Henrico Hears Varina, But Will The County Listen?

The above image is stamped on most pages and every map included in the current draft of Henrico County's '2026 Comprehensive Plan'. Notice how the West End is depicted as developed, while the East End is shown as bucolic Open Space?

Last night at 7 o'clock it was difficult to find a seat in The Henrico Theatre, as Varina Supervisor James B. Donati, Jr. graciously used his monthly Varina 'Town Hall Meeting' to educate Varina residents about Land Use in Varina and the 2026 Comprehensive Plan Draft. The beautifully restored art deco theatre's seating capacity is recorded at 400, but it certainly appeared full as some 230 Varina residents signed in and milled to find seating for the Monday evening "working group" presentation. Focusing on Land-Use in Henrico's East End, the meeting had been advertised as running from 7-10 pm, though ran over until about 10:30, as Varina residents were allowed to voice their many opinions concerning future residential growth and commercial areas targeted to boom in the district.

Supervisor Donati introduced Greg Dale, of 'McBride Dale Clarion' (MDC), the firm contracted by Henrico County to assist in the 2026 Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Dale spoke from the podium with the aid of a well-crafted Power Point presentation, shown on the theater's main screen. During the introduction which was designed to give an overview of the last three years of work MDC has assisted the County in undertaking, the consultant held up a paper copy of the heavy Comp Plan, saying it would be impossible to cover everything. Dale went on to point out jovially that residents usually flipped right to the maps. Showing the current draft of the entire Henrico Land-Use Map onscreen, he briefly delineated the 17 Land Use Designations that land in Varina has currently been given, though the presentation never included a close-up view of the Varina portion alone.

One interesting highlight took place when the Land-Use Plan Map first appeared on-screen. Pointing at Henrico's 'West End' Dale stated that this is where infrastructure is "in place", and that there was "more than enough room out there to accommodate all of the growth expected between now and 2026." He went on to comment that "people usually like to go where the infrastructure already exists."

Other topics covered in Mr.Dale's introduction were "General Developmental Policies" and "Community Character", (a newly added portion of the 2026 Comp Plan), which has been designed "to ensure compatibility of future development to that currently existing in Henrico"- as he put it.

Nationally known eco-minded planning consultant Randall Arendt's name was mentioned by Dale, citing Arendt's inclusion in the 2026 Planning process. Dale reported that Arendt has spoken before the Supervisory and Planning Commissions here, and pointed out the importance of his inclusion as such. Mr. Arendt is known for promoting residential subdivision patterns designed to include the preservation and conservation of greenspace within. By "clustering" residences within tracts promoted for development, Arendt's form of planning can result in what Dale called "Conservation Subdivisions", promising that the open and forested spaces would be set aside, and remain that way for future generations to enjoy. But residents small group discussions last night included questioning the current lack of succinct definition within the 2026 Plan Draft that should be present to define just what "Open Space" is, and how long it would actually be "preserved".

As Historic Varina previously reported in our March 1st post: "And the....."Survey Says!" McBride Dale Clarion was also contracted to co-administer the Henrico "2005 Citizen Survey". MDC co-contracted with SERL, "The Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory", at the Center for Public Policy, of the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. The two groups designed and administered the 2005 Survey. According to the survey results URL HERE "The sampling plan was designed to represent the views of citizens in the five magisterial districts of Henrico County: Brookland, Fairfield, Three Chopt, Tuckahoe and Varina. Within each of the five magisterial districts, 620 addresses were selected at random to receive a survey invitation." That would have equalled a total of 3100 responses, but this is where the survey went south.

Of course, if 3100 responses had been received from Henrico residents, it would have been nice, to say the least, but only 725 of the surveys mailed out found their way back into the firms' hands. Sadly, of the responses tabulated, Varina residents opinions represented 13% (as opposed to the 20% expected for reach district) of those included. Yet almost half of the land earmarked for residential development in Henrico lies within Varina's borders. Survey results reported that 46.7% of what County Planners describe as "Vacant Land" is located within the Varina District. During Dales review of the bulleted information shown onscreen, he vocalized his intent to later more fully detail the term "Infill Development", but keeping with the quick pace necessary to keep on schedule, had to be reminded by an audience member to readdress the topic.

Shouldn't the residents of each district have a real say in how their area's future is planned? We can only wait for the results of recent public meetings, and continue to request that they are fairly included in the final draft of the 2026 Comprehensive Plan.

Greg Dale then answered by explaining that "infill" is the term planners use to describe development that could occur in areas "previously passed over during past developmental phases", as well as further build-out that could take place on what he called "underutilized land".

Those in attendance from Historic Varina concur that for generations, when it has come time to pay property taxes, Varina residents have been well aware of how their individual parcels are being "utilized", and that it takes a concerted effort to "pass over" using these "vacant lands" and opt not to develop them.

Graphic provided by HV's friend 'Indigenous'

Wrapping up the initial presentation, Dale fielded questions concerning some of the topics he had covered. Residents asked pertinent questions: requesting further description of industrial growth areas around Richmond International Airport, asking for definition of 'business incentives' promised to promote revitalization in Varina, and also asked "where are the results of the suggestions given County Planners at the Varina District 2026 Open-House meetings in May?"

Answers given were that the Industrial Land Use Designations were available in the Comp Plan Draft available online in the Land-Use portion of the Plan, that business incentives from the Fed and State, as well as Henrico would be further covered in the Plan and on Henrico's website. As to where the results of residents input from the Ward Elementary School "2026 Open-House Meeting" were, Dale reported that they were "still being tabulated", and would "be made public on the County web-site".

HV wonders if Henrico County knows that very few Varina residents actually have the high speed internet connection necessary to view the Comp Plan in it's entirety? Many of the files are much too large to download on a dial-up connection.. Is this really then a public process? We support the suggestion of residents in attendance last night, that further public meetings are necessary.

(If you want to answer any of these questions, this is a blog. Let us remind you, anyone can post a comment below- just use our how to blog FAQ in the column to the right of this post. Anyone can post comments- hint- hint- even consultants, planners or County Officials- we welcome your every thought and contribution.)

Forgive our continual opinion, but this is not a newspaper, and as local media coverage of the potential effects of the Comp Plan upon Varina or the rest of Henrico have been slim at best- here we go:

Almost four months have passed since the Varina "Open House Meeting" on May 22nd. And though it seems the 2026 Comp Plan was initially planned to have been put before Henrico's Planning Commission in either September or October, we are heartened to have learned last night that the process seems to have grown in length. During the meeting (after Mr. Dale was asked,) he told the audience that the 2026 Plan would be "summarized" for County Officials in November, and "at some time after the 1st of the year (2009,) be formally considered for adoption."

