* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. OKAY, I [00:00:01] AM GONNA CALL TO ORDER THE FRONT ROYAL [Town Council Work Session on January 13, 2025.] TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 13TH. TO ORDER MS. PRESTY, CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL? MAYOR . HERE. VICE MAYOR AL. HERE. COUNSEL MONICA? HERE. COUNCIL HERE. COUNSEL RAPPAPORT. HERE. COUNCIL . HERE. HERE. WELCOME EVERYBODY. I'M LAUGHING BECAUSE LAST MEETING I WAS AT, I HAD 24. HAS ANYBODY ELSE BEEN WRITING 24 ON, ON ALL THEIR DATES OR IS IT JUST ME? SO I'M LIKE, NO, TODAY, BUT YOU'RE 2025. ALL RIGHT. SO, UM, OUR NEW BUSINESS, UM, IS A REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF KIBBLER STREET ADJOINING TWO 19 EAST SEVENTH STREET FOR CARLOS. I'M GONNA SAY CAMACHO, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY. UH, MS. KA BEACH HERE. ARE YOU GOING TO, UM, LEAD US IN THAT? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS ALLEY VACATION REQUEST, THIS ACTUALLY STARTED OUT AS A, UM, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, UM, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE. UM, AND WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THE BOARD ZONING FIELDS DENIED THE VARIANCE, BUT THE HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED, UM, EIGHT TENTHS OF A FOOT INTO THE SETBACK. SO IT WAS SHIFTED OVER, UM, APPROXIMATELY 9.6 INCHES TOO FAR INTO THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED, IT IS OCCUPIED. THE VARIANCE WAS A MECHANISM FOR THEM TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TOWN CODE. THE BVA DENIED IT. THEREFORE, THEY APPLIED FOR THIS ALLEY VACATION. THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A WIDE ENOUGH PLOT, BUT THAT STRUCTURE WOULD NO LONGER BE ENCROACHING. SO THEY'VE REQUESTED A TWO FOOT BY 90 FOOT, UM, BASICALLY SECTION OF THE TOWN VALLEY TO BE VACATED. IF THAT HAPPENS, THEY WILL THEN, UM, PURCHASE THAT AND THEN THEY WOULD CONSOLIDATE THAT STRIP WITH THE LOT INTO A NEW LOT TO CREATE A CONFORMING, UM, LOT. SO THE 90 FEET IS THE, THE, THE LENGTH OF THEIR LOT. YEP. THAT'S KIND OF THE GIST. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I, A QUESTION, DO WE KNOW THE EXCAVATOR WAS THAT, THAT PULLED UP THE PINS DIDN'T CALL THE CONTRACTOR AND KEPT ON TRUCKING BECAUSE THAT'S CONCERNING. UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND CONTINUED TO BUILD AND, YOU KNOW, UH, UM, AND WE HAD INITIALLY ISSUED THE ZONING PERMIT FOR RENOVATION ALTERATION WHEN IT GOT OVER TO THE COUNTY. THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE FOUNDATION. THAT'S THE ONE THAT TORE ALL THE WAY DOWN AND REBUILT THE GROUND UP. RIGHT. SO, OKAY. , UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS NOT SENT BACK TO US, WHICH IF IT HAD BEEN, THAT WOULD'VE OCCURRED AT A, UM, FOUNDATION LOCATION SURVEY. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO BY THE TIME THE SURVEYOR WENT OUT THERE TO SURVEY FOR THE, UM, FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION, WE DISCOVERED THAT THE HOUSE WAS, THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED, WAS CONSTRUCTED 9.6 INCHES APPROXIMATELY TOO FAR TO THE, TOWARDS THE STREET. IS THERE ANY, UM, IS THERE ANY RECOURSE? I'M, I'M VERY SERIOUS. LIKE IS THERE ANY RECOURSE FOR THE, I MEAN, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THAT WOULD BE A CIVIL THING THAT WOULDN'T RIGHT? I, I GUESS IT WOULD BE IF SOME, IF THIS WERE TO GET DENIED, THE HOMEOWNERS WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO BACK IN AND, 'CAUSE I MAY BE ABLE TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT. MM-HMM . THE ACTUAL OWNER IS, UM, APPLE CONSTRUCTOR CONSTRUCTOR. APPLE, APPLE CONTRACTORS. APPLE, APPLE CONTRACTOR'S NAME. MR. CAMACHO IS THE PRESIDENT. YEAH. HE'S