Board approves Upper Swift Creek Plan

Page Dowdy/Chesterfield Observer The Swift Creek Reservoir provides 25 percent of the county's drinking water.

After 63 months of study and one unacceptable plan passed last year, the new Chesterfield Board of Supervisors revised the Upper Swift Creek Plan (USCP) last week on a 4-1 vote. The plan reserves about 13 percent of the 57 square miles in the northwestern section as a growth management area until more infrastructure is there and provides for transferring development rights in a countywide plan.

The plan allows the board to deny a residential rezoning if the development causes a nearby school to operate at more than 20 percent over capacity and sets minimum standards for roads and emergency services. Efforts to tighten standards for water quality were approved, including low impact designs for new residential neighborhoods.

Two board members complained that Matoaca Supervisor Marleen Durfee did not provide them changes in the plan prior to her motion. The changes were significant enough that Planning Director Kirk Turner was asked to step in and explain them.

Usually when a developer makes numerous last minute changes to his plan, the board defers action until the next meeting.

As a result, Bermuda Supervisor Dorothy Jaeckle wanted the plan deferred and voted against it. "I don't see how we can vote on the motion because it's so different from the planning commission's version," she said. "I would like a clearer picture on the amendments before I vote on them." Some of the citizens in the audience applauded.

"I don't appreciate the manner in which this has been brought before the board," agreed Midlothian Supervisor Dan Gecker. "It's a matter of courtesy." After a timely break, Gecker had his questions about the plan answered and voted for it.

During the public hearing, there was general unanimity among the 32 speakers, and 28 of them - including members of the development community who spoke in favor of the planning commission's plan - supported it. Two speakers objected to the growth management area as an infringement on their property rights, and others questioned the level of services provisions for schools and roads. One person openly opposed the USCP.

"You're taking our property hostage," charged Buddy Haycox, a Mount Hermon Road resident.

Dr. Bill Woodfin, whose credentials include working at the state's Department of Environmental Quality, said he reviewed the plan for water quality and found the scientific evidence insufficient. "There's a lack of verifi ed data," he commented, "…without peer review." Some members of the commission also questioned whether the proposed protections to keep the Swift Creek Reservoir safe for drinking water will actually accomplish that.