The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/13/25 PC PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, January 13 , 2025 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers 1.Call to Order – 6:00 p.m. (< 1 min) 2.Roll Call (<1 min) 3.Review and Approval of Minutes (5-10 Mins)a.December 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes 4.Public Hearing (NA) 5.New Business (20-30 Mins) a.Discussion of proposed changes to the zoning ordinance—"Nursing Home” clean-up 6.Old Business (NA) 7.Other Business (NA) 8.Staff Report (5-10Mins) a. Justice Property Housing Development b.Staff changes 9.Commissioner Comments (5-10 Mins.) 10.Adjournment (<1Min) Town of Pulaski Planning Commission Municipal Building, Council Chambers December 9, 2024 Present: AJ Schrantz, Terry Hale, Van Taylor, Jeremy Clark Absent: Rachel Arthur, Kevin Meyer Guests: None Staff: Summer Bork, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Olivia Hale, Clerk of Council Call to Order Vice- Chairman Schrantz called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The roll was taken by Ms. Bork and a quorum was determined with the four members present at the time of the roll call. Review and Approval of Minutes Vice- Chairman Schrantz called for a review of the November 12, 2024 minutes and a motion to adopt. The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing No Public Hearings were scheduled. New Business No new business was discussed. Old Business No old business was discussed. Other Business No other business was discussed. Staff Report a. Convalescent Homes, Nursing Homes, and Assisted Living Facilities- Definition and Zoning Amendment Ms. Bork reported the Town of Pulaski is looking at the current zoning regulations and shaping up definitions to ensure the citizens and public interests are protected. She stated there are conversations being held throughout the region regarding ‘rehab facilities’ and other types of medical uses related to recovery and rehabilitation of alcohol and substance abuse. She stated within the previous year, the Town has looked at outpatient-type buildings, as well as hospitals, and now the Town is reviewing inpatient housing types, as the State of Virginia is not clear about the lines and delineations between what would constitute ‘assisted living’, ‘elder continuous care’, or ‘disabled continuous care’. She recommended, if the commission deems necessary, to look at cleaning up the continuity, if the definitions are sufficient, and look to address and rename the mismatch related to what the use is called, and what the actual definition is or how to make it more of a robust definition. She stated that would include all aspects that could fall under the definitions or delineates between them. Ms. Bork stated the most pressing concern is looking at how ‘convalescent homes’, ‘nursing homes’, and ‘assisted living homes’ are defined and whether there are delineations and if we need to define those delineations. The other concern would be if the Town took this as a lump unit, the Town could possibly be adversely allowing elder continuous care into the Town, and with a substantial population within the next 25 years to be considered senior, that may not be the best course of action, knowing there is an aging population. The other consideration would be the location and zoning. Ms. Bork suggested looking at what other localities definitions are and creating a definition of some kind of ‘residential elder care’ with an age limit, the other option would be having a ‘rehabilitation facility’, which are defined as ‘psychological or psychiatric rehabilitation centers’, which makes them broader than just ‘substance abuse’ but ‘substance abuse’ is incorporated into it and it becomes its own definition and use within zoning. Mr. Clark recommended starting with ‘nursing home’, how it’s defined within the Town’s zoning definition compared to the state’s definition. Ms. Bork stated there wasn’t much difference in the definition itself, the issue is that nowhere is it simply called a ‘nursing home’ in the zoning and there’s a floating definition and a use, and they don’t match. She stated in the current zoning the terms are defined one of two ways, depending on which district it is in and between ‘convalescent home’, ‘nursing home’, and ‘living facilities’, the only definition is for ‘nursing home’. Mr. Clark asked if ‘nursing home’ could be added to the existing zoning regulations that’s ‘convalescent homes’ and ‘health facilities’. Ms. Bork stated if the commission wants to recommend all the uses be used for the definition of ‘nursing home’ which would include inpatient care. Mr. Clark recommended that outpatient care should be considered under a special exception. Ms. Bork stated the commission is defining only inpatient facilities, that an outpatient facility would be excluded from the definition, as it has already been defined within the last year with the commission. She recommended excluding ‘substance abuse’ or ‘psychiatric rehabilitation’ and create new definitions. Vice-Chairman Schrantz stated it’s helpful to see what surrounding localities and the state are using for definitions and if they fit the bill and the image for the Town of Pulaski, it would make sense to use those as a basis and a starting point. Mr. Taylor asked if any of these by-right or based on Ms. Bork’s understanding under existing zoning regulations. Ms. Bork stated the only place it shows up as a by-right is under planned development units which the commission will review. Mr. Taylor agreed to clean up the definitions and look where it should be allowed. Ms. Bork address other considerations on the impact to ‘nursing homes’, whether it be parking considerations, or vegetative buffering which should or maybe be considered as a legislative requirement to the development. Mr. Taylor summarized what needs to occur with cleaning up synonyms, refine that definition to reduce ambiguity, and review where it’s allowed under a special exception. Ms. Bork also recommended looking at state group home legislation, where the state sets certain zoning principles on various things around health, agriculture, etc. to ensure the Town is not going to cause potential issues without seeming biased towards one type of use. Mr. Taylor stated he felt the bigger challenge for the town populace would be more with outpatient facilities than inpatient ones but the commission needs to know what they can and can’t do legally. Vice-Chairman Schrantz stated the commission will revisit the definitions after research has been completed and come January, hopefully move forward with some form of definition and pass the recommendation along to Town Council. Commissioner Comments Mr. Taylor asked for electronic invites to meetings through the town issued email addresses. Adjournment The motion was made by Mr. Taylor and seconded by Mr. Clark to adjourn the meeting at 6:32 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Nursing Home Ordinance Revisions Author: Summer Bork Date: 1/9/2025 1. Adopt a new definition emphasizing age as a condition of occupancy/business model delineation. To replace “nursing home” in section 11. Elderly Living and Care Facilities—A facility with the primary function of providing room and board to residents over 55 years of age. Such facilities may also provide continuing care and nursing services. 2. Edit the use name to “Elderly Living and Care Facilities” in relevant ordinance sections where use is found in the town zoning ordinance. Presently, use is found in the following zones. Special Exception: R-1, R-2, R-3, B-1 Permitted Use: PUD 3. Consider where allowed zones are appropriate for these uses. According to an article published by the American Planning Association, most assisted living facilities and nursing homes are generally considered compatible with higher-density residential uses. Other rehabilitation facilities, such as inpatient psychiatric care, are often considered compatible with lower- density commercial districts. Staff recommendation for Elderly Living and Care Facilities: Special Exceptions in R-3 and RO districts. Permitted Use: PUD 4.Further future considerations include exploring zoning considerations Creation of a “recovery housing” use. These housing options help support those transitioning from rehabilitation facilities, often additional treatment centers. These houses aim to provide safe, substance-free residential environments and have peer support and connection to additional services to promote long-term recovery and societal reintegration. They are standards for such houses established by the National Alliance for Recovery Residences and Oxford House, Inc., which serve as credentialing entities recognized by the state of Virginia. Recovery Housing is regulated similarly in the state as group homes; however, licensure is not required under the state of Virginia. The town could stipulate credentialing in its definition. This would require such houses to adhere to state regulations for operation, and the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services would maintain a record of such houses. Recovery Residence-- a housing facility that is certified by the Department in accordance with regulations adopted by the Board and provides alcohol-free and illicit-drug-free housing to individuals with substance abuse disorders and individuals with co-occurring mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders that does not include clinical treatment services. (VA Code)