Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] [music] Do you know? [music]

[music] [music] [music] Hello. [music] Hey. Hey. Thank you.

[music] [singing] [music] [music]

Here [music] I am. Here I am.

[music] [music] [music]

la. Hallelujah. [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

I'll be honest with you. tobacco. What is

that? Minity by to order the Lynchburg Planning Commission for Wednesday, December 10th, 2025. Our first order of business is the approval of our November 13th meetings. Anybody see additions or corrections need to be made? Make a motion to approve.

Second.

All right. All in favor? I I. All opposed. Great. And now we'll be moving on to um hearing petition that is open to public comment. Petitioners or their representatives will be given 10 minutes to present their petition. Subsequent individual citizens wishing to speak will be allowed a maximum of three minutes and representatives of an opposition group will be allowed a maximum of 10 minutes. At the end of the public hearing, there will be an allowance of three minutes for rebuttals. So your three minutes, the timer will go off and you'll hear it beeping. You'll know that's your time. All right. Our next order of business is a public hearing on the consideration of amending section 35.2 two of the Lynchberg zoning ordinance to create a definition for abortion clinic and to amend the definitions of hospital and medical or dental clinic to authorize abortion clinics by conditional use permit in B3 community business district B5 general business district and IN2 institutional district 2 and to establish specific zoning standards limitations and restrictions for abortion clinics. I believe Tom will be presenting this.

Uh good afternoon, planning commission. Uh for those of you who don't know me is I'm Tom Martin. I'm the director of community development. Uh gave Rachel Christmas off. Um welld deserved. Um I've spent many an afternoon in front of this commission and it's good to be back with you. Um so Chair Rogers read what the the purpose of the zoning amendments are. It's really to amend these sections to uh create regulations surrounding uh abortion clinics. Uh so what I intend to do in in my time this afternoon is just to kind of give you a summary of how we got uh to this point and uh what the proposed amendments are. So on October 14th of this year, uh, city council directed staff, uh, unanimously, uh, to initiate the process of amending the the zoning ordinance, uh, to regulate abortion clinics. Uh, the proposed ordinance amendments were based upon, uh, draft language uh, considered by council when they initiated uh, the amendment. So, it was a little unusual in that there was a draft ordinance provided to staff uh, to use as a template. Uh so right now currently in the city of Lynchburg there's no abortion clinics uh that we are aware of. Um, abortion clinics are currently permitted by Wright as an outpatient care clinic in the B1 limited business district, the B3 community business district, B4 Urban Commercial District, uh the B5 general business district, uh the IN1 institutional one and IN2 institutional 2 district. So what does the proposed ordinance do? Uh first uh on page one it defines what an abortion clinic is. Uh then it amends the definition of a hospital uh to

specify that a hospital does not include abortion clinics as well as medical or dental clinics on page 19. So it defines abortion clinics. Uh and then it goes on to say, okay, if you're in a hospital, uh hospital is not considered an abortion clinic. So the intent of the ordinance is not to regulate abortions that happen in that that setting, which is typically the second and third trimesters. Uh it amends the med definition of medical or dental clinics to say that that also does not include um abortion clinics. Moving on, uh the following sections, uh the the B3 district, uh B5 district, and IN2 district, uh it creates a new landbased classification, uh code of 6512A, which would be an abortion clinic. and those districts uh are the authorized use sections of those those districts and just specifies that an abortion clinic would be uh only be permitted upon approval of conditional use permit by city council. So the really the the bulk of the regulations are in this new section uh 35.272.28 abortion clinics. This is where the standards are set. Uh it sets standards for bo ab abortion clinics whether they're the principal use or an accessory use. Uh and that's on page 80 of your draft ordinance. Uh it again lays out that uh these types of establishments would only be allowed by conditional use permit in the B3, B5 and the IN2 districts. And then it starts setting the uh location criteria um that the abortion clinic shall not be located within a thousand feet of all these different things. So it's essentially our residential districts.

