City Council - Regular Meeting

e e well good evening everyone um thank you for coming to the I'd like to call to order the Bristol Virginia City council meeting uh today is Monday January 13 2025 start off by having a moment of Silent prayer please join me in stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stands one nation under God indivisible withy and jice for all well good even everyone uh it's nice to see a good crowd here tonight on this cold night um I wanted to start out with just a few comments and um one I'd just like to extend a heartfelt thank you to our dedicated City staff who worked Tire tirelessly to keep our roads clear during the recent uh snowstorm I went out several times and and was amazed at how quickly and fast they were working

in our community so we appreciate their hard work and commitment um to keep our community safe and it doesn't go unnoticed so thank you again um to all of them um secondly on um January 20th it's Martin Luther King day and Bristol will be um having our celebration um for that at 1:30 um our community will gather um for a March at the YWCA and then at 1:45 on that same Monday January 20th um there will be uh songs and a March to the Bristol sign and then there's a whole list of other events you can find I'll put it on my mayor Facebook page but then there's other uh Pages out there um that it's posted um of a host of events that are going Thursday and Friday and then Saturday um and then Sunday there's also a ceremony going to be held at the Lee Street Baptist Church at 300 p.m. so we'd like to invite you out to attend that and then uh last I would um just like to take a moment to express my um sincere gratitude to this Council for unanimously electing me uh to be mayor again this year um it's an honor and privilege to serve and I'm excited to continue working together to keep our city on a strong and forward uh moving path uh throughout 2025 so thank you all and I'll open the floor for any other Council comments thank you madam mayor I just want to reiterate what you said about um City staff over the weekend and over the last couple weeks with the snow they've done a fantastic job keeping the roads clear um oftentimes having to scrape the same road multiple times just the snow kept coming but they they kept working

through the night and through the days and then also our First Responders um the rest of us I stayed home home over the weekend due to the weather First Responders are out working working hard so just all our folks um have done a great job and just all our city staff in general just want to thank them again for the the service they do to our c c service they do for our city for our citizens and just what they mean to this community so thank you one thing we may not always realize a lot of those people who are running the snow plows that's a second job for them a lot of them are running the trash trucks other days and then when they have to also run snow plows all weekend that's a lot of work for them so I I'm especially grateful for everything they do to keep us safe and keep the streets clear all right um we'll move into city manager comments reate what you all have said about our public work staff um you may or may not know but there's over 200 and some odd miles of Roads within the city that our staff has to clean and take care of when it snows and they were out all afternoon Friday all night Friday night and all day Saturday to clean those roads and make sure that they were passable so they did an excellent job I was out early Saturday morning and for the most part those roads by early Saturday morning were clear and passible some of the subdivisions still had work to do but I think they got that cleared up throughout throughout the day on Saturday um there's a lot of work that they put in to get those things done and uh it's just really impressive what they can do with the tools that they have all right thank you looking for adoption of the agenda I move for the adoption of the agenda as presented second all right we have a motion in a

second clerk please call the role farum yes holes yes Osborne yes po yes nve yes all right moving into to the first item on the agenda regular agenda supplemental appropriation of $4 46,6 uh sta report uh Miss bradin thank you mayor nve and members of council this um agenda item is a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $4 46,6 all general fund Appropriations um for the police department to appropriate the proceeds of items sold um for operating supplies and materials through $3,732 to appropriate recovered costs received for overtime expenditures in the amount of $210 to appropriate monies donated to the police department to be expended on on equipment in the amount of $10,000 to appropriate insurance proceeds received to be expended on repairs in the amount of 9,325 for the fire department to appropriate monies donated to the apartment to to the department to be expended spended on equipment in the amount of $10,000 City sheriff um to appropriate monies donated to that department to to be expended on operating supplies of materials $10,000 and the City sheriff Grants Department appropriate monies donated to the department to be expended on um Shop with a hero expenditures in the amount of $1,000 staff does recommend that Council approve the supplemental appropriation as listed thank you all right thank you looking for a motion and second uh I move for approval of the supplemental appropriation as presented second all right we have a motion in a second is there any Council discussion I I just

want to say thank you to the United company foundation for their their two um very gracious gifts one to the police department one to the fire department they don't have to do that they don't have to to support um our firefighters and police officers that way but they do and it just it's a very gracious gift so thank you yeah so true all right with no further discussion clerk please call the rooll farum yes holes yes Osborne yes po yes n yes all right moving into item number two uh public hearing for z03 hyen 2024 tax map partial 308 h- 2- one I will now open uh the public hearing and let me see and no one is signed up for public comment and we'll look for a staff report from Jay thank you um Madame mayor and members of council so as presented before um and it's come back to you for the public hearing we have received a request for a rezoning a zoning map Amendment for parcel 308 hyen 2y 4 commonly referred to as the white site at the intersection of botom Road and Old Airport Road property is um owned by Falls Acquisitions LLC uh you see site pictures of it this is of course the property that was used for years and years for soccer fields and youth football and and things like that when the city did own it um the property is currently zoned m2c with conditions that's manufacturing with certain conditions placed on it and the request is to rezone it to the flexible Redevelopment District uh the conditions on the property also go with some restrictive

