County reconsiders tourism corridor overlay

By Hannah W. Wever

Published: May 1, 2008

After studying the planning commission’s draft ordinance for a tourism corridor overlay two years ago, county officials delayed taking definitive action; and no tourism corridor design standards, or county roads, ever made it onto the ordinance books. But there is a new board of supervisors now, and a renewed discussion of the tourism corridor overlay.
The overlay would, in effect, regulate design of development on county travel ways which provide access to significant historic structures. By creating design standards, county building codes along those travel ways—in this case, Route 3—ensure that the aesthetics are compatible with architecture of the historically significant landmarks, buildings and structures to which these roads lead. Tourism corridors are authorized by the Code of Virginia, which further specifies that the areas may be designated by local government, and review of development proposals within such corridors may be undertaken by locally designated review boards.
As originally proposed, the overlay would apply to all of Route 3 within Orange County. Additionally, it would include an area 500 feet from the right-of-way centerline of both east and west bound lanes.
“Generally speaking, there is something unique and distinct about the roadway over which you want to establish an additional layer of regulation,” Orange County Director of Strategic Planning said in 2006.
Any regulations the overlay would impose will apply to existing structures already zoned for commercial or industrial use, as well as new construction projects within the designated area.
Kendall said the county officials are once again examining the tourism corridor overlay issue with the help of the community. 
“One of the supervisors (Zack Burkett, of District 2), has asked some of the citizens in the community to look at this—some individuals who are at polar ends of the issue. They’re making some headway,” Kendall said.
The issue is whether or not Orange County can impose certain architectural, landscaping and other restrictions on future and current properties, based on the historical nature of the area. And the two polar opposites that Burkett tapped for the first stages of the project are local businessman Ken Dotson, who has successfully developed a number of Orange County properties, and Dan Holmes, who heads up the Orange County office of the Piedmont Environmental Council.
“What I’ve done is to ask Dan Holmes and Kenny Dotson to look at it and come up with suggestions that will work to keep Orange looking welcoming and not restrict trade,” District 2 Supervisor Zack Burkett explained.
The builder and the conservationist have discussed a number of measures and created a list of options that appeal to both sides of the issue, Holmes said. And he is optimistic that the two can finalize preliminary measures which the board of supervisors can put in place within the next few months, he added.
Dotson and Holmes presented an update on their joint project at an April 22 board of supervisors meeting.
Holmes told supervisors that despite his and Dotson’s inherently contradictory viewpoints, the two had managed to reach a “reasonable compromise on design standards and code language.”
The pair’s homework included intensive study of Culpeper, where an entrance corridor overlay is already implemented, Dotson explained, as well as careful review of the ordinances and regulations of Culpeper, Orange and a number of other nearby communities, he added. Some of the key topics that warranted further thought were boundary setbacks, the costs and requirements for renovation and expansions of existing buildings, and the possibility of designing an incentive-based approach.
Based on what Dotson and Holmes had found in their research, Holmes said, “Some incentive is both necessary and desirable,” to create a real-world set of design regulations.
Specific architectural design aspects within the overlay area that would be subject to regulation, Dotson and Holmes said, could be color schemes and styles, lighting, sign style and size, and landscaping. A five-member board with a landscape architect or an architect as a guiding member, they said, would serve as a review board. The board of supervisors would make the final approval.
What was vital, they added, was that the application process was not lengthy, and the system not hostile, for individuals who submit plans for development along the corridor.
Dotson’s chief concern about placing design regulations on buildings in the overlay area, he said, were unreasonably strict architectural guidelines and inflexibility, and unnecessary red tape in the review process. Those could cause builders and members of the business community to become frustrated and hesitant to invest in the region.
“It’s going to take open-minded people to implement this,” Dotson predicted.
Dotson and Holmes was optimistic their work could result in a set of guidelines that could preserve the county’s historic and natural resources without stifling the county’s economic potential. 
“This is not such a bad thing that we can’t have a reasonable ordinance,” Holmes said.
Dotson and Holmes will continue refining the code language, and will present their work to the board next month.