It's the fifth street uh revitalization corridor overlay district, the city's historic districts, uh James River Arts and Cultural District, churches or other places of worship, uh public libraries, any uh public or private schools, kindergarten through high school, public parks, uh children's museum, child care, day centers, uh or motel or hotels. And then it uh goes on to state that the standards would apply to any new uh relocation, enlargement, conversion of any establishment as an abortion clinic. Since the city currently has none of these types of establishments, it would apply to uh new uh clinics. Then the ordinance uh amends appendix A, table of authorized land uses. And what appendix A is is a collection of all of the different authorized uses. It breaks them out by district. So it's just again stating that these type of establishments would only be permitted by conditional use permit in uh B3, B5, and IN2 districts. Uh so that's the bulk of the ordinance. Um, so what are the key differences uh between what council submitted and uh what uh is presented to you to consider this this evening? First, I will say uh again, council directed staff to initiate these proceedings. I think they were very clear in their direction that they wanted to uh regulate these types of facilities. uh it's staff's role in this is to make sure that uh whatever is adopted is enforceable and defensible and that's the way we looked at it. Okay. Uh so we

uh with we also did have conversations with the patron of the uh original ordinance um just to let them know what our thinking was. So we uh remove the in-1 institutional district and the reason for that is the institutional one districts are for small institutions located primarily within or adjacent to residential areas. Well, if your location standards are a thousand ft from a residential area, it doesn't there's no logic in allowing them in an IN1 district because they're not going to meet the location standard. Uh, and then the addition of the B3 community business district and the addition of the B5 general business district is really to um open up more areas of the city and to make the ordinance more defensible uh in in case it's ever challenged. Um, so this ordinance does not uh create a ban on these types of facilities, but it does uh regulate the the location of these types of facilities. Uh we also um amended the proposed definition of abortion clinic to exclude family planning services. That's a enforcability issue. Um because if you have family planning services that are allowed by right uh we there needs to be the understanding that that also does not include an abortion clinic. Uh and then uh the the adding of the motel or hotel went along with the adding of the B3 and B5 district and then changing the the word business uh to establishment. Uh that's also an enforcability issue to make sure that um one couldn't argue that a nonprofit is not a business. So it was changed to establishment. Uh so with that we'd be

happy to answer any questions about the proposed language. Um but again our role was purely uh in the [clears throat] looking at the ordinance from an enforcement standpoint and also defensible. Great. Thank you. Since there isn't a group that's presenting this, we'll go on ahead and ask for public comment now. So, if you're in support of this and you want to speak, uh, now's the time to come forward, state your name, sign on the form, and would like to hear public comments. Anybody in support of this? Okay, please come forward. Uh, you'll see a form there to sign and state your name.

[clears throat]

Hi, my name Is that close enough? Okay. Hi, my name is Thomas Hill. I represent Virginia for pre-born justice and I'm a college student at Liberty University. Um, I'm here to speak in favor of this because I think it is really common sense that with some a place as controversial as an abortion clinic, a place that regularly dismembers, suctions, starves pre-born children to death, that that is something that should be brought before the city council for specific approval before coming. I also think that, you know, it's very important that we ensure that abortion clinics are not placed in places near schools, near churches, near other facilities like that. Um, you know, when we have this type of mass genocide going on in the country, when you're seeing millions of pre-born children being killed every year, I think we have a responsibility to take whatever steps we can to regulate and end that. And I think this is a great way to do that by at least giving citizens a say through their city council members on if they want an abortion clinic in Lynchburg and ensuring that there's no surprise abortion clinics. I know just about an hour from here in Vinton, Virginia, they had a similar or a situation where an abortion clinic was um ended up being built there against the will of a lot of the citizens. Even the city council was unaware until after the fact and there was nothing that could be done. And so I think taking this type of common sense action is really important. You know, we have a responsibility to stand up for all members of our human family and that includes the pre-born and I think this is a great step towards doing that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other people here to speak in support of this petition? Okay. Uh anybody here to speak against this petition?

