A rendering example of streetscape improvements included in the draft Centerville Small Area Plan, which Goochland supervisors voted to reject this week. (Images courtesy Goochland County)
The Goochland Board of Supervisors on Wednesday nixed the controversial Centerville Small Area Plan, and the board chairman said the county was unlikely to revisit the subject this year.
Supervisors voted unanimously to deny adoption of the draft land-use plan intended to guide growth and development specifically in Centerville, which is in the eastern part of the county and borders the Short Pump area of Henrico.
The day after the vote, Chairman Neil Spoonhower said in an interview that he expected his colleagues will not give further consideration to the plan and that county staff resources were being oriented toward other land-use planning projects.
The draft plan’s guidelines mapped out mixed-use, commercial and residential development as well as road, pedestrian and recreational improvements for the area that sits just across the Goochland-Henrico line from Short Pump, which has seen a high level of development in recent decades.
The area that would have been subject to the plan is bisected by the section of Broad Street Road that runs from around the state Route 288 interchange to just west of Broad Street’s intersection with Manakin Road. The Food Lion-anchored Broad View Shopping Center is within the plan’s area, which is south of Interstate 64.
The plan called for mixed-use development of townhomes, apartments, retail, office and other uses along Broad Street Road and along Ashland Road between Broad and I-64. Economic development zones for light industrial and office uses would have been concentrated in areas just south of the interstate. Surrounding areas were to be earmarked for residential development with single-family and townhome units as well as uses such as civic buildings and small-scale retail and commercial.
The Centerville Small Area Plan’s boundaries comprised a portion of eastern Goochland County adjacent to the Short Pump area of Henrico County. The area already is home to Broadview Shopping Center and other commercial development along Broad Street Road, as well as some subdivisions.
The vote to reject the draft Centerville plan, which had been close to two years in the making, followed a period in August and September in which the county solicited amendment proposals from residents on the draft plan.
That eleventh-hour process garnered 679 amendment proposals from more than 200 respondents. Most amendments had to do with land-use proposals in the plan, which wouldn’t have changed the zoning districts in the area on its own but rather outlined what was deemed desirable and would have served as a guide to consider future rezoning cases and land-use decisions.
Much of the citizen input advocated that current land-use plans for the area stay unchanged, and that lower intensity and smaller scale development should be the focus. Other suggestions included the removal of lodging as a use in areas earmarked for mixed-use development, the removal of townhomes as a use for residential areas and elimination of automotive-related uses from the plan.
“We got great feedback in this amendment process and I think we have reached a consensus based on that. It was all done with the appropriate intentions to have a plan, to have a vision, for what our county, especially the east end, can be moving forward,” said Supervisor Charlie Vaughters, who represents the Centerville area.
“We’re going to take what we learned and make the best out of it. I hope everyone appreciates that path forward.”
Supervisor Susan Lascolette voiced similar sentiments, and said that while development will come to the area, the rejected proposal didn’t do enough to maintain Goochland’s rural character. She said the public opposition made it an unworkable plan.
“We know growth is coming and we don’t want uncontrolled growth. We are Goochland County. We don’t want to be like anyone else and I heard that over and over from residents as well. We don’t want to be Short Pump, we don’t want to be Henrico,” she said. “Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are in a situation where we really can’t seem to agree on what this plan is going to look like and there’s just too many barriers at this point in my opinion to make this thing work at this time.”
Calls and an email seeking comment from the county administration weren’t returned Thursday. The county webpage dedicated to the project stated there had been controversy around the land-use plan since work began on it and there seemingly wasn’t a way forward for the proposal.
“The Centerville Small Area Plan encountered difficulty garnering support from the beginning. Given the widely divergent suggestions received in the most recent amendment proposal period, together with the public comments from earlier public hearings and meetings, it has become apparent to staff that there is no clear path forward. County staff appreciate the continued participation from the community in the Centerville Small Area Plan process,” according to the statement on the county’s website.
The county’s planning commission voted to recommend approval of the draft plan in July after a round of revisions the previous month. The board had planned to hold a work session on the plan Oct. 24, but the county decided to fast-track the process and held a special meeting Wednesday where the board voted down the plan.
Timmons Group came on as a consultant to the land-use planning process in March. The firm took over from Hill Studio, which helped initiate the process in early 2022 but parted with the county in January of this year.
