Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-89March 16, 1989 8497 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Pulaski Town Council held March 16, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Municipal Building. There were present: Mayor Gary C. Hancoc Council Members: James M. Neblett, J. Mary Lou Copenhaver, Andrew L. Graham, W. Alma H. Holston, Ira k, presiding R. Schrader, Jr., James R. Neighbors, H. Schrader, Jr., S. Crawford Also Present: Frank Terwilliger, Town Attorney Daniel E. McKeever, Town Manager Anne Burgess, Assistant Town Manager Ruth A. Harrell, Clerk Visitors: Dee Lindsey, Jessica Clarke, and Bob Thomas of the news media Steve Vermillion, Corker Group 65 Area Citizens The invocation was given by Mayor Hancock. Z Mayor Hancock welcomed citizens to the meeting, and advised the special 0 meeting was to consider a petition to rezone from R-0 Residential Office N to Business B-1 Conditional, nineteen (19) acres of land located at I Memorial Drive and Peppers Ferry Road in the Town of Pulaski,Virginia. N G In a report from the Planning Commission, Councilman W. H. Schrader stated the Commission had met March 13, 1989, to discuss the conditional rezoning request from Corker Group and had the following recommendation: Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend to Town Council to deny the Corker Group rezoning request primarily for reasons - the newly adopted Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance should be respected and kept intact. He further stated a full copy of the minutes were available for review. Councilman Neblett so moved to approve rezoning application #89- 1CRZ from RO to B-1 conditional in strict accordance with the written proffers dated December 16, 1988, February 10, 1989, and February 28, 1989, and all preliminary and final site plans for the development, including sign and building renderings, materials board, landscaping and grading plans. Motion seconded by Councilperson Copenhaver. Councilman Neblett stated that this proposal, when compared to those uses in R-0, would have less of an impact because of the conditions. Public facilities would not be affected. The additional traffic will not be any worse than R-0 development and the conditions attached to this development would aid traffic flow. The overwhelming economic benefits, job creation, economic development, recruitment of 848 March 16, 1989 new businesses, is the Council's number one goal Plan and the Planning Retreat that we had in the these members were present. As I have stated in west of us and I see economic development. And I look to the east and I see economic development. that for our Town and Pulaski County. Therefore, the best for our people in our Town. Councilman J. R. Schrader stated: from the Comprehensive fall, and all nine of the past, I look to the am jealous of that. I And I am jealous of I think this motion is "The time has come for me to get off the fence. We've heard, during recent weeks, many comments about the pros an cons on the rezoning request before us tonight. Some have been good; others not so good. We heard reference to speaking "with forked tongue" about those downtown supporters also supporting the rezoning. Comments have also been made about "buying votes". I have no knowledge of any Council Member or Town official receiving any renumeration for their vote. If this has happened, or happens in the future, I will be the first to ask for a thorough investigation and dismissal. There was a comment about honesty, integrity and honor of the Town Council being at stake. If this individual has knowledge of dishonesty, lack of integrity let him speak up and reveal what he knows. I've probably lived in Pulaski longer than any other member of Council and have seen the many changes take place with the moving of industry, loss of business and the appearance of our town. I'm not that old, but remember those things. It was not Town Council that lost Maple Shade Inn as some would have us believe. That was private property, a private matter for the owner at that time to decide. It is sad that such a historic structur is there no more. We cannot change that. The Church I attend built, after a destructive fire leveled the Church, Virginia Oak Flooring and several homes on Dora Highway, on the southwest corner of the Maple Shade Inn property at a time when the hotel was operating and only a couple of homes were in the same block. Today we sit behind one of the shopping centers. At every service we arrive to trash blowing across the parking lot, or dumpsters running over. It is not a pleasant sight, nor is it attractive to newcomers, visitors or passersby. Last year, following events around that rezoning request, First Pentecostal Holiness Church, S. Jefferson Avenue, purchased 7 acres of land on Memorial Drive as a site for a new sanctuary. That decision by Council played a major role in our membership and Board deciding on the site. I have heard it said or read some place that an elected official should serve his term as if he would not seek re-election. I feel that means to serve the people to the best of his or her ability. I have that as my goal. The decision before us has strong points on both sides. Much has been said about these points and it is time for us to let you, the voters, and public, know on which side we stand. I have received i ~_ March 16, 1989 8499 numerous calls for and against and a number of letters on both sides, but it is my decision and one the public sees and remembers. I have heard that there have been threatening calls, cursing from callers to those who have no say in this decision. There is no place for such actions on the part of anyone. This request has been another issue that is driving a wedge of dissension between