Great. If you'd please come forward against your name and sign it, please Good luck in reading it. Thank you. Um I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Um Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission. Um I can certainly appreciate the difficulty this was for the uh for planning department and the city to to address this ordinance. that um it's a very complicated issue and I I'm I'm going to try to stay away from the moral aspects of it. It seems to me that this issue is a solution in looking for a problem that we don't have the problem in Lynchburg. We haven't had the problem in Lynchburg. And why would we make a significant amendment to the zoning ordinance to create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist? we have better things to do with our time. It is a divisive issue. It will continue to be a divisive issue. And I I particularly think that our city council, and I'm going to say this to you, but I think our city council would better spend its time on doing the service to the community as opposed to spending time on these issues that are clearly national in origin. So staying away from the moral aspect, again, I believe this is a solution that's looking for a problem that doesn't exist in the city. Um, that said, um, I'd like to say that, uh, uh, the, um, ordinance as originally drafted and still seems to be drafted, um, really intends to eliminate abortion clinics, uh,

eliminate the opportunity for abortion clinics in Lynchburg. And I will tell you something I learned from an evangelical pastor many years ago when I was in my hometown and working at a radio station. I was a dish jock, believe it or not, for a while. And on Sundays, I got to know some of the program some of the uh evangelical pastors who would come in and do programs at our small AM station. When we were developing a liquor store, when there was a movement to put a liquor store in our small town, and I'm from small town in Southwest Virginia, most people were against it. Most churches were against it. And the reality was when this one evangelical pastor stood up in a meeting and said, "I am for it because I don't want people to have to drive 35 miles to another county for a liquor and then drive back." That's a problem. I think when we deny people the medical uh medical needs that they have in a community when we're attempting to do that, especially women in this particular situation, uh by forcing them to go outside the area, I think that's a problem in all circumstances. Thank you very much.

Could you please state your name? I'm sorry. Uh Jeffrey Smith. Sorry, I apologize. Jeffrey Smith. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Please come forward.

Should see a place to sign there. State your name. Hi, my name is Risa Hayes. I live in Ward One. Um, for this issue, I could stand up here and talk about how important reproductive health is for women, but I don't think you would care. I can talk about how important uh any medical care is and limiting it would be detrimental to people's health. But again, I don't think you care. So, what I'm going to talk about is something that I think you all will care about, which is waste, fraud, and abuse. The three things that are often quoted by people who tend to be against abortion clinics. The first is waste. This is a waste of time. This is a waste of money. This is a waste of everyone's gas prices to get here because it is not an issue. There are zero abortion clinics in Lynchburg. There are zero that are trying to come to Lynchber. So, we are wasting energy. The second is fraud. This is a fraud because it is a non-issue. So, they're creating a problem to get people riled up and to to put a political stunt because elections are next year. I strongly believe that the whole reason this is brought forward is so that someone can stand there for the re-election and go, "Look at what I did. I protected Lynchberg from all the evil abortion clinics when we don't have any and there are zero coming. And then finally, abuse. This is abuse of zoning policies. Yes, it is legally allowed to pass this kind of zoning ordinance, but let's be real. This is abuse of the

