Roseland's Future Before the Board April 23rd

Most of us who have been following the stages of development for Chesterfield County over the last five years or so will recall the countless times the Roseland project has been brought up in converstaion at work, school meetings or cocktail parties over the holidays since the first proposal was brought forth to develop the mixed-use community that will be located between the Hallsley development on its western side and Centerpoint Office Park to its east and Charter Colony, Grove and Walton Park to its northeast along Woolridge Road.

The proposed project offers many of the things that will satisfy even the most die hard smart growther. The developers are proposing in lieu of the traditional cash proffer of 15,600 per home which is stated to be around 5,140 homes developed over the next 15 to 20 years, to provide for the design and constrcution of an elementary school, extend Woolridge Road and Powhite Parkway, provide the construction of a public library, and emergency fire and rescue station and also create a forty acre green space for park-like setting within the development. The developers have also reconfigured some the original height proposals for buildings at the bequest of the Charter Colony residents who strongly opposed any building over eight stories which was a major concern should hotels or office buildings be constructed within the mixed use development. In all the developers are proposing to accomodate the concerns of the County with regard to schools given the estimate is just under 3,000 students will eventually reside in the development and provide solutions to the roads and infrastructure concerns given its proposal would offset over 100 to 125 million dollars in estimated costs that the county would have to provide to accomodate such a development should the current cash proffer system be employed.

There can be no doubt that Roseland is a forward thinking proposal that addresses most if not all of the concerns and criticisms that have been employed by those seeking greater control of growth both within the local government and the greater community at large. That said, however, I wonder just how some members of the Board are going to rationalize this proposal in relation to some of the campaign rhetoric offered up during the last election cycle regarding developers. Citizens got a full dose in some of the hotly contested districts last Fall regarding such issues as roads, infrastructre, and large scale developments coupled with the impacts on the Upper Swift Creek plan. Developers have attempted to remedy such concerns by providing substantial green space and buffer areas that should help offset some of the issues relative to the environment that were raised in 2007 but eventhough the developers appear to have made every effort to make the proposal fit the County planning guidelines one cannot help but wonder if the development might just suffer from ill timing.

I have no doubt that such a proposal would have been approved by the last Board, but a majority of the current Board sitting for the first time after winning victory last Fall could suffer political fallout should the proposal gain endorsement. It is simply the minefield of politics to be sure, but the timing of such a proposal comes when Midlothian has already experienced explosive growth resulting in continued impacts that to many have remained unaddressed. Roseland just outside the Village of Midlothian and the proposed Cloverleaf Project in addition to Watkins seem to be creating the potential for increased commercial and residential sprawl and not less. The biggest concern for Roseland is not the proposal which appears appropriate but the impacts such a development would have on the greater community of the district and though many feel that Roseland has not been confronted with very much opposition it is important for the Board to consider exactly what such a proposal would not only do to the quality of life to residents of Roseland but to the remainder of the district of Midlothian and the county as well.

In my view the Roseland proposal demonstrates what may be the best developer proposal brought forth since Brandermill given all the particulars and the tide of development appears to be something that even this Board will have a hard time to curb given the County's needs but with Roseland , Magnolia and Watkins on the horizon Midlothian is certainly becoming a very different place than it was just a short few years ago. The Board seems content with Midlothian and Matoaca sharing the burdens of growth, be it residential or commercial, given the fact most of the County's growth is being undertaken in these two areas respectively the impacts upon the charm of the Village of Midothian will be substantial.

While a Roseland endorsement seems likely much attention will be placed upon Supervisors Ms. Durfee and Mr. Gecker and the votes cast regarding the Roseland proposal. Both elected last Fall to the Board for the first time and campaigned heavily with campaign literature referencing Republican irresponsibility and lack of oversight with regard to growth now sit faced with a very difficult vote to cast. I wonder will their be enough political will for them to oppose just a measure that will impact the community for some twenty years or will the likelihood of being afforded the opportunity to get schools constructed upfront early in the developmental stage as well as road improvements and widenings completed before the project comes on line full swing be too much to vote down.

There is no doubt this one for some may be a complete no-brainer but I have come to understand recently that both Ms. Durfee and Mr. Gecker are certainly very complex politicians advocating what appears to be a new direction for comprehensive planning altogether. That said, many residents of Midothian and Matoaca voted for change in 2007 specifically because of the view that something had to be done to slow down the growth in these areas and give the School Board time to implement a new plan to alleviate our schools overcrowding issues that have been a direct result of such development proposals in the past.

In the final analysis the best case for Roseland is a 4-1 endorsement while the worst case for Roseland may be a 3-2 endorsement of the proposal. Though I know that the impacts of such a proposal will be further declining/frustrating quality of life issues for the greater community, the proposal seems poised to be endorsed by the Board of Supervisors.