covenants on the property they mirror each other I'll just get into that briefly here in a few minutes so it does limit development to light industrial wholesale or public facilities uh and the if the property were reson to the flexible Redevelopment District the FD it's kind of a mix of some commercial uses you could put residential in those or you could do some light industrial similar to what those deed covenants permit as mentioned the property right now m2c as you can see where the star is property directly to the north the old Boise and Office Max property was just rezoned to this FD designation a few months ago no so we'll just go back um the existing land use for this is a vacant lot um existing zoning designation as mentioned is m2c General industrial with conditions the future land use map designation from the new comprehensive plan is Light commercial the site is approximately 10.6 Acres as far as I know it's been vacant historical land use H and you can see the location of the property section 50 hyen 17 of the city code and section 152 2283 2284 and 2285 of the code of Virginia as amended allow for a process excuse me to amend the zoning ordinance including the Zone including zoning map amendments and I won't read all those they're there in your memo um there's a mix of residential public semi-public office and manufacturing uses in this area so you have the Lynnwood Hills neighborhood ajoining you have a mobile home park that's also adjoining across the

street and then you have just the industrial park uses there V do um UPS those uses and then whatever the property to the north north where the old Boise will be um as mentioned before FD is one of our new zoning districts it allows us to give more flexibility for potential mixed use type districts and it it can allow you know some single family multif family residential uh office and business uses not quite with the um density as you'd see in a B3 district and then you have some light industrial maybe a little less than you'd get in an M1 but just some uses here and there there are also some other uses permitted by special use permit um just to go in a little deeper with the conditions that are on the property so the property has had this conditional zoning designation since 1988 and it was done to lessen the impact of a manufacturing Zone on the residential property that adjoins it so when the industrial park was created most of it was Heavy industrial this particular section of it was M2 they put some conditions on it so next door to the residential you could have a little bit of a buffer zone um just to go over what these are so the conditions and the de covenants are exact you know they're the exact same thing uh establishments for the manufacturer processing assembly and distribution of products and the Office Buildings or corporate headquarters related establishments for scientific research and development establishments primarily for the wholesale distribution of goods products and materials torts and public utility facilities for the use of occupant of the IND Industrial Park industrial facilities and public

uses necessary to serve the property so the restrictions prohibit heavy industry that might involve odor dust noise and other environmental impacts and I I do believe I have attached those conditional zoning to your uh packet however the permitted uses still do contain the term industrial facilities and that would allow manufacturing and distribution facilities that could still generate traffic in the surrounding Highway um these restrictive de covenants that are on the property are separate from the zoning so even if the property is rezoned amending these covenants or removing these covenants will still require approval by the Industrial Development Authority and a minimum of 66% of the current owners of properties in the Bristol industrial park so for any development to occur here other than what what's already in there it'll have that two-step process we'll have this rezoning and then the property owners would have to request those covenants be amended or change just like the uh previous rezoning applicants did um as you can see we did get some staff comments I'll just highlight the ones the the big ones so from a local traffic standpoint our city engineer commented that from an engine engering traffic perspective uh based on current vot and city traffic studies as well as potential upcoming smart scale projects the city will require a traffic impact analysis with the site plan regardless of the zoning or proposed use uh we do have a smart scale project into V Dot for this intersection that could help flow through here a little traffic flow through here a little better we'll find out May June whether or not we get this funding and it could be a few years before it's even available after that so

um but we don't even we won't know anything on it yet until May or June um depending on proposed use the traffic could impact the Virginia primary school and Virginia intermediate school so that's something the traffic impact analysis would uh speak to comment from uh Eric bevens our Fire Marshall are that hydrant are present and bvu projected flows would be acceptable for this for this change bvu commented and they reference the development the release and settlement agreement between bvu and the City of Bristol and I've attached that this is really only relevant if there is a residential multi family residential development of less than 150 units so if that's not what is what goes into this property then that doesn't really apply um Transit does serve this property with our East Bristol route and so it could be impacted but it is one of our lower performing routs so I don't think it would be a significant hardship for the transit system in this area um we did receive a comment from mat Chapman our economic development director who said that he would not recommend a resoning without knowing the intended end use Bristol Virginia's Limited in in land availability in this property is arguably the best available land for industrial in the city the previous rezoning in the area was approved while working on Covenant amendments in order to allow a new use in line with covenants resoning this property at this time would not make a lot of sense because the inuse will still need to be in line with the restrictive covenants it may also be important to note that the applicant has been notified about the covenants and had has not reached out to me or Ida to discuss any amendments there has been some talks since this comment came and I'll address that during the first ordinance reading section of the uh the agenda and we did have a joint public

