Swift Creek Plan is approved
Businesses prevail over staff recommendations
By Greg Pearson STAFF WRITER

County supervisors passed a modified land use plan last week that the board majority said will help protect the health of the Swift Creek Reservoir.

Local businesses - predominately builders and developers - and some property owners prevailed over county staff, environmentalists and two large community associations last week as the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors passed the Upper Swift Creek Plan on a 4-1 vote. Clover Hill Supervisor Art Warren voted against the plan.

The approved plan calls for keeping the current phosphorous standards for residential (.22 pounds per acre annually) and commercial (.45 pounds); not imposing a deferred growth area; increasing road buffers from 50 feet to 100 feet; and using a western route for a possible extension of the Powhite Parkway.

The plan also allows for the county's director of environmental engineering to impose more restrictive standards if the phosphorous level exceeds .04 milligrams per liter for two successive years. The previous ordinance called for .05, but the county is anticipating the state-mandated level be reduced to .04.

The approved plan is less stringent than the initially proposed plan that called for a .16 pounds per acre limit on phosphorous runoff from residential development and setting aside 4,900 acres as a deferred growth area. The proposed standard for commercial development was also originally .16, but that was increased to .45 by county staff earlier this month before the plan was reviewed by the board last week.

The original plan was supported by the county departments of planning, environmental engineering and transportation; Hands Across the Lake (HAL), a local environmental group wanting to protect the Swift Creek Reservoir; the Responsible Growth Alliance for Chesterfield; and the Brandermill and Woodlake community associations. But the Chesterfield Planning Commission gave it a negative recommendation in July before sending the plan on to the board for consideration.

The original plan was modified by Chairman Kelly Miller and Vice Chair Renny Humphrey. Supervisors Don Sowder and Dickie King voted for the revised plan, saying they support more business growth and don't believe more commercial development in the Route 360 corridor will endanger the health of the reservoir.

The reservoir currently supplies about 25 percent of the county's drinking water.

Warren appeared dejected, his shoulders slumped over and head down as he clearly understood how the vote was going. After the vote, he asked County Attorney Steve Micas whether a new board, to be elected next month, could revisit the plan. "Yes," replied Micas.

The major issue was requiring phosphorous runoff in the 57-square-mile area, starting at the intersection of routes 288/360, to be limited to "no net increase in phosphorous runoff" or .16 pounds. Developers, their attorneys and engineers attacked the need for the .16 standard, calling for a review of the county's consultant, which predicted future amounts of phosphorous, leading to the .16 proposal. Director of Planning Kirk Turner said a peer review was not necessary, adding that "estimates of phosphorous were conservative."

For the past four years, phosphorous runoff in the reservoir has been declining. The latest data from 2006 showed phosphorous levels were down to .009. Plan opponents used that data to argue the current standards are working.

The board also rejected a recommendation by the commission that added language making rezonings more difficult by factoring in standards for roads and schools. The road standards would have calculated 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, authorizing the county to deny a rezoning if any of the impacted schools would exceed 120 percent of student capacity. The proposed amendments were modeled after Virginia Beach and Chesapeake ordinances that the state Attorney General had said were "legally enforceable."

Though 28 people spoke during the public hearing, only about 60 people attended, which was surprising since the plan has been studied and debated for over four years. Several individual property owners objected to the proposed deferred growth area, saying it deprived them of property rights.

"Those who support the .16 really want to stop growth," insisted engineer/developer Dave Anderson.

"The basic water quality plan has morphed into growth management," agreed development attorney Jim Theobald.

Tyler Craddock, spokesperson for the Home Building Association of Richmond, called the plan "fatally flawed. Vote it down."

John Easter, speaking for the Chesterfield Business Council, an arm of the Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce, read an approved statement from the CBC, saying that the .16 level could not be maintained for residential or commercial growth. He asked rhetorically, "Is the plan for drinking water or for esthetics?"

Woodlake board member Marty Mitchell termed the staff plan "responsible and mindful growth for its citizens."

Brandermill also approved of the staff's plan and the amendments recommended by the commission. "Be proactive and not reactive," urged Ryland Reamy, president of Brandermill's board of directors.