Read about Henrico County's Future

...and if you don't care about farmland, what about your property taxes ??

read more by clicking here

Henrico address change ...hotline set up if you didn't get a survey

Responses to the ZIP CODE SURVEYS still out now must be postmarked by Saturday, May 10. If approved, the name "Henrico" will become what is being called "the preferred location" by the end of the year.

An added last minute touch: WWBT12 reported that "Letters mailed to "Richmond" will remain an acceptable alternative," but the online text for that story has since been removed from Channel 12's website...

12 also reported that "If you did not receive" a ZIP CODE SURVEY,"a hotline has also been set up for residents who did not receive a post card. That number is 1-866-900-9845" No deadline was given for the use of the hotline.

..and if the 'Address Change' is successful, you can always see it as a symptom of what's to come, and realize the importance of every residents participation in Henrico's 2026 Comprehensive Plan. Educate yourself, and pass the word now.

Henrico Zip Code Survey: Overshadowing the importance of the 2026 Comprehensive Plan

By now, we should all be familiar with the Henrico 'Zip Code Survey', but...

Where are the television ads, full-page magazine spreads, and newspaper articles about the 2026 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? Why haven't we received glossy full color brochures in the mail to educate us about the importance of the plan which will shape the future of our own county?

As pointed out in his February 21st Henrico Citizen article, Editor Tom Lappas reminds us that the zip code issue now being addressed in Henrico is a two way street. "Henrico isn't the only locality that is losing tax revenue to the city; a similar situation exists on a smaller scale in Chesterfield County, which also has several "Richmond" ZIP codes within its boundaries."

Mr. Lappas goes on to point out that "Chesterfield officials are said to be very interested in the outcome of the Henrico survey, and they may try a similar approach if the proposal is successful here," and also that "A small portion of Hanover County carries the Glen Allen mailing address, so Henrico occasionally receives taxes that actually belong to Hanover." But you don't see Henrico talking about the inequity there.

With the postal surveys now hitting Henrico mailboxes, it was interesting to see a small number printed in the the bottom right hand corner of the postcard provided for residents to return. What is this number? When each resident enters the curtained box to vote in a state or national election, do their ballots sport any numbers which would identify their vote as coming from them in particular? We find this odd, very odd.

Why would it be necessary (or possible) to identify which way any resident responded to this survey? There is, of course a possibility that these extra numbers are a way to be sure no one has stuffed the ballot box- but certainly some other non-identifying means could have been chosen to insure this.

The ZIP CODE SURVEY card that arrives in some Henrico mailboxes says nothing of the tax issue, which was the topic used as a basis to promote the necessity of changing some Henrico locations names from Richmond, Va, to Henrico, Va... More than one savvy HV reader has brought this issue up via email. (Kudos for paying attention and alerting HV) Instead,

the Zip Code survey card reads:

"On behalf of customers in your area, Henrico County has requested that the Postal Service accept the name Henrico, VA as the last line on your mailing address. This change is being sought to bring greater addressing recognition to Henrico County's identity."

Why, that's not what Henrico told us at all! All of the representation that Henrico has given this issue has been solely about the loss of 5 MILLION DOLLARS of tax revenue, which "may be going to the City of Richmond"! Now we're really confused. It seems the USPS might have contributed the survey card text- if so, their take on it seems on point to us.

One way or the other, the City of Richmond has recently stated that tax discrepancies are reconciled with Henrico every year. So whom are we to believe?

Also, why has no solution been put forth by the County to address the out of pocket cost which would affect businesses which would have to change their signage, advertising materials, stationary, much less repaint their addresses on fleets of vehicles?

What about the cost of reprinting all of each resident's personalized stationary? Residents and businesses time lost informing those who may mail them? Updating websites? Or the cost of replacing the stickers and rubber stamps used to address many outgoing mails? The list of these costs to citizens and businesses could go on and on.

Also of note in context to the ZIP CODE SURVEY, is the fact that Henrico seems to have used a decent amount of resident's tax revenue in their associated public relations campaign. A full page full color advertisement in high circulation local magazines must cost something these days, and Richmond Magazine had at least one of those - perhaps payed for by the County? And what about the postage for the survey 'campaign brochures' and the survey cards themselves?