hearing with the Planning Commission in December we had two two Property Owners joining Property Owners Speak Out Mr Jeff Bryan and Ben dowy neither one of them were in support of the um resoning request and that's all I have thank you all right thank you I'll now close the public hearing and we will move to the next item on the agenda requests for a variance from city code 50 hyphen 582 off street parking requirements and L into to you again for another staff report Jay okay thank you uh Madame mayor members of council staff has received a request for a parking variance um from section 50 hyen 582 of the city code the applicant is the Bristol Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the location and project is Goodson Hills which is located on Mary Street between Mo Street and Oak Avenue um this is not the property zoning apologize this is just the area of the future development as you can see highlighted in Black next to the uh former Central Baptist Church don't remember what the church is now but if you know what I'm talking about there at the corner of Moore and Mary and then all the other surrounding property on their side is already owned by the Bristol Redevelopment Housing Authority so they they have a lot of property in this area um it's a little difficult to see but this is the proposed site plan for the upcoming development there would be 23 uh townhouse style residential units that'd be constructed here very similar to what they've been doing along Oak viiew Avenue so you know they look a

little more modern the code when it comes to parking requires two unit or two parking spaces per residential unit so for 23 you would need 46 parking spaces um currently the site plan because of the the size of the lot they only have room for 33 parking spaces so that would leave them 13 parking spaces short uh in your packet there is a letter from uh Mr rich panel who is here tonight in casee you do have some specific questions and it's pretty straightforward in the request um the city was going to allow some off Street the parking lot right next to them them to use 13 of those parking spaces that are underutilized towards their 46 requirement unfortunately uh their primary lender Virginia Housing doesn't isn't quite as gracious about doing doing that you know they have some issues just in case there were some um ownership transfers anything like that in the future so unfortunately now they cannot use these 13 spaces towards that or they could but the process might take up to a year their application is due this week so this is why um they made this variance request uh you know as you read this letter it can also you know talks about how these 13 spaces that we were going to be able to include are still there and are still available we just can't officially include them in this site plan approval um some of these parking spaces are actually a little closer to the development then the parking spaces on the

development and this is affordable housing uh for people with minimal resources Mr panel states that our residents typically have either one or no vehicles at all and it is highly unlikely that any of our residents would have two vehicles um when I received the request I did send it out to um staff that's why I don't have a recommendation yet came in right at the deadline so I wanted to make sure nobody had any issues that I could I wasn't you know an expert in I did receive one comment from uh Jake Chandler Public Works director he did say this um I not opposed to the parking variants uh maybe one item though that should be noted is that while there is on street parking on the north side of Mary Street that is not guaranteed continued use of the street while there are no plans currently to remove parking from this section of Mary Street there could be in the future as the City Works to bring sidewalks up to current Ada standards note that this section of Mary Street may lose the on street parking in the future in order to bring these sidewalks up to the standards particularly regarding the width of the sidewalk while the off street parking or the on street parking is not something we look at I just wanted to make sure and we wanted to make sure the staff that both Council and the Housing Authority knew this could come up in in the future if we decid to widen those sidewalks that parking could go away um but based on the letter that and the the request that Mr panel sent from the housing authority and the fact that we did not receive any other negative comments from from staff staff does recommend that Council approve the parking variants in accordance with 50 hyen 582 C all right thank you Mr Dietrick and I don't know if Mr panel if you would like to add anything to

that I'll give you that opportunity if you'd like to no worries if not thank you no I have nothing to add I just if there's any questions I'll be glad to answer them all right all right thank you all right um before we get into discussion looking for a council motion and second uh I move for approval of the variance request as presented second all right we have a motion and a second um Council discussion well first I'll say uh thank you to Mr panel and and Miss Porter from the Housing Authority for being here and you know I think that this is a the project overall I think is very good this is this is a spot correct me if I'm wrong where there had been older public housing that had been torn down several years ago so you know obviously a we're not adding necessarily to the to the housing stock that we have um but we are replacing what's been there previously and as you can see with the um affordable housing uh The Villages at Oak View it's it's a different style it looks really nice it it improves the uh face of the neighborhood so I think that this is I think this is a good project and if this is something that we can do to help move that along and get it approved and get ball rolling I'm all for it I would I would agree I I think this is um the reason why we're here tonight is just a little technicality that we got to got to fix but I think it it makes sense to approve this um as councilman Osborne said the other development that you guys have looks very nice it's it's very appealing and um this will be great a great addition to this area too so thank you all right no further discussion thank you all for com coming tonight I appreciate you being here and your comments and the letter inside I agree um with what's already been stated um what you've been doing in the other

