Planning commission meeting gets heated over big-box regulations

By Alicia Petska

Published: July 23, 2008

A persistent legal dispute over a series of new big-box regulations made for sometimes confrontational debate at Wednesday’s Lynchburg Planning Commission meeting.

“I don’t think we need to sit here and badger each other,” Chairwoman Laura Hamilton said at one point during the heated, hour-long discussion.

The commission — which has been working to get an ordinance on big-box stores passed since early 2007 — found itself hung up on a single remaining question: Does the city have the legal right to require connecting roads between commercial developments?

Connectivity, a relatively small part of the proposed ordinance, has ballooned into a big point of contention, complete with complex legal arguments on both sides.

Planning staffers support the mandate, saying it will improve customer access to stores and cut traffic along city-owned streets.

Commissioner Ted Hannon, an attorney who runs his own property management company, remains a staunch critic. He argues the measure amounts to confiscating private property to create a public road without providing just compensation, a violation of eminent domain laws.

City Attorney Walter Erwin backed up the planning staff, arguing the government is well within its rights to control the traffic generated by development.

He distributed a 22-page memo last week detailing his points. He was also on hand for Wednesday’s meeting to answer questions.

The session quickly turned into an increasingly testy stalemate, with neither Hannon nor Erwin changing their minds.

“I do not like being put in the position of being a judge between two advocating lawyers,” Commissioner Andy Sale said at one point.

City Planner Tom Martin eventually suggested to the chairwoman it was time to move on.

“You asked the city attorney for his opinion, and he gave it to you,” Martin said.

“Are you telling me to be quiet, Tom?” asked Hannon, who’d been quizzing Erwin.

“No, I’m talking to the chairwoman,” Martin replied.

In the end, Hannon won some concessions but lost the overall battle, and connectivity stayed in the proposal.

It will no longer be a blanket requirement, however. New language says the need for connections will be decided on a case-by-case basis. No such individual assessments were provided for in earlier drafts.

“It’s better than what was there,” Hannon said afterward. “At least it highlights the issues that exist. I’m still not satisfied … it’s going to work. I think they’re going to have significant problems.”

The planning commission is set to convene a public hearing on the big-box ordinance next month. Any proposal will have to go to City Council for final approval.