On third vote, planners again endorse project

The absence of two members of the Orange County Planning Commission, and inconsistencies between state code and county bylaws caused the planning commission's second vote on Walmart's special use permit application to result in a 4 - 4 tie. That would have sent the measure to the board with a recomendation for denial.
The planning commission, after its first public hearing in May, voted to recommend approval of Walmart's SUP to supervisors. Last Thursday, they voted 4 to 4 after their second public hearing. The following evening, the planning commission voted once more, this time with a 5 to 1 vote to recommend approval to supervisors.
In May, the planning commission met for a public hearing on the same SUP application: one filed by Walmart which proposes to build a 138,000-square-foot supercenter on the north side of Routes 3 and 20. The first public hearing featured about 80 speakers and after a couple of subsequent meetings, the planning commission ultimately voted 5 to 4 to recommend approval of the SUP to the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
But a procedural problem concerning public notice brought about a re-do of the planning commission's public hearing, and the second public hearing was scheduled for Aug. 20. Similarly, the Orange County Board of Supervisors public hearing on Walmart's special use permit, originally scheduled for July 27, was cancelled and rescheduled for Aug. 24. Orange County Planning Commission Chairman Will Likins scheduled the new planning commission hearing for Aug. 20, and scheduled an additional meeting Friday, Aug. 21 in case commission members required additional time to consider comments before voting, and before ultimately passing their recommendations for the SUP on to the board of supervisors.
But when the planning commission re-held its public hearing last Thursday, it arrived at a 4 to 4 tie. (District 1 planning commissioners Bill Spieden and Cory Redifer were both absent). In favor of a recommendation of the SUP were Likins, Donald Brooks, Elliot Fox and Dave Kovarik.
Brooks said he saw the issue as one of property owners' rights.
"[Walmart and developer JDC Ventures] picked a commercially zoned site. How can we deny what they are entitled to by law?" Brooks asked.
And according to Fox, if it's not a Walmart, with regulated design and conditions imposed by the large retail use ordinance, then what?
"I've heard no alternative as to what we're supposed to do with this piece of [commercially zoned] property should it be turned down," Fox said.
Walter Smith, Tom Bundy, Nigel Goodwin and Terry Apperson voted to send the special use permit forward with a recommendation for denial.
Smith said his vote reflected the opinions of his constituents not to allow Walmart to build at the proposed site.
"An overwhelming number from my district did support Walmart, but overwhelmingly, I've been asked not to vote for Walmart at this location," Smith explained.
Goodwin said he considered Walmart's bid to build to be in stark opposition to the county's comprehensive plan. The proposal threatened the comp plan's 1 percent targeted growth rate, he said. In addition, the proposed development at Routes 3 and 20 conflicted with the comprehensive plan by failing to shield Orange's rural character and historic resources, and similarly threatened them with potential traffic, environmental and impacts, he said.
Rationale aside, with the tie vote, the commission was unsure how to proceed.
Orange County Attorney Sharon Pandak advised the planning commission that according to state code, unless there's a majority vote, the planning commission's recommendation goes to the board of supervisors as a denial of the SUP. The meeting adjourned, with no official action taken as a result of the even-split vote, and no plans to meet again the following day.
Then, at the request of Orange County Board of Supervisors Chairman Lee Frame, the planning commission did indeed meet Friday, Aug. 21. This time, the commission managed a 5 to 1 vote. Commissioners Brooks, Redifer, Kovarik, Fox and Likins voted to recommend approval of the SUP, while Goodwin voted against it. Spieden, Smith, Apperson, and Bundy were unable to attend Friday's meeting.
The comments of those who spoke at last Thursday's planning commission public hearing in many ways paralleled what the planning commission heard at its May public hearing. The number of speakers however was reduced from about 80 down to approximately 30.
Those who spoke in favor of the proposed supercenter said the county would benefit from Walmart's estimated 300 jobs and $800,000 in tax revenues. Some who spoke in support of the store said they welcomed the opportunity to shop locally, instead of traveling out of county to shop.
Orange County Chamber of Commerce Director Barbara Bannar urged the planning commission to recommend approval of the SUP. The proposed store has the potential to positively affect Orange County citizens' quality of life through added job opportunities and increased tax revenues, Bannar said.
The decision before county officials was to consider "a local, simple issue on a piece of land that has already been zoned commercial," Bannar added.
Kent Higginbotham said county officials' approach to the proposed Walmart shouldn't be shadowed by public comments from high-profile campaigns, celebrities or politicians. Instead, he said, the issue at hand was about interpreting the law and property rights.
"This is about rule of law and if we don't follow the rule of law, our entire way of life will be lost. It's not about the battlefield. It's not about anything else," Higginbotham said. The questions the planning commission should consider are whether or not the land was properly zoned, and whether or not Walmart had complied with the special use permit.
"That's what's before you," Higginbotham concluded.
But speakers who urged the planning commission not to recommend approval of Walmart's special use permit warned that with the supercenter, would come increased traffic, and spikes in crime. Most who said they opposed project said they felt the store's location had the potential to destroy Civil War battlefields and other historic and natural resources.
Gordonsville resident John Floyd spoke out against the proposed store, and as an advocate for preserving the area's history. Floyd said he was suspicious of Walmart's claim that archaeological surveys and studies had not revealed any significant historical activity on the site.
"The paid employees of Walmart, shorn up by Walmart's self-described relic hunters' failure to loot anything archaeological from this site does not mean it's not historic," Floyd said.
And Ed Weems, of Locust Grove, warned county officials not to take their responsibility as stewards of the county-and the nation's past lightly.
"The board members are the caretakers of the battlefield. All of you," Weems said. "In life, you inherit things. You don't take that inheritance to Vegas and just gamble it away."
Piedmont Environmental Council Field Officer Dan Holmes claimed Wilderness Battlefield is "America's backyard," and a resource which should be preserved. The proposed Walmart, according to Holmes was more suitable at a different location, farther to the west on Route 3. As planned, he added, the store would usher in traffic and additional development that could destroy the battlefield area. An alternative site for the supercenter is the only way to mitigate the traffic impact of 6,500 trips per day, he said.
If the Walmart is built as planned-and at the location for which it's proposed, Holmes speculated it would prove to be "the nail in the coffin" which ultimately brings about the realigning of Route 20.