What we call the 'campaign brochure' was an expensive looking two sided mailer, again printed in full color, on heavy, glossy paper that was sent out in by the County prior to the survey itself. HV readers have written in to point out that Henrico County's cable television channel has bee running several documentary style promotional advertisements at least once an hour, for the last month or so. These visual promotions must have been shot, edited, and musically scored by County employees, in-house. How was this funded? As a part of full-time employees regular work load?

It would be interesting to see the full budget amount used for the print and media campaign to support the zip code based possible name change from Richmond to Henrico.

Pages and pages of interesting "reader reaction" has been posted online in response to zip code related articles published in local papers- please take time to read the reader's opinions following each article:

"Henrico, VA effort adds to divisions" (Richmond Times Dispatch Apr 28, 2008)

"Henrico, Va.' May Become Reality" (Henrico Citizen, February 21, 2008)

"Richmond counters Henrico effort..." (Richmond Times Dispatch May 03, 2008)

Much of the reader response to recent press seems to have more to do with regionalism, and opinions concerning how Henrico and Richmond officials behave in context to just that. Many residents have written in to point out that the ZIP CODE SURVEY seems to have more to do with regionalism or the county's inability to properly filter tax data- than where their tax dollars are ending up, and some valid points have been made. But bickering over opinions of those both inside and outside of the city limits isn't going to solve what's at hand now.

None of the ZIP CODE SURVEY questions we've asked above bother us as much as a more important issue at hand this May. Which is:

WHY hasn't a similarly zealous effort been made by our elected officials and those whose salaries our tax dollars employ, to campaign to educate Henrico residents about the importance of the 2026 Comprehensive Plan?

As covered by Historic Varina on March 18th in "Knowledge of Comprehensive Plan LOW among Henrico County residents- Survey says", the '2005 Citizen Survey' let Henrico Officials know that "71% of Henrico residents who responded to the survey on which future planning in Henrico is based said they were not familiar with the "Land Use Plan." It still doesn't seem like Henrico is spreading the word about the Comp Plan.

In case anyone reading this still does not understand: The Land-Use "suggestions" made in the 2026 Comprehensive Plan WILL affect how the land in your neighborhood will be used for the next eighteen years. Whether these 'guidelines' are described as mere "suggestions" or not- they will guide how land is used, and there is very little, if any, preservation of open space suggested. The plan is undoubtedly pro-development, and as a result does not take into consideration your "quality of life", or that of future generations.

Where are the television ads, full-page magazine spreads, and newspaper articles about the 2026 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? Why haven't we received glossy full color brochures in the mail to educate us about the importance of the plan which will shape the future of our own county?

The outcome of residents involvement in the 2026 Comprehensive Plan has a much greater effect on the future of the area in which we all live. Whether your envelopes are marked Richmond or Henrico, the Land Use and Major Thoroughfare Plans will do much more than Henrico is willing to let on, to shape the way Henrico ends up being (or not being).

Where are the funds coming from to build two major interchanges in Varina? Many major Thoroughfare Plan changes which were proposed in the 2010 Plan, and then removed from that plan, have been replaced in the 2026 Plan. There may be a future roadway extension planned right through your property, but Henrico County certainly isn't advertising that!

More residents should be asking questions. Good questions, like those asked in recent public meetings:

Susan Rhodes, who also lives in the western end of the county, asked how the county will pay to educate hundreds of new students who likely will come as a result of residential development.

Henrico resident Tom Townsend questioned why the Board of Supervisors doesn't impose cash proffers on developers. He said increased traffic congestion in the Short Pump area resulted from an "unabated volume of rezoning approvals over the last several years" and an imbalance between infrastructure funding and growth.

"How can the supervisors address this traffic congestion and more directly correlate rezoning requests and approvals with the necessary infrastructure to support this growth?" Townsend asked. "Why doesn't Henrico County impose cash proffers upon developers during the rezoning approval process to fund and help pay for these necessary infrastructure improvements rather than spreading the cost of this infrastructure on all citizens in the county?" Thank you Ms. Rhodes and Mr. Townsend, sincerely.

