Board approves Highfield rezoning for 138-lot subdivision after heated public hearing, 3-2

The Goochland County Board of Supervisors approved RZ-202400011, a rezoning application known as Highfield, on July 1, 2025, voting 3-2 to rezone 138.52 acres along Rockville Road from Agricultural General (A-2) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) with proffered conditions.

The rezoning authorizes a 138-lot single-family development that the applicant says aligns with the county comprehensive plan’s medium-density guidance for the Centerville Village growth area. The applicant, represented by Natalie Croft of Eagle Construction, proffered multiple transportation and design commitments intended to reduce safety risks along the Rockville Road corridor, and agreed to a staged build rate and construction delay.

Those proffers are central to why the Board approved the application despite a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation to deny. The applicant proffered to: build 138 lots with about 40% open space; preserve wetlands; provide three access points (two on Rockville Road and one connection to Tuckahoe Bridge); install sprinkler systems in every new home; widen the roadway and regrade nearly a half-mile of Rockville Road to improve sight distance; provide 100-foot landscape buffers along Rockville Road (standard is 50 feet) and a 100-foot buffer along I‑64 (standard 35 feet); upsize and extend approximately 5,000 linear feet of waterline to the site; and limit new building permit applications to 36 per calendar year with no building permits submitted before 2028.

Developer representatives told the board the private cost for roadway, utility and frontage work is roughly $2–$3 million; they estimated equivalent public construction would cost $5–$6 million. Project financing, construction phasing and the developer’s agreement to complete substantial off-site and on-site improvements were cited in the staff presentation and by supporters.

During the public hearing dozens of residents urged denial or delay. Speakers raised public-safety concerns tied to Rockville Road and the Rockville–Ashland intersection, school-capacity and bus-ride concerns, and the impact on local fire-and-rescue operations. Several residents referenced a written submission from Fire Chief Ferguson opposing development of this size at the location.

John Dottore of Tuckahoe Bridge said, “I don't think we're quite there yet,” urging more work on sight lines and road capacity before new approvals. Opponents also pointed to the Planning Commission’s 5–0 denial and asked the board to defer the application until VDOT or the county funds larger corridor improvements.

The applicant’s presentation emphasized compliance with the comprehensive plan’s density recommendation and argued the proffers provide the only immediate, tangible plan to improve the most hazardous segments of Rockville Road. Natalie Croft said the applicant had “proffered road improvements on-site and off-site to improve visibility and safety of roadway conditions” and that they had reworked the plan after community meetings to reduce peak-year build volumes and to provide larger lot types and open space.

At the close of debate Supervisor Christie moved to approve RZ-202400011 “with proffered conditions as presented”; the motion was seconded and passed on a 3–2 roll call: Yes — Christie, Spoonhauer, Winfrey; No — Walters, Lyle.

The proffer package and the concept plan are recorded in the county agenda packet; the staff report notes the applicant will implement recommendations from VDOT’s 2024 Rockville Road Safety Study and add additional road reconstruction and sight-distance improvements. One condition in the proffers makes a left-turn lane at the site’s southern Rockville Road entrance contingent on the voluntary conveyance of right-of-way currently held in a Tuckahoe Bridge common-area tract; the developer proffered to construct that turn lane if the landowner agrees and an amendment to that subdivision’s proffers is executed.

Board members who voted in favor cited plan compliance, the scope of proffered roadway work, the phased build approach and the public benefits the developer tied to the rezoning. Members who voted against stressed unresolved corridor-level funding and timing questions, the Planning Commission denial, and continuing public-safety concerns.

The rezoning will be implemented consistent with the submitted proffers and the county’s land-development procedures. No litigation or permit outcomes were reported during the meeting.