HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/25 PC & TC Packet Planning Commission/ Town Council Joint Meeting
Agenda
Monday, September 8, 2025 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers
1. Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order- Vice-Chairman Schrantz
2. Planning Commission Roll Call- Clerk of Council
3. Town Council Meeting Called to Order- Mayor Collins
4. Town Council Roll Call- Clerk of Council
5. Planning Commission motion & vote to move into joint meeting with Town Council
6. Town Council motion & vote to move into joint meeting with Planning Commission
7. Review and Approval of Minutes
a. Planning Commission motion & vote to approve August 11, 2025 Planning
Commission & Town Council meeting minutes b. Town Council motion & vote to approve August 11, 2025 Planning Commission & Town Council meeting minutes
8. Public Hearing
a. Petition by applicant the Town of Pulaski to rezone 176 wooded acres from Single Family Residential District (R-1) to Multi-Family Residential District (R-
3) and General Business District (B-2) located at 3012 Lee Highway, at Tax Map #63-1-219, #63-1-220, and #63-42-1. i. Mayor Collins reads Public Hearing advertisement ran in the Patriot on August 22nd and August 29th.
ii. Mayor Collins reads Public Hearing rules/guidelines for Public Hearing.
iii. Vice-Chairman Schrantz opens Planning Commission Public Hearing
iv. Mayor Collins opens Town Council Public Hearing
v. Vice-Chairman Schrantz closes Planning Commission Public Hearing
vi. Mayor Collins closes Town Council Public Hearing
9. Town Council recesses meeting for Planning Commission to discuss and vote on rezoning recommendation
10. Town Council rejoins meeting, discusses Planning Commission recommendation and
votes on rezoning application
a. Ordinance 2025-03 Rezoning 3012 Lee Highway from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) and General Business (B-2)
11. Staff Report (NA)
12. Commissioner Comments
13. Town Council Comments
14. Reminder of Next Meeting
a. Planning Commission Meeting- Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
b. Town Council Meeting- September 16, 2025, Closed Session at 6:00 p.m.; Open
Session 7:00 p.m. 15. Adjournment from Planning Commission Meeting- Vice-Chairman Schrantz
16. Adjournment from Town Council Meeting- Mayor Collins
Town of Pulaski Planning Commission & Town Council Joint Meeting
Municipal Building, Council Chambers August 11, 2025 1. Chairman Meyer called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and
asked for a roll call.
Conner Compton- Absent Brandon Turcotte- Aye A.J. Schrantz- Aye Jeremy Clark- Aye Terry Hale- Aye Chairman Meyer- Aye
2. Mayor Colling called the Town Council meeting to order and asked for a roll call. Jeremy L. Clark- Aye G. Tyler Clontz- Absent Mayor Collins- Aye Sunshine N. Cope- Aye Steven W. Erickson- Aye
Brooks R. Dawson- Aye Joel B. Burchett- Aye
3. Chairman Meyer asked for a motion to enter into a joint meeting with the Town Council. The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale.
The motion passed unanimously. 4. Mayor Collins asked for a motion to enter into a joint meeting with the Planning Commission.
The motion was made by Vice-Mayor Dawson and seconded by Councilwoman Cope. Jeremy L. Clark- Aye G. Tyler Clontz- Absent Mayor Collins- Aye Sunshine N. Cope- Aye Steven W. Erickson- Aye
Brooks R. Dawson- Aye Joel B. Burchett- Aye
5. Chairman Meyer requested a motion to review and approve the minutes of the June 9, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.
The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Turcotte to adopt the minutes.
The motion passed unanimously.
6. No public hearings were scheduled.
7. Presentations
a. Project Plans & Zoning Discussions for Proposed Housing Development project on Memorial Drive- Steve Semones, Senior Director, Land Development, Balzer & Associates
Mr. Semones, spoke on behalf of the project team and developer, David Hagan,
explained that he had previously presented initial plans to both the Town Council and the Planning Commission and this joint session was arranged to revisit the project, address earlier questions and concerns, and prepare the proposal for a possible public hearing for consideration of rezoning the property.