To read the 'answers' given to these questions, read Virgil Hazelett's explanation, as eloquently covered by Melodie N. Martin, Staff Writer for the Richmond Times-Dispatch in "Development debated at session- Speakers, supervisors offer explanations about growth impact" on Wednesday, Apr 09, 2008 (Thank you Ms. Martin)

Most of our readers are now probably familiar with the Comp Plan, but how many other Varina and even Henrico residents understand what the proposed plan holds for them in their locations? It is very important that residents attend the Comprehensive Plan Meetings, and each give the county input on how the plan will affect them.

Please review the Comprehensive Plan Chapters and familiarize yourself with the new "Land Use Designations" and "Major Thoroughfare Plan" (links are in the upper right column of this page).

There is no doubt the final draft of the 2026 Comprehensive Plan will change your quality of life more than any envelope label ever will.

Want to read more?
"Meetings give you a voice in county's future
Public is invited to offer input on plan outlining land use through 2026"
Richmond Times Dispatch- Sunday, May 04, 2008

Will 'Henrico address change' spell R.I.P. for Highland Springs?

In a letter to the Editor of the Richmond Times-Dispatch today, Charles Hague, wrote in to report what the paper has entitled:
"Little-Known Facts About Address Change"

"Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Henrico residents in 11 ZIP Codes are receiving a survey from the postal service asking about a proposed change to their mailing address from "Richmond, VA" to "Henrico, VA." Surveys must be returned by May 10. Residents should be aware of some less publicized facts regarding the proposed change:

• Responding "yes" includes changing "Highland Springs, VA" to "Henrico, VA." Highland Springs will be relegated to a "secondary" address. Highland Springs has been a "primary" address since its founding in 1890 and has maintained its own ZIP code, 23075, since ZIP codes were established in 1963.

• The many flyers, brochures, and other advertisements distributed by the county show a list of seven items under the heading "Just what could $5 million do?" Note that $5 million will do only one of the items listed. Some citizens have incorrectly interpreted the materials to mean that all seven items could be done.

• The problem of incorrect reporting of tax revenue is a statewide problem that could be resolved for all localities by the Department of Taxation and/or the General Assembly.

• Some citizens believe that making the change may reduce their home and/or automobile insurance premiums. It most likely will not. Insurance companies base their premiums on the location of their policy-holders, not their mailing address.

Please consider all of the facts and respond to the survey as best benefits not only Henrico, but also the City of Richmond and our entire state.

Charles Hague. Richmond"

The Future of Varina's Past

Today a group of local leaders was scheduled to return from what we hope was an eye opening tour of Charleston, South Carolina. History based tourism has long brought hundreds of thousands of travelers to Virginia, and we have high hopes for Henrico, (Varina in particular). If capitalizing on local history results in preservation efforts, we're behind it 100%.

Varina contains an obvious wealth of potential historic-tourism sites, which would complete the nationally known Richmond-Charles City-Williamsburg-Jamestown corridor.

The two day visit was co-led by Katherine Busser of Capital One Financial Corp., who is chairwoman-elect of the Greater Richmond Chamber, and our own David A. Kaechele, chairman of the Henrico County Board of Supervisors. According to Richmond-Times Dispatch Staff Writer, Kiran Krishnamurthy, the trip to Charleston was organized by the Greater Richmond Chamber to see "What makes a historic city worth visiting?"

We hope those who travelled from Henrico bring back a fresh perspective on history.

"Past trips have brought forth positive change in the Richmond region, in 1993 and again in 1996. In '93, a trip to Jacksonville, Fla., had organizers focused in part on an engineering school as part of Virginia Commonwealth University's efforts along those lines. In 1996, a group visited Austin and San Antonio in Texas to learn about the semiconductor industry after Motorola Inc. selected the Richmond region for a chip plant. The group eyed San Antonio's River Walk as part of Richmond's plans for the new Canal Walk."

