hopke said. Continuing the same pattern of development with large lots would eventually threaten the viability of those industries. “The thing they think they wanted, they were pushing away,” Homewood said.

He said the project would not have been possible without a cooperative effort between government, the citizens and the developer. He also noted the project required increased density use in the designated zone.

A full house of Goochland residents listened patiently to the presentations, waiting for the question and answer period that followed. Many had questions on how such a project would impact the county, their land values and some even raised concerns over the actual need for such a project in the county.

Jacquelyn Pogue of CCGG and Richmond Dialogue explained that this presentation was an effort to provide examples of the village concept in the area. Some attendees insisted on addressing the upcoming Urban Development Areas currently being debated in the General Assembly.

In the past, localities were required to identify an area for development, but a new bill that has passed the House would make participation optional. The county has scheduled two upcoming meetings to discuss the current state of UDAs in Goochland.

“It’s really a side of what we are talking about here tonight,” said Paul Costello, president of Concerned Citizens with Goochland Growth.

One questioner said she didn’t see any reason that a village type development should even be considered for Goochland County. Pogue said her only motivation was beginning a discussion among Goochland citizens so they could, in turn, make recommendations to their government. “I’m interested in citizens input,” she said. “I’m not taking a position.”

“Goochland residents determine how they want this place to grow,” Crump replied.

Another resident said the plan looked viable in theory, but feared that Goochland could eventually look like Short Pump in Henrico County.

Homewood said Henrico County officials are contemplating readjusting the plan at Short Pump to provide more residential opportunities. He said long range planning could avoid those problems.

Other residents questioned the effect of a village development on their adjoining property. According to the officials, that is a valid concern and those lands would be available for expansion. Pollard said he was unaware of any plan to down zone the adjoining properties.

The third installment of the series is scheduled for Wednesday, April 27 from 7 to 9 p.m. in the County Administration Building. Rebecca Dixon, Goochland County Administrator, is among the speakers for the next session entitled Community Design Goals for Goochland Villages.

The county is sponsoring community meetings regarding UDAs beginning this week. The first is scheduled for Feb. 17 following the Planning Commission Meeting (8 p.m.). Another is slated for Feb. 22 at Company 3 in Centerville at 6 p.m.

Photo by Jim Ridolphi
New Kent developer John Crump said he had no intention of developing a village in Goochland, but did endorse the benefits of village development in future planning.