Brandermill needs to update open space

Dear Editor,

As you reported in your Oct. 3 issue, the Chesterfield board will consider a revision to Brandermill's rezoning regarding open space at its board meeting later this month. While I am a member of the Brandermill Community Association [BCA] Board of Directors, it is as a resident that I write this letter. It is meant to inform the community of what has transpired with the recent amendment to the open space within Brandermill, what steps are necessary to protect our open space in the future, and to serve as a reminder to other communities to exercise vigilance in documenting their open space.

One of the requirements of the original Brandermill zoning case was that 940 acres was to remain as open space with limited uses allowed. Recently, questions raised by the BCA board prompted the Chesterfield County Planning Department to begin an analysis of our current open space acreage. Every recorded subdivision and all additional parcels not within boundaries of a subdivision were compiled and used for the analysis to ensure an accurate review. I had completed a separate analysis of Brandermill's land use for another issue, and the results of both were basically the same. There is a deficiency in required open space that creates a violation that must be addressed. The current BCA board is extremely protective of our open space. We have not sold or given away any open space. Next to the reservoir, it is our most valuable asset. This deficiency is something that has occurred within the 30+ approved amendments to the original case over the course of 30 years. This situation prompted the planning commission staff to initiate an amendment to our zoning. The application was filed on May 10 to correct the deficit and limit uses allowed within open space to those that support the fundamental nature of open space.

On July 10, the BCA and the Neighborhood Representatives Council co-hosted a community meeting where county staff explained their analysis and subsequent staff recommendation and answered several questions from residents. The BCA supported the language of the conditions at that time and spoke in favor of the amendment at the June 19 planning commission meeting. The planning commission closed the public hearing and deferred decision until August.

Sometime between June and August, the proposal changed. Specifically, the proposed conditions and staff report were modified. While this is not unheard of, usually the public hearing will be reopened to give residents in the affected community the chance to voice their opinion. In this case, the public hearing remained closed, and the planning commission recommended approval of the revised proposal at their Aug. 21 meeting.

Due to many concerns within the community and the need to balance the rights of all property owners within Brandermill, a meeting was held with two BCA Board members, [Supervisor Art] Warren and planning staff. We requested some modifications to the proposed language prior to the board of supervisors meeting. Because of the complex nature of the Brandermill zoning and time constraints of completing the addendum before the meeting, we requested a deferral to October.

This amendment is critical to the future protection of our open space, but it is equally critical for it to be specific, equitable and extensive of the spirit and intent of the original zoning. When the proper amendment is passed, any future changes to open space not specifically allowed by the amendment will only be possible through another amendment to the zoning which requires notice to adjacent property owners, the BCA and two separate public comment periods.

I wish to express sincere appreciation to Mr. Warren for his thoughtful consideration and to the residents of the community for their support as we all work to identify and protect our open space for future generations.

Andrea Epps

Brandermill