loose wording of the laws. You know that this is not what these laws are put in place for. You know that this is not the intent of the law. Maybe wording you can pass it, but we know that the spirit of the law has nothing to do with limiting access to medical care. And that's what abortion care is. It's medical. And even if it wasn't a problem in that aspect, we know that there is an amendment that is most likely going to pass the House, Senate, and the governor coming up that will make reproductive freedom a constitutional uh protected right here in the state of Virginia. So, if you pass this now, do you think that the ACLU and other organizations are not going to sue the city to undo this ordinance when we have a constitution protection? So, we're just opening the city up to lose thousands of dollars in lawsuits in less than a year. So, I strongly believe that this is a again a waste of our time, a fraud for reelection, and abuse of power. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Pat O'Hara. I'm a resident of Ward 4. Um, it's been interesting hearing what uh other uh concerned citizens have had to say this evening. I was actually quite surprised when I learned yesterday that there was a proposal to amend this piece of local legislation considering that we don't actually have any abortion clinics. We haven't had any abortion clinics in town for a while and I highly doubt we'll have any abortion clinics for a while. Um, my big concern here today is how [sighs] this type of legislation and redefining what an abortion clinic is in town um would affect the ability for a business to potentially uh you know build an establishment here in town. I feel like it's um just targeting unnecessarily and unfairly this type of institution. My biggest concern however comes to how this would affect uh women's health care in states where abortion is banned. Uh women die at a higher rate during pregnancy during childirth and also after childirth because doctors are reluctant to provide that lifesaving care uh in just in the event that they would end up getting sued or having their medical license revoked for providing that life sustaining care. Um, also looking at other, uh, civil codes

in the area, I noticed presently um, abortion clinics would need to be a thousand feet away from a number of establishments. And that was a really long list on the monitor of all these different locations where abortion clinics can't be. So, it seems like it's just writing laws that make it nearly impossible to build abortion clinics. But what concerned me even more is that the legal requirement for how far away from schools sex offenders would need to be is 500 ft. So in actuality, it seems like this change in policy shows that the city is uh more concerned about denying women reproductive health care than uh protecting our children from registered sex offenders. So thank you for your time and I'm done.

Thank you very much. [clears throat]

[laughter]

Good Afternoon. Um I am Jennifer Stton. I am a resident of Ward One. Um I too am here to oppose this. I do not think that um council sent it to you because they were in support of this strict of legislation. I think they sent it to you because they think it is their job to let you figure it out whether it's a good thing for our city. um they always send things to you guys for opinions and sometimes you say yes, sometimes you say no. So, I'm really hoping that as you guys advise on this um you will tell them no, that this is not a good decision for Lynchberg. As everybody else said, it's a non-issue right now. Um I can remember back to the early 2000s when we did have a Planned Parenthood in Lynchburg. Even then, it was not an abortion clinic. It was just a doctor's office that was free. And um even that facility basically got ran out of Lynchberg. And I to my knowledge as a proud um person that supports Planned Parenthood um and women's reproductive health rights, I have not heard even the slightest mention of anybody wanting to try to come back to Lynchburg because there's just more convenient places for them to have a clinic than somewhere where there's going to be such protest and push back. So, I really, like everybody else said, we're making this a non-issue. Um, specifically, um, like I said, I live in Ward One. I live in Lockview, um, right by Pal Monroe Elementary School. My kids, um, walk to school every day of elementary school almost. Um, it was an awesome thing about being there. Um, you know, a real and that's how my neighborhood is. We walk to school. Um, almost everybody who lives in my neighborhood, even some people up on um on Gorman and other parts of Boonboro

take pride in getting up early and walking to Pal Monroe. Um, as Pat said when he spoke, the rule for sex offenders is 500 feet from schools. There's no other limits that I know of except for where they work and where they live. Um, and so in my neighborhood, I just I I printed out a map because I did want to show you um our neighborhood was pretty upset when we popped up on that sex offender registration a few years ago um for a man that newly moved to our neighborhood and had 10 counts possessing obscene materials with minor felonies. He was from Fairfax and he moved to Lynchburg right after his release. Um, the counts were in 2016. So, we're not talking, you know, something 50 years ago. We're talking about something in the last 10 years. Um, anyway, I printed out maps. I want to show you guys what this 500 ft looks like in relationship to an elementary school. And if you're sending this message, if this is the message that council wants to send, you are telling the citizens of Lynchber that you prioritize denying women health care more than you prioritize protecting children. So I really at very least change that thousand foot um message.

Thank you. Thank you guys. Do you want a copy of that? Yes.

