Walmart project approved

County officials got two-cents' worth from big wigs who've weighed in from all corners of the country, along with passionate pleas from preservationists, and hometown requests not to let Walmart build "on the battlefield." And amid the torrent of conjecture and debate between Orange County neighbors and far away folks, the question of whether county officials will approve a special use permit for a Walmart store in Orange has finally been answered.
More than 100 people spoke at the Orange County Board of Supervisors public hearing on a special use permit that would allow Walmart to build a supercenter near the intersection of Routes 3 and 20, Supervisors answered the SUP or not SUP question with a 4 to 1 vote to approve Walmart's permit. District 4 Supervisor Teri Pace cast the lone nay vote.
There have been meetings on the matter and there have been well-publicized opinions from all directions, beginning last year when county officials fast-tracked a large retail use ordinance into county code. That ordinance requires any retailer with a square footage of 60,000 or more to comply with a special use permit process.
With that so-called big-box ordinance, and as Walmart's plans progressed, came a campaign headed by historians and preservationists who claimed Walmart's presence near the Wilderness Battlefield and nearby historic resources would irreparably harm the integrity of the area where the number of casualties during the Civil War Battle of the Wilderness roughly equaled today's entire population of Orange County.
The idea that a modern-day, colossal national retailer would dare to build near the blood-soaked soil of a major Civil War battle sparked outrage from a faction which grew exponentially, and included movie stars and well-known historians. But as the fervor grew, so did confusion about precisely where the battlefield began and ended geographically.
Supervisors, at Monday's public hearing, listened as just about half of the speakers took a three-minute turn at the podium to express their support for the proposed Walmart, and its projected 300 jobs, $800,000 in sales tax revenue, and low-priced options for consumer goods.
Harry Hopkins Jr. said consumers are driving to shop in neighboring localities, and that's money that could be spent locally, instead.
"If not here, where?" Robert Johnson asked. "We need the Walmart to be a low-cost, high-quality provider of goods. If not you, who? Who's going to help us?" Johnson asked supervisors.
The property on which Walmart plans to build-just behind an existing decades-old 7-Eleven and a strip mall-has been owned by 3&20 Partners, and zoned for commercial use for nearly 30 years.
"It should never have been zoned commercial if we didn't want this here," Lake of the Woods resident Joe Fleischman said.
Some who addressed supervisors said they were confident-in spite of a number of public information campaigns to the contrary-that Walmart's proposed geographic location was safely off the actual battlefield.
"Don't listen to the red herring argument that this is on the battlefield," Somerset resident Robert Dulaney warned.
And there were a number of speakers Monday night who said they favored regulated and controlled growth (i.e. Walmart and the conditions, design guidelines, buffering and traffic and environmental stipulations to which it must adhere), rather than random, unchecked by-right building that could easily locate on the commercially zoned property, without the safeguards and conditions imposed through the big box ordinance.
"Would you rather have one decent place there?" Franklin Coverdale of Locust Grove asked, "Or five or 10 smaller places? This area has been designated for growth and we should let it grow."
Some opponents of the project said they worried that traffic associated with the store would turn eastern Orange County roads into the bumper-to-bumper, stop-and-go conditions of Northern Virginia. Many said they moved to Orange County from elsewhere in order to avoid the sprawl and urbanization they'd come to loathe in their native counties.
A few who voiced their opposition to Walmart's special use permit application said the Walmart corporation, its business practices, its labor practices and its policy of trade with overseas suppliers was unacceptable-in Orange, or anywhere else.
Raleigh Timmons used his allotted three minutes at the microphone to read supervisors a list of damning statements and statistics about Walmart and its corporate practices.
"Walmart will not save Orange," Timmons said. Instead, it would destroy the county's "gateway" and history. "Walmart is a lie," he concluded.
Lake of the Woods resident Sheila Clark said Walmart had a reputation of mistreating employees by paying low wages, providing inadequate health coverage, failing to promote women and opposing unions.
Many of those who opposed the proposed development-a few in mid-19th century costume, or dressed as Civil War generals-said a Walmart in Orange County could be an appealing prospect, but only in another location. Some speculated a spot closer to the Town of Orange was more appropriate; others suggested a location behind the existing Bloom near Lake of the Woods, or on properties farther to the west on Route 3. And passionate speakers urged supervisors to turn down Walmart's special use permit application based on the store's proximity to what they considered a national historic resource.
"This issue is not about Walmart. It's about location," Jack Snyder said. "Walmart's going to be a huge magnet in that area. It's going to attract traffic and congestion. The battlefield is a special place; we're not going to get another one. Location should be the number one issue."
Gordonsville resident Charles Edge said the Wilderness Battlefield was a resting place for those who died there, and should be regarded as hallowed ground.
