County must reconsider adopted “big box” ordinance

By Hannah Wever
Review Staff Writer

Published: July 31, 2008

Orange County Board of Supervisors Chairman Mark Johnson made a last minute addition on the agenda at last week’s meeting to discuss the possibility of grandfathering a planned “big box” project on Route 3.
Apparently, the board’s last-minute draft of an ordinance requiring large-scale retailer rezoning applications to submit to a special use permit process contained unclear wording. That fuzzy language resulted in conflicts in negotiation, and a series of closed session meetings, with an applicant who was well into the submittal process with plans for a big box store on Route 3 in Orange County.
Orange County Director of Community Development David Grover explained to planning commissioners that a site plan application had been received in early June for a big box store on Route 3, on a commercially zoned site. The site plan for a Wal-Mart store was submitted by JDC Ventures, LLC, of Burke, Virginia, according to Grover.
“There is no indication on the plans or the accompanying documentation of the identity of the specific retailer,“ Grover said.
The site plan submitted by JDC Ventures, he added, includes a 141,000-square foot building. But for now, the application process has gone back to the developer; three items on the application were incomplete, Grover said. 
When the board voted, the ordinance passed in June by a 4 to 1 vote. Johnson cast the dissenting vote.
“I think the board needs to be a little bit more open on this process,“ Johnson said at last week’s meeting. Use of overly restrictive and stringent guidelines prevents business owners-whether a national chain, or not-from following through with plans to open a retail operation, he said.
“We’re trying to retroactively impose a template,“ Johnson said. “In the past, if you’ve had something substantially completed in terms of your plan, you were considered grandfathered.“
District 2 Supervisor Zack Burkett explained that despite his vote in favor of the big box ordinance, he’d had second thoughts since then. What bothered him the most, he said, was the manner in which the ordinance had been fast-tracked through the planning department, the planning commission and the board of supervisors.
“I think we made a bad mistake in passing the big box ordinance the way we did,“ Burkett said. “I thought at the time the Route 3 project was grandfathered, and I still believe it should be grandfathered. Because of the wording we put into it, it is not grandfathered. We made a legal mistake in the way we presented the wording.“
Burkett said the language in the ordinance was not meant to “carry the force of law.“ Rather, he said, the guidelines were intended to convey county government’s recommendations for design aspects.
“We’ve been working on these guidelines and pulling out every place that it says ‘should,‘ Burkett said. “We’re trying to get this cleaned up. We’re trying to get a good set of ordinances set up.“
County attorney Todd Patrick said in order to grandfather the Route 3 project, the big box ordinance would have to be amended and revised to reflect any language changes.
Another public hearing will be held before supervisors adopt this most recent revision of the ordinance. The public hearing will likely appear on the Aug. 12 board of supervisors meeting agenda.