Is there anybody else here who would like to speak in opposition? Okay. Uh do we have emails or voicemails? We have one voicemail.

All right. Is that something we can play? Thank you. Hello members of the planning commission. I am Ashton Badnel, a Lynchburg city resident residing in W 2 on Denver Avenue. I'm alone to one and have another on the way soon in February. Compelling in regards to proposed zoning amendments being discussed today amended section 35.2 of the Lynchburg city zoning ordinance. I stand in strong opposition to the proposed change [clears throat] of proposed new section 35.272.28 28 that this is intended as a total ban on any abortion clinic operating in Lynchburg and there is not to my knowledge a location that is not within a thousand feet of a residential district, historic district, arts and cultural district, church, library, school, children's museum, daycare or hotel. I understand that you and many others in the city may be opposed to abortion on principal and that is understandable. We are not talking about wars in this instance. We are talking about access to an equipped medical facility when a procedure is performed. a simple outpatient procedure that could safely be performed at a number of medical facilities and not for the controversy it faces. I read a story out of Texas where a woman was told that her baby had an is developing without a skull. This baby had no chance of surviving but because it still had a heartbeat this woman was faced with a choice. Carry to term, give birth and all the physical trauma that entailed and watch your baby die or leave not just her city but in this case her state. travel to a state with access to the procedure and end the pregnancy sooner for the sake of the mother's health and sanity. Either way, the baby dies. Either way, the mother grieavves. The differences are how much her body has to go through and how far she has to travel. There was another story, this one on Tik Tok, out of the same state where a woman who was high-risisk was told by her doctor to leave the state and spend her final trimester in a state with access to health care. She did not want her baby. She She wanted her baby desperately. did not want an abortion. But if her baby did not make it, the doctors in Texas would have had to wait

until she was near death to help her and she wasn't likely to survive that game of chicken. If an abortion was needed, not wanted, needed, would be [clears throat] of the essence to keep her alive. She cried on video. She said she was terrified because she couldn't afford to spend possibly months out of state for a number of reasons. The simple reality that abortion is an outpatient healthcare procedure and access to it when necessary is vital to the health and safety of women and to the community. which is one Lynchburg woman dies and leaves behind her children because your zoning proposal demanded she travel for the procedure and she didn't make it. You will have failed your community, you will have failed to stand up for family values and you will have failed to stand up for the downtrodden as God called you to do. My closing thought is that access to healthcare in Lynchburg is better than many small towns in this country and it still isn't great. We should not be making strides to limit access by statute. We should be attempting to attract qualified healthcare facilities and professionals as much as we can. Thank you for your time.

Okay, we'll going ahead and uh close public comment now and uh we can begin deliberation.

Okay, start. [clears throat] I have a question. Uh just just to clarify um you know there's a lot of discussion up here about are we looking for a a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Um I think it'd be good if it's possible to state the problem that that [clears throat] we're trying to address just for clarification. Is that for Tom? Well, for Tom Martin or Yes. City.

So, I'm not sure the problem. The purpose of the ordinance is to amend the zoning ordinance to regulate abortion clinics, albeit there's none existing now new clinics. Um, so that's the purpose of the ordinance. Um, my understanding is is that council would want to be able to regulate where the these types of facilities could be located and that's why they put forth the ordinance. Okay. Uh, couple of things. Uh so I'm starting one a couple of claims that might be misrepresenting things a little bit. One, the claim that this is a a solution in search of a problem. And I think that young man who spoke earlier about Venton put a little clearer point on that. Abortion clinics are not the type of thing that's put to a vote before they're built. They crop up like a mushroom in your community. it's a surprise. So language like this is specifically designed to be preventative. You you can't go back later and address it once it's already in place. So that's the first thing. Second thing is this is being presented as having been sent to us by a minority of city council members that this was just sent to us to do some unstated thing and that is not accurate either. This was sent to the planning commission uh in conjunction with city staff for the purpose of writing amendment language to address this as a potential problem. The