NOT ACTUALLY THE OWNER. HE'S THE PRESIDENT. SO THE APPLICATION, UM, I'VE SUGGESTED TO MR. NAPIER THAT THE APPLICATION BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THAT ACCURATELY. SO THAT MAY ANSWER SOME OF YOUR, YOUR QUESTIONS BECAUSE EVERYWHERE ON THIS PAPERWORK, UM, IT, YEAH, BUT RIGHT, BUT, BUT IT, BUT EVEN IN THE, UH, TOWN'S, THE STAFF'S, UH, FEEDBACK, IT STATES THAT, UM, THAT, UH, THE, THE EXCAVATOR ACCIDENTALLY DUG UP THE PINS YEAH. AND PUT 'EM BACK. SLIGHTLY WRONG LOCATION, SLIGHTLY WRONG IS IT'S ONE THING, BUT YOU'RE, UM, YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING IT'S, IT'S A TOUGH ONE TO RE TO REWARD SOMEBODY FOR YOURSELF. THE WRONG THING AND IT SEND BACK TO THE TOWN. RIGHT. THE MOMENT THAT FOUNDATION HAD TO COME DOWN AND EVERYTHING HAD TO COME COMPLETELY [00:05:01] DOWN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN KICKED BACK TO US BECAUSE THAT WOULD'VE TRIGGERED ANOTHER REVIEW. SO WHY DID YOU SAY IT THAT NOT HAPPEN? BECAUSE WHAT WE HAD INITIALLY APPROVED WAS AN AUDIT WAS A RENOVATION THEY WERE GOING TO RIGHT. EXTEND OUT. SO THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE FOUNDATION LOCATION SURVEY BECAUSE AS FAR AS WE KNEW THEY WERE GONNA BE ON THE SAME FOUNDATION, DOES THE COUNTY NOT KNOW TO SEND THAT BACK TO US? THAT'S, THAT'S MY, WAS MY QUESTION. SO COUNTY NOT, NOT KNOW WHERE DID THE COUNTY FALL DOWN? SO THE TYPICALLY IT WOULD'VE COME BACK, UM, FROM THE COUNTY? IT IT, YEAH, IT SHOULD COME BACK FROM THE COUNTY. DOES THE COUNTY NOT KNOW THAT THOUGH? OR IS THERE SOMEBODY NEW IN THAT DEPARTMENT THAT DIDN'T KNOW THAT? LIKE, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. GO FORWARD. IS THERE ANY CHECK AND BALANCE WE COULD MAKE SURE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN? OR WE, WE'VE SENT EMAILS AND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THERE REGARDING THIS. SO I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN. THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DIDN'T DO WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO, THAT IT WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT WE HAD TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. WELL, DIDN'T WE, WAS IT KLER STREET THAT WE ALREADY YEP. SOLD PART OF THAT ON THE OUTSIDE. SO THIS, THIS WHOLE PORTION OF THE TOWN WAS BUILT IN RESIDENTIAL USE PRIOR TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EVEN EXISTING. SO IT ZONE C ONE, EVERYTHING THERE IS LEGALLY NONCONFORMING THAT'S STILL IN USE AS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND END OF KEVIN STREET THAT WE GOT. YEAH, NO, THE END OF THAT WAS SEVENTH STREET THAT WE DID THE THE THING. RIGHT. SEVENTH WE DO SOMETHING DOWN BER STREET TOO. ON THE OTHER SIDE. WE DID IT. I I WAS GONNA SAY, I'M TRYING TO VISUALIZE IT. IT'S WHERE WE, WE VACATED SOMETHING. WE SOLD OFF A PIECE SO THAT BUILDING COULD GET OUT THROUGH THEIR GARAGE. AND THAT WAS ACROSS THE STREET. YES. RIGHT. IT'S ALL IN THE SAME AREA. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I, BUT I THOUGHT WE, I MEAN, HOW WIDE IS BER STREET? DO WE KNOW? I THOUGHT WE HAD THAT IN HERE. I BELIEVE IT'S 30. 32. 32. IT WOULD BE 30 FEET. RIGHT? BECAUSE 32 MILLION, AND I BELIEVE THIS PORTION IS GRAVEL. IT IS THERE REQUESTING IT. IT'S CHIP. YEAH. IS IT 32 OUT TO COMMERCE AVENUE? IT'S 32. YEP. NOT, NOT AT, YOU MEAN FROM ON THIS COOPER STREET TO COMMERCE ON SEVENTH? THAT'S WIDER THAN THAT. IT'S ONE SEVENTH. SEVENTH SAYS NO WHEN HE GOES AROUND THE, THE CORNER. THAT IS AN ALLEY. YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN ALLEY. I DON'T THINK IT WAS, I'M TRYING TO THINK. ALLEY. I I DROVE IT BACK. I DROVE BACK THERE WHEN ALL THIS CAME. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT BEFORE. UM, THE ONLY THING I WAS GONNA SAY IS I WOULD BE VERY CURIOUS TO SEE WHO THE EXCAVATORS WERE BECAUSE IF THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY WAS THEIR COMPANY, WAS THE EXCAVATOR THAT ACCIDENTALLY MOVED THE PENS AND THEN DIDN'T TELL WHOEVER THE CONTRACTOR, WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE STILL BEEN THEM, THAT THE PENS ARE WRONG. I MEAN, THEY'RE, IF IF THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ONE OF US THAT HIRED A CONTRACTOR AND THEY WERE DOING THIS TO SAY THE NEIGHBOR, YOU KNOW, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE ENCROACHING THERE, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULDN'T BE OKAY. IT WOULD, THERE WOULDN'T BE, YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT THE NEIGHBOR TO JUST, UH, GIVE UP THAT PORTION, GIVE UP A PIECE OF THAT BECAUSE SOMEBODY ACCIDENTALLY RIGHT. DIDN'T DO WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND PUT, AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT ANY EXCAVATOR WOULD KNOW THAT THAT WAS NOT ETHICAL, THAT YOU MOVED THE I MEAN, STAKE AT THAT POINT. YEAH. SO THE EXCAVATING WORK, LEAVE THAT ALONE, THEN THEY AM TRIM. RIGHT. OR YOU GO BACK AND GET, THEY HAVE TO, OR THEY GO BACK AND GET THE SURVEYOR TO COME BACK AND SAY, THIS IS WHERE IT BELONGS. RIGHT. I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING YOU COULDN'T DO IT A DIFFERENT WAY. I'M JUST SAYING OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY TRIED TO SHORTCUT THIS AND THEN IN THE END IT ENDS UP BECOMING ONE, ONE OF OUR DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS SAID THIS REQUEST WOULD CREATE AN OFFSET TO THE STREET FOR ANY POSSIBLE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO KIBBLER STREET. I'M JUST CURIOUS. LIKE WHAT, UM, IT WOULD JUST CREATE A JOG. SO IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE 30 FEET WIDE FROM SEVENTH PER, UM, SOUTH 90 FEET. AND THEN IT WOULD WIDEN BACK OUT TO 32 FEET. IT WOULD JUST CREATE A JOB. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY, THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO DENY THEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO CIRCUIT COURT. YOU CAN MAKE A MOVE. YEAH. THAT'S ACTUALLY FROM THE PEOPLE I WAS ASKING ABOUT. THEY SAID THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO MOVE OR THEY'D HAVE TO TAKE A PIECE OFF. [00:10:01] I WAS LIKE, HOW EXACTLY DO YOU JUST, THEY WOULD NEVER RETAIN AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT, IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. BUT THEY'RE LIVING IN IT BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ZONING CLEARANCE IF THEY'RE LIVING IN CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. IT'S OCCUPIED BY A RENTER. RIGHT. OR I GUESS WE DON'T BECAUSE WHO, WHO IS APPLYING FOR THIS? IS IT THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE OR THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY? PRESIDENT. THATS WHAT I WAS ADDRESSING. THE COMPANY OWNS THE HOUSE. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT. YES. THE OWNER IS APPLE CONTRACTOR'S INC. MR. CAMACHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF THAT COMPANY. THE APPLICATION, IT SHOWS MR. CAMACHO AS THE APPLICANT THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. SO WHO IS THE APPLICANT? APPLE. IT SHOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER. CONTRACTOR. GOTCHA. WE SOLD THE HOUSE THOUGH. NO, I THINK WE, IT WAS JUST THE APPLICATION JUST WASN'T SUBMITTED CORRECTLY FROM THE BEGINNING. I'VE REACHED OUT TO MR. NAPIER TO FIX THAT. HE'S REPRESENTING THE ELDER. RIGHT. SO THERE'S TWO, TWO PATHS FORWARD. UM, WE CAN TAKE IT TO PUBLIC HEARING, SEE WHAT THE PUBLIC HEAR, OR WE CAN MAKE SURE EVERY, THE APPLICATION SET AND ALL THAT STUFF AND WAIT IT OUT. CAN'T WE TAKE IT TO A PUBLIC HEARING