Try as we may, we cannot understand how Henrico Supervisory Board or Planning Commission members can consider the adoption of anything based on a mere summary. And if the residents responses from the Open House Meetings in May have yet to be either tabulated OR made public, how can this happen and still leave enough time for further study of the important changes necessary? How can there be time for either the County or our residents to respond?

It was made more than apparent by the repeated public thanks of those participating in last nights group work session, that Varina residents were very thankful to have the opportunity to gain this initial group participation in planning our districts future. But this "public process" should have begun long ago. As it is by residents votes that our Supervisors are elected, our opinions and desires should be by them represented.

We remind our readers that Henrico has been representing itself as a "pro-growth" & "pro-development" county for some time now. But do these views reflect local residents wishes? Instead, it still seems that planning has been based upon the opinions and desires of consultants, County Planners, and yes, more developers than residents. We can only hope Henrico sees that the current imbalance changes. Otherwise their belated attempt to create a more public planning process will have been another example of too little too late. And that is obviously not how Henrico's future should be formed.

Back to last night's meeting... Mr. Dale next explained that the "group work session" portion of the meeting would commence. The crowd slowly thinned from over 230 to about 85.

Three hour meetings on a work night make it tough to keep those with other home and work obligations in their seats. (May we politely suggest Henrico consider holding the next meeting on a weekend, with plenty of advertisement and forewarning?)

The remaining audience was next counted off by Dale five times, with each audience member being given a number from 1 to 17. He then explained that each number signified which "work group" each resident was asked to join. Numbered residents found their way to tables set up throughout the building, thus ensuring the desired "random mix" of those in attendance. Prior to separating into 17 groups of five people each, the audience was given the night's assignment: each group was to come up with the next 5 points that needed to be addressed by Henrico County, concerning growth in Varina as addressed by the 2026 Comprehensive Plan.

After being given a short time to complete these tasks: introduce and familiarize themselves, address the issues at hand, and record their "Top Five" points for immediate presentation to the audience on the large flipcharts provided.

The groups got to work fast. During the table time allowed, residents were also handed small strips of paper, containing bright green sticky dots (good color choice by the way) , and it was later explained that each resident should use these green dots to "vote" for the ideas they most supported, after each list was publicly reviewed. County Planning and MDC representatives circulated around the group tables, encouraging all inclusive discussion, and giving residents the remaining time allowed.. The count-down was politely repeated as the clock ticked down to "Time's Up! Please return to your seats in the theatre" The tired but enthusiastic residents then returned to their seats.

Smartly dressed County Employees had quickly posted each groups "Top 5" lists on the left and right walls, so that the audience could see. Much of the text was still far too small to view from the seats, and each group was given the opportunity to send forth a representative to report their conclusions those in attendance. Because some 17 group's members had to leave before 10 p.m., four of the groups were merged to form two groups, rendering the initial 17 groups down to 15 in the end.

May we say here: What an opportunity! Bravo Henrico, Thank you McBride Dale Clarion! Not only were each of the 15 groups of residents left to themselves to hash out the issues, without 'facilitation" or "guidance" from MDC or Henrico, fifteen individuals were actually given the microphone. Standing beside the list their group had made, each group's chosen rep read down their respective lists one after another. These reps were also given the opportunity to answer questions from the audience!!

Furthermore, when the first group rep took the opportunity to vocalize words not written on their list, Mr. Dale responded by asking if that... "was that something (this rep had) added?" There was a small pause, and the intake of breath could be heard throughout the crowd... People must have wondered if the rep was about to be "called down" for this addition?...

But no! Mr. Dale then asked if the resident had a pen, because the comment should be added to their list- to be certain the meaning was understood- if that was in fact the group consensus." Henrico County planners also took turns in taking additional notes on a large pad located to the left of the stage.

Residents clapped enthusiastically after each five points were read by each group's rep, frequently reps reports were stalled by loud bursts of clapping, punctuating many well wrought points.

Ah! So this is public process! Nice! This is how Democracy should work, huh? Perhaps with real intent and proper advertising, this is how Richmond's Master Down Town Plan managed to gain constant inclusion on tv and in local papers?

We'll continue to hope that Henrico actually creates studies to address the ideas given in this meeting, and that these desires are made public for the further comment and review of all Henrico citizens... and of course, that these results go on to actually tailor the 2026 Comprehensive Plan to reflect taxpayers hopes, dreams and aspirations for the County's future.

Now the results of the May Open-Houses and last night's workshop should now be quickly made available to the public: HCTV, all local media, the Henrico Libraries and website... and then give the public time and a way to respond. The Planning Commission should then respond with further Public Hearings and Workshops... prior to any Board of Supervisory hearings, or consideration for adoption.

Our Nation is now in the middle of an obvious financial down-turn.. development in many parts of Henrico, especially residential development, has experienced an obvious lull. Now is the perfect moment for our County Officials to make the best use of these conditions and respond to the desires of residents by taking action, to initiate further studies concerning Varina and the issues residents brought forth- to ensure that the future of Henrico, and Varina are created by the voice of the people, those by whom our officials were elected to represent and serve.

_________________________________________

Saving the best for last: just what did Varina residents come up with in their Top Five lists?

Well, the results are not far different from those reported by the 2005 Citizen Survey, but were much more distinct.

Even when divided, and mixed together with other residents, many strangers to one another, the "work-group" exercise has proven that Varina residents agree about what is important for their district's future.

Not surprisingly, little if any vocal support was given for the high density growth in Varina which the Comp Plan has previously targeted for the area.

Paraphrased below, grouped in random order, points of importance of the fifteen remaining group lists overwhelmingly focused on the the following topics:

• That Henrico should have already and should continue to provide more "focus groups" like the meeting last night, the results of which should be used to further craft the 2026 Comprehensive Plan.
  
  
• That there needed to be an actual finite definition for "Special Strategy Area" in the Comprehensive plan, so that residents have a full understanding of what that term means.
  
  
• That there is serious need for "public access transportation" planning, and the creation of systems that did not focus primarily on the car as a means of transport. Examples given were light-rail, bus routes, as well the need for a study to address the needs of locals and tourists by the creation of Walking, Hiking and Cycling Routes, and even trails for horses. Some groups suggested that these paths could be adjacent to though separated from the current roadways. The inclusion of such ideas could automatically create 'buffer zones' requested by some groups, which could preserve the rural character of Varina's roadways and "Virginia Scenic Bi-ways".
  
  
• That Varina needs more land to be designated as Parks, and for Recreation. Parks can be created to preserve many historic sites , including battlefields.
  
  
• That the Transportation planning be specifically designed to preserve the "rural character" of existing roadways. That a study be created for the proper planning of the Route 5 Corridor, and how it would function as an artery into and out of Richmond. The need for balance with other such main arteries into Richmond to provide against a repeat of the result in roadway failure/inability of many Varina residents to reach their homes or places of work in prior times of emergency.
  
