Better planning or politics?
By Greg Pearson STAFF WRITER

Lisa Billings/Chesterfield Observer Beth Conner and her daughter, Abby, feed the geese along the Swift Creek Reservoir in Sunday Park.

The Chesterfield Planning Commission last week set dates for a work session (June 19) on its version of the Upper Swift Creek Plan (USCP), followed by a community meeting on June 26 and a public hearing on July 17. Essentially, the last two dates conflict with the board of supervisors' version of the USCP, which the board is scheduled to vote on June 25.

Matoaca District representative Wayne Bass objected and was the only commissioner to vote against the commission's scheduling. On June 3, the commission will hold a public hearing on the board version and then vote on whether to recommend it to the supervisors.

Bass was critical of the commission majority and questioned the intentions of Chairman Russ Gulley. "If the purpose of the commission is to hold [the board version] up, it shouldn't be," cautioned Bass.

Gulley responded, saying he hadn't instructed any of the commissioners on how to vote on the board's version.

Gulley

Asked later if the reason there are two versions of the USCP is to establish who gets credit for it, Bass replied, "No. What the board asked the commission to do I've already been doing, so there is no reason for the delay."

The scheduling of the dueling versions was not lost on Betty Hunter Clapp, who has been involved in water issues for the Swift Creek Reservoir for at least 10 years. During the public comment period at the commission meeting, she questioned the need for a commission public hearing on its version the day after the board votes on its version of the USCP.

"It seems too political and not substantive," she commented. "…Please get the best plan to the public."

That's what Gulley feels the commission, which is an advisory body, is doing. Soon after the supervisor election last November, thenplanning commission Chairman Dan Gecker asked the commission to initiate a review of adding levels of service (LOS) to the USCP that's currently in place, and the commission held a public hearing in December. The board asked for a more comprehensive review in January.

Individual commission members - three of whom are new to the commission as of last January - are still mulling over what changes should be made and modifying their language recommendations for their plan. One potential change yet to be decided is whether the residential densities should be lowered to reduce phosphorous runoff into the reservoir. The 57- square-mile plan area starts at the intersection of routes 360/288 and goes north and west.

Last April, Gecker (now Midlothian supervisor) and Bermuda Supervisor Dorothy Jaeckle voted against the board-initiated plan. Gecker said "a parallel plan" serves "no useful purpose."

Matoaca Supervisor Marleen Durfee proposed the board's plan, which was supported by Clover Hill Supervisor Art Warren, the board's chairman. They held a community meeting on the board's version last Wednesday.

Gulley, who has been appointed by Warren five times to serve on the commission, has differences on the issue from his Clover Hill supervisor.

Though Dale Supervisor Jim Holland was the deciding vote on the board-initiated plan, he has spoken little on the subject and could become the swing vote on the board's vote on June 25.

Property purchases

During its work session, the commission briefly discussed the review of land purchases for public facilities and right-of-way. According to Right-Of-Way Manager John Harmon, the site selection committee is led by the planning department and has been overseeing site selection for schools since 1989.

Harmon acknowledged that the county has paid higher-than-market values for some public facilities sites - often because the county wants a particular site, but the property owner doesn't want to sell.

"The seller has to be compensated when he's not a willing seller," commented Dale Commissioner Bill Brown.

The seller often hikes the price when he finds out the county is the prospective buyer. The County Attorney's Office has advised the committee not to conceal the identity of the county as the purchaser. When a broker is used for the purchase, paying commissions also raises the cost to the county. Chesterfield has used eminent domain - a legal process to force a property owner to sell at a lower price - sparingly.

Electronic messages

The planning department is reviewing Chesterfield's policy on electronic message boards and will make a detailed report at next month's meeting. Policies outside of Chesterfield vary widely. "Different counties are all over the map," said Planning Administrator Greg Allen.

Increasingly, retailers, special- events businesses, county schools and churches are requesting electronic message boards. Signs at gas stations displaying the cost per gallon and time and temperature signs at local banks would not be covered by a new policy.

Upper Swift Creek Plan (USCP) timeline

Oct. 10, 2007 ........ Previous board of supervisors approves plan.

Dec. 18, 2007 ....... After board elections, planning commission initiates amendments for levels of service (LOS) for roads and schools.

Jan. 9, 2008 ........... Board initiates amendments and sends USCP back to planning commission for study to include LOS, land use, water quality, public safety and economic development. Asks for USCP to be returned to the board by March.

Jan. 15, 2008......... Following a public hearing, the planning commission recommends LOS for roads and schools.

Feb. 19, 2008 ........ Planning commission expands its version to include amendments for water quality, LOS, schools, public safety, land use and economic development and expects to have a report to board by July.

Mar. 18, 2008 ....... Planning commission forwards USCP to board, saying it is incomplete and recommends the board not adopt it.

Apr. 9, 2008 .......... Board votes 3-2 to direct planning commission to complete review and return the board version by June 9.

May 20, 2008 ....... Commission sets dates for its version: work session on June 19, a community meeting on June 26 and a public hearing on July 17.

June 3, 2008.......... Commission will hold public hearing and vote on a recommendation for the board version of USCP. Commission will continue to work on its version.

June 25, 2008 ....... After reviewing commission recommendation, supervisors are expected to vote on the board version.

June 26, 2008 ....... Commission will hold a community meeting on its version.

July 17, 2008 ........ Commission will hold a public hearing and is expected to vote on its version. That plan will then be forwarded to the board for possible action.