The Smithfield Times will be taking a different approach to Smithfield Town Council candidate questionnaires this year. Rather than sending a list of questions and publishing all questions and responses in the same print edition and online, the Times will send the candidates a single question once per week.

There will be 12 questions in total, with up to 250 words to respond to each, through Oct. 23. For the 10th week, we asked, “What do you like and dislike about the town’s current Comprehensive Plan?”

• Ninth week, Oct. 2: Did the Town Council make the right decision in February by voting to set a real estate tax rate of 16 cents per $100 in assessed value, up from the 14-cent rate set eight months earlier? Why or why not?
• Eighth week, Sept. 25: Should the mayor be directly elected by the people? Why or why not?
• Seventh week, Sept. 18: Should the Town Council accept and match Joseph Luter III’s $6 million gift to the town and agree to meet its conditions? Why or why not?
• Sixth week, Sept. 11: How big of a priority should the town make completing its 1-mile share of the Park-to-Park bicycle and pedestrian trail proposed to extend from Nike Park to Windsor Castle Park?
• Fifth week, Sept. 4: What criteria will you use when deciding whether to approve future residential development?
• Fourth week, Aug. 28: What, if anything, can the Town Council do to be more transparent with citizens?
• Third week, Aug. 21: Should Smithfield move its farmers market to the Grange at 10Main? Why or why not?
• Second week, Aug. 14: What is one challenge or opportunity for the town that has not received enough attention? Why is it important?
• First week, Aug. 7: What will be your top priority if elected?

 

---

Mary Ellen Bebermeyer

I like the four “big ideas” of the Comprehensive Plan, but the details hidden in the plan and how it’s been implemented are abysmal.

The “big ideas” are:  a walkable South Church Street, enhance mobility (ensure the town is walkable and bike-friendly, supposedly to reduce traffic), increase opportunities (more restaurants, shopping and entertainment), and stay engaged (communication through public input).

These four points are easy to understand, and most people would agree with them.

However, two specific areas of concern are South Church Street, east of the Cypress Creek bridge and West Main Street and surrounding neighborhoods.  Currently these areas are designated as “single family low density residential” and/or “retail/service.” I think many residents of these areas would be surprised that the future land use map changes both South Church Street and West Main Street (with surrounding neighborhoods) to “commercial mixed use,” which includes multifamily residential.

These are well-established neighborhoods with single-family homes that are more affordable than most in Smithfield, and both should have “walkability” as a high priority. We should not destroy these neighborhoods for commercial purposes and multifamily residential.

Changes in land use do not enhance our “small town charm” that even the Comprehensive Plan states citizens want; it would overburden our already crowded roads, making our town less walkable and less bike-friendly.

Furthermore, the plan recommends the use of special use permits and reducing setbacks, which unfortunately encourages higher density housing. I would favor a review of the Comprehensive Plan in the near future.

 

---

Jim Collins

I recently completed the training to become a Certified Planning Commissioner where we were familiarized with the requirements and lessons learned in developing such an important document.  In comparison to some of the plans reviewed, and trying to be unbiased, I believe Smithfield has one of the better ones in the Commonwealth.   The concise information and the layout of the material makes it a readable document for everyone to grasp the intended strategic approach to the future plans of our Town.

One thing that I have been discussing with the Planning Department to be improved in the next update will be how the Land Use Categories in the Future Land User Maps could be consolidated to better align with the current zoning districts.  This improvement will clear up some of the overlap in the categories and will alleviate potential confusion in the naming.

The Comprehensive Plan is a baseline document and is a snapshot in time of the current goals and objectives as well as future intentions throughout our Town.  However, this plan must remain a living document and kept updated to ensure it continually meets the citizens’ changing needs and aspirations.  When the update review begins, it will be best to have maximum participation of Town residents to ensure the document is addressing everyone’s thoughts of our future.  Citizen involvement will always improve the results.

 

---

Darren Cutler

The Comprehensive Plan is a wonderful living document for town government to prioritize decision making and planning. It is also a great resource for citizens to see how the town plans to continually improve Smithfield.

Things I like:

1. High use of citizen input to develop goals and lists of desired improvements.
2. Clear direction on ways to improve local business and recreation opportunities.
3. Guidance for town government on what the citizens they represent want!