  
• That Planning and Ordinances be designed and enacted to preserve Open Space or Green Space, also referred to as farmed areas, forested areas, agricultural areas, sensitive natural areas, and silviculture.
  
  
• That "Open Space" needs to be defined in the Comp Plan's final draft, and should be the same definition provided in the Code of Virginia.
  
  
• That TDR and PDR Programs be instituted to aid landowners and farmers in being able to afford to keep these tracts open and undeveloped. Groups reported that Henrico is surrounded by other Counties with Developmental Rights Programs, and that Henrico Officials cannot any longer say "we don't know how to do this."
  
  
• That though revitalization and development is planned on all of the major roadways that intersect with Laburnum Avenue, Laburnum itself is conspicuously absent. Laburnum Avenue should be made a Special Strategy Area, and assisted by programs designed for its revitalization.
  
  
• The need for focus on Educational Facilities and Educational Planning, and that the school systems need to first serve the existing residential base.
  
  
• That Henrico follow through on their prior promises to build a new High School in the Elko area. That Henrico address existing school system problems prior to creating more.
  
  
• That residential capacity analysis be studied to include lower density growth. Other locales cited in the kind of planning necessary in Varina spanned the Globe: It was pointed out the New York City has not been witnessed "chipping away at" or slowly developing Central Park, nor was that the case with The Vienna Woods in Austria- which residents saw as a "sacred place", and Portland, Oregon was referred to for having created urban-growth boundaries, beyond which development would not occur. These locales were given as patterns for what needs to happen in Varina.
  
  
• That tax credit programs and county funding programs be created and put in to use to promote and support revitalization funding of individual residential rehabilitation, to include rehabilitation of historic homes and structures.
  
  
• That Historic Sites and Structures be distinctly and properly identified, and that definite ordinances be created to ensure the preservation of these sites. That prior losses have gone unchecked, and that this can not continue.
  
  
• That "Overlay Districts" be created to identify and preserve our natural, historic and cultural resource areas, as are employed in various means by all the other Counties surrounding Henrico.
  
  
• That the infrastructure necessary for new development be in place prior to the start of development of any areas which do not currently contain the completed water and sewer systems necessary to support such growth.
  
  
• That Varina should also be seen as an entry point to Richmond, and should be sensitively planned as such and adapted to be more visually inviting, by playing up our historic, natural, and cultural assets including the Rt. 5 corridor.
  
  
• That a County-promised visitors center focusing on local history be created at the intersection of Route 5 (New Market Road) and 295.
  
  
• That Henrico actually follow through on promises to create buffered scenic corridors: 'The James River Corridor', 'The Osborne Turnpike Corridor' among others.
  
  
• That Henrico address existing problems which have been repeatedly promised and yet not acted upon, including existing drainage, school, and roadway problems.
  
  The topics repeated most often included: Environmental Protection/ Open Space Preservation, Historic Site and Structure Identification and Protection, Transportation (Roadways) Planning and Mass Transit Planning.
  
  The number one topic of the evening, on which more time was spent in open discussion than any other, was the need for PDR (Purchase of Developmental Rights) and TDR (Transfer of Developmental Rights) programs in Henrico, as a way to protect and preserve endangered forested and undeveloped lands for future generations.
  
  Apparently Varinians do not like the terms "underutilized", "passed over", or "vacant" just one bit.
  
  Residents stood up and said in many different ways that they moved here or live here because they love Varina the way it is. Monday night, many people said, "I was born in Varina".
  
  With MDC's Greg Dale as emcee, myriad questions from the audience repeatedly focused on the need for Developmental Rights programs. After the first few questions were put forth, Mr. Dale explained the reasoning that he had been given for the lack of support of these programs by the current Board of Supervisors:
  
  He said that the current focus reflected in the 2026 Plan draft comes from the Supervisors support of "fiscal responsibility", and that money for such programs would have to come from "somewhere".
  
  But Varina residents hammered away at the issue, pointing out that many areas in Virginia, including Virginia Beach had found that as a locality that it was less expensive to keep Open Space open, because the creation of the infrastructure necessary to support development of such areas was much too expensive.
  
  Dale countered by saying that he was not voicing disagreement, that these programs do work elsewhere, but that the Supervisors had not previously supported them, and went on to ask "Do you really want to raise taxes?"
  
  Dale's response was disingenuous- a scare tactic that has been seen many other times in this part of the county. Threats of imminent domain, and the past run created by the County's supposed desire to change the minimum buildable parcel size in areas zoned A-1 for agriculture are similar in tone. Bullying threats which do not sustain the sustainable growth currently supported across our nation.
  
  Is this planning for the future, or planning for development alone? And this is how our tax dollars are being put to use? Shameful, just shameful. We had hoped for much more creative thinking.
  
  After all, it has been shown that the Open Space in Varina that lack infrastructure cost the County less than the rising 16 cents (reported by Donati) that Henrico County must now pay out over and above each tax dollar taken in for the creation of the infrastructure necessary to support new developments.
  
  That Varina and other districts currently have enough problems that have repeatedly required and yet have been met by no address or solution, without the creation of further problems to top them off.
  
  That even though those representing Henrico County apparently had to be told repeatedly that the PDR and TDR programs were seen as one possible solution that bears further study, Mr. Dale seemed to continue to shoot these suggestions down.
  
  Giving examples of why Developmental Rights programs would not work, Dale was met with a number of responses from the audience, among the best were "Where there's a will, there's a way", ..that there were many creative possibilities available to make these programs work, and didn't Henrico understand that this is what the Varina residents were asking of County Officials?
  
  At some point, one resident must have heard the phrase "Henrico County doesn't want" one too many times, and raised their hand to address those up front with the statement: "The last time I checked, the residents ARE Henrico. We are Henrico!"
  
  Sometime soon after that, one by one residents began to rise from their seats in small numbers to begin using each of their five green dot stickers to vote for the points they supported among those on the walls.
  
  These five votes each resident made should help to determine "where Henrico goes next" regarding Varina in the Comprehensive Planning Process.
  
  No surprise that the vast majority of these votes will be seen to reflect the bright, fertile green that so represents Varina's agricultural past, the green that we are asking to carry with us all into her sustainable future.
  
  But as residents trickled homeward up the aisles, Varina's Planning Commissioner (and 2008 Planning Commission Chairman) Ray Jernigan could be heard telling a resident why Developmental Rights Programs would never be implemented in Henrico...
  
  Let's hope that he and his co-workers will adopt a more "can-do" approach as the Comprehensive Planning process moves forward in Varina. Let's all continue to ask the tough questions, and demand that they be answered and addressed.

_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
EPILOGUE:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________

Richmond Times-Dispatch, Lacking in Varina Again

It might be better than nothing, but not much. The following RT-D coverage of Monday night's "Varina Town Hall meeting", managed to get just inside the theatre door, but not quite far enough.

