By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 22, 2007

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors decided yesterday to restrict where and how large retail stores -- so-called big boxes such as Target and Wal-Mart -- may develop in the county.

After listening to heated testimony, supervisors voted 5 to 3, with two abstentions, to require that retail developers seek permission before they build stores of 80,000 square feet or more. The goal, according to the measure's supporters, is to lessen the negative effects of big boxes, including noise, traffic and aesthetic blight.

"The bigger these big boxes are, the more impacts there will be on residential neighborhoods," said Supervisor Linda Q. Smyth (D-Providence). "And we don't have the means to review them. We need these added protections."

That sentiment was so strong among supervisors that they rejected a request by business leaders to raise the threshold for the new restrictions to 100,000 square feet -- slightly smaller than the typical Target. Supervisors did, however, agree to revisit the size in 18 months to see whether predictions of a chilling effect on retail development come true.

Board Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D) proposed the 18-month checkup in part to demonstrate that stopping big boxes is not his goal. He and other board members said they want to allow more public input and do more to guide big boxes to appropriate locations.

"A big box could be just the ticket, or it might be precisely what we don't want in a revitalization corridor," Connolly said.

A variety of community voices entered the debate during a public hearing that preceded the board's vote. Environmentalists and smart-growth advocates asked that the restrictions be strengthened to encourage bike facilities and environmentally friendly construction. A union representative for grocery workers urged passage of the bill specifically to keep more Wal-Marts out of the county, arguing that the retail giant has a history of putting grocers out of business. Business leaders testified that they were worried that the restrictions would be burdensome and scare off developers.

"This zoning amendment sends a significant anti-competitive and anti-business message," said Bill Lecos, president of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce. "We can't help but wonder: What problem is it that we're trying to solve? And why is this solution worth the price of our reputation as the premier business location in Northern Virginia?"

A few on the board agreed. Supervisor Elaine N. McConnell (R-Springfield), whose district includes a 140,000-square-foot Wegmans, objected to the idea of making it more difficult for discount stores to come to the county.

"What bothers me most is that it's going to affect the lower-income families most of all," she said.

Under the ordinance, supervisors could reject a store deemed too large for its neighborhood or the surrounding road network. They would be able to demand, in exchange for approval, less sprawling designs, multistory buildings, parking garages and pedestrian and transit access.

A shopping plaza within a residential development, for example, might be a good place for a neighborhood Safeway, Giant or Harris Teeter -- typically 50,000 to 70,000 square feet -- but a bad location for the largest Wal-Mart or Target, which can eat up as much as 250,000 square feet and attract shoppers (and traffic) from miles around.

Very few large commercial tracts remain undeveloped in Fairfax. But officials say big-box development is still possible, particularly in such aging commercial corridors as Springfield, Baileys Crossroads and Annandale.

The Fairfax proposal is similar to policies in communities across the region and nation, including Prince William and Montgomery counties. In Montgomery, as in Fairfax, the campaign to restrict stores larger than 100,000 square feet was driven in part by a union representing grocery workers.