The Chesterfield Planning Commission recently recommended tying residential development to school population. The proposal would urge officials to deny zoning requests that would put schools at 120 percent of student capacity.

Parents long have chafed at the use of trailers in the county. Authorities in Chesterfield and other jurisdictions long have struggled to strike a balance between residential and commercial development. The residential side often imposes greater infrastructure costs. Counties throughout Virginia have debated proffers and impact fees. Many ask, "How can development pay for itself?"

Regarding Chesterfield, zoning, and schools, Thursday's column by

The Times-Dispatch's Michael Paul Williams cited a spokesman for the Home Building Association of Richmond who reported that Chesapeake has adopted a similar, although not identical, policy: "If you go down there [to Chesapeake], you can see the damage it's done." Builders claim the Chesapeake policy is deterring development and eroding the city's tax base.

Although we cannot judge Chesapeake's economic standing and the fiscal health of its government (or the happiness of its residents), we do note that explosive growth has made Chesapeake Virginia's third most populous city. Trends suggest it will displace Norfolk as the commonwealth's No. 2, behind Virginia Beach. Chesapeake apparently concluded residential growth threatened to overwhelm its ability to provide essential services.

Attitudes toward growth played a decisive role in last year's magisterial elections, which saw wholesale change on Chesterfield's Board of Supervisors. The status quo lost. Voters embraced moderation. The county should be wary of overly strict conditions on residential development; it also needs to avoid the anti-growth/pro-growth swings that have distorted politics and governance elsewhere. Find the middle path. School enrollments may not be a controlling factor in zoning requests, but they are a legitimate one.