Skip to content
  • (413) 834-4284
  • [email protected]
  • 21 Grinnell St, Greenfield, Massachusetts
Search
Close
Sprawl-busters
  • Home
  • About
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Books
    • Movies
    • Home Towns, Not Home Depot
    • The Case Against Sprawl
  • Victories
  • Blog
    • Share Your Battle
  • Contact
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Books
    • Movies
    • Home Towns, Not Home Depot
    • The Case Against Sprawl
  • Victories
  • Blog
    • Share Your Battle
  • Contact
  • Uncategorized

Wal-Mart Loses Appeal Over Issue of Superstore Size.

  • Al Norman
  • July 20, 2004
  • No Comments

Size matters. Just ask three judges in Oregon who rejected a Wal-Mart this week based on incompatible size. Wal-Mart lost a second round in Hood River. The giant retailer tried to throw its legal weight around by challenging a decision last January by the Hood River County Board of Commissioners against a proposed 186,685 s.f. Wal-Mart supercenter. Wal-Mart challenged the rejection to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). On July 16th, the three judge panel affirmed the decision of the County, and ruled against Wal-Mart. The property is zoned general commercial (C-2) and located within the City of Hood River urban growth boundary. The surrounding area is a mix of low-density residential and commercial uses. An existing 72,000-square foot Wal-Mart store is located to the east. Phelps Creek flows through the property, to the Columbia River. The C-2 zone allows commercial uses subject to site plan review. To address code requirements that the “bulk and scale” of proposed development be “compatible” with buildings in the surrounding area, Wal-Mart proposed various architectural features, earth-tone building materials, landscaping and similar design elements to minimize the visual impact on surrounding properties. The City of Hood River argued that the county compatibility standard requires the county to determine that the proposed 186,685-foot structure is compatible in size with other buildings in the area. The city pointed out that the largest existing commercial use in the area is the existing 72,000-square foot Wal-Mart store to the east of the property. In December 2, 2003, the planning commission approved the application, ruling that the county compatibility standard was satisfied by minimizing visual impacts and did not require that the proposed structure be compatible in size with other buildings in the area. But the county board of commissioners elected to review the planning commission decision, and in January of 2004 reversed the planning commission decision. The Board rejected the planning commission interpretation of the compatibility standard, and agreed with the city that that standard requires the county to compare the size of the proposed building to the size of buildings in the surrounding area. Because the proposed building was two to three times larger than any building in the area, the board concluded that Wal-Mart failed to comply with the compatibility standard. Wal-Mart then appealed to the LUBA, charging that the board of commissioners misconstrued the county’s compatibility standard to require a comparison of the size of the proposed building with that of other existing buildings in the area. Wal-Mart repeated that visual compatibility, satisfied by measures that minimize the visual impacts of the proposed building, met the zoning requirements. Before the LUBA, the city argued that the county code was not limited to evaluation of visual compatibility and that the county was required to evaluate whether the “height, bulk and scale” of proposed structures were compatible with surrounding buildings. It is simply impossible, the city argued, to perform that evaluation without comparing the size of the proposed structures with existing structures in the area. The LUBA agreed with the city that the county code explicitly requires that the “height, bulk and scale” of proposed buildings must be compatible with other buildings in the surrounding area, and that “the requirement that the bulk and scale of the proposed building be “compatible” with buildings in the area clearly requires some comparison with the bulk and scale of existing buildings in the area. The county’s interpretation—that evaluation of height, bulk and scale is not limited to considering the visual impacts of the proposed building, but includes also comparison of bulk and scale — was affirmed.

This case proves you can beat Wal-Mart on the size issue. In the Hood County zoning code, compatibility means “the height, bulk and scale of buildings shall be compatible with the site and buildings in the surrounding area. Use of materials should promote harmony with surrounding structures and sites.” The Board of Commissioners found that the height, bulk, and scale of the proposed building could not be made compatible with the site and other buildings in the identified surrounding area through visual means only and that dimensional aspects of a building must also be taken into consideration. The Board found “that the bulk and scale of the building was disproportionately larger than, and therefore incompatible with, all other buildings within the identified surrounding area, thereby conflicting with the plain language of the criterion…The bulk size of the proposed building is over 3 times the bulk size and 2.5 times the scale size of the largest building within the defined surrounding area. The Board found that the difference between the bulk and scale of the proposed building and other buildings in the defined surrounding area is substantial and will, therefore, cause it to be incompatible with other buildings in the surrounding area. Based on the above, the Board finds that the design element modifications are not sufficient to meet the compatibility criteria with respect to bulk and scale size. This is another victory for the Citizens for Responsible Growth. For a copy of the LUBA decision, go to http://luba.state.or.us/pdf/2004/july04/04021.htm. For earlier stories on this topic, search this database by “Hood River”.