areas looks very nice the landscape the whole thing looks really good so I think um I wouldn't have a problem with it as well so at this time uh clerk please call the role farum yes holes yes Osborne yes po yes na yes all right moving into item e ordinances first reading number one first ordinance reading for zma 03- 2024 tax map partial 308 hyen 2 hyen one no one has signed up for public comments um coming back to you Jay thank you again uh Madam mayor members of the council I'm just going to kind of Jump Right In to the conclusion Rec recommendation of the staff report since we've already gone through the uh the particulars uh staff has reviewed the application and the request in accordance with the code of Virginia and finds the following so code of Virginia 15.2 hyen 2283 as stated earlier in the report states that the purpose of zoning ordinances they shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health safety or general welfare of the public this code section gives 12 purposes that shall be followed when a locality creates a zoning ordinance Cod of Virginia 152 hyen 2284 also stated earlier in the report informs a locality what shall be considered when applying these 12 purposes these factors listed in this section have been evaluated by various members of City staff as well as Bristol Virginia Utilities in the respective field of expertise and have been documented in the impact section of the report the majority of the comments indicate that with a few caveats the property could be rezoned when applying the impacts of 15.2 hyen 2284 to the purposes in 152

hyphen 2283 the two main concerns from staff were the impacts on traffic and the desire to know what the applicants plans are prior to resoning approval the city has submitted a smart scale project as mentioned earlier to vop that would add turn lanes and slightly reconfigure the intersection of Old Airport Road and bottom Road this project would also require the dedication of RightWay from the proposed site if approved the city believes that this would improve traffic flow to the near the proposed site in addition to the project engineering has stated that approval of a site plan of any use will require a traffic impact analysis Economic Development did make a comment that rezoning is not recommended until the final use is determined and has brought up the question of the restrictive covenants a specific use for a property is not a consideration of Staff nor the city council when recommending or approving a rezoning as it is not a code of Virginia requirement the Planning Commission and city council should consider any use that is permitted by right in the new zoning District as a potential use and act accordingly the flexible Redevelopment District would give the applicant more options for development thereby meeting the goal of the district by rejuvenating economic activity to relatively large tracks that have been vacant thereby providing jobs and increased tax Bas it is true that the covenants have been placed on the property will prevent the majority of the uses in the proposed new Zone from that use but that is not a consideration in the resoning request since those are controlled by adjoining land owners and the Industrial Development Authority in an email sent to staff by the applicant on December 12th he writes that I wanted to note that the current restrictive

covenants do not need to be updated or removed for the current zoning of industrial uh per section two of the certificate of amendment amending Declaration of rest restrictive covenants bebook 266 page 70 once we get approval on resoning to FD we will take the necessary steps in our due diligence to work with you or work with you all having them either updated or removed based on the the use we decide makes the most sense for this site so basically what it comes down to is the staff looks at the land use looks at the comprehensive plan and the zoning aspect of it the restrictive de covenants that are there are not something that we look at when evaluating whether or not this property should be resigned um the Planning Commission did recommend by a five to zero vote to city council that the zoning M map Amendment be approved uh So based on the purposes of the flexible Redevelopment district and the comprehensive plan future land use map which shows the properties like commercial staff recommends that city council approve the re the zoning map Amendment on first ordinance reading all right thank you right we're looking for a council motion and second for the first reading of ordinance full or by caption um before we get into discussion I'll move for approval on first reading by caption only second all right we have a motion and a second uh for first reading of the ordinance by caption only so getting into the discussion I just have a couple of questions about this so do we have any idea of why they're wanting the rezoning or are they just trying to have

more options um for something to go in there uh yes the since the the flexible Redevelopment has a lot more options available to it from an economic development standpoint and the the condition you could almost say that the conditions that are on that property have hindered development in the past um that's the main reason for the rezoning request we do have um Robert from the property one of the property owners Representatives here so if there's anything specific that you'd like a little bit more that I can give you you know he is available here too so all right thank you and then um also so once they decide on something just passing this is not going to automatically approve for what they want to move forward that we will have to then look at what they're wanting to put on the property and it will go through the Ida and then to us again yes that's the way the covenants are written um the Ida has to approve it ites they will not come back to the city council okay but the Ida would have to approve it and they'd have to get a certain percentage of the property owners in the industrial park to sign off that is if it fell without if it fell outside the current restrictions correct only if they needed to amend or remove these covenants okay so if it's something outside these restrictions then it would have to come back and for uh present to the Ida who would then have to approve it correct correct if it if it's a business that is described in the restrictive covenants then it could go in as it is right now but if it's a business outside of those restrictive covenants it could not even though this is reson the restrictive restrictive covenants control over the resoning okay thank you what percentage of adjacent Property Owners it was uh two3 so

