City Council passes big-box ordinance

Lynchburg City Council narrowly approved the new big-box ordinance Tuesday, bringing more than two years of debate and negotiations to an end.

The ordinance, which has undergone numerous revisions since it was first taken up in early 2007, allows the city to more closely regulate the development of large retail stores, otherwise known as “big boxes.”

This is the first time Lynchburg has had such an ordinance.

“I’m very happy we finally got this done,” said Councilman Michael Gillette, who originally proposed the ordinance. “This is streamlined and efficient and I think it’s going to be effective.”

“I don’t think this is going to create a burden to business,” he added.

The big-box ordinance has been criticized by some as unnecessary and detrimental to the future economic development of the city. The measure passed Tuesday on a 4-3 margin with councilmen Scott Garrett, Jeff Helgeson and Turner Perrow all dissenting because of philosophical opposition to the document.

“We need economic development and we need jobs,” Councilman Helgeson said. “Let’s not put up another barrier … This is absolutely the wrong economic time to discourage more investment in our city.”

Supporters of the ordinance said major retailers were accustomed to conforming to the different development standards of individual communities. They also said they felt the final document struck a healthy balance between the business sector’s desire for simplicity and the city’s desire to manage the negative aspects of big-box development.

The approved document defines a big-box store as a retail building with a footprint of 75,000 square feet or more. The tighter regulations only apply to new construction. Existing buildings are exempted.

Under the new ordinance, big-box stores will remain an automatically acceptable or “by-right” land use in properly zoned areas provided that they meet a series of new standards.

Requirements include making provisions for mass transit access; building a connected system of external sidewalks and internal walkways; and employing a more environmentally friendly system of stormwater management that allows at least 25 percent of all water to return directly to the soil.

The ordinance also requires developers to make provisions for cross-access between their land and adjoining commercial properties where feasible. This had previously been a major bone of contention among the city’s planning commissioners.

Commissioner Ted Hannon, a former development attorney, has repeatedly argued this particular provision constitutes an illegal taking of private property for public access without just compensation. The city attorney has staunchly maintained the standard is permissible, comparing it to other zoning regulations that require things such as sidewalks and entryways.

Council re-examined the issue Tuesday and a motion to strike the requirement was made, but it failed 4-3. The city considers cross-access between properties to be a desirable traffic management technique because it allows drivers to get from one store to another without getting back onto the main road.

Under the big-box ordinance, developers seeking an exemption to any one of the 16 different standards specified will be required to get a conditional use permit, which involves public hearings and a vote by City Council.

This final language was pared down considerably from past proposals that involved more standards and automatic public hearings.

Councilman Perrow said that while he remained opposed to the ordinance on its face, he did appreciate the changes that were made.

“When we first started out, this was a multi-page monstrosity,” he said. “Now it’s much more concise.”

Gillette said he felt council discussion on this issue had been cooperative and productive.

“I think there was some give and take from both sides, and we ended up with a better product,” he said.

In other news Tuesday, a proposal to amend the city’s parking ordinance to accommodate plans for paid downtown parking were tabled to allow staff to make some minor revisions in response to council comments. The issue is expected to come back next month.