The RT-D articles about the trip reported many similarities between Richmond and Charleston, but how do the histories of Charleston and Varina compare as early settlements? Varina is clearly much older, while Charleston has benefitted from the ongoing preservation of its architecture and the promotion of its history since the early 20th century.

In 1670 when the first settlers arrived in the Charleston area, Varina had already been the seat of Henrico County for thirty six years. In fact, The area which includes the Varina magisterial district, was then part of Henrico "Cittie", an incorporation formed in 1619 by the Virginia Company of London.

Charles I claimed parts of South Carolina as early as 1629 by granting territory to Sir Robert Heath. But this was seventeen years after John Rolfe introduced the "Varinas" strain of Spanish tobacco to our part of eastern Henrico. The sale of this tobacco saved the struggling colony in Virginia. Rolfe had married Pocahontas in 1614, and they had called Varina Farms their home for the following two years. Back in S.C., Heath ended up forfeiting his land because he had not improved it, and so no real settlement was located there until 1663.

In 1680, the South Carolina settlers moved across the river to the current location of Charleston. Varina was established as an "unincorporated town" in 1680, and already featured a courthouse, a church for Henrico Parish, and commercial buildings, while the Charles Town settlers were just digging in to their new location.

Though the College of Charleston gave its first classes in 1770, supporting its claim as the oldest municipal college in America, William and Mary had been given its royal charter at the request of the Varina Parish Reverend, Dr. James Blair in 1693. When the College of Charleston was formed, William and Mary had already been holding classes for 76 years.

Richmond was surrendered at Tree Hill Farm in Varina on April 3rd, 1865 and the war in Charleston came to an official end on April 14, 1865. A little under two weeks apart, but Varina still managed to figure first. In both cases, the end of slavery was marked, too little too late, and at Union insistence.

Though Charleston went on to become the chief center of culture and of wealth in the South, Varina remained relatively rural after the county seat was moved from Varina in 1752. Charleston's economy benefits annually from the arrival of hundreds of thousands of "history tourists", who come to visit the areas many museums and cultural sites.

As those who visited Charleston may note, any of these points in Varina's history might be capitalized on, but past trips seem to have benefited decisions made in Richmond, and not Henrico.

Though history tourism could be a focus here, what do you see in the future for Varina's past?

The Charleston Museum states that its mission is to preserve and interpret the cultural and natural history of Charleston and the South Carolina Lowcountry. Also, Charleston will soon host the opening of The International Museum of African American History, projected to bring in 110,000 visitors during a “high-stable” year. Henrico would certainly benefit from similar planning.


Henrico County owns a vast collection of historic and cultural artifacts (above), most of which are packed into insufficient storage. These artifacts would be the solid foundation for a museum celebrating the rural and agricultural heritage in Varina.

Varina was the long standing site of many farms and mills, an area in Varina could easily be chosen to house the windmill that Flowerdew Hundred currently has up for sale.



As pointed out by Kirin Krishnamurthy, and blogged about on Buttermilk and Molasses, "Richmond needs to capitalize on the James River." The Richmond "Downtown Plan" has been addressing that too... but, what about Henrico, through which much more of the river passes?
Henrico County could draw many torists interested in our rich maritime history, by featuring period watercraft like the batteaus shown below.



The James River is said to be the first inland waterway in America up which captured Africans travelled by ship, bound for local slave markets. Rather than overlooking this shameful part of our history, Henrico could create a museum to educate visitors with the history of those enslaved here for centuries. The county would greatly benefit by choosing to further interpret the importance of African American culture.


The article on the Charleston trip points out that "Tourism is a major thrust for both cities" (Richmond and Charleston)... but what about Henrico, which is much larger, and has older history than Richmond does? Will more parks and historic attractions be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan, as residents who were surveyed in 2005 suggested? Or perhaps we will all be served with the same parks we now use, while population booms and open land becomes more scarce...