666 what you know percent okay now for the sake of protection of those surrounding the um planning department will still have to approve any proposed plats correct correct um any site plan will have to be approved and that'll go through staff review they look at you know driveway entrances parking uh storm water water quality erosion sediment if it is a commercial use they will have to provide screening or it adjoins the residential neighborhoods so all those things would be reviewed on a staff level once a site plan would come in one thing that has been proposed in the past of this property was residential is that allowed under the current deed restriction covenants it is not um I do have a question thank you for your presentation on this um in section 50-22 the the quote from it is that flexible Redevelopment District the purpose of this district is to encourage the creative Redevelopment of certain previously developed properties to allow a mix of compatible land uses then it goes on right so does this fall under can this be flexible Redevelopment because it's never been developed the first time to be redeveloped well let me find that and I'll that's something that we had some discussions over on a staff level just to uh let you know as far as that goes but let me find that for you it also discussed it goes on and the

intent is to rejuvenate economic activity to relatively large tracks that have been vacant um tracks being vacant it doesn't specifically call out buildings being vacant so I think you we the way we looked at this is that you could go either way on that with either the buildings that have been vacant or tracks that have been vacant as of yet the developer has not indicated any proposed use correct correct have we asked if there is one coming or can we ask I haven't gotten too far into that with since it since it hasn't been rezoned we haven't you know uh try not to get too far ahead of ourselves when it comes to that it's kind of try to think one at a time but um have not had any serious discussions no questions or comments well I just have a I guess a comment I guess going back to the very beginning uh I think Mr Osborne and myself were the ones that were up here uh I believe it was in 2019 when this property was sold and I guess I still get some questions sometimes about why was this property sold uh why did the city council vote and and from my recollection and correct me if I'm wrong Mr Osborne but there was a proposal for a large residential complex uh nice units

um and my thought at the time was when in 2019 it was well there could be a casino coming and we need more housing and this is a great place for uh for housing which would act as a buffer between the single family homes there on Lynnwood and then the the rest of the industrial park so uh so at the time I I voted yes for that when we sold the property um and that was really the main reason why because of the need for more residential so I I know there was some issues with sewer capacity and then Co happened and my understanding is the developer you know cost changed a lot over the past few years uh so maybe it it could still be that but maybe not anymore so um I I guess obviously it seems like rezoning this to a flexible Mak sense in terms that there could be more more uses it could open it up but at the same time it this is a a Prime Property a big property and and I just obviously I want to protect the residential owners around it I know we heard some concerns from those folks as well so so I I really don't know what the rest of the council is thinking if we if we go ahead and vote just up or down yes or no or we vote to postpone this to try to see if we can get some more details about what this development could be in the future so Mr Farm on what you were talking about there was a something that had been submitted I think it was 2017 um where a developer was thinking about buying the property was going to put in some multif family residential and then found out that there was not enough sewer capacity and that's when the project just basically died and I think that's where that agreement with BBU comes into play now if you did have something that was within a certain number of multif family units so so yeah and you said 2017 I think it was 2017 I came aboard late 2018 and I remember

voting on it it it may have been discussions in7 and 18 and then might yeah I think it was officially it never went forward but yeah that might be the first thing I was looking at the file number and it 17 but it could have gone longer before I started this so so if we reone it it there will not you cannot put any type of housing there so it would not be housing at all not until not unless they were to update those restrictive covenants to permit residential correct the zoning would allow it but the covenants would not not as they are currently written and that'll require Ida approval correct yeah I agree with what uh councilman foram was saying about the need for housing and also it is a prime piece of property in the city right next to a great neighborhood um and I know it's kind of that Midway point also between industrial and the neighborhood but we have heard from a lot of those um you know folks that live in the neighborhood who are concerned about what's going to go on that property and so that is concerned if we can't if there can't be any type of residential with this um rezoning well I guess to clarify let's go back to 2019 um the developer bought the property was in the process of obtaining approvals from adjacent Property Owners to allow for housing and then Co happened um and I think at some point correct me if I'm wrong I think they did have enough Pro adjacent Property Owners to allow for the change of that those restrictive covenants and then by the time that happened prices of materials had increased prices of Labor had

increase and it just really didn't make economic sense to build apartments at that time and that's not saying that they can't be built later because now flexible red Redevelopment does allow for that to be done later um you still he would still have to go through that process of getting the adjacent Property Owners to approve the change of the restrictive covenant and if you did that then housing could go on that side okay thank you for that clarification but really correct me if I'm wrong it's as broad as it is long because whether we do this now and he removes the covenants or we wait and he removes the covenants and rezones later it's the same the covenants are always going to control right now so I mean you could Zone this you know whatever you wanted to Zone it agricultural but the Z the restrictive covenants are going to control over the Zone okay I have a a further question on the the two-thirds of the adjacent Property Owners is that Total Property Owners or is that by how much property they own twoth thirds of say two thirds of the owners of the Bristol industrial park I think is the way that's worded um so that includes The Office Depot site or what I call the Office Depot site UPS electromechanical um I can't think of the other businesses that go down the road behind ups but several other businesses through there as well and through my discussions with M Chapman it's not the number of property owners it's a number of it's the land area so if somebody owns multiple Parcels you know you have to get that that would like if one person owned 50% of the parcels and you had them signed then that's a 50% so far you don't have to get all the different ones it's the land