citizens, Council and others. No developer is in business to lose money. No one likes for government to tell them what they can and/or cannot do with their property. We live in a society where rules and regulations must be a part of everything we do. We may not like them, but they are in place at every level of life. I have been told by some opponents that they do not shop in Pulaski, but go to other towns, counties and cities to purchase clothing, cars, shoes, ...you name it. Why not, then support a shopping center in Pulaski? I sat where you are sitting and know how easy back there. It's different from up here. I would now with you. About the comment of voting Council decision of the voters, so be it. I would certain to seek a seat, hope you win, and then know how it another's shoes. it is to vote from gladly change seats out, if that is the Ly invite any and all is to walk in Perhaps I could be like Abe Lincoln, I believe, who said "he pleased everyone; half when he arrived and the other half when he left." My vote tonight will make some people glad and others, well... Hindsight has always been 20-20. It's too bad foresight can't be. If it was we would do many things differently. Look at Route 99 and Bob White Boulevard. Council now faces studies and decisions to improve traffic flow, etc. Council faces the question of what to do with the remainder of the Allison property. What do we do? This decision has come with much thought. I have no problems with the Corker Group or other developers, but in my mind at this time, I must vote No to the rezoning request." Councilperson Copenhaver stated: "We as an entire Council made economic development our #1 goal for the future, at our recent Planning retreat. I see this center not just as "one" development but a "catalyst" for future growth! It is like a "snow-ball" effect---One "positive" step is taken ---and then another will follow--and another! Industry has been mentioned over and over---industry will not come to an area with a "negative reputation" such as we are slowly, but surely getting! It took time and some hard experience for me to realize I had to look at all decisions as "what is best for the entire Town of Pulaski". I have been so people oriented all of my life, and convinced I could somehow please everyone---that is not so! I have listened to everyone who has called or written and weighed it thoroughly, --- but I cannot -- -be influenced solely by "one group of individuals" who believe only the "affected"area should be listened to. We live in the affected area---we would probably have the best view of anyone in the "affected" area. My 8500 March 16, 1989 husband, Don and I, truly know the "ins & outs" of home owning, as we have lived in several different parts of the United States. I would not jeopardize our investment in our home-- which is "our future"! Some believe property values will go down---this has been "repeated" many times---Believe you me---if development does not occur---and soon we had all better begin to worry. Don and I have seen neighborhoods ruined by "unemployment"--but not, and I repeat--not--by a shopping center! We lived for 10 years with a McDonalds & a shopping center at the end of our street---an area every bit as nice as the "affected area". Co- incidentally, it was an area made up of young couples with children & many retired couples. We did not---nor did our neighborhood ever vie the center as anything but an asset! The Allison land will not remain just "beautiful land" for "residential development"! It will be sold piece by piece to the highest bidder who can move readily into an RO zone. What have we then gained???? A row of buildings with no continuity! Please remember, if our Town is to remain fiscally sound, and we have no new revenue-coming in- where else does it come from but higher taxes -- and many, many services cut????Wouldn't that be a shame, especially for all those on a "low" fixed income! I HAVE NO "higher political ambitions" as has been alluded to by several ! I ran for the office of Town Council 5 years ago because part of my heritage was here. I felt strongly about giving a part of my life to help see Pulaski grow---not wither and die! No--I am not a "native of Pulaski"--I have lived here 15 years--but my family goes back several generations here. I am not an "outsider"! My vote will never be understood by some, but --I will be able to face myself every morning knowing I did the best I could do for the entire Town of Pulaski whatever the outcome may be " Vice Mayor Neighbors stated: "I have had a problem with this decision. I've got a lot of friends and a valued employee that live within several doors of the shopping center. I guess I look at him no only as a friend, but as the brother that I never had. I was really surprised, I guess, at the attacks on Council and Planning Commission members, both for and against. I don't understand some of the comments that were made. Some of the comments were made about friends and they knew better than what they were saying. The attacks on the integrity and the character of the members of both boards surprised me. The people who serve this Town, both Planning Commission, and Council, and there are other committees too that we have, do so because they want to. Nobody forced us to do this. We kinda felt that we had something we could offer this Town and we have a desire to improve everything that is here. I don't think that any member serves for personal gain; I don't think any of them have an ego trip that they need to satisfy. I think that we are proud of what we have. We want to look to our future. I think Council's goal is to provide the best possible service to our community and our citizens that we can provide at the best possible cost. Democracy and