WITHOUT THE APPLICATION BEING AMENDED? THE APPLICATION CAN BE FIXED IN SHORT ORDER. OKAY. BECAUSE IT'LL NEED TO BE PART OF THIS THIS WEEK. SO IT'LL NEED TO BE PART OF, UM, THE AGENDA FOR THE PUBLIC TO REVIEW. RIGHT. I MEAN, ADVOCATE, IT'LL BE, THEY NEEDED TO REFLECT THE CORRECT INFORMATION, THE AMENDED INFORMATION FOR THE PACKET FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. RIGHT. BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY NOTIFIED THE, UM, NEIGHBORS AND STUFF THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 27TH. RIGHT. SO COUNSEL, WHAT YOUR, UH, PREROGATIVE, ARE WE GONNA KEEP IT AS A PUBLIC HEARING OR, UH, I WANT IF THEY, THEY, IF THEY GET THE APPLICATION COMPLETED. RIGHT. WE'VE GOTTA GO TO PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'D PROBABLY THE SOONER THE BETTER. OKAY. SO THE, WHAT WE'RE GONNA RECEIVE ACCORDING TO THIS LAND VALUE WORKSHEET IS $630. THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE WORKED UP. UM, WE WORK OUT, STAFF CAME UP. SO COUNSEL MAY RECALL, THIS IS A TWO STEP PROCESS. PHASE ONE IS VACATING THE PUBLIC'S. RIGHT. AND INGRESS. AND EGRESS. OKAY. PHASE TWO IS SELLING WHATEVER THE VACATED PORTION TO AN ADJACENT LANDOWNER. AND THAT'S ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. UNDER STATE LAW. IT'S GONNA COST US A LOT THAN $630 JUST SENDING OUT THE LETTERS AND STUFF. THAT'S A POINT. ARE WE DOWN BY THAT PRICE? NO. SO WE COULD ADD AN ADMINISTRATIVE FIELD FROM, AND WHEN WE COME UP WITH THAT PRICE, ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THAT ASSESSED VALUE ON THE, UM, THE COUNTY WEBSITE. ROLLING. AND THEN WE TA WE GET A PER SQUARE FOOT AMOUNT BASED ON THAT FOR THE ADJOINING LOT. AND THEN THAT'S, THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAME UP WITH THAT SEEMS FAIR BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASSESSORS, UM, TO KIND OF JUST GIVE A BALLPARK VALUE. WELL, THAT'S THE VALUE OF THE LAND. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST FOR THE TOWN? THE COUNCIL FOR TWO HEARINGS? I'M TOLD THAT I NEGOTIATE THE PRICE UPON THE COUNCILS. CORRECT. AND THEN A, THE CLOSED SESSION, IT'S WORTH A LOT BECAUSE CORRECTING THAT THEY HAD HAVE TO CORRECT. IT WOULD BE 30 A LOT MORE. BUT, UM, 63,000 PROBABLY. DO WE NEED TO HAVE, UM, THAT VIEWING COMMITTEE GO LOOK AT IT LIKE WE HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE? THAT'S, THAT'S TO BE DETERMINED. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE MOTION IF COUNSEL DECIDES TO AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. I JUST WANNA ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION, MR. SIDE. YES. IF, IF COUNSEL DECIDES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS MM-HMM . ARE WE, WE'RE NOT SETTING ANY KIND OF PRECEDENT THAT SAYS THAT IN THE FUTURE IF SOMEBODY BUILDS OVER ONTO SOMETHING THEY SHOULDN'T BE THAT. NOT AT ALL. WELL, YOU ALL DID THIS IN 2025. I I MEAN, I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. NOT AT ALL. SO, OKAY. NO, THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO GET THE CORRECTIVE ACTION DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WOULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. AGAIN. YEAH. NOW THESE ARE ALL CASE BY CASE, THESE VACATIONS. RIGHT. OKAY. AND AGAIN, IT STARTS WITH THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST. THAT'S WHERE WE START HERE IS THE PUBLIC'S. RIGHT. OF [00:15:01] INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE FULL 32 FEET. YEAH. IT'D BE LIKE ME BUILDING SOMETHING IN THE TOWN'S PROPERTY. RIGHT. OR WE WITHOUT PERMISSION. YEAH. THE TOWN GONNA TAKE TO KEEP IT THAT STRIP AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC, SO TO SPEAK. RIGHT. AND I WOULD, I SUSPECT WE'LL HAVE PEOPLE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. 