area but in any of these scenarios it's not you don't have to get the sign on of the adjacent residential property owners the restrictive covenant does not call for that that I recall no I believe it's just indust it's just the IND Bristol Industrial Park so I I guess one way to put it if the developer wanted to bring in a manufacturing facility right now that created noise and truck traffic there is nothing that would that the adjacent homeowners could do to prevent that because that is something that is allowed within the restrictive covenant but if we were to rezone it Tod then at any point they could bring in 300 storage units or a print shop or utilities facility or or anything else right without without the residential owners having any say no it still has to fall within the restrict covenants so I'm pulling up the restrictive covenants if some of those uses that are there are some uses in the frd that would be allowed under those covenants you know light industrial there's a few things like that those could go ahead and come in but we have to look at them and say okay is this within the Covenant um storage facilities are commercial use not an industrial use so those are not something that's permitted so um so though they're permitted under the frd they would still require the removal of the covenants

correctc regardless of what it's done correct okay and that can get as detailed as they choose to as the U neighboring Property Owners choose to do correct uh yes um if you um you may or may not remember from the say like the staff reports from the previous rezoning they had those covenants updated to include one more use you know it was like a pickle ball court something like that instead of having them all taken off they just added one more use so that's something you might see a property owner doing in the future if it were rezoned if they wanted to put something in but again that has to be approved by the Ida and the owners have to sign off on that so right now if he wanted to do the world's Lar car wash or the world's largest Dollar General that have to be voted on again by the Ida and the neighboring that's correct yes here is so the Covenant State no facility building structure sign or Improvement shall be erected made or used except for one or more of the following purposes a establishments for the manufacturing processing assembly and distribution of products and the office buildings or corporate headquarters related there to B establishments for scientific research and development C establishments primarily for the wholesale distribution of goods products and materials D teleports and public utility facilities for the use of occupants occupants of the industrial park e industrial facilities and F public uses necessary to service the property so if he came in tomorrow and said I want to put in a hort that would fall within the restrictive covenants and a Hort could be put on that property goes on the state and addition

but without limiting the generality of the foregoing prohibition no facility building structure or Improvement shall be erected made or used for any dwelling House Mobile Home motel hotel rooming house tourist home or any place of human habitation either permanent or temporary except quarters for caretakers or Watchmen serving permitted users any facility for the retail sale of goods or services except in combination with other uses permitted uses considered unsafe or dangerous such as the manufacturer or storage of explosives uses consider objectionable or obnoxious by reason of odor dust fume smoke noise vibration Refuge matter or water carried waste use is considered objectionable by reason of adverse effect on a joining lunch such as wrecking junk or Salvage charge any plant or facility for the manufacturer or making of asphalt mortar plaster concrete or the like any mine Quarry or drill site so that's what cannot be there so any industrial facility any industrial use that doesn't fall under that umbrella would still be permited which is one of the options under flexim reate development use anyway correct a light manufacturing type use well I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around if they're not sure even what they want to do on this property yet why go through this process to rezone it and then not sure what they're wanting to put on the property

um I think that's where I'm at with it I guess I do like the way Mr eids you explained it how where it's currently m2c there could be manufacturing that goes there right now today that has trucks and makes noise so in a way is resoning it to the flexible Redevelopment District which includes light manufacturing with no heavy Machining or outside noise or odors in a way is is that it's opening it up for more uses but is it in a way kind protecting the neighbors because it's taking it away from the current m2c zoning I feel like I'm reading it that regardless of how it's zoned the covenants will override whatever the zoning is right yeah is that would that be a fair generalization yes and Covenants do override the zoning um that is pursuant to several cases give me just a second it's also uh in 50 hyphen N9 of our code okay private restrictions whichever would be more restriced correct right it it the the code specifically reads uh this article being the zoning ordinance is not intended to over write any easement Covenant or any other private agreements provided that where the regulations of this article are more restrictive or impose higher standards or requirements than such easements covenants or other private agreements the requirements of this article shall cover so whichever is the more restrictive which means that if we were to approve the resoning to FD um they would not be allowed to have say uh industrial Warehouse housing which would currently be