kind of problem that crops up when you don't expect it. So it was not 6 to1. It was 7 to zero to send it to city staff to write the language that is designed to be preventative. So two things that might not be entirely accurate. It was not a minority. It wasn't sent to us to make the decision. This is a city council decision. So second, this amendment is appearing before the CL uh planning commission uh as just an advisory body to city council. We are not elected, right? We're appointed by city council. It's little more than a formality apart from getting up here to give our own opinions on these things, which I'm sure most of us are happy to do to to some degree. And I wrote these things down just so I wouldn't forget. As I've gotten older, it's gotten harder to remember some of these things. All right. So, we're just an advisory body and it's little more than a formality that is required before it's finally referred to and voted by city council. And there may be an effort to table this because members on this planning commission may not like this or members of city staff may not like it. But the fact remains we're not elected, you know, and the city has done what they were appointed to do. It's being forwarded to uh to us by city council. That is also the reason the city is not taking an advisory stance on this. And if you notice when Tom Martin here spoke that normally when the city makes a recommendation on something, it's one way or the other. City recommends it or they don't. They're not taking a stand in this case. And that is because this language came directly from city council in a seven to It didn't come to us in a seven to zero vote. It came to the city staff in a 7 to zero vote. City staff has done exactly what was asked of them by city council. an indirect discussion with them. Therefore, I make a motion that we

approve and forward this amendment on to city council in its present form. Since the language of it is reasonable, was specifically requested by city council. It fulfills its design purpose and it was tailored by city staff in conjunction with members of city council to be precisely what it is. It is theirs and not ours to pass or fail. Well, there is a motion on the floor. I think we can ask a question. Yeah. For clarification. Yeah. Just from a clarification point of view, you mentioned that all of city council prepared this to send to

Yeah. No, I know the numbers. Um but who actually authored this proposal and was it signed by all in terms of the authorship or was it I ask you how many parties were involved in [clears throat] preparing it? I think I know of at least four. I'm not I'm talking to Tom. That's okay. You asking a question. Not talking to you though.

Okay. So [clears throat] my understanding is that there was uh it was put on the agenda by at least one council member. Uh the entire council considered the language that was set forth and all seven of them voted to move it forward. So uh yeah all of them voted to move that language forward. Not different language but that language. So, this is isn't necessarily true that that all of city council work together to prepare this. Um, I didn't say that they don't produce all the legislation they produce, but they all vote on it. Yeah. I think there's a bit of nuance to your language there.

I don't think so. They all voted to send it to staff to for the and it says it in here. So, what are you saying? I'm saying that when you say that all of city council wanted this proposal, that's not necessarily true. They voted to send it. No, of course they did. That's part of their job. That's about as yes as you get with an elected body. So, so um unanimous a question. You know, one of the things I I I remember watching the city council meeting and one of my issues with this um has to do with some of the language which I think is is very concrete here, but there was a little flexibility. Um but before we go too far, I believe we need to address the motion. Yes.

And and see if there's a second before we continue on. And if there's a second, we can continue discussion. I'll second a motion. Okay. So, we have um a motion and a second. Uh before we vote, then we will we need to have discussion on that. Um any any comments before we put that to vote.

Would you like to speak on your second? I think you know the language in here is is very reasonable with the changes and where uh have vulnerable communities whether it be churches or schools. Uh certainly they need to not be in the proximity you know with with with those uh uh type of institutions and and school bodies. So my my question before we vote is I'd like to see a map of of for example, you know, one of the one of the numbers thrown out um when this was initially brought in the city council. There were two numbers. It initially was a thousand and then the council member said actually maybe 750. So I'd like to see, you know, and I I do hear this this 500 uh foot limit as well. I'd like to see what that looks like at 1,000 ft. What kind of possibilities there are.