"Battlefields by their very nature are cemeteries," Edge said. And the final resting place of tens of thousands was not an appropriate spot for commercial development, he added.
"Only the five of you can preserve [Civil War soldiers'] eternal resting place," John Bangs challenged supervisors.
Friends of Wilderness Battlefield volunteer Paul Donohoe said the area should be preserved for future generations. And FoWB's Craig Rains said Orange County, on behalf of the rest of America, was a caretaker of the battlefield.
But precisely where the battlefield began and ended, and what adjacent, contiguous or nearby parcels should be regarded as the battlefield-or part of the battlefield-was hard to nail down.
"The Civil War experts say that this is part of the battlefield area and I believe them," Charlie Seilheimer said.
Bangs said the entire area at Routes 3 and 20 was "highly significant" and deserves protection.
And Virginia Department of Historic Resources' Robert Carter said the parcel in question "lies squarely within the Wilderness and Chancellorsville Battlefields."
Robert Nieweg spoke on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. According to him, the site Walmart's got in mind is indeed part of the battlefield.
"We didn't make up this fact," Carter said. The area's designation as part of the nearby Civil War battlefields was determined in 1993 by a Congressionally appointed Civil War area study, he said.
Nevertheless, the study Carter referenced, and conflicting information on the subject was a source of concern for supervisors.
District 2 Supervisor Zack Burkett said there were a few "credibility issues" raised in dealing with preservationists.
A Department of Historic Resources map Burkett said he read in May clearly indicated that the proposed Walmart site was not on the battlefield, he explained. When he spoke with DHR staff in June, however, Burkett said they'd redrawn that map, and this time included not only the parcel in question, but the entirety of the Route 3 corridor.
Additionally, Burkett said he found it suspect that the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, (a group of organizations which proposed to conduct a study of potential impacts from development near the battlefields,) suggested the county negotiate with Chip King, who owns property on Route 3 adjacent to the proposed Walmart site. Burkett said preservationists' credibility came into question in that case because the King property was 850 acres with commercial zoning, which is "across from, and in some cases includes the battlefield." The proposed Walmart site, on the other hand, is 35 acres of commercially zoned land, located across Route 3 from a used car lot.
"I realize what you are against," Burkett said. "But I wonder if you realize what you are for."
And District 1 Supervisor Mark Johnson had similar doubts about preservationists' motives, based on conflicting data and geographic designations.
"I love preservation. I'm glad that we have Monticello, Montpelier, Mount Vernon, and on and on," Johnson said, "but the putrid dishonesty of the preservationists is appalling to me."
Johnson accused preservationists groups of altering their arguments as discrediting information came to light.
"The maps originally did not show this as being in the battlefield," Johnson said. "Then they said it was in the study area. Then they said it was eligible for consideration for the National Registry [of Historic Places].
But history was not dirt, Johnson said, nor blood on the earth spilled in battle. "It's not a GPS point," he said. "Our history is our people, and their deeds, and the lives they lead."
Emotionally, Johnson vowed he would never knowingly dishonor the Civil War dead.
"If I thought for an instant that putting a Walmart on that piece of land down there in any way disrespected my ancestors, your ancestors, the men that were killed, or mangled, in an instant I would say no," he said.
District 3 Supervisor Teel Goodwin said supervisors had done their due diligence-examining data, maps, figures and projections. And Goodwin said he understood battlefield preservation advocates' arguments. But isolating acreage simply because it was where blood was spilled was not the only way to honor history, he said.
Orange County Board of Supervisors Chairman Lee said the decades-old zoning on the proposed Walmart site effectively brought about businesses' right to locate there. And whether it's Walmart or not, he added, there will be business on that parcel, unless an individual or group buys the land for the purpose of preserving it. And in 20 years, since the land was designated commercial use, that hasn't happened.
"I think the current proposal, with all the conditions placed on its use is the best way to protect the battlefield," Frame said. Certainly, he reasoned, the buffering and design specifics required as a result of the large retail use ordinance are more favorable than un-checked, unmanaged by-right development.
"The special use permit for large retail uses is achieving its desired effect," Frame added. Moreover, additional businesses that locate on the Walmart site will also be constrained by the ordinance.
District 4 Supervisor Teri Pace said the county's wealth should be generated by "innovation and production," which did not include a big box store at the intersection of Routes 3 and 20. In its proposed location, Pace said, Walmart would only be a detriment to Orange County.
"We cannot sustain America's greatness with generic communities," she said.
Instead, Pace said she preferred the concept of developing the county's "gateway" with more lucrative and more compatible alternatives.
"This difficult economy will not be solved by Walmart," Pace said.