Candidates weigh in on ‘big box’ idea

The Question:

Lynchburg officials are currently developing a “big-box” ordinance that would eliminate large-scale retail as a by-right property use in the city. Recent proposals suggest the heightened restrictions should apply to all commercial developments exceeding 50,000 square feet in area. Last month, a panel of local developers consulted by the Lynchburg Planning Commission raised numerous objections to the outlined program and sought to have the standard changed to 100,000 square feet.

Explain whether you do or do not support the idea of a “big-box” ordinance. If you do, explain what you feel should be addressed in the law and what the appropriate square-footage standard is. If you do not, explain why you feel it is unnecessary and address what, if any, measures should be taken to manage commercial development within the city.

The Answers:
Mike Gillette, Ward I
“High impact developments must be held to high standards of traffic control, environmental protection and infrastructure support. That is why I initiated the effort to create a developer friendly version of a “big box” ordinance. This ordinance should create a predictable path for development that clearly communicates expectations. Businesses that meet our standards should be approved administratively, those that don’t may then exercise their option to apply for a conditional use permit. Smart development will be fast-tracked, low quality development will be discouraged. See more at http://www.lynchburgva.gov/Index.aspx?page=4127, where you can read four year’s worth of my publicly posted comments.”

Jim Martin, Ward I
“The City of Lynchburg needs to be user friendly not only for citizens but also for developers and other groups that want to do business in the City. There does need to be reasonable restrictions as regards development and other zoning matters and I support the idea of a ‘big box’ ordinance. The 100,000 square foot standard allows more flexibility and should be the standard adopted under the ordinance. This standard should allow developers the flexibility they need for larger commercial enterprises yet makes sure that the City still has controls in place to manage development in a reasonable manner.”

Tom Shahady, Ward I
“A big box ordinance is critical to proper development of our community. It should be set between 40,000 and 50,000 square feet to capture those projects that impact all of us most profoundly. Development of this magnitude impacts the character of our city and more importantly the environment. Concerned citizens cannot always voice concern during public hearings so this ordinance provides such expression. Unfortunately we currently do not have this ordinance. Under a unanimous 7-0 vote last year, planning commission passed a big box ordinance. Council rejected it asking for more complexity. Complexity does not equal environmental and community preservation.”

Ceasor Johnson, Ward II
The Big Box Ordinance is a tool that our planning staff needs when dealing with high impact developments.  I supported this ordinance and look forward to seeing the finished product when it comes before city council.  Retail businesses that desire to locate in the city of Lynchburg should be held accountable for the increase stresses they place on existing infrastructure, the environment and increase in traffic.  Council ultimately is the watchman for making sure we are open to new business opportunities that work hand in hand with existing residential neighborhoods.

Editor’s note: Johnson’s response was not received by press time and did not appear in the print edition of The News & Advance.

David Johnston, Ward II
“I do not support a ‘big-box’ ordinance. Why target retail? Why not include industrial? We would be better served by examining each individual case. I understand the fear of too much vacancy, but I don’t believe that will be an issue as Lynchburg continues to grow. In order to expand a business-friendly environment, we should keep such blanket restrictions to a minimum. The same type of tax credits I have proposed for residential property can also be applied commercially to help keep vacancies down.”

Jeff Helgeson, Ward III
“Certainly, there are aesthetic and infrastructure issues to be addressed when considering any plan for commercial development. We want to maintain the integrity of our residential neighborhoods, while providing each citizen competitive options for purchasing goods and services, and discovering new and exciting employment opportunities. Retail businesses that desire to locate in our city provide our citizens with these benefits and much more. They strengthen the tax base and lessen the tax burden on our families. Restrictive ordinances are a bad idea. They place a greater tax burden on our cities families, while limiting the competition that keeps prices low.”

Nat Marshall, Ward III
“I support developing a ‘big box’ ordinance that balances economic growth with the needs of the people who live in the affected neighborhoods. Large scale retail developments create large scale traffic, parking and environmental issues. The suggested increase from 50,000 to 100,000 square feet would effectively exclude most new developments. A reduction, not an increase, may be worth considering. The business community expects and deserves clear, comprehensive regulations to help them make sound decisions. Lynchburg’s families equally deserve clear assurances that their homes will retain their value, and remain safe and pleasant places to live.”

Turner Perrow, Ward IV
“Smart growth is development managed to produce the best long term economic results for the city with the least adverse impact. Some of the restrictions in the proposed ordinance may drive investors away, but increasing the ordinance threshold to 100,000 square feet could offset these limitations. We need to work with groups willing to invest in our city to ensure smart growth, with minimal environmental impact, that that benefits all our citizens. As a professional engineer, I am most qualified to review this ordinance and build consensus between the City and developers in order to improve our community. http://www.TurnerPerrow.com”

Marie Waller, Ward IV
“Yes, Lynchburg does need a so-called “big box” ordinance, and City Council did the right thing when it sent the proposed ordinance back to the Planning Commission to make it more specific. A big building, whether 20,000 square feet or over 100,000 square feet, brings with it, among other things, a need to increase street and sewer capacities, a need to provide appropriate storm water runoff, and a need to minimize negative impact on the appearance of the area. These consequences affect the quality of life in our city and should be kept within reasonable bounds by our city.”

Click here for more 2008 Lynchburg City Council elections coverage