Should there be a new crack at a land-use plan for Centerville, it would be considered by a largely new Board of Supervisors. Three of the five current board members (John Lumpkins, Ken Peterson and Lascolette) aren’t seeking reelection this November. Spoonhower, the board chairman, is unopposed in his district and Vaughters has a challenger for his seat.
A rendering example of streetscape improvements included in the draft Centerville Small Area Plan, which Goochland supervisors voted to reject this week. (Images courtesy Goochland County)
The Goochland Board of Supervisors on Wednesday nixed the controversial Centerville Small Area Plan, and the board chairman said the county was unlikely to revisit the subject this year.
Supervisors voted unanimously to deny adoption of the draft land-use plan intended to guide growth and development specifically in Centerville, which is in the eastern part of the county and borders the Short Pump area of Henrico.
The day after the vote, Chairman Neil Spoonhower said in an interview that he expected his colleagues will not give further consideration to the plan and that county staff resources were being oriented toward other land-use planning projects.
The draft plan’s guidelines mapped out mixed-use, commercial and residential development as well as road, pedestrian and recreational improvements for the area that sits just across the Goochland-Henrico line from Short Pump, which has seen a high level of development in recent decades.
The area that would have been subject to the plan is bisected by the section of Broad Street Road that runs from around the state Route 288 interchange to just west of Broad Street’s intersection with Manakin Road. The Food Lion-anchored Broad View Shopping Center is within the plan’s area, which is south of Interstate 64.
The plan called for mixed-use development of townhomes, apartments, retail, office and other uses along Broad Street Road and along Ashland Road between Broad and I-64. Economic development zones for light industrial and office uses would have been concentrated in areas just south of the interstate. Surrounding areas were to be earmarked for residential development with single-family and townhome units as well as uses such as civic buildings and small-scale retail and commercial.
The Centerville Small Area Plan’s boundaries comprised a portion of eastern Goochland County adjacent to the Short Pump area of Henrico County. The area already is home to Broadview Shopping Center and other commercial development along Broad Street Road, as well as some subdivisions.
The vote to reject the draft Centerville plan, which had been close to two years in the making, followed a period in August and September in which the county solicited amendment proposals from residents on the draft plan.
That eleventh-hour process garnered 679 amendment proposals from more than 200 respondents. Most amendments had to do with land-use proposals in the plan, which wouldn’t have changed the zoning districts in the area on its own but rather outlined what was deemed desirable and would have served as a guide to consider future rezoning cases and land-use decisions.
Much of the citizen input advocated that current land-use plans for the area stay unchanged, and that lower intensity and smaller scale development should be the focus. Other suggestions included the removal of lodging as a use in areas earmarked for mixed-use development, the removal of townhomes as a use for residential areas and elimination of automotive-related uses from the plan.
“We got great feedback in this amendment process and I think we have reached a consensus based on that. It was all done with the appropriate intentions to have a plan, to have a vision, for what our county, especially the east end, can be moving forward,” said Supervisor Charlie Vaughters, who represents the Centerville area.
“We’re going to take what we learned and make the best out of it. I hope everyone appreciates that path forward.”
Supervisor Susan Lascolette voiced similar sentiments, and said that while development will come to the area, the rejected proposal didn’t do enough to maintain Goochland’s rural character. She said the public opposition made it an unworkable plan.
“We know growth is coming and we don’t want uncontrolled growth. We are Goochland County. We don’t want to be like anyone else and I heard that over and over from residents as well. We don’t want to be Short Pump, we don’t want to be Henrico,” she said. “Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are in a situation where we really can’t seem to agree on what this plan is going to look like and there’s just too many barriers at this point in my opinion to make this thing work at this time.”
Calls and an email seeking comment from the county administration weren’t returned Thursday. The county webpage dedicated to the project stated there had been controversy around the land-use plan since work began on it and there seemingly wasn’t a way forward for the proposal.
“The Centerville Small Area Plan encountered difficulty garnering support from the beginning. Given the widely divergent suggestions received in the most recent amendment proposal period, together with the public comments from earlier public hearings and meetings, it has become apparent to staff that there is no clear path forward. County staff appreciate the continued participation from the community in the Centerville Small Area Plan process,” according to the statement on the county’s website.
