Thumbs down
Commission rejects reservoir plan
By Greg Pearson STAFF WRITER

The Board of Supervisors could hold a public hearing on the new Upper Swift Creek Plan as early as next month. The plan is intended to protect the reservoir as a source of drinking water.

The Chesterfield Planning Commission last Thursday recommended that the county board deny the planning department's controversial land use plan for the Upper Swift Creek area. The vote was 4-0 with Dale Planning Commissioner Sherman Litton absent.

The Board of Supervisors could take up the plan this week by scheduling a public hearing for as early as August. The plan area starts at the route 288/360 intersection and extends eight miles west, including the western Route 360 corridor. The purpose of the plan is to limit phosphorous runoff that drains into the Swift Creek Reservoir, which provides about 25 percent of Chesterfield's drinking water.

The most contentious aspect of the plan is a proposed amendment that requires "no net increase in phosphorous runoff" from all development in the plan area and elsewhere in the county that drains to the reservoir. Development would not be able to exceed .16 pounds of phosphorous runoff per acre annually, the same amount of phosphorous estimated to be generated from undeveloped land. Commissioners said it would be difficult for residential development to attain and almost impossible for commercial development to meet.

Wilson

By 3-1 votes, the commission also added language to the plan that would make rezonings more difficult by factoring in standards for roads and schools. The road standards, which would be overseen by the county's transportation department, would calculate safety based on the kind of road, traffic counts and type of road shoulders. The Adequate School Facility standard would apply to residential rezonings only. It would authorize the county to deny a rezoning if any of the impacted schools would exceed 120 percent of student capacity. The rezoning would pass this test if the impacted school fell below 120 percent because of a school addition or redistricting (including a new school) within one year of the rezoning.

Planning Commission Chairman Dan Gecker said these plan additions were modeled after language in ordinances now in use in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake with the "state Attorney General's opinion that they were legally enforceable."

Staff attorney Rob Robinson cautioned the commission before each vote that adding the new language "needs to be equally applied to be legally defensible."

"I think the entire plan will be sent back to the commission for more review or these amendments will be stripped out by the board," predicted Gecker.

The proposed plan also sets aside 4,900 acres of the 36,500 total acres as a deferred growth area, upsetting a number of rural property owners who are affected.

"It's an infringement on private property rights," complained Bermuda Commissioner Jack Wilson. "This area could never be developed," calling the deferred growth area "an example of bad planning."

Though community associations around the reservoir, Hands Across the Lake, and the Home Building Association of Richmond tried to turn out their supporters, the meeting room was only about half full during last week's public hearing on the plan, and just 27 persons spoke. Generally, those opposed to the plan included the business community and property owners whose land could be subdivided. Current residents typically supported the plan.

"The Upper Swift Creek Plan revision needs to be approved," said Brandermill President Ryland Reamy. He supported the new phosphorous standard, adding that citizens countywide "are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the ineffectiveness" of current growth control measures.

"We advise everyone in this process to slow down…and vote 'no' on these proposals," urged Executive Vice President David Reel of the Home Building Association.

The Chesterfield Business Council opposes the .16 phosphorous standard and questions its purpose. "Is the phosphorous limitation being proposed because it is necessary to protect the county's drinking water supply or…to protect the aesthetics of the reservoir?" asked spokesperson John Easter.

When Wilson asked the same question, the county's Director of Utilities Roy Covington said his department could treat more nutrients in the reservoir with more chemicals, but over time there could be more degradation in water quality. Too much runoff years ago caused the county to abandon the Falling Creek Reservoir as a drinking water source.

Before unanimously opposing the overall plan, the commissioners voted on the proposed ordinances separately. The only ordinance to be recommended was requiring water and sewer hookups for all rezonings not in the deferred growth area. The vote for mandatory water and sewer in the deferred growth area was 2-2. The commissioners unanimously recommended against ordinances requiring the .16 phosphorous standard and larger road setbacks in new residential neighborhoods.

Planning Director Kirk Turner supports the .16 standard, saying a combination of low impact design (LID) features and BMPs (ponds that collect runoff) on and offsite would handle most runoff. LID includes smaller residential lot sizes, more open space, redirecting rooftop rain to areas where it could penetrate the soil, and natural grass ditches along neighborhood streets in lieu of curb and gutter. Any shortfall on meeting the standard could necessitate a fee system paid by developers. It could be used for other runoff control measures including dredging the reservoir or the water areas feeding it.