Commission questions need for two Swift Creek plans
By Greg Pearson STAFF WRITER

The planning commission and board of supervisors are still wrestling with developing a plan to protect the Swift Creek Reservoir as a source of drinking water for the county.

The Chesterfield Planning Commission last week grappled with how to comply with a June 9 deadline for a board-initiated review of the Upper Swift Creek Plan (USCP) when it is sending its own version to the board of supervisors in July. Chairman Russ Gulley was concerned that the deadline would mean the board plan would be incomplete, not have adequate citizen input and review time by the planning department, and "confuse the public."

On a narrow 3-2 vote earlier this month, the Chesterfield board majority agreed with Matoaca Supervisor Marleen Durfee on the June 9 deadline. Voting with Durfee were Chairman Art Warren and Dale Supervisor Jim Holland. Midlothian Supervisor Dan Gecker told the board "the parallel plan" serves "no useful purpose," calling it "an exercise in futility." Gecker and Bermuda Supervisor Dorothy Jaeckle opposed the motion. Last year, Gecker served as chairman of the commission.

"Some members of the commission are confused about what is going on," commented Gulley.

"The public may ask why we have two plans in the first place," observed Midlothian Commissioner Reuben Waller.

"The planning department has been reviewing the land use plan with Ms. Durfee," said Matoaca Commissioner Wayne Bass.

Durfee told the board the planning "staff has completed the work" on the plan, but the commission set a special meeting for June 9 to vote on the matter. Commissioners and staff talked about the scheduling of meetings to meet the June 9 deadline, including when to take the plan to the public and how to accommodate the legal requirements of public notices. Gulley seemed frustrated that the complete plan would likely not be ready for public discussion and not printed fully in this newspaper. The first meeting for community input is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Apr. 29 at Clover Hill High School.

The commission was also briefed on the plan's increased emphasis on water quality, land use and transportation within the plan area that starts at the intersection of routes 360/288 and goes north and west for 57 square miles.

The Environmental Engineering Department outlined ways to increase water quality so there won't be too much phosphorous runoff, protecting the Swift Creek Reservoir as a source of drinking water. Those options include having easements for water features in subdivisions, preserving vegetation on residential lots and preventing "mass grading" for developments. But Gulley noted the lack of specifics and wanted to know the phosphorous impact by having grass ditches in new subdivisions instead of sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Also missing was last year's references to being 400 pounds over the annual 2,500 pounds of phosphorous into the reservoir and how to get below that limit before more development occurs. Last year, consultant CH2Mhill told the commission that when all the approved rezoning is built out in the watershed, the reservoir will have taken in 400 pounds more than desirable.

"I want something that is quantifiable," insisted Gulley. "We never did get the information we requested…we're still not there. The overflow of phosphorous hasn't been addressed."

"Russ and I have been dealing with this for four years," commented Bass. "I don't know what the others [commission members] must be thinking."

Transportation Director John McCracken reported that his department has already met with his counterparts in Chesapeake and provided an analysis of recommendations to be used in levels of service (LOS) for roads, which could allow the board to deny residential rezonings if nearby roads aren't up to standards.

"We support any efforts to implement adequate infrastructure," said McCracken. "We're not bashful to recommend denial [for rezonings] if the infrastructure isn't there."

The difficulty, he added, is finding the right balance for road improvements paid for by developers while keeping them still economically feasible. Many in the residential development community fear that LOS for roads and schools and more stringent phosphorous standards could turn into a residential moratorium. Moreover, LOS in the USCP is being developed as the model for countywide LOS standards.

"We're looking for something that will stand up in court," reminded Gulley.