Commission to vote again on Upper Swift Creek Plan
By Greg Pearson STAFF WRITER

The Upper Swift Creek Plan will be used as a guideline for how much future development will be allowed in the reservoir's watershed. It's intended to protect the reservoir as a source of drinking water for county residents.

The controversial Upper Swift Creek Plan will receive a recommendation from the Chesterfield Planning Commission on Thursday, sending it back to the Board of Supervisors for a final decision. The supervisors will be asked to hold a public hearing on the plan next month. The revisions have been four years in the making and have the development community and some affected landowners solidly opposed.

The draft plan increases the acreage for deferred growth - meaning no development can occur until sometime in the future - by 4,900 acres (see chart on page 27). It also reduces the amount of acres set aside for residential development by 8,560 while increasing the amount of commercial acreage by 2,260 acres. Of the plan area, 9,800 acres (27 percent) remain undeveloped and are zoned agriculture.

The plan area starts at the route 288/360 intersection and extends eight miles west, including the western Route 360 corridor. The plan is designed to help maintain the Swift Creek Reservoir, which provides about 25 percent of Chesterfield's drinking water.

Last week during two community meetings held at the Mt. Hermon Baptist Church, developer Buddy Sowers wanted to know why the owners of agricultural properties weren't notified of the meetings. The Richmond Home Building Association is sending out a letter to property owners in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed this week, saying the proposed plan "will almost certainly reduce the market value of your land" while "your property rights will not lessen the tax burden the county imposes on you." The association hopes to generate a large turnout at Thursday night's public hearing on the plan (see calendar listing on page 4).

"We want to educate and inform those affected property owners," said association spokesperson Tyler Craddock.

Speakers at both meetings last week complained - some bitterly - that their property rights were being denied because their land would be in the newly created deferred growth area. Some indicated legal action might be pursued.

"Deferred growth takes the right of development away," insisted farmer Bruce Moseley.

Dave Anderson, formerly a partner with the Timmons Group, who recently joined a Sowers' development company, warned of "unintended consequences that would create more sprawl…the Board of Supervisors' mandate of 60 days [for the commission] to respond is irresponsible."

Casey Sowers, the developer of Roseland, a mixed-use development of more than 5,000 homes on Woolridge Road west of Route 288, was concerned about how his project would be impacted. "Water from our site flows to the reservoir," he said.

"I'm for the plan," countered Charles Payne, a Matoaca resident who is retired. "It's time to stop growth until the infrastructure catches up."

The draft plan also proposes new ordinance amendments to enforce the plan. One would create 200-foot buffers along arterial roads for newly created residential neighborhoods. "Essentially, it's a no-build area to preserve as a setback for existing vegetation," said county planner Jim Bowling.

Amendments would also require mandatory water and sewer for rezonings but prohibit water and sewer in the deferred growth area.

Proposed amendments would also set higher standards for "no net increase in phosphorous runoff" from undeveloped land, and all new development would be required not to exceed .16 pounds of phosphorous runoff per acre annually - the amount of phosphorous that is estimated to be generated from undeveloped land. Developers and some commissioners question whether that is attainable.

That standard is particularly challenging for commercial development, which has considerable impervious surfaces - parking lots and rooftops - that create more runoff than residential. The .16 level would become the new standard in the watershed, but some developments already rezoned may be also be impacted, depending on the wording of their rezonings. Developers are anticipating more county oversight by environmental engineering after their rezoning has been approved, ensuring that the .16 level is being met.

County planners say the changes are necessary because the county is 4,000 pounds over its self-imposed phosphorous limit of 25,000 pounds annually when already approved zoning is built out. About 10 years ago, the county enacted an ordinance that required developers to limit development to .22 pounds of phosphorous per acre per year for residential and .45 pounds for commercial development to keep the in-lake phosphorous below .05 milligrams per liter.

Last month, environmental engineering outlined several methods to meet the new proposed standards, including smaller residential lot sizes and more open space. Rooftop rain from downspouts would be redirected away from streets to areas where it could penetrate the soil. Curb and gutter streets would be out in favor of natural grass ditches along neighborhood streets. Smaller rooftop areas would likely encourage two or more stories instead of single-floor plans.

Environmental engineers want an education plan for citizens, hoping for their cooperation to lower phosphorous runoff. Retrofitting some BMPs (ponds that collect runoff) might be possible in some older neighborhoods.

Environmental Engineering Director Dick McElfesh told the Chesterfield Observer his department is studying the possible dredging of Ashbrook Lake, which flows into the reservoir. The intended purpose is "to improve water quality" but a byproduct would be less phosphorous. According to Water Quality Analyst Scott Flanigan, funds from the now defunct BMP Master Plan could be used to improve water quality.

Clover Hill Planning Commissioner Russ Gulley seemed to express doubt in the current draft plan, saying, "We're under a legal mandate to send it back to the board by July 19."

"Other things need to be done to the plan if the board gave us more time," added Matoaca Commissioner Wayne Bass.

Frustrated over the amount of time the revised plan was taking, last May, the board reluctantly gave the commission another 60 days for study, drafting and getting input from the public.