During one 2026 comprehensive plan work session in 2006, in talking about the Capital Budget Mr. Hazelett reported that the Belmont Golf Course had put in a request for 5 million dollars (to increase the number of parking spaces available at the facility and to make improvements at the golf course). He then added that "Of that amount, obviously, due to funding constraints, only the most pressing needs are recommended for consideration in the Capital Budget."

No telling how much was actually spent at Belmont for the turf repair and tarmac, but are there funds in the new billion dollar budget we keep hearing about for additional park land in Varina?

There is obviously little land left in the other districts, and greenbelt creation was a topic that ranked high among those who participated in the 2005 citizen survey...
"There was some support for creating a storm water utility that could be integrated into a larger Greenbelt/Greenway system of open spaces, parks and naturally preserved areas. Overall, 60% of the respondents supported doing so."

The population growth projected in the 2026 Plan draft is vast, and shouldn't the parks system grow to accomodate these new residents? Green infrastructure planning, historic sites, and agricultural heritage and interpretation are all necessary to current planning- before it's too late.

Again from RT-D Staff Writer Kirn Krishnamurthy: "James Dunn, president of the Greater Richmond Chamber, which puts together an annual InterCity Visit to a large metropolitan area, said Charleston was selected because organizers sensed that the South Carolina city is a place that has better capitalized on history."

"History is what we have," Dunn said. But "there's a lot of frustration that we have never quite been able to get our act together.""

Lets all hope Henrico leads the way in 'getting it together' now!

Still wondering what makes a historic city worth visiting?
Next week is Virginia Architecture Week 2008, April 7 through April 12
http://www.aiaric.org/
http://www.vaeng.com/news/virginia-architecture-week-2008



Would you like to read more about Varina history?


Links to the two Richmond Times-Dispatch articles on the Charleston trip local leaders took.
Feb 12, 2008 RT-D article: Leaders look to S.C. Visit to center on Charleston's use of history
April 1, 2008 RT-D article: Regional leaders are bound for Charleston A group of about 110 will see how the S.C. city makes the most of its rich history

The Water Cycle, or...another ride we're being taken for

Well, Spring has sprung. You may have read the nice bit in the RT-D this week: "Wilder proposal raises water, sewer fees", but even if you don't live inside of Richmond city limits, it still pertains to you. Although the blow was lessened by the subtitle "the increase would be less than was approved previously in Richmond", there's a false sense of hope in that, for sure.

The article is talking about something other 'the old in-out water' fees- it's getting at something bigger. Charging us for for rain.The "water cycle" in question isn't the Edwardian type (pictured below), it's actually much, much older...


What Wilder is talking about are the new rates that could come on top of a proposed new charge to improve Richmond's stormwater system, which is now up before City Council for consideration. Here's the RT-D's take from Staff Writers Kiran Krishnamurthy and David Ress:

"If the stormwater system is approved, city homeowners and other property owners could expect to get bills in August for new fees ranging from $45 to $135 per year.

Before that, in June, all property owners also would receive notices of what their stormwater assessment would be, based on the square footage of property surfaces that are impervious to water -- roofs, driveways and parking lots that allow water runoff.

Most city households fall into a category that would pay $90 per year, based on 1,000 to 2,400 square feet of impervious surface, according to the administration...

Businesses, nonprofit organizations and city schools also would be assessed, as would state and federal government properties, said Chris Beschler, the city's deputy administrative officer for operations.

Each would pay a set rate for every 1,425 square feet of impervious surface -- the equivalent of the average for a single-family home in the city, or roughly the amount for a 40-by-25 foot house with a 12-by-15-foot shed and a small patio or short paved driveway."

There's also a set rate for nonprofits, such as churches, and other like organizations, equalling $45 for each 1,425 square feet. But for commercial and industrial "users" (as the article called them), the rate would be much higher. $90 per increment!

In other words, a Richmond business with 14,250 square feet of roof and parking space would pay $900 per year! Tell us this isn't coming soon to a Henrico County mailbox near you. Go ahead, write in- we dare ya.

As you may have heard. water is said to be THE commodity of the future, but few people remember that when they're sudsing up the station wagon. You may think how you use the water "you pay for" is your business alone, but other people are making it theirs too. Let's look at this for a minute... (you might wanna turn off that tap while you read this though.)

