County set to review growth policies in '08
By Greg Pearson STAFF WRITER

Superintendent Chris Fisher helps build a new home in Glenmore Village.

With Election Day just four weeks away, the county government is already anticipating possible changes in how it manages growth. Though the new board won't be seated until January, higher-ups in the county government including County Administrator Jay Stegmaier, Deputy County Administrator Pete Stith and Planning Director Kirk Turner are already planning a review of Chesterfield's growth management practices next year. Stith oversees the departments of planning, transportation and environmental engineering.

"What we're hearing from the public and candidates [for the board of supervisors] is a tremendous concern about growth management," said Turner. "With a new board we expect to be asked to take a hard look at our practices and procedures. We'll be evaluating our whole approach, sitting down with board members, the school board and planning commission and the public to have a frank discussion about what this county wants to be."

"We think we have to do some things differently…including some of the things the candidates are saying about growth and infrastructure," said Stith. "It'll be a comprehensive evaluation." Stith declined to elaborate.

Growth - specifically residential growth - is not a new county issue. Citizen surveys conducted every two years have shown growth as a top issue, but citizens have also given the county high marks for quality of life. What appears to be new is that more candidates for supervisor are questioning how the county is managing residential growth. The county has been increasing its population at 2.5 percent annually.

And with at least two new supervisors on next year's board, that could change the board's philosophy. Supervisors Renny Humphrey (Matoaca) and Dickie King (Bermuda) are not seeking re-election. Their votes on some rezonings have been criticized.

Residential growth has pushed its way even further ahead of other issues because of timing. There are two very large growth issues on the horizon - the rezoning of Roseland and the review of the Upper Swift Creek Plan.

On Oct. 16, the planning commission is expected to take up the Roseland rezoning, which includes 5,140 new homes at the intersection of Route 288 and Woolridge Road.

This week, the supervisors could decide what to do about the Upper Swift Creek Plan, effectively determining how many homes can be built in the area that drains to the Swift Creek Reservoir.

Late last month, Humphrey and King formed the majority vote to approve rezoning for Branner Station, a 4,998-home development located near Chester. Dale Supervisor Kelly Miller voted against it while supervisors Don Sowder (Midlothian) and Art Warren (Clover Hill) abstained. Sowder and Warren wanted the case deferred for more study. If either had voted against it, the vote would have been 2-2 with one abstention, putting off another vote until this month.

"These matters, coming when they do, are bad timing," said one county staffer who declined to be named. "Branner Station and Roseland are good cases when some of the earlier, smaller rezonings were not, but [to the citizens], it's cumulative."

Both Stith and Turner were guarded in their responses about next year's review. Asked if it would be focused on roads and schools, "We'll look at all the issues," replied Turner.

While many residents simply want to halt growth until road improvements are made and classroom trailers disappear, several county leaders, including the county attorney, have said state law doesn't allow a moratorium on residential rezonings.

By a 3-1 vote last July, the commission added language to the Upper Swift Creek 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 authorize the county to deny a rezoning if any of the impacted schools would exceed 120 percent of student capacity. A 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 then 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."