A hot button topic discussed in Tuesday's Harrisonburg City Council meeting was the city's mulch ordinance. In its original wording, it required any combustible landscaping, like mulch, to be removed to at least 18 inches away from a building.

However, back in February, the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill targeting this ordinance. Lawmakers decided Harrisonburg could not regulate the type of landscape material.

Today's meeting was all about proposing new amendments to stay in compliance with the new state law.

A 2014 mulch fire at Chestnut Ridge Apartments caused more than $1 million in damages. According to Harrisonburg's Fire Department, mulch fires are too common. From 2008 to 2014, the city saw more than 200 fires. Between 2014 and the present time, there have been 45 cases causing thousands of dollars in damages.

The HFD adds they've been lucky. So far, the fires have been during daytime. When a mulch fire occurs, it tends to spread up the side of a building and spread into the roof area. Typically, they say there are no sprinklers or smoke alarms. Fire leaders warned if this happens at night, there's a higher chance people will not note the fire until it is too late and someone could lose their life.

In tonight's meeting, the HFD's amendment proposed eliminating the requirement of removing combustible materials from the side of a building. Instead, building owners would not be able to add any new material within 18 inches of the side of a building. Leaders say this ordinance will save lives and similar measures have been effective throughout the country, plus, under the new amendments, building owners would have to do nothing extra to stay in compliance.

But critics call the amendments unlawful and a play of semantics to get around leaders in Richmond.

"We strongly encourage city council not to pass this amended language that we believe is non-compliant with senate bill 736 and may well lead the city down the road to costly litigation," said Patrick McCloud of the Virginia Apartment Management Association.

After that public hearing, council members slammed business and apartment representatives that spoke against the amendments. Council passed the changed language on a 5-0 vote.

McCloud tells WHSV that VAMA is disappointed in the city's allegation that their agency never tried to work with city leaders on the topic. He points to meeting with city council in June of last year. He remains sure that the amendments are non-compliant with state law.