Local water demand has been exceeding available supply for some time, as noted wonderfully in local blogger "P. Keip's Hype" last November. Keip, who bills himself as a resident of Richmond's suburbs must live in Henrico, because he wrote about the comic value of Henrico Supervisor's Jack and Jill-like solution to last fall's water restrictions.

Restrictions have been put in place off and on for years in Henrico as a result of dwindling water supplies which are brought on by drought. As far as we can tell, Henrico purchases water from the City of Richmond, which draws it from the James. When the river's down, the restrictions go up, so to speak.

As a well-read resident of Henrico, Keip noted in his blog that the County had let us all know via the Times-Dispatch that an even and odd system, where you can water your lawn or wash your car, was based on your street number (even or odd) and the date. But Keip's real gripe was about HC Supervisors change of heart last November.

The BoS' 'new deal' was what Keip considered comical. We agree, but prefer tragi-comical. Supervisors then proclaimed that "Watering by bucket is allowed anytime." WHAT? A bucket? Yep- here's what the paper reported:



"Henrico County has tweaked its water restrictions to allow residents to irrigate trees, shrubs and other plantings three times a week. Officials say the changes clarify the mandatory restrictions that took effect Oct. 25 and say they are not expected to significantly increase demand because lawn-watering is still prohibited, except up to 5 gallons a day by bucket.

Still don't get why we're talking about surfaces in the city? Why are we writing about water restrictions from last Fall? Well, because it's Spring, and we all pray for rain year-round here now, but in the city, they're gearing up to pay for rain.

Charging residents for the amount of impervious surfaces is always a possibilty for Henrico too, that is- IF we're ever to have any kind of storm water run-off system.. or maybe it'll be added as another form of tax- who knows. But in the end, it's a knee-jerk response to a much bigger problem. The amount of impervious surfaces in the county has grown exponentially in the last decade.

Think about all of the new construction in Henrico. All of that has the potential to pollute. In Henrico we have a continuous history of water restrictions due to drought- and if there isn't enough for us to water the lawn now, well- what are all of those new residents going to drink- for starters?

"Impervious" means surfaces into which water will not soak. So you can count your asphalt driveway, that lanai you built over your deck, and well- hopefully the roof of your McMansion or farmette. All of this run-off seeks it's own level- it goes down-hill. Like all of that water that sloshed the cars and trucks in Shockoe Bottom around like rubber duckies in the not so distant past, most of it is supposed to go through storm drains, into sewers and much of it ends up in the river.

But with it goes plenty of silt, that clogs up the James and the Bay. Blocking light from getting to plants that help filter pollutants is only one of silt's many ill effects. The run-off also carries with it that plastic barrette you dropped in the flower-bed, the six-pack holder dropped by your pal, and the fertilizer from all of your neighbors lawns. How do we deal with this?

Well, they now make concrete and pavers which will allow water to soak through the surface and into the ground, where we need it. You could employ these measures yourself if you chose to. This could help stop some people from having to tell you to water that new sod with Jill's bucket, on an 'even-Thurdsay', but..

The wisest solution would be to write and or call your Supervisor. You could also contact County Planning, even call the local papers (if you really care), and ask that a new ordinance be written 'requiring only pervious surfacing be used for all new driveways, sidewalks and footpaths in the county.'

You could tell them that what we need is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."Now that's what we call 'sustainable growth'!!

Or, you could always just look forward to more growth, expansion, or 'progress'. What you call it doesn't matter, all you need to remember is that you will be footing the bill,
and even worse- you'll be PAYING to POLLUTE.

Knowledge of Comprehensive Plan LOW among Henrico County residents- Survey says.

71% of Henrico residents who responded to the survey on which future planning in Henrico is based said they were not familiar with the "Land Use Plan".

The 2005 "Citizens Survey" was "scientifically administered" (by mail) to a portion of Henrico County residents "regarding their opinions about land use and planning issues". How much basis these survey results will have remains be seen, due to several different factors. The most shocking result of the survey is that out of those who responded, 71% said they were not familiar with it or had never heard of Henrico's Land Use Plan.