'CAUSE WE, I'VE ALREADY GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM CITIZEN ABOUT THIS. SO WE WILL JUST PUBLIC HEARING TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT AND, AND GO FORWARD WITH THAT. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN WITH OUR COUNTERPARTS OF THE COUNTY TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE AWARE THAT THIS DID NOT, DIDN'T GO THE, DIDN'T GO THE WAY WE, WE WOULD'VE LIKED. AND YOU'RE GONNA ENSURE THE APPLICATION IS AMENDED OR CORRECT. RIGHT. UM, AND I WILL PREPARE AN ORDINANCE IF COUNSEL RECALLS THERE'S A VACATION ORDINANCE THAT WOULD, UM, BE APPROVED OR ADOPTED. IS THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT ALL. NO, THAT'S TO HAPPEN ON THE 27TH. THAT WELL, YES. I'LL HAVE ONE PREPARED IN THE EVENT COUNSEL WANTS TO JUST APPROVE. OKAY. AND NOT DO THE VIEWERS. OKAY. THAT'S A LOT TO DO IN TWO WEEKS FOR THEM TO CORRECT IT, APPROVE AND US TO, YOU KNOW, SO WE'LL SEE. SO THE THREE CHOICES, DENY VIEWERS, APPROVE VIEWERS HAVE BEEN STARTED TO BECOME CONSISTENT WITH US, SO, ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. SO WE'RE ON TO THANK YOU. MM-HMM . THANK YOU. WE'RE ONTO OLD BUSINESS, UH, REQUEST FOR TOWN WATER AND SEWER IN THE CORRIDOR FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. MS. WILSON. UH, CORRECT. UH, 4 44 BALL AND, UH, LLC IS, UH, SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR OUT OF TOWN, UH, UTILITY CONNECTION FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE, UH, FOR, UH, WAREHOUSES. OUR CON UH, CONCEPTUAL WAREHOUSES TO BE BUILT. UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, DOES NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THIS TIME FOR WATER USE EACH EMPLOYEES, UM, AND IS, UH, REQUESTING APPROVAL WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION. AND THAT'S CONCERNING. I THINK IT SAID FIVE, I THOUGHT IN THERE IT SAID A POTENTIAL OF FIVE, FIVE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSES. THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOW HERE. FIVE AND THERE'S 860 PARKING SPACE. BUT THAT YEAH, THAT DOESN'T REALLY TELL US WHAT, WHAT THEY WOULD BE DOING IN THERE, RIGHT? CORRECT. UH, UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HAVE INFORMATION THIS TIME. UM, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO DENY IT UNTIL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. RIGHT. I AGREE. I AGREE. YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE INFORMATION TO TAKE A VOTE OR ACTION ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S UNDERSTOOD. WE'LL GO BACK TO THE APPLICANT. THAT WAS, THAT WAS A NICE SHOT. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T GET IT IF YOU DON'T DRIVE. BUT YEAH. MR. MR. SONNET ALONG THESE SAME LINES IN THE CORRIDOR, JUST A REMINDER MM-HMM . THAT I SAY REMINDER FOR THE PUBLIC MATTER REMINDER FOR VIEW, INDUSTRIAL USE HAS TO BE REQUESTED BY THE TOWN COMMERCIAL IS PART OF THE VSA, CORRECT? THAT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS THE MORATORIUM. THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE CONFUSING. SO, UH, AN INDUS, A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL USER IN THE CORRIDOR DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE COUNTY TO ASK THE TOWN TO SUPPLY, TO PROVIDE 'CAUSE THAT'S COVERED BY THE VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THAT SAID, IT'S NOT COVERED BY PILOT AND IT'S STILL A CASE BY CASE. AS FAR AS YES OR NO, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ANY INDUSTRIAL USER WHETHER THEY'RE IN THE CORRIDOR OR NOT IN THE COUNTY. SO THANK YOU. I JUST, THERE WAS A MEETING LAST WEEK, UM, WITH THE COUNTY AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WATER TO INDUSTRIES. AND I BELIEVE SOMEBODY MADE A