government, as I understand it, is of, by and for the people. In a democratic society, we may disagree with what the governing body says, but we have that right without reprisal. There are countries where you don't have this right. Pulaski has done some good March 16, 1989 8501 things in the last few years - Peppers Ferry project will carry us well into the future with the sewer; the Town's water treatment plant is being expanded right now; Main Street has stopped the downward trend - the buildings are starting to be improved and people moving into them. Streets, sidewalks and lighting have been improved in the downtown, or are in the budget to be improved this year. The train station has been acquired from Norfolk and Southern. We look to do good things with the train station. All these things we have done and others I did not mention, there comes a time when you pay for them. We need a strong financial government in the Town of Pulaski. I do believe this. There is only two ways you can maintain this. One is through revenue and the other is through tax increases. Several members of this Council made the statement when they ran for office, that they would look to the revenue instead of the tax increase. I am one of them. I will do that. I was asked why in 1986 I was opposed to the shopping center on the same piece of property. At that time, if the minutes might reflect, my sole response to that question was that there was no conditional zoning on that piece of property at that time. Now there is conditional zoning. Some of the fears that I have had and you all have voiced, I don't think will come around now. We have a way to control this. The Council met several months ago in a retreat and at that time it was unanimous, 8 to nothing, that economic development was our No. 1 goal for our Town in our goals and objectives. Obviously that has changed. There must be something else that has replaced this. I look to the shopping center as a way to increase our tax base, a way to help correct our unemployment problems, a way to help correct the drain on spendable income that is leaving our Town. I think this is not only good for our Town citizens but also for County citizens as we are also County taxpayers. I was not asked to pick "X, Y, or Z" site for the shopping center. The proposal that I have to vote on is the proposal for Memorial Drive. I do not have the luxury of making the choice. One individual told me several nights ago, that he felt I ought to represent the majority of the votes of the Town of Pulaski and that's what I intend to do tonight." Councilman Graham stated: "I would like to make just a few remarks off the cuff prior to a statement I would like to make. I have been sort of amazed at the interest and the pressure that the news media has put in their papers lately, the last few weeks. So much emphasis on this little strip shopping center. You would believe this is the only economic future of our town if you would read this local newspaper. I will say offhand, it has not been very impressive and hasn't sold me on the idea. If you look at the Town of Pulaski, on Washington Ave a small shopping center; go over to Maple Shade Inn; two out on east Pulaski and we have a small one at Lowes and John Powers built another one which makes six. So we are really talking about the 7th strip shopping center. And believe me I made a few telephone calls and I won't mention the people and firms that I did call. What would be the economic development - I call a grocery store asking how many employees that are full-time, enjoying the full benefits of vacation and retirement. All these full time clerks vs. the temporary clerks that have no benefits. So I don't know the economic impact. I haven't been satisfied with all the dialogue and information that I have had on the economic thing. Of course we need economic development. I believe I could be the last one on this Council to be criticized for not being for economic development. I was on Council when White Motor came. I don't believe White Motor would be here without a few Andy Grahams giving their views on it. So ~ -~ i 8502 March 16, 1989 this is just an observation. Allow me to make a few remarks on my thinking concerning the real issue of changing the area in question on Memorial Drive from R.0 Residential Office to Business B-1 Conditional, a total of 19 acres. This is the 5th time that this subject has come before Council. This has come before Council three times at the same location. It would appear to me that the Town Administration, he and his assistant, would somehow get the idea that we want to preserve this as a residential area. Because I believe the Town citizens in the area of Memorial selected this part of our Town to build or to purchase their homes for their family to live and/or raise their children in a quiet, residents area. This is a beautiful residential area of our town and I further believe that a beautiful residential community is a vital asset for ou Town to attract new industry and to attract new commercial businesses. I put a high mark on good residential developments that the people can come in and live in a quiet residential area without being disturbed with industrial or commercial businesses encroaching on their property that they have spent their life's earnings on. The Town of Pulaski has such a development in the eastern area of our town and the Memorial Area Drive of our town. I want to remind Council that we have, or are spending about $25,000 of taxpayers' money for a land-use plan, zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. We have the land-use plan and zoning ordinance. This Council and Planning Commission are under great pressure to now change an area on Memorial Drive to commercial for a proposed strip