The Land Use Plan is described by the County in their Comprehensive Planning FAQ as the component that "primarily addresses development undertaken by the private sector. The Land Use Plan Map depicts the desired future land use (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) of all parcels within the County." The FAQ further discloses that each component (Land Use Plan, Major Thoroughfare Plan, and The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan) was (will be?) specifically reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors following public meetings and public hearings."

One question that the Comp-Plan FAQ does not answer is how much effect County residents actually have on the contents of the final adopted Comprehensive Plan. It is important to point out here that when discussing "the desired future land use (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) of all parcels within the County", that the County is talking about land, much of which is owned by you, the tax-paying residents of Henrico.

Also of interest in that description is the idea that the Land Use "Plan Map depicts the desired future land use of all parcels within the County." Because no current Plan drafts show the effect of resident's input, we wondered while reviewing the draft, exactly whose "desire" it is that land be used in the future in the way the plan describes?

The two charts below contain figures and graphics styles found in the Fall 2005 "Weinberg Land Use Forum News" (.pdf here), published by "Hirschler Fleischer" a law firm based in Richmond and Fredericksburg.



The Survey's initial results and summarization that are now available on the County website as a downloadable .pdf here were prepared for MDC by the "Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory", part of the Center for Public Policy of the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University.

"The Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory at Virginia Commonwealth University (SERL) contracted with McBride Dale Clarion of Cincinnati, Ohio (MDC), to execute and summarize a sample survey by mail of the citizens of Henrico County,Virginia...The questionnaire was constructed from a larger draft of topic areas and suggested questions. SERL and MDC staff worked closely with staff at Henrico County on the survey."

Because a number of readers have emailed to tell us that the results were difficult to find, or understand, or that they have slow internet connections and spent hours downloading 'draft" portions of the Plan itself, we reprinted the text of the "Initial Results" in a prior post, to ease reader access.

Another point revealed by the "Initial Results" is the small percentage of Varina residents involved. The survey was mailed out to equal numbers of residents in each district, and it is reported that the budget allowed for 3100 residents to participate. Among five districts, that equalled 620 residents surveyed in each. Within the survey's "Additional Findings" it is stated that

"There was differential participation in the survey by magisterial district. Equal numbers of surveys were mailed to households in each magisterial district. Unequal numbers are in the data file. Twenty percent of the survey respondents should be in each of the five magisterial districts, but Tuckahoe has 26%, Three Chopt has 25%, Brookland has 21%, Fairfield has 15% and Varina has 13% lag. Weighting by magisterial district and race adjusts for much of these discrepancies."

As an illustration, the chart below was created by one of our readers, who goes by the nickname "Indigenous".

When we were emailed by a reader and made aware of the fact that 13% of 725 respondents were the only Henrico residents to represent Varina in the Citizen Survey, we began to get much more interested. 13%, that's 94.25 residents. What is the "weighting by magisterial district and race [that] adjusts for much of these discrepancies"? Does this mean that of the 620 potential participants from Varina that 525.75 results were estimated by the county? The way that this is worded is too vague for us to be sure.

After doing some research, we came up with the following figures relating to Henrico Magisterial Districts relating to the same year. This information came from a 2005 newsletter released by the law firm of "Hirschler Fleischer", based in Richmond and Fredericksburg. The firm releases a quarterly newsletter, called the "Weinberg Land Use Forum News". In the Fall of 2005, the news included an article written by James W. Theobald, Esq., which he "VARINA Where It’s At and Going To Be", found within the.pdf here.

We have to give some credence to the statistics in Mr. Theobald's piece, as it was published by a firm that includes lawyers who specialize in "Land Use" issues, some of whom have a history of working with Henrico County. One way or the other, after reading his article, and sharing it with other members of our group, we received from an "HV' reader, the donation of 'recreations' of the two of the pie-charts ('Total Acreage' and 'Vacant Acres', shown above) that were used in his article. The graph below was based on the one in the same issue of the "Weinberg Land Use Forum News", but has been adapted by our reader to include the two additional '%Survey Input '05' and 'Varina's % of Total' columns.

