Roseland developers are hitting another snag in their rezoning request as Matoaca School Board member Omarh Rajah raises questions about the capacity of a proposed elementary school and its location within the development. A majority of school board members are on record as supporting Roseland, which could essentially create a small town at the intersection of Route 288 and Woolridge Road. Normally, the school board plays a limited role in rezoning decisions.

"I'm totally opposed to building an elementary school [with a capacity] for just 775 students," said Rajah. "We also need to know if there will be room for trailers or an addition. The school system is a bread ticket for new development so we know it will fill up."

Roseland's rezoning application sets aside land for an elementary school with "a minimum of 775 [students], but that's at the discretion of the school board. Smart growth pundits recognize there's a [student] limit to locating elementary schools in walk-able communities," said developer Casey Sowers.

The school system's two newest elementary schools were built to accommodate 900 students. An article entitled "Build Smart" on the smart growth section of the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site reports, "When the costs were evaluated on a per-graduate basis, smaller schools were found to successfully educate students at a lower cost than larger schools."

Roseland could produce 5,140 homes, 400 smaller carriage homes and 1.5 million square feet of office and retail space. The county estimates that when the development is built-out in about 20 years, it will generate 1,274 elementary school students, 720 middle school students and 942 high school students.

"The number of students Roseland will generate will require more than just two elementary schools," explained David Wyman, who represents the Dale District. "That concerns me more than the other issues." He acknowledged that Roseland's "school proffer fits the current county guideline."

Roseland has also proffered land for a second elementary school site but doesn't include funding for overcrowding at Tomahawk Creek Middle School, which is adjacent to the development. Tomahawk Creek opens this fall with around 1,050 students and a capacity of 1,200 students.

Proffers also don't include funding for a high school. Though it has done so in the past, the county prefers not to locate middle and high schools inside residential developments.

Roseland has agreed to pay a full cash proffer of $15,600 per home, totaling $84.2 million. Using the proffer system, Roseland would pay $5,331 per residence for schools or a total of $28.8 million. Earlier this year, Kathy Kitchen, assistant superintendent for business and finance, estimated the first elementary school tentatively scheduled to open in the fall of 2015 (based on passing a bond issue in 2012) would cost $27 million.

Sowers recommends 10 acres for the first elementary school site while the county's public facilities plan calls for 20-30 acres. A major difference, however, is that Roseland plans to build a two-story school, which requires less land.

There has been discussion that the elementary school could be located next to a park, causing Rajah to have safety concerns. "You can't control access to a school when it's next to a park," he said. But according to Sowers, the location of the school "is totally at the discretion of the school board."

Rajah also wants to know if the elementary school will have a gym. "That decision is also to be decided by the school board," replied Sowers, "but I can't imagine there wouldn't be."

Three school board members favor approval of the huge Roseland rezoning when it goes to the board of supervisors in July. In separate telephone interviews with the Chesterfield Observer last week, Chair Dianne Pettitt, Vice Chair Marshall Trammell and Midlothian District member Patty Carpenter described the case as "a win-win" for county schools.

As proposed, Roseland would build one of the elementary schools and provide a second school site or pay the county full cash proffers - at the option of the school system.

"It's better to have a large development in a planned fashion than smaller, haphazard, little neighborhoods that don't provide the same benefits," said Pettitt. "I don't have any concerns about Roseland."

"I support Roseland because it's good for the county and has the support of the school staff," said Carpenter. "They provide options - if we can't come to terms, they'll give us full proffers."

"Roseland offers us the opportunity to build 'a green school,'" added Carpenter. "…[and] they are open to discussing a larger school. I think Roseland could build us a school for less." Generally, it costs less for a private developer to build schools and roads than it does for local government.

"I think most of the school board came away from the briefing by Roseland officials feeling pretty good about what they offered," said Trammell. "As a board, we're not involved in voting on zoning cases, but we do comment when we're asked to."

The discussion about schools reemerged after county supervisors deferred the Roseland case until July 30. The 4-1 vote had the board majority following the lead of Matoaca Supervisor Marleen Durfee, who wants more time for study. Last March, the planning commission recommended Roseland for approval over the objections of Matoaca Commissioner Wayne Bass. Most of the 1,395-acre development is in his district, but his motion for deferral died for lack of a second. The planning department has also recommended approval.

By law, the board has to act on the Roseland rezoning by November.

Check out more stories in this edition of the Chesterfield Observer, now a weekly publication.