Kenwood Farms residents vent anger over Dunham plan

Faced with questions from angry residents up in arms over resurgence of a controversial housing subdivision proposed in the Quinton area of New Kent, county officials responded that little if anything can be done.

At issue is the “Dunham” development, a cluster subdivision proposal calling for 75 homes on 130 agriculturally zoned acres bordering the existing Kenwood Farms, Deer Lake, and Essex Hills subdivisions. About 30 residents from Kenwood Farms attended a Sept. 20 neighborhood meeting held at Watkins Elementary School to voice concerns and vent frustrations to county officials. And most left the meeting far from satisfied with what they learned.

“It’s a done deal,” acting county administrator Rodney Hathaway said, much to the crowd’s chagrin. Several blurted out, “So why are we here?”

Kenwood Farms resident Julie Vaisvil, an organizer of the meeting, responded that the goal is to find the best possible outcome.

Hathaway later backed off somewhat on his remark, saying the developer, Richmond-based Godsey Properties, has yet to submit engineering and construction plans. But little stands in the way of Dunham becoming reality since county law allows cluster subdivisions by right on land zoned for agriculture.

“By right” subdivision proposals are not subject to approval by county governing bodies, and county law does not require officials to notify neighboring landowners concerning the plans. The latter evoked heated comments from several Kenwood Farms residents. Most said they only learned about Dunham’s revival through newspaper accounts a month earlier.

Hathaway reiterated the county’s position regarding notification, saying officials have followed the same policy with other cluster proposals.

“We have to treat everybody the same,” he said. “It’s why we’ve been consistent with this development. I understand your concern, but our hands are tied by the code.”

“I know you’re not happy about this at all,” District 1 Board of Supervisors member Thomas Evelyn, who represents the Kenwood Farms area, told the crowd.

“I promise you there’s nothing backdoor going on about this,” he said. “It was all out in the open.”

The Dunham subdivision proposal and controversy dates back to 2009 when supervisors voted to deny a Godsey request to rezone the site to residential. In early 2010, Godsey filed suit in county circuit court seeking to have the decision overturned.

The lawsuit never reached the trial stage. Instead, negotiations between county officials and Godsey representatives resulted in the company submitting its cluster proposal last May. Since then, the county planning department has granted preliminary approval. Subsequently, Godsey dropped its suit in July.

At the Sept. 20 meeting, Hathaway told the crowd that the revised Dunham plan is better than the original, which called for 113 houses.
But some complained that the county is losing out on proffers. In the original plan, Godsey proposed proffers for schools totaling $450,000. No proffers are found in the latest plan since none are required.

“Proffers are voluntary,” Hathaway said. “By law, we cannot ask for certain proffer amounts. That’s state law.”

Roads and vehicle traffic, meanwhile, loomed as another concern for Kenwood Farms residents.

Dave Maxim said the latest Godsey proposal to connect roads in Dunham with two existing roads in Kenwood Farms would create more traffic.

“It’s going to make our neighborhood a lot more dangerous,” he said.

Neighbors, however, agreed with Vaisvil’s proposal to compose a letter to Godsey, requesting that the developer consider a variance that would narrow the connector roads thus allowing only emergency vehicles along with bicycle and pedestrian traffic to pass through. Such a variance, though, requires VDOT as well as county approval.

One neighbor, meanwhile, summed up the group’s frustration, saying, “So basically [Godsey] holds all the cards, and right now they’re all aces.”