The county’s planning commission voted to recommend approval of the draft plan in July after a round of revisions the previous month. The board had planned to hold a work session on the plan Oct. 24, but the county decided to fast-track the process and held a special meeting Wednesday where the board voted down the plan.
Timmons Group came on as a consultant to the land-use planning process in March. The firm took over from Hill Studio, which helped initiate the process in early 2022 but parted with the county in January of this year.
Should there be a new crack at a land-use plan for Centerville, it would be considered by a largely new Board of Supervisors. Three of the five current board members (John Lumpkins, Ken Peterson and Lascolette) aren’t seeking reelection this November. Spoonhower, the board chairman, is unopposed in his district and Vaughters has a challenger for his seat.
So they don’t want it to be Short Pump or have automotive uses, but they approved a car dealership in that area at the same meeting? My guess is now that they voted down the land use plan they’ll simply do whatever they want and blame it on the lack of a plan.
Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan: Growth is coming whether you like it or not!
Wow, that’s a rather despotic comment. I would think that politicians actually listening to the concerns of their constituents would be a good thing. Sounds like you’re on the train of ramming change down the citizen’s throats “whether they like it or not”. That’s not progress, that’s autocratic totalitarianism.
It’s more like reality. Growth will come because we still, for now, have a growing population. New households are being formed by the largest generation in country. To stick your head in the sand and say you don’t want anything to change is worse than realizing it is coming and properly planning for it.
I’m not saying I am anti-growth at all. Quite the opposite actually, when done in a strategic & thoughtful manner that takes into account the input of the citizens that it affects. Mr. Kern’s statement seems to be quite dismissive of that last point however. Far too many politicians and bureaucrats have greatly enriched themselves with that attitude while rolling the people they supposedly represent under the bus.
Respectfully, I disagree. Dan’s assertion is a simple statement of fact. Growth IS coming to those counties – particularly to Goochland where growth has been picking up steam over the last decade. Whether county residents like it or don’t like it has very little to do with the fact that these counties are growing economically and gaining population. Growth is something that’s occurring organically. To suggest that anyone is attempting to ram progress down citizens’ throats is simply off base and hyperbolic. There is no “autocratic totalitarianism” at play here. By contrast, for example, were the county government(s) to flat… Read more »
Actually, like Goochland, Powhatan has taken a multi-year development plan for the Anderson Highway (Rt. 60 / Midlothian TPK extension). Originally all parcels off Anderson had dual zoning which allowed for commercial development. That has been reworked and reasonable limits put in place. While it’s understood development will continue the residents of Powhatan, like Goochland residents, don’t wish to become another Chesterfield or an extension of Chesterfield – it’s why we moved there.
This is just a question so please do not take this as an attack but exactly how many people are allowed to move to Powhatan before you say no more? What is the limit? I ask because I often see folks who did not grow up in a rural community but moved to said rural community fighting against growth (I’m going to use a general term there instead of getting into specific types of growth). Why is it appropriate for you to move into a rural community you are not originally from but then limit others from doing the same?
The trouble I see at Powhatan Meetings are people will fight tooth and nail about saying keep the place rural but they will get enraged at things like sidewalks or road improvements or planned development. But will think the county will stay rural and frozen in time. When the reality is development and car population growth are like a elephant trying to know down a door made of card board. I also feel that in the 1970’s Henrico County and Chesterfield County most likely said they are going to stay rural and didn’t put in things like pedestrian signals or… Read more »
I also just posed a question about people who move into rural areas and then fight against anyone else moving into the area. It’s one thing if you’re from a rural area but to be a transplant and then combat any future growth is…interesting.
I notice that at a lot of public meetings people will say I moved from this place that is like 300 to 500 miles away to this county so I could have a peaceful like to raise my kids so I don’t want so and so to be built to ruin our good tranquility of life.
I kind of find that a moral gray area vs someone who grew up in a place and who’s family lives in the area.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, and tend to be on yours and Carl’s side on these issues. Indeed, I am from a town (which in VA would likely be called a County) that is predominantly rural and was against what I saw as an anti-growth extremism among many otherwise very liberal people that I knew. It and other examples of elite-anti-growth attitudes was somewhat eye opening to me. I first saw it among the truly wealthy in the NorthEast who were always wearing colors of Ecology or Aesthetics (if you can’t say there will be an… Read more »
I am glad they turned this down. We do not need anymore urban sprawl in the Richmond surrounding counties. Why can’t we renovate run down areas in Richmond, Henrico, and Chesterfield that are already developed? Why do we have to keep destroying ecosystems and green areas for cookie cutter apartments/townhomes that locals can’t afford? As someone who watched Short Pump go from farms and woods to what is it today, I don’t think it is something we should be striving for. We should be trying to make use of what we already have and improving on it.