allowed you could have self storage but not large warehousing no I think it's the other way around you could have um Self Storage is a commercial use not an industrial use according to our city code um but let me find them you could have wholesale distribution Goods products and materials you could have that so it's kind of like warehousing I mean you know if you were to store them and then distribute them out which would be allowed now corre if we were to approve this change they would no longer be allowed to do that if they could have self storage but not anything that would have large truck traffic such as a large Warehouse only if there Covenant were changed yes is it appropriate to ask the that works for Mr Moore if if there's been any other discussions about what this could be because I remember KD came in here when we were discussing rezoning the property to the north the old Boise Cascade property and he said he wanted to rezone his as well just just out of curiosity if there's any okay you can see from our point of view we just want to make sure we protect we've heard from Property Owners adjoining we just want to make sure we protect those owners of in the residential area right next door and I know we've we've hammered this multiple ways but I I I just want to have Clarity for myself so I apologize if this is a the 14th question on this um So currently under the F excuse me currently under the M2 zoning plus the Covenant

they are allowed to um build establishments for the manufacturer processing assembling distribution of products and the Office Buildings corporate headquarters related there to skip down to an industrial facilities that's currently allowed if we were to rezone this to an FD would under the um FD Zone characteristics and description item number 17 light manufacturing to me that seems to be more restrictive than what was originally under the mm2 with the covenants which if we voted to do FD which would be law of the land for my clarification which well I think you could um so F frd allows light manufacturing and the restrictive covenants it does not say anything about light manufacturer um what is more restrictive you know that would have to I mean to give you an answer right now I don't think I could give you an answer as without doing some research as to which one of those two is more restrictive than the other um so I'd be afraid to say and and when when my office is contacted about any business as to what it's zoned and you know what's the property zon and what could I put on this land you know we one of the things we do of course we look through the the code specifically is that use listed yes if it's not something that's listed specifically we you know we move on we maybe do a little research we try to find it and pair it up with something that's similar in

that list of uses um if it's BL you know if it's sometimes it's very easy to say okay yeah this is similar it's a newer type of business the code hasn't accounted for it yet you know that comes up a lot the Planning Commission can also do a similar use determination you know somebody can come in and say we believe this is similar to here can you just tell us yes um but it really comes down to Planning and Zoning as to whether or not we believe that's a light manufacturing use or we believe that is a industrial use and if the property if the person does not agree they can appeal that decision of course and it can go to the board of zoning appeals but these are usually made on a Case by casee basis sometimes I mean like said some of them are very easy to determine some of them are a little bit more on the gray you know so is I I hate to do this but is there a way we can postpone this so we can maybe figure out a few more answers to questions that keep popping up sure if Mr Forum will withraw his motion I'll do that because it is a complicated subject because of the zoning currently the new zoning plus the covenants and restrictions plus how all the neighbors have to agree in the industrial park it's it's not like a normal rezoning um so if that's okay with everyone I I'll withdraw that motion for first reading okay and if it's okay I make a new motion do we need a new motion that we postpone this postpone it until um a later time I'm unsure about some council member schedules so I don't want to say January

28th but if you want to do the first meeting in February that may be the best just to make sure everybody's available okay yeah I'll uh so my motion will be to postpone this topic until the first meeting in February second all right we have a motion to postpone it until the first meeting in February and a 2 uh clerk please call the rooll farum yes holes yes Osborne yes po yes n yes all right moving into item F ordinances second reading the second ordinance reading to classify tax map numbers 17 hyen 13 hyen 4 hyen F 17 hyphen 15 hyen 4 hyphen 15 17 hyen 15 hyen 4 hyen 16 17 hyphen 15 hyen 4 hyphen 17 17 hyphen 15 hyphen 4 hyphen 18 17 hyphen 15 hyen 7 hyen 12 17 hyphen 15 hyen 7 hyphen 13 17 hyphen 16 hyen 13 hyphen 5 17 hyphen 17 hyphen 6 hyen 6 28 hyen 1 hyphen 29 hyen 8 28 hyphen 2 hyphen 2 hyphen 9 28 hyen 2 hyphen 6 hyen 10 28 hyphen 2 hyen 6 hyen 11 28 hyen 3 hyen 2 hyen 2 A have to take a breath after that as blighted properties and increase the real estate tax rate by 5% on the same

pursuant to Virginia code 58 1 hyen 2 3221 uh6 oh I'm sorry yes no go right ahead uh Council before you tonight is a second reading the ordinance increase the property tax rate on what is uh otherwise known as the former VI property these uh tax rates would only apply to the parcels where buildings are located uh we've previously had our uh real estate assessor review the property has given us a letter stating those properties are blighted and derelict and pursuant to code section 58.1 hyen 32 21.6 uh the city has the authority to increase that real estate tax rate by 5% and I'm asking Council to approve that uh with a second reading of the ordinance tonight all right thank you looking for a council Motion in second for the second reading full or by caption I move for second reading of the ordinance by caption only second all right we have a motion in a second any Council discussion and Council before you start uh we noticed tonight we have two ordinance 246s uh so this will be ordinance 24 177 okay 24 hype and 17 all right thank you um I'll just say um this is another step forward have we've um done this on uh before so I'm hoping by continuing to raise the taxes on this property we're hoping to get the attention um of the owners uh for continuingly to ignore um our comments and our Outreach to them I would just agree and second that um for too long this has been an issue for the city for our citizens um we all we