As recently as two months ago, a search of the Richmond Times-Dispatch archives for the word "Varina" brought up 32 results for East End School sports coverage, before presenting the first hint of current events in Eastern Henrico. These results may be ranked in relation to the clicks they receive from readers, but the coverage of the Varina District is still slim at best.

Melodie N. Martin should school herself in the prior works of RT-D Staff Writer Will Jones. While on the Henrico desk, Mr. Jones covered the real issues concerning growth and the results of rampant sprawl in Henrico and the Richmond Region. Where is that kind of coverage when we need it now?

According to some of residents in attendance at the recent Varina Town Hall Meeting, the reporter was "not to be found" 45 minutes after the presentation started. Residents had walked around looking for her and come up dry. Perhaps there was a more important story elsewhere in the County that she had to dash off to cover?

If she had stayed (or actually covered the "group workshop" process, if she was still there) HV would be thankful. Martin was overheard earlier this year at another Henrico meeting, telling a resident, "They (the RT-D) just assigned me Henrico, I don't really know much about it."

As it stands, we're hoping Martin will attempt to address the issues in the field with a greater measure of depth in the future. Bone up! Dig a little- it's not like you have to dig too far in Varina before you hit dirt.

"Eastern Henrico growth concerns some residents"
Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 - 12:08 AM Updated: 02:26 PM

By MELODIE N. MARTIN
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

The future development of eastern Henrico County took center stage Monday night.

About 210 people gathered at the Henrico Theatre in Highland Springs for a town meeting on the proposed update to Henrico's comprehensive plan -- a guide for land use in the county through 2026.

One goal of the plan is to maintain a good balance in the county's tax base, which is currently 68 percent residential and 32 percent commercial and industrial, said Varina District Supervisor James B. Donati Jr., who called the meeting.

The proposed land-use plan has been controversial in Varina, where more growth is planned for the largely-rural area.

Greg Dale, founding principal with county-hired consulting firm McBride, Dale, Clarion, told the audience the county's population continues to grow at an annual rate of 1.5 percent and that the western end has the capacity to support growth for the next 15 to 20 years.

Lifelong Sandston resident Brenda Seal, 48, said she hoped to learn more details about the plan but was not comforted by what she heard.

"I know you have to have growth, but not everything has to be a planned community," Seal said.

"If it keeps on going this way, it will be like [western Henrico]. I might as well move farther out."

Sheila Sheppard, coordinator of the Richmond-based Partnership for Smarter Growth, said the meeting resulted from conversations a group of concerned Henrico residents had with county officials about providing an opportunity for residents to examine and discuss the plan publicly.

Sheppard said aspects of the plan that are missing or need improving include encouraging pedestrian and bicycle-friendly communities, transportation alternatives, environmental-impact analysis and more emphasis on using space within already developed areas.

But she also commended the plan for moving toward smart-growth principles.

"A lot of people in Varina want to preserve the rural character of Varina, and this area is being targeted for growth in the comprehensive plan," Sheppard said.

Responding to an audience member's comment that the plan plays down preserving rural and historic areas, Dale said that compared with the current 2010 land-use plan, the amount of rural land would be reduced by 7 percent.

"The reality is the amount of rural identified in this plan is not much less than the amount of rural in the current plan," Dale said.

"There really hasn't been a change away from rural as the prominent development plan in the area."

The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors each will conduct formal public hearings before voting on the plan.
Contact Melodie N. Martin at (804) 649-6290 or mmartin@timesdispatch.com.

Reader Reaction:
Give your opinion on this story
Click this link to go to the RT-D article

_________________________________________
_________________________________________

HV openly welcomes all readers to use this blog as a forum, to discuss the issues at hand. Check out the "How to Blog" link, listed under "A Hand Up" in the column to the right if you need any help.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________

A Hands-On 'Community Visioning Session' in Varina on Monday September 15th

Can you envision what Varina will look like in 5 years... 10 years... 20 years?
Have a look at the slide-show above, and add 126,000+ residents,
because that's what Henrico's 'Capacity Analysis' documents project.

Are you aware that between 1990 and 2006 Henrico County lost 16%
of its residual farms and forests - what the county calls “vacant land”?
That represents one percent a year- but obviously, it's on the rise..

Please come out next Monday night and
join the "working group discussion"
concerning the future of Eastern Henrico.

Next Monday, September 15th, from 7:00 p.m.,
a Hands-On "Community Visioning Session" will be held at
The Henrico Theatre,
305 East Nine Mile Road,
Highland Springs, VA., 23075

Varina residents are strongly urged to attend
this meeting, and participate in the planning
of our own District's future.
This is your opportunity to be involved.

Please download and circulate a color flyer or black and white flyer here, to help bring Varina residents out to this most important meeting.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Our Currency: Our Future, Our Environment,

In this ever dwindling economy, it should be more than apparent that you can't spend what you don't have, unless you're Henrico County that is, because Henrico is not only spending your tax dollars, they're spending your future.

Comprehensive Planning in Henrico can easily be likened to "Futures Trading", as the future of our own commodities is what is at stake. As you know if you read the local papers, the internet, and perhaps our blog, a great deal of change has been targeted for the Varina District in the drafts of Henrico County's 2026 Comprehensive Plan. Change that will not only cost residents money, but also cost us the future of our own environment.

These changes won't just affect Varina though, they'll affect all Henrico County resident's taxes, Virginia's environment, and the health and lives of future generations to come.

To create infrastructure (roads, schools, fire and police support) for new developments, Henrico County is currently spending 16 cents above each tax dollar they receive from you.

That means they (eh hem, WE) are losing money.

If 16 cents doesn't sound like much to lose, please realize how fast that can amount to millions of dollars in County spending. So, where will that extra 16 cents per tax-dollar come from? Out of residents pockets, via increased fees and taxes.

Sure, many residents would rather be playing golf, collecting stamps, or watching cable tv... but the simple fact is that commodities like "Quality of Life", "Environmental Preservation", and "Historic and Cultural Heritage", can not be bought back once they're sold, and as residents of an area seriously threatened by the loss of just those commodities, we deserve the unbiased support of our elected (and non-elected) county officials. It's painful to "get involved" sometimes, but aren't "we the people" responsible for our own future?

Among the changes forecast for Varina are: massive residential growth, a shift away from our agricultural heritage, new roadways that will further divide currently farmed and forested land... all of which are repeatedly represented as positive change by those attempting their institution.

One of the points made in the Comp Plan's "Capacity Analysis" projects residential growth to rise by about 126,000+ people by 2026. Seeing that the vast majority of what the county calls "vacant land" is in the Varina District, where do you think those new residents would live? (Varina is Henrico's answer.)