shopping center (Strip shopping centers built in the Town of Pulaski: 1) 5th Street, 2) Old Maple Shade property, 3) Two on Rt. 99-E. Main St., 4) small strip shopping center where Lowe's Food is located, 5) John Powers shopping center on E. Main St.) I believe that the costly town land-use plan and town ordinance should be based on integrity. The people of our town should believe that their property is not being changed from beautiful residential to residential commercial area. It should be long lasting. I hear from the Town Manager that the Corker group would build holding basins on the shopping center property to hold water when we experience an unusual high flash flood. I do not know if these holding ponds will meet a 20 year, 50 year, or 100 year flash flood. We do not have this information. If we do, the Town Manager should recommend to Council that the developer have adequate bond for any flood damage down Memorial Drive that this might cause. We need our own consulting engineers (at the developer's cost) to determine the environmental impact and issues and legal problems which we may face in the future. We don't know if this shopping center property, apartment complex, and the development of the Allison property on the east side of Memorial Drive will have adverse effects on citizens downstream, such as Hudson Chevrolet and others in years to come. Mayor Hancock and Council members, I cannot vote for changing Memorial Drive from R.O to B-1 Conditional for the reasons stated. There has been an enormous amount of publicity concerning this .strip shopping center by our local news media (newspaper). :] Tiarch 16, 19$9 8503 I made some calls to stores and asked the question: "What is the percentage of full-time employees receiving vacation, sick leave, and health benefits versus temporary employees not receiving these benefits?" I got answers that the percentage could be 60o to 40o full- time versus part-time, or in the range of 50o full-time to 50% part- time. Industry will not come to any locality if adequate residential area is not available." Councilman W. H. Schrader stated he had made his remarks at the March 13 Planning Commission meeting. But he would stand with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Councilperson Holston stated that over the last two months, the issue of rezoning Memorial Drive has generated a great deal of controversy and opinions and a lot of emotion. The Town of Pulaski wants and needs development in all sectors; industrial, commercial and residential, and is actively seeking all three of these. We must grow but it should be in an orderly manner. The Corker Group should be commended for their efforts to work with all of us, the Council and the citizens, in their desire to build a first class shopping center. Their center in Abingdon is one of the best strip shopping centers that I have seen. People are always talking about the silent majority that is out here. And I have had a lot of calls saying that there is more people on this side of it than the other. So I set out myself to solicit this opinion of the citizens all over the Town. And for the past month, I have personally talked to 211 households of all income levels. I call this my own citizen survey. I approached this in a very positive way - never once did I try to sway opinion one way or the other. At first the people were very reluctant to talk and I think some of it is because of the things that Council members have said. But when I promised these people that I would not use their name, they opened up, they talked. We talked about many things. It was very informative and I think I could tell you where there are quite a few potholes in different streets, of what streets the police are patrolling, and the ones they don't, and I even can tell you of some people that are having trouble with their neighbors because of dogs, trash, etc. But it was very informative. When I ran for Council, one of the things I said was, "that I would like to represent the silent majority and that I would actively seek their advice". This I have done. I took the phone book and I would go down and look at addresses. I would find a Town address; I did not look at a name - it didn't matter to me, and I would call these people. So I will tell you now, that out of my 211 phone calls, 37 did not know what I was talking about; or did not have an opinion; 48 was yes and I can tell you some of these reasons for that -we need more places to shop, they liked the developer's plan and they thought it would help the Town, etc. 126 No. Reasons given: Not at this location, that we need industry first, that there would be more part-time jobs with minimum wage, they did not want to see this land used for shopping center but would be more inclined to support one at another location. But these figures do not include the phone calls that I got at home about this issue, the pros and cons about this issue. There has been quite a few. I have been targeted as a swing vote here tonight and I think everybody and his brother and sister in Pulaski has tried to give me a call. So I did not ~~ ~u 8504 March 16, 1989 come to this decision tonight that I have to make lightly. I have spent many hours studying the facts and receiving and soliciting opinions for and against this issue. I have evaluated all the information in coming to this decision that I feel is best for our town at this time. Around 18 months ago, Council spent many hours in determining where our commercial and residential zoning should be. This zoning now stands approved and it is supposed to be our direction into the future. Therefore, tonight I will have to cast my vote against rezoning this property. But also I urge the Corker Group to seriously consider another location, maybe the Bob