Things I dislike:

1. Town government lack of action on Comprehensive Plan “big ideas.”
2. Focus on unwanted residential growth and increased density.
3. Effort by current government to deviate from the plan, degrading small town charm.

The Comprehensive Plan represents the citizens’ vision for what they want their elected officials to prioritize, and how. Specifically, a walkable South Church Street, mobility enhancements, increased opportunities for retail and restaurants, and most significantly staying engaged with citizens have not seen effective action!  The specific engagement section on page 46 states “Maintain high levels of citizen engagement and active participation in the community” has instead seen efforts to disregard citizen engagement and show disdain to citizens that do speak out.  

The next Town Council needs to make a newly refined effort to speak to AND LISTEN to their citizens, hear their concerns and take them into consideration before voting on controversial issues, and put citizen concerns ahead of those of wealthy developers. If I am elected, I vow to do just that!

 

---

Raynard Gibbs

This week’s question regarding what I like or dislike about the town’s current Comprehensive Plan requires a deeper understanding of its purpose. This Plan is a culmination of community input, local government feedback, and consultant recommendations, all aimed at establishing a shared vision for the town’s future. It plays a crucial role in guiding development, planning improvements, and setting expectations for our community. Importantly, the Comprehensive Plan is not a rigid document; it is designed to be a living document. This means it can be actively revised and adapted to meet the changing needs of the community as they arise. Given this flexibility, I find it challenging to identify any specific dislikes about the Comprehensive Plan. Its adaptability ensures that it can evolve alongside the community, addressing concerns and integrating new ideas over time. Ultimately, the Comprehensive Plan’s ability to transform and grow reflects the beautiful nature of our town and its residents. This ongoing evolution is a strength, allowing us to work collectively toward a vibrant and sustainable future, regardless of whether you were born here or moved here. I appreciate this responsiveness, as it demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity and progress for everyone in our community.

 

---

William Harris

The Commonwealth of Virginia requires all localities to prepare a Comprehensive Plan  to guide a coordinated and harmonious development of the territory within the municipality. It is designed to work in conjunction with other plans, such as the town’s Strategic Plan; the Capital Improvements Plan; and zoning and subdivision ordinances to set goals and guidelines for town governance for present and future action. I like that Smithfield’s plan is a “living document” that is intentionally flexible. Its guidelines and recommendations are not set in stone, but instead are intentionally open to editing, amending, or if necessary, complete revision.

Smithfield’s plan offers an overarching approach that suggests future decision making should focus on four main ideas: creating a walkable South Church Street; enhancing town-wide mobility; increasing amenities; and staying in communication with the public. Our plan also encourages well-managed residential and commercial development; a concern for protecting historic sites; an emphasis on creating green space; and addressing infrastructure needs.

My general concern about the plan is not the plan itself, but the way recent town councils have ignored the guidelines established by the plan, especially in regards to managing residential development and historic preservation. I specifically do not like the fact that in the current plan, the future land use map suggests rezoning certain mixed residential areas to commercial/retail areas, specifically current residential areas west of the intersection of Route 10 and Main Street. We must protect existing neighborhoods, not eliminate them just to create more opportunities for private enterprises.

---

Michael G. Smith

A comprehensive plan should be a long-term guide for growth and development.  A comprehensive plan is only as good as its implementation.  The four ‘big ideas’ in our current comprehensive plan are 1. walkable South Church Street, 2. enhance mobility, 3. increase opportunities, 4. stay engaged.  I support all of these in theory but we must develop short term objectives in order to achieve the long term goals.

We have the opportunity to amend the plan at any time and based on the number of approved but not built homes in our town, now is the time to amend it.  According to population projections, the plan indicates Smithfield will grow by 1,811 people in the next 20 years.  We have over 1,400 approved not build homes that will be built in the next 10 years.  Considering the 2.5 people per household, we will have an additional 3,500 people in half the amount of time the plan predicts. Our current infrastructure cannot support that growth. Our comprehensive plan must adapt to the actual growth.

As I mentioned, the comprehensive plan is only as effective as its implementation. If we continue to grant special use permits to developers, as we have for Mallory Scott and the Grange at 10Main, we will need to revise our plan more often than every five years. I voted against the SUPs for both of those projects.