"Capacity Analysis" download .pdf (large file): http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan/2026capacity.pdf

download smaller "text only" version: http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan/2026capacity(text).pdf

If you've paid attention to our county management in the past, you'll know that they repeatedly say that all of the extra money our county needs can come from "Economic Development", and that economic development is the backbone of our county. But just how much economic development can we afford? Wouldn't you rank the well-being of our residents, our environment, and our county's historic and cultural heritage above the spiraling growth of Henrico?

At some point very soon, our elected officials need to realize that sustainability needs to be the primary focus in Henrico County, not just continued growth.

After all, do you want to live on West Broad Street? It seems not, if you live in Varina. Growth has long been a concern in the Eastern part of Henrico. Just read the Richmond Times-Dispatch' May 29th, 2008 article entitled the same: 'Growth a Concern in Eastern Henrico'

Even when asked by the local government, the overwhelming majority of Henrico residents responding cited a need to control growth. "Overall, 82% of the (2005 Citizen Survey) respondents support further restricting or managing new development in rural areas not served by county sewer. Not surprisingly given such a large percentage, support was strong across all categories of respondents that were analyzed for this summary."

Yet County Planning continues to support growth alone, and there seem to be no growth restrictions or management provisions in the 2026 Plan to reflect these concerns. This is why Henrico County representatives need to hear from you, and all the residents you can rally to join in speaking up:

Next Monday, September 15th at 7:00 p.m., a "Hands-On Community Visioning Session" will be held at the Henrico Theatre, at 305 East Nine Mile Road, Highland Springs, VA 23075. Varina residents are strongly urged to attend this meeting and participate in the planning of our district's future.

The upcoming session came about through the support and planning of The Varina Beautification Committee, Envision Henrico, and The Partnership for Smarter Growth, as well a the care and effort of many Varina residents.

This past spring, Henrico County held a series of Comprehensive Planning meetings, one in each of the five county districts. Varina residents outnumbered those in attendance at any of the other open-houses. Why? Because Varina residents have the most to lose as a result of the changes proposed in the 2026 Plan.

During the past several years, as Supervisors and Planners have worked on the Comprehensive Plan, there have been no public meetings to allow for the inclusion of residents, or to address local concerns. Though in the RT-D article on Henrico Growth (linked above) we find:

"Henrico Planning Director Joe Emerson disagrees. He said details of the proposed plan are available on the county's Web site, in county libraries and at the planning department. Before voting on it, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will each conduct formal public hearings on the plan, he said."

""I think the process has been open and continues to be open," Emerson said."

But open process involves more than quietly making documents available to the public. True public process involves asking the people what they want, and applying their answers to fit their needs too.

Those would be the needs of the people who pay county employees salaries... the needs of those who live in the county, who support their own communities, who care about their neighborhoods, their children, and the future of the land on which they live, learn, and play.

The infrastructure necessary to support current residents should be addressed first and foremost, not just the new support systems needed to allow for future residents, who have yet to come.

As other than the Open-House meetings mentioned above, and the results of a Citizen Survey which administered county-wide in 2005, there has been no call for, or allowance of actual public inclusion in Henrico's 2026 Comprehensive Plan draft. To date, the current Comprehensive Plan draft shows little, if any County Planning response to the Citizen Survey results.

So, in late July, a petition requesting "expanded public process" for the draft 2026 Henrico County Comprehensive Plan was presented to Varina Supervisor Jim Donati, Ray Jernigan, and two members of the planning staff by an ad hoc delegation of concerned citizens: Charlie Finley, Lynn Wilson, Bob Gary, and Jane Koontz. These citizens suggested that Henrico County "partner" with community organizations in pulling together a Varina community-facilitated public meeting, prior to the formal public (2026 Plan) hearing before the Planning Commission. Which is yet another meeting that calls for your future attendance.

As a result of the efforts of the ad hoc delegation, Varina Supervisor Jim Donati has since agreed that 'Community Visioning' will be the focus of the Varina Town Hall meeting on September 15th, also present that evening will be a 'facilitator' from the consulting firm McBride, Dale and Clarion; the firm still under contract with Henrico for the 2026 plan.

Notices for Monday's meeting now in circulation ask that residents "Mark your calendars for this most important event and help us get the word out!" and go on to say ..We want Varina to know "growth is targeted for Varina, and how Henrico County is planning for future Land Use and Transportation in our neighborhoods. We also want to convey this meeting to be much more than the limited county "Open Houses" in May, that citizens are encouraged to participate in the planning process on September 15. The meeting will involve breaking up into small focus groups, then reconvening to share results, which the facilitator and planning staff will compile and share with us later."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Another set of recent fliers circulated by ROOT (Residents of Old Osborne Turnpike) reads as follows:

"Hello Neighbors,

There's good news and bad news. First, the bad:

* Between 1990 and 2006 Henrico County lost 16 % of its residual farms and forests - what the county calls “vacant land.”

* The draft 2026 Henrico Land Use Plan re-labels even more farmland as "suburbs", paving the way for more houses, more cars, and a whole lot less of the open land that has characterized this county for the last 400 years.

The good news?

* So many of us have stood up to protect Varina that government officials are finally listening.

* In 2005 Henrico conducted a survey in which 82% of respondents said they “support further restricting or managing new development in rural areas.”

* Jim Donati admitted in a Style Weekly cover story that “'If you put houses on, say, a 500-acre field, you have to build a new school for that and hire more police officers and maybe build a new fire station.' Add in water and sewer service, and the county ends up losing money, spending $1.16 per $1 of income."

(To read the entire story click on http://styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=17349).

* To make sure Varina's future is shaped by Varina residents, not by real-estate developers, like-minded neighbors and neighborhood associations (including ROOT) have joined forces to create Envision Henrico.

So...please join us on September 15th at the Henrico Theatre as we discuss with Jim Donati and other county representatives what Varina has been, what it is, and what we want it to be."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Planning for the future of the county in which we live should involve the active participation of all of us. It should be by residents input and desires that Henrico's future is shaped. If you have any questions about what we may otherwise lose, scroll down and review some of the posts listed in the Historic Varina "Blog Archive" in the column on the right.

Think about why you moved to Henrico while you have a look at our county from the air

Where you see gray instead of green is where continually unchecked development has removed the natural surface of the earth, resulting in deforestation, watershed pollution, and overcrowding to name only a few. Most of us agree that green is better than gray when it comes to the environment in which we live, work and play.

So come out next Monday night and speak up in favor of green, speak against the light pollution that accompanies development, speak for sustainable growth. If you can't get a sitter, bring your children, and let them see what public process is all about; let the county see your children, whose futures their plans will affect. Speak for yourself, speak for your neighbors, speak for future generations, but speak now please, as this is no time to hold your peace.

______________________________________________________________________

Want to learn more about the growth projected in the current draft of Henrico's 2026 Comp Plan?

Read HV's February post: "Future Density and Varina, How much growth can we afford?"

