Council holds public hearing on rezoning for 10.6‑acre site at Bonham/Old Airport; first reading postponed

Bristol — At a public hearing Jan. 13, planning staff described a zoning‑map amendment request for roughly 10.6 acres at the intersection of Bonham Road and Old Airport Road (tax map partial 308‑2‑1), a site previously used for youth sports when the city owned the property.

Planner Jay told council the applicant, Falls Acquisitions LLC, seeks to change the parcel’s zoning from M‑2C (manufacturing with conditions) to a Flexible Redevelopment District (FRD). The FRD allows a broader mix of commercial, light industrial and certain residential uses; but Jay and staff emphasized that existing private restrictive deed covenants remain in force. Any use inconsistent with those covenants would require approval from the Industrial Development Authority and sign‑off representing two‑thirds of the industrial‑park land area to amend or remove the covenants.

Jay also summarized staff and agency comments: the site will require a traffic‑impact analysis at site‑plan stage regardless of zoning; Bristol Virginia Utilities (BVU) indicated hydrants and projected flows would be acceptable unless a multi‑family development exceeded 150 units; transit service exists but the nearby route is low performing; and economic development urged caution until an intended end use is known. The planning commission recommended the zoning amendment forward to council on a 5‑0 vote. "A specific use for a property is not a consideration of staff nor the city council when recommending or approving a rezoning," Jay told the council, referencing Code of Virginia requirements for zoning review.

During a lengthy council exchange, members asked whether rezoning would permit residential uses absent covenant changes, how the covenants and zoning interact, what percentage of the industrial‑park owners must consent to covenant amendments, and potential traffic effects on nearby schools. Staff repeatedly said the covenants currently prohibit dwellings and would continue to control uses unless amended through the IDA process; Jay said amendments would require two‑thirds of the industrial‑park land area to agree. Councilmembers expressed concerns about leaving uncertainties about future uses and effects on adjacent neighborhoods.

Because several substantive questions remained—about intended uses, covenant amendment timing and traffic mitigation—the council voted to postpone the ordinance’s first reading until the first meeting in February so staff and the applicant can provide additional details.

What's next: The council postponed first reading to allow staff and the applicant to provide more information about intended uses, covenant‑amendment outreach and traffic studies; the item will return for further consideration in February.