So, we don't have a map at 500 ft, but we do have a map at the the thousand. Um, so the green areas that you see um are basically the prohibited areas. Um the I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. prohibited.

Prohibited uh that's because it's either 1,000 ft from a residential district or one of those other things listed in the ordinance. Um as you can see the area primarily between Candler's Mountain Road and I believe that is uh Oddfellow's Road uh generally from the expressway 460. Um that area could uh these sites facilities could locate there. And then also there are some property zoned uh B3 or B5 out uh towards uh uh Forest Road going out into the county. Um which is you see Lakeside Drive, that's directly west that that red and brown there. Um, so it's about approximately 20 or so parcels now where they could locate by conditional use permit. Um, that's not to say that uh uh if someone really wanted to locate one of these, they couldn't come in and petition to reszone a parcel in in that area and request a conditional use permit. uh we have that happen all the time where people come in asked to reszone and get the conditional use permit. So there are areas uh where they would be um permitted by CUP. Not a large area but there are areas

and no map of the 750. We we council proposed 1,000 ft. That's what we based it upon. Do do you know of a basis of the se the 10,00t why they chose 1,00 and [clears throat] not 990 or I I do not know.

Yeah. Okay. I I can say uh we do have at least two other and they may not be good examples but uh two other um uses in the zoning ordinance uh airports and heliloports that do have a 1000 ft uh buffer requirement [snorts] with regard to the comprehensive plan. Does this does this align or misalign or

Well, I I think uh the comprehensive plan is is obviously the document that uh the city would use to [clears throat] uh craft its uh zoning ordinance around um you know what I I wrote in the staff report uh quoted the comp plan is to promote the economic vital vitality of commercial corridors and efficient use of employment areas through coordination of public and private sector investments to continue to enhance their function and attractiveness and protection of areas from encroachment of uses that would inhibit their efficient use. Um look, you know, not getting into the debate on whether they should or should not be permitted or by conditional use permit. I think it's a given fact that from a land use perspective they are controversial and since they are controversial there is opportunities for protest counterprotest this and that. Is that a good thing to have uh near all those types of uses? Is that a good thing to have in our commercial areas? Probably not. Uh, but that's one thing that you consider and that's really the only thing that I could point back to in our comprehensive plan.

[snorts] Did the uh or does the city uh or does the city cause for a uh like a risk assessment to be completed on number one I guess is like the legality of this and um could if if we were to move forward with these changes would the city be at risk for a lawsuit in the future or Well, I mean quite frankly I think the city's at risk for a lawsuit for any zoning change that you do. Uh again, uh staff's entire role in this was to make it as enforceable and defensible as we could and that's what we presented to you.

Okay. Anybody have any other comments as

Yeah. D I guess I'm [clears throat] always trying to look at this from the the role of the planning commission and that's a appropriate land use role and it seems like in this case we're moving beyond that a little bit and trying to get more into a legislative type role. And you know, there's a lot of green on this map. And it seems like if we're trying to stop something from happening, we just need to say that's what we're doing and not come up with um buffers and lists and other things that are basically allowing that to happen. I think the challenge in this case is you open yourself up to political and legal and politically oriented legal attacks when you do that. This using zoning to keep whether it's this or tattoo parlor or whatever else you want out of a given area. Let's state it. We don't want these in the city. That isn't this is a preventative approach by city council to do this. Right? So the way you can do that is by using zoning. Zoning is out of the reach of the Dylan rule. In other words, [clears throat] it doesn't have to go you can't be you can't be sued by anyone at the state level because this is something cities are authorized specifically authorized to do. They are the one of the few exceptions to the D.

Yeah, I see your point. I I think the issue um comes back to distance and you know for example here we have a hospital area and it would make sense that something would be located near there but it doesn't look like it's green. Well I think that there's you know that's why I'm not getting into the issue of whether you want them. It's really about the use of the land. Um and I think the same thing for you know whether it's a dispensary. You know, I think there's there are certain things that a lot of people might say, "Well, I don't like this." But um you know, I and I'm so I'm apt not to support this simply because I I think that distance restriction is is is a little bit more broad.