Like this article?

Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on Linkdin
Share on pinterest
Share on Pinterest
Al Norman

Al Norman

Al Norman first achieved national attention in October of 1993 when he successfully stopped Wal-Mart from locating in his hometown of Greenfield, Massachusetts. Almost 3 decades later they is still not Wal-Mart in Greenfield. Norman has appeared on 60 Minutes, was featured in three films, wrote 3 books about Wal-Mart, and gained widespread media attention from the Wall Street Journal to Fortune magazine. Al has traveled throughout the U.S., Barbados, Puerto Rico, Ireland, and Japan, helping dozens of local coalitions fight off unwanted sprawl development. 60 Minutes called Al “the guru of the anti-Wal-Mart movement.”

Leave a comment

Find Us

  • 21 Grinnell St, Greenfield, MA
  • (413) 834-4284
  • [email protected]

Helpful Links

  • Terms
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
Menu
  • Terms
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy

Recent Posts

CHRISTIAN SMALLS, FIRED AMZN WAREHOUSE WORKER, FILES RACE DISCRIMATION LAWSUIT. …

November 16, 2020

DUE TO THE SURGE IN CORONA CASES, WMT IS LIMITING SHOPPERS TO 5 PER 1,000 SF. A…

November 16, 2020

AMAZON RECENTLY ANNOUNCED FREE 1 HOUR GROCERY PICK UP FOR PRIME MEMBER ORDERS &g…

November 15, 2020

AFTER BEING REJECTED BY THE DEERFIELD, MA PLANNING BOARD, DOLLAR GENERAL APPEALS…

November 15, 2020

WILL TRUMP ALLOW ORACLE & WALMART TO INVEST IN TIK TOK? The deadline to ban …

November 14, 2020

AMAZON ACCUSED OF BREAKING ANTITRUST RULES IN EUROPE. “Data of 3rd-party sellers…

November 14, 2020

WALMART PET CARE NOW SELLING PET INSURANCE. My 3 year old mixed breed cat would …

November 13, 2020

WALMART’S GOING TO THE DOGS. 90 M OF ITS CUSTOMERS HAVE DOGS. You’d be Goofy not…

November 13, 2020

WALMART CASHIERS STILL LOOKING FOR A SEAT. They won a $65 M lawsuit in 2019, but…

November 12, 2020

4 DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,THE CO-FOUNDER OF HOME DEPOT SAID: “Pres…

November 12, 2020

Recent Tweets

Al Norman 2 hours ago

@saveschodack @TRexSchodack @msainat1 @Chuckjpeter @larryrulison @SteveMcNY @GwenwrightJ The document shown was written by a developer who knows a “retail distribution center” is the same as a warehouse. Schodack officials destroy neighborhoods with this obvious deceit.

Read More
Al Norman 9 hours ago

“HAVING A STABLE, RELIABLE JOB is important...a consistent, predictable schedule that makes it easy for associates to plan for all of the important things going on outside of work.” WMT workers asked for this since 1962. Profits before people. https://t.co/lXO0K8WEMG

Read More
Al Norman 9 hours ago

WAREHOUSE SPRAWL IS EVERYWHERE, “supply chain expansion” to deliver online purchases. Home Depot opens 3 new warehouses in FLA. 332,000 sf size is worse than superstore sprawl. 150 new HD warehouses nationwide. https://t.co/yZIr0i4jr4

Read More

Ⓒ 2020 - All Rights Are Reserved

Design and Development by Just Peachy Web Design

Download Our Free Guide

Download our Free Guide

Learn How To Stop Big Box Stores And Fulfillment Warehouses In Your Community

The strategies written here were produced by Sprawl-Busters in 2006 at the request of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), mainly for citizen groups that were fighting Walmart. But the tips for fighting unwanted development apply to any project—whether its fighting Dollar General, an Amazon warehouse, or a Home Depot.

Big projects, or small, these BATTLEMART TIPS will help you better understand what you are up against, and how to win your battle.