Mr. Semones outlined the rezoning request concerning the 174-acre property, which includes areas zoned Residential Office (R-O) along Lee Highway, General Business (B-2) along Memorial Drive, and Single Family Residential (R-1) in the remaining back portion of the property. The proposal seeks to rezone the land to
B-2 and Multi-Family Residential (R-3). The B-2 zoning would be reshaped and
reduced to a 10-acre parcel, with an additional 8.3 acres shifted from R-O to B-2 along the main road. The remaining 151 acres would be rezoned to R-3 for residential development. Mr. Semones addressed a key question from prior meetings: why the developers chose R-3 zoning rather than a Planned Unit Development (PUD). He explained that while he has completed many rezonings involving PUDs in surrounding
areas, they are typically used when projects seek deviations from established
ordinances, such as higher density or reduced lot sizes. In this case, after reviewing the town’s ordinances, the town stated interest in creating ‘attainable’, rather than strictly ‘affordable’ housing, the team decided that R-3 zoning already accommodated the intended housing mix without requiring deviations.
He added that relying on R-3 zoning rather than a PUD also provides long-term clarity and consistency, especially for a development expected to unfold over many years, avoiding confusion caused by staff or administrative turnover.
Mr. Semones emphasized that R-3 zoning offers compatibility with adjacent R-1
residential areas in density; R-3 allows up to four single-family units per acre, which is the same as R-1. The proposal envisions fewer than two units per acre- less than half of the allowable density. Lot size: the minimum lot size in both R-1 and R-3 is 10,000 square feet, approximately a quarter-acre, and setbacks, rear
yard setbacks are 25 feet in both districts, ensuring consistency with adjacent R-1 neighborhoods. Chairman Meyer questioned whether the densities are calculated based on the number of housing units divided by the total number of acres.
Mr. Semones stated that the commercial acreage was removed, which includes the total residential acreage.
Chairman Meyer clarified that the acreage that the water tower sits on will not be developed, but questioned whether it is included in the calculation. Mr. Semones stated it is in the calculation.
Chairman Meyer commented that you could have lots, or houses that are half-acre lots. Mr. Semones stated that they are 10,000 square feet, which is a quarter of an acre,
where it meets the equation of 40 units per acre.
While R-1 zoning requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet, R-3 allows widths as narrow as 50 feet. However, Mr. Semones explained that the development team has proposed a proffer to maintain wider lots, averaging 70 feet in width and
approximately 143 feet in depth. This design is intended to provide flexibility for
future homeowners, such as the option to add attached garages, and avoid overly cramped “cracker jack box” style housing on narrow 50-foot lots. Mr. Semones continued by explaining that although R-3 zoning allows for narrow
lots of 50 feet in frontage and 80 feet in depth, the development is proposing
larger lots averaging 70 feet wide and 143 feet deep. These larger dimensions provide flexibility for different housing styles, including two-story homes, ranch homes, and homes with basements, depending on topography. The wider lots also allow for greater setbacks, giving homeowners more options for additions such as
attached garages. Importantly, this flexibility supports a range of house sizes and
styles that can serve different price points and market segments, which would not be possible with narrower lots. The proposed development currently includes one access point from Lee Highway
at an existing crossover and three access points from Pepper’s Ferry Road.
Additionally, there may be a future cross-connection between the commercial area and the townhouse section, pending approval from VDOT and depending on how the commercial site develops. For pedestrian safety, all roads within the development will include curb, gutter, and sidewalks on at least one side. This
design avoids open roadside ditches and reduces long-term maintenance issues.
Stormwater management facilities are planned throughout the property at natural low points, where runoff can be detained and released according to state and local requirements.