Theobald's article opened with the statements that "Tuckahoe and Three Chopt are largely developed, with Brookland and Fairfield still enjoying development and redevelopment opportunities. But a look at Varina suggests that the bulk of undeveloped land in the County is obviously in the East End."

Comprehensive Planning to establish a vision for the future growth and development of Henrico will have an immeasurable impact on those currently residing in the Varina District, as it should now be obvious the bulk of 'undeveloped land' lies within our district boundaries।

To date, the majority of the meetings addressing the Comp-Plan draft have been either closed work sessions, or public meetings where no comments from residents are allowed.

In many locales Nation-wide, local governments have invited residents to participate in "Citizen Planning Workshops", where instead of just being shown what will happen in their future, they are encouraged to participate in the planning of their own cities and counties. These workshops are one of the best forms of open-government, because they are based in transparency and the inclusion of local participants.

Instead, in Henrico we see vague language, goals and rationales, and indecipherable graphs pertaining to 'housing demand' and 'potential growth scenarios'. Developers plans are "approved with conditions"- the conditions being listed in a numbered 'code'- no doubt to save time, but is this "open government"?

The 2026 Comp-Plan will be the tool by which our future use of your land is decided. There is no doubt that lands which are now 'open-space', farm land, and forests, will be sold by their current owners, mostly for future development. It is the undisputed right of these owners to sell these lands, and yet- as current residents all of us have a right to be involved in deciding how the rural character of our district is preserved.

Our review of the Comprehensive Plan is what spawned the idea for this blog. Our concern is that the drafts now available suggest including commercial areas within current residential areas, as a way to "create infrastructure" for future development. All of us are for "Common Sense Growth","Smart Growth", and the creation of "Green-Infrastructure", but we believe that residents should be included as active participants with a voice in land use planning.

The creation of infrastructure, fire-houses, libraries, schools, sewers, new roads, additional retail and commercial establishments is a given necessity of growth in any area. But the jump from rural or rural-suburban directly to urban (outside of new developments)is more than many of us expected. There are a number of large planned developments based on rezonings already in the works in Varina which by estimate will increase our District population by 20,000 residents in the next ten years.

Add to those projects smaller "by-rights" infill developments already under application, and you'll see what is occurring even prior to the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. Henrico County representatives have repeatedly addressed their desire for development of only the "highest quality" in Varina, but smaller developments, not requiring rezoning fall outside of the grid. One way to assure sensitive development in by-rights projects would be to adopt much stricter ordinances to address preservation of areas both natural and historic. This has been done in other parts of the Commonwealth, why not in Henrico?

In the past as an "effort to get a handle on the pace and impacts of residential growth, both Chesterfield County and Henrico County have adopted policies which amount to de facto moratoriums on new rezonings for a period of time." The previous description comes from another Hirschler Fleischer newsletter article "Chesterfield and Henrico Counties Put Rezonings in “Time Out”",(in .pdf here) which actually happened in 2004. Why not do this again, now?

While the 2026 Comprehensive Plan is still in review and during the current building 'slump' it's the perfect time for the County to study growth rates, density and water quality impacts in the Varina District. If Henrico truly means to stand by their desire for only the "highest quality development", we and readers who have written in would love to see this work begin now. The necessity could not be higher, and the timing is perfect.

General Disclaimer: The opinions found herein are solely those of "Historic Varina" and some of our readers, and do not in any way reflect the opinions of "Hirschler Fleischer", James W. Theobald, Esq., "The Weinberg Land Use Forum News" or any of their employees or assigns. Some of the graphics above were based on those found in materials published by the above mentioned, and Historic Varina is thankful for their work.


Graphics Credit: The graphics above were donated to 'Historic Varina' by a crafty local resident, who asked as payment only that we mention that "he LOVES farm land, parks, history and open spaces", which is why he says he moved to Varina over a decade ago. Oh, and he likes to be referred to as 'Indigenous'. Thanks again, Indigenous!