COMMENT THAT THAT, UH, SOMETIMES THAT WE WERE DIFFICULT SOMETIMES ABOUT THIS, LIKE WORKING WITH US, YOU HEARD IT AS WELL. SO I'M NOT MAKING THAT UP. UM, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST SAYING, I, I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE ARE JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT, THAT THAT COMMERCIAL YES. IN THE CORRIDOR, CORRECT. IN THE CORRIDOR THAT, BUT ANY INDUSTRIAL USE IS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, WHICH SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH WATER TO PROVIDE FOR OUR OWN, UM, ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES INSIDE THE TOWN LIMITS. SO, UM, AND I DON'T THINK UP UNTIL, I DON'T MY TIME ON COUNCIL, I DON'T THINK WE'VE BEEN DENIED ANYBODY OUT THERE AS OF YET, BUT MAYBE WE DID AND I JUST DON'T REMEMBER IT. I I HONESTLY, [00:20:01] I DON'T THINK, I THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY, I CAN'T, I, OR AT LEAST ANYTHING THAT I, THAT HAS COME BEFORE I, I'M NOT AWARE OF A FORMAL DENIAL. YEAH. BUT, UM, I'M VAGUELY RECALLING A BOTTLING PLAN THAT WAS, I DON'T IF IF THEY DID, THEY CAME IN AND THEY DECIDED NOT TO. I REMEMBER THEIR TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THEN THEY NEVER, BUT ANYWAY, I WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. I DON'T THINK WE'VE BEEN DIFFICULT. I THINK WE'VE, YOU KNOW, BUT, BUT WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR WATER SOURCES. UM, WELL, IF THERE WAS BUYRIGHT WATER FOR AN INDUSTRY, YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANY NUMBER OF SCENARIOS WHERE THEY, IT COULD BE SOME USER THAT NEEDS A THOU OR A MILLION GALLONS, RIGHT. A MONTH. YEAH. YEAH. AND WE WOULDN'T, YEAH. BJ, I HAD A QUESTION. UM, SOME OF US COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE TALKING ABOUT IT BEFORE THE MEETING STARTED. THEY NOT ONLY PAY THE TAP FEES, BUT THEY ALSO PAID DOUBLE THE MONTHLY RATE, CORRECT? YEAH. AND THEY PAID DOUBLE TAP FEES TOO, CORRECT? YES. THEY, UM, JUST BRING UP THE POWER PLANT. WHAT, WHAT WAS THEIR PEAK USAGE? I THINK WE AGREED UP TO 5 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. A DAY. THERE YOU GO. DAY. AND IT IS UP THERE. DON'T QUOTE, I CAN'T REMEMBER TREND DOWN. WELL, THAT'S THE RECYCLERS. YEAH, THEY ARE RECYCLERS. YES. CORRECT. SO, BUT THIS, THIS TOPIC, YOU KNOW, IS JUST A REMINDER TO US THAT WE, THIS WE NEED TO STILL KEEP HAVING OUR CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WATER AND, AND, YOU KNOW, A SECONDARY WATER SOURCE. AND, UM, BECAUSE I, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE, I THINK EVEN IN THE COMP PLAN, WHENEVER THEY APPROVE, THERE'S MORE INDUSTRY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA BE, UM, THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE FUTURE OUT THERE. SO, UM, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO, WE NEED TO, UM, START TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE AND WHERE WE'RE GONNA GO, WHAT, WHAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO, TO DO AND HOPEFULLY, UM, FIND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR THAT. AND ONLY DO WHAT YOU CAN DO. YES. CORRECT. CORRECT. I GAL THAT THE SNOWSTORM LAST WEEK'S GONNA MAKE, OKAY, SO WE'RE, IT'S NOT GONNA SAY THIS SO THAT WE'RE, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE NEVER HAD ANY INTENT THAT WASN'T A PUBLIC HEARING ANYWAY, SO, SO THAT WE'RE GONNA SAY TAKE IT BACK TO THEM AND WHEN THEY ARE ABLE TO GIVE US SOME MORE INFORMATION, AND I SAY TAKE IT BACK TO THEM, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY BACK TO THE COUNTY. RIGHT. THE COUNTY'S THE ONE WHO IT FILTERS THROUGH THEM. THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE THE MIDDLEMAN, LIKE I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE GOT THE REQUEST FROM. YES, IT IS INDEED. AND WE'LL GO BACK TO THEM. THE, WHEN WE GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT THING IS THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH A DOWNTOWN FRONT ROYAL FOR A SIGN INSTALLATION OF THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCE AVENUE AND MAIN STREET. AND, UM, MR. SONNET, IT SAYS THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING THAT. OH, IT DOES . IT DOES. UM, SO I DRAFTED A LICENSE AGREEMENT AND, UM, IT'S IN THE PACKET, UM, CIRCULATED THAT TO DOWNTOWN FRONT ROYAL. UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS BACK ON THE DRAFT AGREEMENT. UM, I ASKED ABOUT EXHIBIT A, WHICH TO ME IS THE HEART OF IT THAT COUNSEL HAS TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND, AND DOWNTOWN FRONT ROYAL NEEDS TO STICK TO WHATEVER'S APPROVED IN THAT EXHIBIT. SO, UM, I I DON'T THINK WE THERE CAN BE FORMAL ACTION UNTIL EXHIBIT A IS AVAILABLE. MR. SCOTT, DID YOU, WAS THIS AGREEMENT, WAS IT KIND OF MIRRORED AFTER THE ONE WITH THE LOVE LETTERS IN THE SAME SPOT? I THINK IT'S VERY, SEEMS LIKE I MAY HAVE USED THAT AS MY SOURCE. YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S MORE STIPULATIONS THAN I DID A LOT THREE DRAFTING. YEAH, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, BECAUSE THE LOVE LETTERS CAN KIND OF MOVE, WHEREAS THIS WOULD BE A STATIONARY PERMANENT, UM, STRUCTURE, WHICH BY THE WAY, SO THE LOVE LETTERS ARE THERE NOW WHERE THEY'RE REQUESTING. SO WHEN DOES THAT AGREEMENT END? UH, THIS SUMMER, JULY. IS IT? OKAY. I KNEW I THEY'RE ALSO CURRENTLY LOW. EXCUSE ME. THEY'RE ALSO CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE WRONG, THEY'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE AGREEMENT FOR THE OTHER SIDE. CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. THAT'S WHY WHEN I WAS COMING HERE TONIGHT, I THOUGHT I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY MOVED IT BECAUSE THE BUSINESS HAS CHANGED IN THAT LOCATION. UM, UM, BUT, BUT THAT'S THE TOWN'S PROPERTY, THE GRASS AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE. RIGHT. ON BOTH SIDES. OKAY. RIGHT. SO I WAS CURIOUS AS TO, UM, I THOUGHT I SAW LANGUAGE. CAN'T PUT MY HAND ON IT RIGHT NOW, BUT, UM, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO UM, DFR, THEN IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE THE SIGN. WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST KEEP THE SIGN? [00:25:01] WE'LL GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO TAKE IT, IS THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. MM-HMM . WHY WE DON'T HAVE, I MEAN WHY WOULDN'T LOOK, JUST GO AHEAD AND, UH, BECAUSE THEY PAID FOR IT. THEY PAID. OH, OKAY. OKAY. BUT I THINK THE LANGUAGE SAYS THAT YOU GIVE THEM SO MANY WEEKS AND THEN IF THEY DON'T THEN THEN WE CAN REMOVE IT. BUT KIND OF LIKE YOU, COULD WE REMOVE IT OR KEEP IT? I DON'T KNOW. UH, IT WOULD BE THE TOWNS. I THINK IT SAYS THE TOWNS OPTION. RIGHT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING. UM, I'D HEARD ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SO I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO GET LIKE A GRANT AND, AND TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THIS AND YOU KNOW, IT'S, ANYTIME YOU CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S NOT GONNA COME OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND, BUT IT'S GONNA PROMOTE OUR DOWNTOWN. UM, AND THERE WAS A SIGN THERE FOR YEARS, UM, AND I THINK IT JUST KIND OF DETERIORATED TO THE POINT, OBVIOUSLY WHERE THEY HAD TO REMOVE IT. BUT I THINK THAT I, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE PLANS, BUT I WANNA SAY THIS WAS GONNA BE MORE LIKE A, UM, BRICK AND MORTAR KIND OF THING. NOT LIKE A WOOD, LIKE THE SIGN THAT WAS THERE WAS WOODEN. I THOUGHT THEY WERE, I THOUGHT THEY WERE GONNA TRY TO DO ACROSS THE ROAD. MOTOR CENTER. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OH, OH WOW. LIKE HISTORIC. KINDA LIKE WHEN YOU GO TO LOUDON STREET YEAH. AT THE CORK STREET. YEAH. OH, OKAY. OH WOW. THAT WOULD BE INTEREST. OKAY. AND I KNOW WE'VE, THE REST OF THE PROPERTY IS STILL BELONGS TO THE TOWN. IT JUST SAYS IT ALL BELONGS TO THE TOWN. RIGHT. THE WAY THIS IS DRAFTED, IT'S A LICENSE. I, VICKY, UM, IT'S A LICENSE. IT'S, IT'S, NO, BECAUSE WE PLANTED TREES THERE ON ARBOR DAY, LIKE, AND I KNOW THERE WAS PLANS TO STILL PUT SOME MORE AROUND THAT AREA SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE. THAT DOESN'T, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING TONIGHT. WE GOTTA WAIT FOR EXHIBIT A. RIGHT. OKAY. AND MAYBE BY THE, MAYBE BY THE, WE'LL TRY THE FEBRUARY WORK SESSION. YES. IF THEY CAN FEBRUARY WORK SESSION. ARE I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THOUGH, DO THEY NOT WANNA GET LIKE, UM, PLANS DRAWN UP FOR A SIGN WITHOUT THEIR, SOME KIND OF LIKE, UM, APPEARED SUPPORT FROM COUNSEL? I DON'T WANNA SAY APPROVAL 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT APPROVING, BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN? LIKE I DO. SO, SO DO YOU, I MEAN, COUNSEL CAN DO THAT NOW. YEAH. ARE YOU GUYS, YOU IN GENERAL SUPPORT OF IT? YEAH. DO YOU FEEL LIKE IF THEY, IF THEY, I MEAN RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THERE AND SO THAT WOULD BE, 'CAUSE I'M SURE THEY DON'T WANNA INVEST IN MONEY TO GET SOMETHING DRAWN UP AND THEN, AND I THINK IT WOULD LOOK GOOD THERE. YEAH. AND I KNOW PEOPLE TALK ABOUT ALL THE TIME, LIKE THEY WANNA DIRECT PEOPLE TO MAIN STREET, SO THAT'S A GOOD, ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT COUNCIL SEEMS ON BOARD WITH IT. WE JUST NEED TO SEE AN EXHIBIT. YES. WE GOOD? SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP IS POST I MOVE THAT TOWN COUNCIL CONVENE A CLOSED MEETING PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2.2 DASH 3 7 1 AND 2.2 DASH 3 7 12 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES. ONE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2 DASH 3 7 1 A SEVEN OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA FOR CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND BRIEFINGS BY STAFF MEMBERS OR CONSULTANTS PERTAIN TO ACTUAL OR LITIGATION WHERE SUCH CONSULTATION OR BRIEFING AN OPEN MEETING WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEGOTIATING LIMITING POSTURE OF THE PUBLIC BODY. MORE SPECIFICALLY, PEP, TED, LLC VERSUS THE TOWN. AND TWO, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2371 AA OF THIS CODE TO VIRGINIA CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EMPLOYED OR RETAINED BY A PUBLIC PARTY BODY REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF LEGAL ADVICE BY SUCH COUNSEL. MORE SPECIFICALLY THE INSOLVENCY AND DISSOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL AND THE COUNTY OF WARREN, VIRGINIA. AND NUMBER THREE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2 DASH 3 7 1 1 A, ONE OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA FOR THE DISCUSSIONS, CONSIDERATION, OR INTERVIEWS OF PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES FOR EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, PERFORMANCE, DEMOTION, SALARIES, DISCIPLINING, OR RESIGNATION OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICERS, APPOINTEES OR EMPLOYEES OF ANY PUBLIC BODY OR SPECIFICALLY THE TOWN MANAGER POSITION. SECOND. OKAY. MOTION SECOND. MS. PRESSLEY. COUNCILMAN WOOD? YES. VICE MAYOR. BY BY. YES. COUNCILMAN ? YES. COUNCILMAN RAPPAPORT? YES. COUNCIL INGRAM? YES. COUNCIL DEON? YES. MOTION PASSES. SO WE ARE CURRENTLY ENCLOSED AND. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.