all know the fire happened recently um and we we didn't bring up earlier but our our firefighters worked incredibly hard to fight that police worked hard as well so just the work that's um our um city staff have had to do to kind of deal with this property over the years especially recently um is quite ridiculous and so it's it's time to make some movement and this is just another step towards that if we could raise it by 100% I'd do it right now um but no I think that you know this is a good way to know good way to hopefully be able to recoup some of the some of the costs that uh we're incurring now uh in the wake of fire and um hopefully as the mayor and vice mayor have indicated this will get the attention of the owner and hopefully he'll do the honorable thing and sell the property or give the property away give it up um because that's that's the that's the honorable thing that's the moral thing that's the correct thing to do so hopefully he will take notice at this point um the utilities have been confirmed as disconnected correct yes at what point would it be reasonable then for us to to uh take the followup action to increase the rate again well you can't increase it again um the code only allows for the 5% uh it doesn't say that we can increase it again after another period of time it just says it allows you to increase it uh 5% did I I thought that you said that at one time that uh there was a second section that increasing the oh you're talking okay I know what code section you're talking about now there is a different code section that allows I'd have to go back and look at that I don't remember the

timing exactly but it it could allow us to increase it another 5% at the time we were discussing it before as I understand at the utilities at least some utilities were still enabled on that property right and we may now be able to potentially follow up by increasing it again right and I'll follow up with u BBU to see when those utilities were uh cut for sure thank you all right clerk please call the rooll farum yes Holmes yes Osborne yes po yes n yes all right reading of ordinance by caption only ordinance 24 H 17 an ordinance to classify tax map number 17- 13- 4- F 17 Hy 15 Hy 4 hyen 15 17 h- 15 hyen 4 hyen 16 17 hyen 15 hyen 4 hyen 17 17 hyen 15 hyen 4 hyen 18 17 hen 15 hen 7 hen 12 17 hen 15 Hy 7 hyen 13 17 hyen 16 hyphen 13 hyen 5 177 hyphen 17 hyen six hyen six 28 hyphen 1 hyen 29 hyphen 8 28 hyen 2 hyphen 6 hyphen 9 28 h- 2 h- 6 and 10 28 h- 2- 6 11 28 hen 3- and 2 two as blighted property and increased the real estate tax rate by 5% on the same pursuant to Virginia code section 58.1 hyphen 32 21.6 I missed one of those could you read that [Laughter] again all right looking for a council Mo motion and second for adoption I move for adoption of the ordinance all right we have a motion and

a second for adoption clerk please call the role faram yes Holmes yes Osborne yes po yes Nave yes all right item G matters to be presented by members of the public non- agenda items we have one person signed up and um that is Mr Tim slagel and I'll ask you to come forward you have three minutes and you'll state your name and add address and you'll get a green light a warning light and then a red light thank you my name is Tim slagel I live at 215 Old Airport Road here in Bristol Virginia I'm here to address Council after reading statement made publicly my saw on social media by Mr polard in reference to uh I think the Way It Was Written violating the city council's code of ethics and making statements that he knew to be untrue at the time that he made the statements I'm really surprised that Council hasn't already moved forward to start process to remove Mr Po from the council Mr polard I find your actions to be childish irresponsible and Reckless uh not any of this council's fault but y'all guys have had uphill battle for years because of previous councils I think Mr Paul you should do the honorable thing and resign from Council if not I think you should be removed I don't think you should let One Bad Apple spoil the barrel thank you all right thank you all right moving into item H uh consent agenda I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented second all right we have a motion in a second clerk please call the rooll Barum yes

Holmes yes Osborne yes po yes n yes all right next item on the agenda item I closed session pursuant to section 2.2-inch appointees or employees of any public body it's Personnel I'm looking for a councel motion in second I move we enter into closed session for the reason stated second all right we have a motion and a second to move in Clos session clerk please call the role Barum yes Holmes yes Osborne yes po yes naate yes for

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e e

about roll call vote council members certify that only business matters lawfully Exempted from open meet open meeting requirements as specified in the motion to convene an executive session were discussed cler please call the RO yes holes yes OS yes po yes n yes and uh next item on the agenda is adjournment looking for a motion in a second so move second all right we've got a motion in a second to adjourn clerk please call the role farum yes Holmes yes Osborne yes yes may yes we stand adjourn