The funny thing is they have already approved the uses people commented they didn’t want. At the same meeting they approved a car dealership and apartments have already been built in that area. There are already several suburban residential developments there. Running away after you open the barn door doesn’t mean you can stop the animals getting out.
The proper thing would be to plan appropriately for similar uses within a confined area so it can be contained. If they are going to approve it anyways they might as well plan for the infrastructure to go along with it.
It’s not about urban sprawl. The county rejected a plan that focused on smarter, denser, village-like growth in a specific area to drive development in a controlled and measured way. This just opens up more opportunities for unmanageable suburban sprawl. So ironically this makes it more likely for Goochland to develop as Henrico and Chesterfield traditionally has. And yes, that means worse traffic, especially if transit options continue to be shunned. Focusing growth in one area is good planning, particularly for rural areas. It means existing forested, agricultural, and undeveloped areas are more likely to be protected and conserved. But… Read more »
Well said, Dan, on all points. Folks often mistakenly think that small area plans are designed only to encourage growth. They are also used to shape, tailor, control and manage growth and to implement infrastructure that can be of benefit to many in the community. The rendering in the RBS article (above) depicting how W. Broad Street could look is a fine example. Particularly since GRTC has/will have bus service to the eastern portion of the county, restructuring W. Broad with proper sidewalks/curbs, crosswalks for pedestrians, signage, speed controls, concrete medians, etc., among other infrastructure improvements is far better than… Read more »
I upvoted this. Funny though how some urbanist-types say that West Broad Village is an abomination and a failure — I think it is great — not perfect, but about as good, for what it is, as one can get in the Richmond Metro. So I am glad you are not just blanketly condemning Short Pump, but then it sounds like you are… maybe we could focus a bit on what bad has happened in Short Pump? I agree that planning and approving density, and not merely West Broad Village-type density in the ways that you herald are better for… Read more »
Thank you Goochland Board of Supervisors for listening to the people!!!
But did they really listen when they approved a car dealership at the same meeting?
Maybe they did — the Counties are not exactly pleased by a bunch of new residences being built, but commercial stuff that they can TAX but not have to provide a whole lot of infrastructure for — THAT they like.
I really think they need to talk about how they are going to pay for all these road and transportation improvements I’m really getting sick and tried of all these dumb studies that show all this shiny new stuff or whatever and they talk nothing about paying for it. If It was me as a government entity I would base a meeting on how high are we going to jack up the property taxes so we can have five to ten years of pain to pay for all the massive road and freeway and sidewalk and public transportation improvements we… Read more »
It’s a shame that the term ‘land preservation’ does not exist in this area. The over-development of shopping centers and commercial establishments is ridiculous.
“Land Preservation” is the sort of thing that has made the sort of places like Portland Oregon a bit more like Manhattan in the cost-of-living, people-having-to-move-away sense — if you like the concept, you might try Charlottesville — there are a LOT of wealthy land owners around there having their cake and eating it too — putting their land into paid-to-do it conservation, getting to brag about it at cocktail parties and also preventing the riff-raff from moving in — pretty smart, but also pretty disinguenuous — even to themselves. But, I DO agree to an extent that in some… Read more »
The area considered to be the Centerville village is huge, extending from the Henrico line to west of Manakin Road. its size was compared to the distance between the Science Museum and the state capital. The dealership sits at the eastern border in a heavily commercial area. There is no “there there” in Short Pump, which is essentially a giant strip mall with condos and apartments sprinkled in. Goochlanders want a sense of place and community.
Funny how if there is no there there many of the most successful people in the entire region live in greater short pump, the schools being the best of the public ones, etc. This sounds like a particular form of snobbery available akin to “my musical outfits are better than yours” — upper-class snobbery towards the strivers which is unfortunately available to even low-earning malcontents. That said, I share your desire to live and work in cooler, purer, less trafficked places than short pump, but this is neither Paris or Provence — it’s more Chatou or Savigny-le-Temple. Certain people like… Read more »