Read what happens when even those who stand up in concern continue to go unheard:
"Varina Cell-Tower Case Draws Interest"
"Despite Concerns, Wyndham Expansion Approved"

______________________________________________________________________

Summer Blockbuster: Turf War depicted in Style

Perhaps some of you missed the amazing recent Style Weekly cover story written my Nicole Ellis, if so- we cop it here with a deep hat-tip for you below, or you can read it in Style. Nice to see some local coverage with teeth. (The image is provided with thanks to our local artist : 'indigenous')

"Where the Grass is Greener"

"In the region’s big land grab, property owners are discovering that when it comes to protecting their land, there are other forces at play."
by Nicole Anderson Ellis

"Eric Archer loves his land. He loves his grapevines and the pecan trees he’s tended since they were just ankle-high. He loves his house, a one-story, brick-and-stone cottage his father built with his own hands. He loves every inch of the fields and forest that he, at 71 years old, finally paid off last spring. Yet even as he takes full ownership of the ground beneath him, he’s seen his property rights eroding at the hands of his elected officials.

“I’ve wandered this land since I was 3 years old,” Archer says. “I can find my way around in the pitch-black night.”

Beyond his property line, however, in the southernmost tip of Chesterfield County, the area is becoming unrecognizable.

“This was a farming county,” Archer says. “It’s amazing how much is gone.” He smoothes out a worn map of the area of his father’s original purchase. The sepia paper is labeled in neat cursive and dated 1916.

“Across the creek was a 180-acre farm,” he says. “That’ll be houses soon. There’s a 203-acre dairy farm up the road that’s set to be 300 houses.” He taps the paper. “This was a farm. This was a farm. This was a farm.”

Archer looks up and points across his driveway to an open field. “The boy that owns that now … I guess he’s waiting till it’s worth a million dollars.”

Farm owners have the right to sell their land to developers. Archer gets that. What he doesn’t get is what happened to his right to keep his own land green.

In an effort to protect his property from future development, Archer has run up against a system that undermines state conservation tools and prioritizes the desires of developers over Virginia’s family farmers. The situation has landowners across the Richmond region wondering when it became OK for their elected officials to make off with their property rights.

Open spaces aren’t just fading from old maps. U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics show that the Richmond region — including the counties of Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, Goochland, New Kent and Powhatan — is losing its fields and forests faster than anywhere else in Virginia. More than an acre of green space disappears each hour. That’s the equivalent of an area the size of Maymont being converted to a subdivision every four days.

“We’re using too much land,” says Bob Lee, executive director of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. “At the current rate of land conversion, more land will be lost in the next 40 years than in all the years since Jamestown.”

“We lived here 50 years before we saw our first turkey,” says Archer, gazing across his field. Today they’re regular visitors, crowding onto his property as surrounding farmland disappears. Across the region, development and urban sprawl has driven wildlife, including deer, bear and coyote, into developed areas.

The land rush has also driven up property taxes. In 2006 Chesterfield County assessed Archer’s 41 acres at $96,000. This year his assessment topped $154,000, a leap that leaves Archer stumped. “If someone’s got enough money to spend $300,000 on a house down the way,” he says, “what’s that got to do with me?”

Archer and his wife had always planned to pass their land to their children, but the recent trends made them worry. “I’d like to preserve this land,” he says. “But by the time [our children] retire, the taxes’ll be so high they’ll have to sell it.”

So when Archer read an article in Progressive Farmer magazine about conservation easements, the idea resonated. Here was a way to protect his land long after he was gone: “I figured if I put down an easement, then [my kids] won’t be tempted.”

Easement is a legal term for a right to use a piece of property. People who work in land conservation like to explain easements by talking about sticks. Buying land, they say, is like buying a bundle of sticks. Each stick is a right. The property rights that come with a land purchase depend on local laws, but generally include the right to build a house and limit who can enter the property. For larger parcels, they may include the right to subdivide property and change how it will be used — for example, from a farm to a suburban cul-de-sac.

One way that states encourage the preservation of open space is by allowing property owners to relinquish some of the “sticks,” or rights, to their property. Every conservation easement is different, but most forfeit the right to subdivide land. The agreement is legally binding and perpetual. The land remains private. It can be inherited, sold or donated, but the conservation easement and its restrictions endure through every transfer.

To encourage this form of voluntary conservation, the government has created tax incentives, including a federal charity-gift deduction, federal estate-tax exemptions and state tax credits (the nation’s best, according to Lee). In addition, by lowering property values, easements can lower taxes paid by the owner.

Before they can tap into these benefits, however, landowners need to find a nonprofit or government agency willing to serve as a land trustee and hold their easements.

In Virginia the vast majority of conservation easements — roughly 80 percent, or 500,000 acres — are held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. “It’s the largest public land trust in the nation,” foundation easement specialist Philip Reed says.

That’s a lot of responsibility, which includes ensuring that land use restrictions are followed and, when necessary, defending easements in court. Legal challenges are rare, but in 2003 the Virginia Outdoors Foundation had to fight an attempt by current owners to subdivide an 81-acre parcel in Chesterfield. It had been protected by an easement since 1976, when then-owner Mary Moody Northen relinquished the development rights. The foundation won that battle and the land remains as Moody wanted: green.

Such victories bolster the faith of easement supporters, including Gov. Tim Kaine, who touts voluntary easements as Virginia’s best tool for land conservation. “There’s not much we do in public office that can’t be undone or changed, but conservation easements are forever,” Kaine told a gathering of farmers and landowners at a forum in South Boston in December.

At the start of his term Kaine committed to preserving 400,000 acres of open space in Virginia by 2010. Halfway to his deadline, the Department of Conservation and Recreation reports that 250,000 acres have been saved. Some of that land was bought for public parks, but the vast majority is private property — land that Virginians decided to, in part, give away.

At the heart of the conservation easement program is the belief that pieces of land are not interchangeable; that each piece of land offers unique value in its unique location. When Virginians put an easement on their property, it isn’t because they want to save some land; they want to save that land.

As state Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources Nikki Rovner told those attending the South Boston forum, “There are three reasons why Virginians get conservation easements: Because they love their land. Because they love their land. Because they love their land.”

But easements work only if property owners can find a willing land trust, a task some local governments are making more difficult every day.

Lynn Wilson lives on 312 acres along the Chickahominy River. Her husband grew up on the property. Her brother-in-law’s family lives next door. Her own sister is down the lane. They are all, to use Wilson’s word, “unified” in their decision to get a conservation easement on the land. It’s plenty large enough, includes productive forestry lands, contains wetlands, is in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (like all counties in the Richmond region) and occasionally turns up shards of Powhatan pottery that has archaeology teams scurrying for a grant.

Wilson has every reason to expect the Virginia Outdoors Foundation to accept her family’s application for a conservation easement.