White location. I would love to see their shopping center here. Councilman Crawford, speaking not only as a Town Council Member, but as Chairman of the Finance Committee, and also as a citizen that lives in the area that they are talking about. "In a few weeks this Council will begin work on the Town budget for the 1989/1990 year. Our task will be to continue to provide needed services without increasing the taxes of our citizens. An impossible task if we say "no" to new business. We have a choice...we can raise revenue by increasing taxes our citizens pay or we can raise revenue by increasing our tax base. We have the opportunity tonight to increase the tax base. The shopping center we are about to vote on would generate the following estimated revenues: For the Town: Real estate, sales and business taxes - 5103,000/yr For the County: real estate & sales taxes - 5249,000/yearly The shopping center will also provide needed jobs that will help generate additional revenue. It may even offer the opportunity for some of our young people to stay and work in Pulaski rather than move to other communities. The Town leaders have provided the foundation for growth: 1) We have annexed land that includes industrial sites. 2) We are in the process of expanding our water treatment plant. 3) We have built a modern sewage treatment plant. 4) We have spent large sums of money on our streets and roads. 5) We have an outstanding school system, modern hospital and excellent fire and police departments. 6) We have in effect needed ordinances for controlled growth. Everything is in place! How do we say "no" to the first business that steps forward and says "I want to locate in Pulaski"? I have paid close attention to everything that has been said or been written concerning this zoning request. I have not heard from our citizens or the Planning Commission any reasons that would adequately justify the denial of the zoning request in terms of the issues to consider as outlined in the Code of Virginia. Therefore, if this zoning request is denied--I request that the reason for denial be listed and made a part of the denial." Mayor Hancock stated it seems apparent there will be a tie vote tonight, as I have counted the votes as those Council Members have indicated how they would vote. That puts me in the position of making remarks tonight which I would like to do now. March 16, 1989 8505 "For some time, I have endeavored to reach a decision with regard to whether or not I would be able to vote, if a tie vote occurred, regarding the request of the Corker Group to rezone the Allison property on Memorial Drive. The issue of my participation arises because one of my law partners represents the Estate of Walter Allison, which owns the property in question. I have been contacted by citizens suggesting that, if a tie occurred, I should not vote because of the ties of my law firm to the owner of this property. I have also received numerous calls suggesting that I should vote no matter what the ethical consequences. I am proud of my leadership over my four years as Mayor. I believe the Town has made great strides in many areas over those four years, and I do not believe that I have hesitated to provide leadership at any point. I have worked hard, and Council has worked diligently, to change Pulaski's image - to put our best foot forward - to open our doors to economic and business development of all types. I feel that this decision is one which will have a major economic impact on the future of Pulaski. This decision carries with it ramifications that will be with this Council for years to come. I am concerned that other developers seeking to promote other areas - other towns - are already using Pulaski as an example of a community that does not want new business. This is not a reputation that we can afford. Although I hope it is not the case, I am afraid that the major anchor stores that have demonstrated a genuine interest in locating in Pulaski will permanently write our community off when it comes to future development. However, at the same time, I, too, share those concerns of the neighborhood about this development. Those concerns are very real. However, it is the duty of this Council to do what is best for the entire community - to weigh the concerns of the neighborhood and those of the Town as a whole. I am sure you all agree that this decision is one of the most difficult - and certainly most controversial, to be faced by this Council. This issue has weighed heavily on the minds and hearts of each member of this Council. Being fully mindful of the concerns of the neighborhood, when I look to what could be built on this site under current zoning, I see very little difference between that type of already acceptable development and the current proposal. Indeed, under the current zoning, there is a possibility of less desirable uses which would require no approval of Council. Further, the neighborhood, under those circumstances, would not have the benefit of conditional zoning to provide maximum protection to the surrounding neighborhood. My decision this evening is not about leadership, but about doing what I believe is right - it is about exercising good judgment and setting a good example. With calls coming from both sides, I have found myself in a no win situation. While I have personally not had professional dealings with the 18506 ZONING VOTE March 16, 1989 Allison Estate, I felt compelled to request from the Commonwealth's Attorney of Pulaski County a formal opinion as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists. I also found it necessary to request an opinion from the Virginia State Bar. While Mr. Shockley has advised that under current law, I do not have a legal conflict, both Mr. Shockley and I appear to