Well, I think even with a smaller less distance, it would probably still do what it's designed to do. And the question would be, is that going to happen either way? But that that kind of be the way I would lean. Well, and there's other uses that have been mentioned. U vape shops, tattoo parlors, adult bookstores. I mean, let's just keep adding to the list, right? And at what point do we stop, right? Well, we can do those things. At some point, it comes before the elected body, though, and whether it's Democrats or Republicans. So

the city's elected Republicans for now and Republicans are doing what they do. When Democrats are in charge and they were for 20 years, they did what they wanted to do. So So I did have one question before we vote. This probably be directed at Tom just as a refresher. So this is this would come let's say if this city council passes this, no matter what we do, they can make their choice and then a conditional use comes up. So the planning commission would hear that conditional use. And who frames the conditions?

Uh typically they are uh in the beginning framed by staff. Uh but then planning commission and council itself always has the ability to add or amend conditions during the process. Okay. Thanks.

All right. Well, I I believe Do you have anything else you want to say, Dave? I mean, we we talk about the root of this not being rooted in morality, but this this this just stinks of a a moral argument without much teeth at the uh at the enforcement side of things. But I mean, I would just say that I don't believe we have the necessary information to make a proper ruling on this. This ordinance uh creates excessive thousands of barriers [clears throat] for nearly all residential, institutional, cultural districts and from numerous community facilities. It does raise legitimate planning questions about whether any feasible sites remain available and if so where are they located. We cannot properly evaluate compatibility, economic impact or community effects without seeing an analysis. So I am not in favor of of voting in in favor of this proposal. Right.

All right. Well I final final statement. I think it's a tough one because I think you can, you know, vote as I mentioned one other time, you can vote for it or against it and it doesn't either way it can be misconstrued as as your value system. But we'll go ahead and vote. Uh, all in favor of this of moving this forward, all in favor say I. I. All right. All oppose say I. I. I. Right. So, let me see. Four opposed.

Okay. All right. So, it's four to um to deny and I'll move to city council. So, um again, this is a a difficult one and feel like we've been kind of put in an awkward position, but Tom, you had something to say. Sure. Just if I could confer with uh Hope Towns from the attorney's office. So, just to be clear, the motion was to approve. That motion failed. Uh so does that mean that it is going uh forward to council as denied? Okay.

And I will say this um I think given the nature of this it may be more appropriate to do a voice vote because I I couldn't keep track of who did what. So I I will ask for myself. I I I told I did not completely hear. So, uh, you're saying that the the motion on the table was to forward in our current language to go forward on current language to approve to prove it as current language to prove it as current language. Okay. And that motion failed to the for current language failed to the floor. All right.

So, does that does the end result mean that that's moving forward as a recommended recommendation for denial? Since the motion failed based on the motion saying going forward as written and I I take that basically then it sounds like it' be a denial as written. Okay. I just want to be clear the recommendations. Yes. As written. Just just want like to be clear. Thank you. I appreciate that.

So would you like to voice back and do that? I I [laughter] think that that will be helpful to clarify [clears throat] this in this um as we go forward in the future just to make it clear where the um where the vote stood. How do we do that? We're voting to move forward under current language and just accept and move forward to city council under current language. My vote is yes. No. Mr. G, no. Mr. Cox, uh no. No. M Henderson, no. Rogers. No. Yes. Pearl. No. All right. Mr. Woodson, did you Yes. To move forward. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Tom. From a procedural perspective. This I heard it says this goes back to council. I'm assuming they'll have more deliberation. Yeah, they they will uh have a public hearing just as you did. Um believe that will be at the second meeting in January. Do you have any other business? No sir. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. So have a motion. Make a motion.

All right. All right. Thank you. We'll all No. [clears throat] No opposition. We will leave. Thank you. Are you from this area?