That is, if Henrico County doesn’t scuttle the deal.

As outreach coordinator for the nonprofit Capital Region Land Conservancy, Wilson spent her days teaching landowners about conservation easements and connecting them with likely holders of those easements. She’s the person Eric Archer, of Chesterfield, called when he decided to preserve his land.

“When a landowner calls,” Wilson says, “the first thing a prospective holder would do, regardless of the size of the property, is take the address and look at the [locality’s] comprehensive plan.” That’s because the code of Virginia requires any conservation easement to be compatible with that plan.

“That’s a state law that everybody has to abide by,” says Reed, of the outdoors foundation. “Basically, if the county does not support an easement, we can’t accept it.”

“Your land is not as much yours as you think it is,” Wilson says. “I’ve lived on this farm for 25 years and I’ve been asleep at the wheel. Before I accepted this job, I never paid attention to the county planning.”

So, despite her expertise and her own plans for her family’s land, Wilson received a shock when she made a trip to the library to do some research for a local farmer interested in an easement. She wanted to find out what the county had proposed for eastern Henrico’s Varina District in Henrico’s 2026 Comprehensive Plan.

“Of course one of the first things I did was look at my own property,” Wilson says. “I zoomed in and there’s this road running through my farm. I had to leave the library. I couldn’t breathe. That was my wake-up call.”

Wilson knew, better than anyone, that if that draft version of the plan were voted into law, her family would lose the opportunity to get an easement and protect their land.

“No easement holder would knowingly take land that’s slated for development on the county’s land use plan,” Wilson says. So as localities erase farms and forests on paper through their land use plans, they eliminate the state’s most cost-effective tool for preserving open space.

Because the state requires land-use plans to be updated at least every five years, at any time some part of the region is engaged changing its plan. Hanover wrapped up one last year. Chesterfield’s getting ready. Henrico is neck deep.

At a recent open house in an elementary school gym, a few dozen Varina residents mill around easels and map books doing exactly what Wilson had done: looking up their own homes to see what the future holds.

Bill Gallmeyer was there, flipping through a desk-sized map. Gallmeyer and his son Steve farm strawberries and pumpkins on 94 acres in Henrico’s Varina District (their pumpkin patch made national news in 2006 when President George Bush surprised them with a visit). Standing in the corner of the gym, Gallmeyer finds his Berry Patch. It’s in a peach-colored swath that designates rural residential prime agricultural. That’s good news, he says. But the edge of suburban residential is shifting closer. Between 1990 and 2006 Henrico County lost 16 percent of its residual farms and forests — what the county calls “vacant land.”

The 2026 plan further reduces designated open space, although the county’s planners have yet to determine by how much. And every time the suburban designation shifts eastward, it disqualifies more land from protection.

Bill’s been farming in Varina all his life, so he’s had a ringside seat for the paving-over of much of Henrico’s fertile ground.

“I can ride down the road and point to developments with big houses and say, ‘We used to farm that and we used to farm that,” he says. “Varina District was the last open space in the county. Now it’s closing, and it’s sad to see.”

When a friend in King William County got a conservation easement, Bill proposed the idea to his family. His wife worried about the significant devaluation of their property, because land that’s blocked from development has a lower market value. For example, an 81-acre tract in the heart of Chesterfield County has a conservation easement. Its appraised value is roughly $35,000. If it were free to be developed, that figure would jump to $7 million. The property taxes paid to the county would also jump.

In the end, however, the Gallmeyers agreed on the plan. Bill contacted the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. And that’s when the dream died. Though their land satisfied multiple requirements, the foundation denied the application. The Gallmeyers’ 94 acres is divided into two parcels, both of which were deemed too small.

In April the Virginia Outdoors Foundation published an “interim protocol” detailing new selection criteria designed to “best support the Governor’s goal.”

While the agency has long prioritized larger tracts of land, it had regularly accepted smaller acreage. A third of its easements held in the Richmond region are less than 100 acres, and the agency’s selection guidelines claim “no minimum size for properties considered for easements in either rural areas or urban and urbanizing areas.”

But following Kaine’s announcement of his goal to preserve 400,000 acres by 2010, the foundation found itself racing to get that number on the books. With six easement specialists covering the entire state and with a limited budget (only a last-minute amendment to the state budget spared the foundation a half-million dollar cut this spring), the agency can only do so much. “If we can devote the same effort to save thousands of acres elsewhere,” Reed says, “we need to do that.”

In other words, the foundation must choose its easements carefully. So while smaller parcels might be considered if they offer extraordinary conservation value — they are an endangered species habitat or share a border with a state park, for example — 100 acres has become the cutoff. After 2010, that limit may drop again. But between now and then changes to land use plans may have made hundreds, even thousands, of local acres ineligible.

As an easement specialist for the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, Reed is responsible for 25 counties, including Richmond’s nearest neighbors. The sun-faded map on his dashboard speaks to hours on the road, and he recognizes farms and forests the way most people know houses on their block.

On his way to the Smith family farm in Hanover, he raps a knuckle on the driver’s side window. “They’re considering an easement.” He points to swells of green out of the passenger side. “Sod farm. I’d like to get an easement on that.” Most of the land in Hanover is exactly what the foundation’s looking for: large tracts of productive agricultural land, with historic resources, scenic value and habitat.

A half-mile before the Smith farm comes into view, the landscape is broken by 100 acres of raw red clay. A sign on the road announces Longview Estates, houses starting at $480,000. It seems houses are Hanover’s newest crop.

“We’re surrounded,” says Retta Smith, matriarch of the family. Three generations have gathered on her hilltop lawn to discuss the conservation easement that, with Reed’s help, now protects their farms.

Developers love farmland. It drains well, doesn’t need clearing and — until the next development comes — offers homeowners the sweeping views they crave. So farmers across the region are used to receiving phone calls from developers, Reed says. But they don’t bother calling the Smiths, whose 1,300 combined acres are useless as suburban land.

It was Retta’s husband, Robert Smith Sr., who first pursued an easement to protect their land. “All he thought about was keeping houses out,” Retta says. He died in the spring, but he lived to see all of his land and his sons’ land legally protected from being converted to subdivision — forever.

There are lots of qualitative values to green space: habitat, beauty and what Kaine calls “soul restoration.” There are quantitative benefits as well. Some are obvious. Combined, farming and forestry are the commonwealth’s No. 1 industry. The lure of the state’s historic and natural resources make tourism the No. 2 industry.

Some benefits are hidden. Local farms save on transportation and pollution-related costs; forests save in health and environmental cleanup costs by purifying water and air. Other benefits are counterintuitive. Statistics show open land generates income for counties, while subdivisions drain the coffers.

“If you don’t have the development, you don’t need to provide all the services,” says Jim Donati, who represents the Varina District on the Henrico Board of Supervisors.