agree, as does our Town Attorney, that my participation might appear inappropriate to some citizens interested in this emotional issue. The appearance of a conflict is often as much of concern as an actual conflict. Those citizens with whom I have talked who have taken no side with regard to this issue, told me that it would be difficult for the average citizen to understand the technical distinctions in the law which would permit me to cast the deciding vote on a matter which could benefit a client o a law firm in which I am a partner. I believe "a lawyer (and also a public official) should determine his conduct by acting in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the legal system and the legal profession and also Town government." Indeed, this is required of all attorneys. In his opinion to me, the Counsel to the Virginia State Bar advised that "public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the legal profession would not be bolstered - indeed, it would be assailed - should you vote on the rezoning issue." While I am deeply concerned about the future of Pulaski, and while I feel that I could impartially make a decision on this issue, I feel that due to the questions raised regarding the appropriateness of my voting, particularly the advice of the Virginia State Bar regarding the specter of impropriety that may well be raised if I did choose to vote on this matter, that I should not vote on this rezoning request. I very much would like to vote on this issue, and as may be apparent from my comments, I would vote in favor of this rezoning when considering the ethical ramifications of my decision, I believe that t only way that I can exercise good and sound judgment, and indeed demonstrate the type of leadership that I believe Pulaski is entitled to, would be for me to abstain from any vote on this issue. If I choose to take my chances and vote, I could subject myself and the Town to a variety of legal and ethical consequences. My vote could lead to consequences which even further divide this Town and polarize its citizens. In the end, this is a decision that only I can make. I believe that the citizens of Pulaski will understand my position, and respect it. of Council on Councilman Neblett's motion: There being no further comments, Mayor Hancock called for the vote Mr. James Neblett - Aye Mr. Andrew Graham - No Mr. J. R. Schrader - No Mr. W. H. Schrader - No Mrs. Mary Lou Copenhaver - Aye Mrs. Alma Holston - No Mr. James Neighbors - Aye Mr. Ira S. Crawford - Aye Mayor Hancock advised that we had a tie vote which means, under the law, that the motion fails. A majority is required in order for the March 16, 1989 8507 motioh to pass. There is no provision according to our Town Attorney! for the appointment of a tie-breaker in such situations. Some counties enjoy that option, but we do not. Therefore the motion fails. Mayor Hancock, on behalf of Council, addressed comments to Mr. Vermillion. He stated this had been a difficult vote for the Council; and this vote does not indicate that we oppose business in any form i;n Pulaski. Indeed, just the opposite is true. The emphasis of the Council has been to revitalize our Town and to encourage business of all types to locate in our town. Just a week ago, we read in our newspaprers and heard on our radios that an industry had come to Pulaski and one of the main reasons they cited for coming here was because of the cooperation and work of the Town Council. He thought this spoke for itself. The dilemma this Council faced tonight is a dilemma that has been faced by this Council for years. This battle has been fought many times as Mr. Graham mentioned; its been fought long before the Mayor. came to Pulaski and if the past has been any indication, it may be a battle that may be fought well into the future. But aside from the emotional issues of this rezoning of this particular piece of property, I believe the whole Council would say, everyone, no matter how they voted, that we very much would like to have the Corker Group here in Pulaski- we would very much welcome a shopping center in this community and we believe that we need one in this community. The problem is that this area is so saddled with history that we find ourselves in this position tonight as we have found ourselves on six prior occasions. I hope that you will convey to your tenants, and to your clients, that the Town of Pulaski is not anti-business - that we would like to have you here and I hope that you and your clients will consider other options available to them here in the Town of Pulaski. We have enjoyed working with you, we've enjoyed your professionalism, we appreciate the manner in which you presented this to the Council. Mayor Hancock thanked all the citizens for coming to the meeting. Mr. Don Crispin spoke on behalf of the people on Memorial Drive, and seconded the remarks made by Mayor Hancock. They would certainly like to have the Corker Group here in Pulaski. He felt there were a lot of places that would suit their needs very nicely and would not create a division of the Town. He stated that if they decide Pulaski is worth developing and they have good relations with the Town, he hoped they would consider coming and staying in Pulaski and building on a different location. At 7:49 p.m. on motion made by Councilman Neblett, seconded by Councilman Neighbors and carried, Council adjourned. APPROVED: ~~~ Mayor ATTEST: C el rk of Council 8508 March 16, 1989 WAIVER Town ~e, the undersigned, duly elected members of the Council of the ~f Pulaski, Virginia, hereby waive notice of a Special Meeting of sa~~d Council at 7:00 p.m., on the 16th of March, 1989, for the purpo~ ~e of voting on the Memorial Drive zoning question. ~ITNESS our signatures this 16th day of March, 1989. 1