Council rejects first reading for Old Airport Road rezoning after traffic, sight‑distance and plan‑conformity concerns

A first‑reading motion to rezone a 1.25‑acre parcel on Old Airport Road to allow a Dollar General store failed on a 4–1 vote at the Sept. 24 Bristol City Council meeting.

Tim Dunaway, representing JMB Investment Company, told the council the B1 neighborhood‑shopping zoning would act as “a friendlier buffer” between heavy industrial zoning and nearby residences and offered to fund road work including a left‑turn lane, a right‑hand taper and crosswalks to address safety concerns. “We’re offering to add a full left turn lane, a right hand taper, crosswalks, any kind of other visual safety features we could do with striping or signage,” Dunaway said.

City staff, represented by Community Development Director Jay Detrick, recommended denial. Detrick summarized traffic engineering work that estimated Old Airport Road’s average daily traffic at roughly 9,200–9,500 vehicles and projected the proposed store could generate about 678 additional daily trips, or an increase of roughly 7.4 percent. He also said sight distance at the proposed driveway is approximately 300 feet, short of the roughly 390 feet required at the existing 35 mph limit. “The future land use map does show the subject property as heavy industry,” Detrick said, and staff concluded the single‑lot rezoning would amount to spot zoning inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Councilmembers debated safety, pedestrian access and legal procedure. Councilmember Anthony Farnum, who cast the lone yes vote, said he was open to rezoning if binding safety upgrades were secured and the speed limit were addressed. “I’d be okay with it if there was turn lanes and also again, I’m open to lowering the speed limit,” Farnum said. Several councilmembers noted drivers frequently exceed the posted speed on Old Airport Road and pointed to a rise in corridor crashes in 2023.

City Manager Randall Eads advised that an ordinary rezoning request does not carry the same enforceable conditions as a conditional rezoning or proffered agreement, and urged council members to distinguish between a rezoning vote and binding engineering approvals. The Council cited that distinction in concluding they did not have a sufficient, enforceable mitigation package before them.

The council vote (on a motion by Farnum, seconded by Neal Osborne) was: Farnum — yes; Holmes — no; Osborne — no; Pollard — no; Nave — no. With the first‑reading motion defeated, the rezoning request did not advance. Planning Commission members had previously voted 5–1 not to recommend the rezoning.

Next steps were not set on the record; staff noted engineering improvements, a conditional rezoning request, or a different site design could be pursued by the applicant if they choose to revise their proposal.