“If you put houses on, say, a 500-acre field,” Donati says, “you have to build a new school for that and hire more police officers and maybe build a new fire station.” Add in water and sewer service, and the county ends up losing money, spending $1.16 per $1 of income.

“Residential development does not pay for itself,” Wilson says.

A field of berries doesn’t need to be educated. Cows do not commit crimes. So for every tax dollar paid by owners of open space, the county spends 35 cents in services, according to a 2004 study by the National Recreation and Parks Association. When fields are plowed under for development, that income is lost.

This math hits home with elected officials just across the line from Henrico, where Hanover’s conservation easements are embraced as a tool for fiscal conservatism.

“Hanover eats them up because they save money,” Reed says.

Saving taxpayers’ money is one reason the county’s new land use plan earmarks more than a third of the county’s 300,000 acres as a rural conservation district designated to remain green space “for the foreseeable future,” says John Hodges, Hanover’s deputy county administrator — “maybe permanently.”

“My background is in planning and the right to develop land is a community decision,” Hodges says. “We think growth should be managed so it doesn’t conflict with conservation. Conservation needs to come first.”

“People want this,” he continues. “They want to preserve our rural heritage.” At public hearings on the new plan, the only opposition to the conservation district was “that it should go further,” Hodges says, “that we haven’t set aside enough.”

Henrico County residents seem to feel the same. “I’ve never had anybody come up to me and say I’m happy they put that new subdivision up,” says Ray Jernigan, chairman of the Henrico County Planning Commission.

In 2005 the county conducted a survey in which 82 percent of respondents said they “support further restricting or managing new development in rural areas.” This value is reflected in county planning documents’ frequent references to “preserving rural character,” but concrete steps to preserve green space are hard to find, and county officials speak of suburban sprawl as a natural and unavoidable process.

“It would be great not to see any of it develop out here,” Henrico’s Donati says, “but that’s not the real world.”

Jernigan is equally pragmatic: “The law says people have a right to develop their property.” Of course, the law limits that right through zoning and permitting and land-use plans. And when asked about the limits Henrico’s proposed plan would put on property owners’ right to get conservation easements, Jernigan voices surprise. “So if it shows SR1 [suburban residential 1], you can’t put it in conservation?” he asks. “I’ve never heard that. I’d like to find out about that.”

Donati, a self-proclaimed “property-rights guy,” suggests that the problem can be remedied by retroactive amendments to the comprehensive plan on a case-by-case basis. He cites examples of exemptions the Board of Supervisors passed to allow high-density development in parts of Henrico where it conflicted with the comprehensive plan.

Such a gesture of support from the county would satisfy the law, Reed and Wilson agree. And some counties have amended comprehensive plans to accommodate easements, though it’s a lengthy process requiring two public hearings. Neither Henrico nor Chesterfield has ever made such an exception for an easement.

Chesterfield’s track record in land preservation has done little to secure the confidence of rural residents such as Eric Archer. “The county conserving land is a joke,” he says.

This reputation stems in part from state Sen. John Watkins’ high-profile attempt to overturn the conservation easement on the Mary Moody Northen property; an effort that has been unsuccessful to date.

But Watkins does not just oppose the easement on Mary Moody Northen’s family farm. He disagrees with Virginia’s conservation easement program as a whole.

“We have got what some people would call one of the best conservation easement programs in the country,” Watkins says. “I would say it’s the most liberal.”

Specifically, Watkins condemns conservation easements as “a tax-avoidance scheme” and an infringement on property rights. “If this generation made that choice, fine,” he says. “But we shouldn’t be making that choice for the next generation.”

“If you develop land, you’re tying it up forever too,” Reed counters.

But add Watkins’ opposition to the new parcel-size limits and Chesterfield’s expanding development, and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation is happy to look for land elsewhere. “We really don’t even mess in Chesterfield anymore,” Reed says. “We don’t need another Mary Moody issue.”

Indeed, the foundation recently denied an easement to owners of 119 acres at Courthouse and Hull streets, a donation that would have been the third-largest conservation easement in the county.

Yet as Chesterfield readies to tackle its own comprehensive plan, there’s evidence of a new attitude toward the county’s remaining open space.

“In Chesterfield they’ve had major changes in their board,” Wilson says. “And they’re expressing greater interest in preservation and open space.”

Archer’s heard the talk. “What’s her name? Marlene Durfee? They say she’s trying to control growth.”

Durfee’s been on the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors for only six months, but the priority she places on balancing growth with preservation has sent ripples of hope throughout the county’s rural enclaves.

“I understand the concern for property rights” Durfee says, “but counties have the authority to determine land use. We need to concentrate our attention on conservation.”

Landowners and developers are watching to see how that attention plays out in the upcoming land-use update.

For now, Archer will keep planting grain for the deer and turkey and keep hoping policies change before the last of the county becomes city. “We don’t need to cover every inch,” he says. “We need to have a little space for wildlife and the ecosystem and the whole ball of wax.”

On their farm in eastern Henrico, the Gallmeyers will continue to tend their pumpkins and berries, continue to watch subdivisions approach, continue to hope the Virginia Outdoors Foundation will change its mind about an easement before changes to Henrico’s land-use plan push that dream out of reach. “People take agriculture for granted,” Bill Gallmeyer says. People have forgotten where their food comes from, he explains. “Well,” says Bill, “build all your farmland into houses and when you get hungry you can eat your house.”

And up in Hanover, Retta Smith and her sons and grandson will milk their cows and reap their grain, knowing that no matter how far the sprawl reaches, the foundation guards the easement on their farms. “How can you call it a sacrifice,” Smith asks, “if you’re saving your land?”

She squints out over the hillside where a warm wind sifts the heavy-headed grain. Then she clucks her tongue at the approaching subdivisions. “They’ve got dollar signs in their eyes.”"

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

still want to learn more ?

"Virginia Releases State Money for Agricultural Conservation Easements"

Governor Timothy M. Kaine announced the distribution of $4,250,002 to 14 Virginia localities to preserve farmland through local purchase of development rights (PDR) programs. Calling it a historic step, the governor said the funds will benefit Virginia’s farmers, local economies, and the environment.

Former AFT Staff member and current program coordinator of Virginia’s Office of Farmland Preservation, Kevin Schmidt, will make disbursements to Albemarle, Clark, Fauquier, Goochland, Isle of Wight, James City, Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Stafford County, Frederick County, Rappahannock, New Kent County, Cumberland County and Northampton County.

According to Schmidt, “Virginia localities have done a tremendous job up to now using their own funding and some federal assistance. It is very gratifying to work with them to bring state matching dollars into the mix.” Schmidt hopes that the state match may encourage new localities to establish PDR programs, joining the 21 that already operate.

We encourage HV readers to contact the Governor's office, and ask why Henrico is missing from the list of above counties receiving PDR funding...