Planning commission backs smaller Nansemond SWIFT plant and approves access-bridge exception for HRSD

The Suffolk Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of an amended conditional use permit (CUP2025001) for Hampton Roads Sanitation District’s (HRSD) Nansemond SWIFT (Sustainable Water Initiative For Tomorrow) enhancement and, in a separate vote, to grant an exception to the city’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area rules to allow a vehicular access bridge and associated utility conduits to cross the 100-foot resource protection area buffer.

Staff Planner Gonzalo Borge told commissioners the CUP request would amend previously approved conditions to allow a reduced plant footprint — shrinking total building floor area from about 100,606 square feet to roughly 82,391 square feet — while keeping the facility’s permitted maximum treatment capacity of 50 million gallons intact. Borge said the proposal includes process buildings, chemical buildings, pumps and enclosures, and six managed aquifer recharge wells; staff concluded the project meets UDO criteria and recommended approval with mitigation conditions.

The project’s supporters emphasized the SWIFT program’s environmental and water-supply benefits. “SWIFT is about taking water that would otherwise flow to our rivers, treating it and returning it to the aquifer,” said Fred Taylor, a Suffolk resident and small-business owner who spoke in support on behalf of HRSD. Lauren Zarevinsky, identified as HRSD’s director of design and construction for SWIFT, confirmed the facility is the Nansemond enhancement and answered commissioners’ questions about test wells and the planned closure of HRSD’s Boat Harbor facility in Newport News as part of the larger ENR/ENCP (enhanced nutrient removal) compliance strategy.

During a separate public hearing on the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area exception (CEX2025005), HRSD and its consultants asked the commission to allow a vehicular-access bridge to span Streeter Creek and wetlands between the existing southern treatment plant and the proposed northern SWIFT site. Project manager William (Bill) Balzer told the commission the bridge would carry a narrow (12-foot) travel path intended primarily for golf carts and light maintenance vehicles, and would also carry large-diameter process pipes and electrical duct banks. Balzer said the utilities would otherwise require a more disruptive open-cut crossing under the creek and that the bridge minimizes permanent disturbance to the RPA by concentrating piles at the banks and routing utilities on the structure.

Planning staff recommended denial of the bridge exception, saying Armstead Road and Field Road provide a reasonable alternative and that motorized circulation within the RPA increases long-term water-quality risk. HRSD responded that the roads are not operationally suitable for unregistered maintenance carts and that the size and number of pipes to be installed make the road route impractical; HRSD also described a mitigation package of native plantings to offset land disturbance. After questions from commissioners about pile footprint (Balzer said two 2x2-foot piles per bank, 16 square feet total in the RPA) and the scale of temporary versus permanent disturbance, the commission made a motion to approve the exception with conditions. The motion passed 7–0.

Decisions and next steps: The commission’s approval of the CUP will be forwarded to City Council with a favorable recommendation; the staff presentation indicated the item is scheduled for City Council consideration on June 18. The exception approval likewise will be transmitted to Council. Staff and HRSD noted the project remains subject to required permits, mitigation planting, and compliance with state and federal environmental regulations including EPA requirements cited by HRSD.

Discussion versus action: Staff had recommended approval of the CUP and recommended denial of the bridge exception. The commission approved both the CUP amendment and the exception; the record reflects both staff analysis and substantive technical disagreement about alternatives and RPA impacts. Commissioners’ questions focused on the scale of disturbance, utility routing, test-well locations, and operational access needs. No formal vote counts were recorded in the transcript beyond the final tallies (CUP approved 7–0; exception approved 7–0).