A significant discussion centered around responsibility for stormwater facilities
and open space maintenance. Mr. Semones explained that current regulations require the establishment of a homeowner’s association (HOA) to manage stormwater systems and shared open spaces. These covenants ensure long-term
maintenance according to state guidelines, preventing issues, such as dam failures or clogged pipes from being neglected. While there is some initial confusion
about whether an HOA would cover only the townhouse section or the entire
development, Mr. Semones clarified that the HOA would extend across the single-family homes as well. He acknowledged that the town could, in the future, assume responsibility for certain areas if deemed to have a broader public benefit- for example, if part of the large open space were converted into a town park.
However, the default expectation is that the HOA will maintain all facilities.
Parking provisions will ensure each home has a driveway capable of accommodating at least two or three vehicles, reducing reliance on street parking. The streets themselves could allow for additional parking if permitted by the town
code. Water and sewer infrastructure is already available throughout or adjacent
to the site, and while final capacity studies will be required, initial assessments suggest sufficient availability. Trash collection will be managed with rollout carts serviced by the town.
Mr. Semones emphasized that the project aligns with the town’s comprehensive
plan, particularly its emphasis on housing as a key factor in economic development. He noted that without adequate housing, efforts to attract businesses to the New River Valley would be undermined. The development aims to provide “attainable” housing- mid-range homes that are neither luxury-priced nor
exclusively low-income.
To keep house prices within reach, the design minimizes excessive grading and infrastructure costs. Instead of mass grading the entire site, the developers plan to work with existing topography, relying on spine roads and small loops. This
strategy preserves open space, lowers construction costs, and reduces density,
thereby creating a neighborhood that is compatible with adjacent communities. Addressing a major concern raised in earlier discussions, Mr. Semones assured both the Planning Commission and Town Council that the developers do not
intend to build multi-family apartment buildings, even though such uses are
allowed by right under R-3 zoning. To formalize this commitment, the development team submitted a proffer tied to the master plan. The proffer states that the property will be developed in general conformance with the conceptual master plan dated June 30, 2025, and explicitly prohibits apartment buildings or
units unless future approval is granted by the town. This ensures that the project
will proceed as currently presented, with no hidden plans to introduce high-density multifamily housing. Mr. Semones clarified that the proffer runs with the land itself, not with
ownership. This means that even if portions of the property are sold or
subdivided, all future developers must abide by the same conditions and master plan, unless they return to the Town Council and Planning Commission for
amendments. Town officials confirmed that the requirement is consistent with state code.
Manager Day commented that the development contract, signed July 28, 2025, explicitly references the drawings and plans currently under discussion. Since the project’s conception, the design documents have not been altered, underscoring the developer’s consistency and commitment. He emphasized that the SHAH
Development project is, to his knowledge, the largest continuous housing
development in the New River Valley and certainly the largest in the Town of Pulaski based on records available. Given its scale and significance, the town leadership views it as crucial to preserve the project’s integrity while also ensuring that the community benefits from it.
Manager Day stated that among the boards involved, there are mixed perspectives on the inclusion of apartments. Some officials support the idea, while others prefer developments without them. However, even if future development includes apartments, the developer, Mr. Hagan, has never built units that qualify as
“affordable housing” under the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) definition. This distinction reassured some officials who worried about unintended outcomes related to affordability classifications. The project’s contract is extensive and detailed, but Manager Day noted that no
agreement can completely prevent loopholes or unforeseen interpretations. He
stressed that substantial effort and negotiations have gone into the drafting process, including disagreements with SHAH Development over specific elements.
One notable conflict concerned sidewalks and curbs, which SHAH initially
resisted. The town insisted on these features to ensure the project would foster a high-quality, walkable community. After negotiations, SHAH agreed to include them, a compromise that strengthened the overall project design. Manager Day also underscored the importance of unanimous board support, not only for
community unity but also because grant applications and funding opportunities
often require evidence of strong local backing. Transparency efforts have included compliance with FOIA regulations and publicizing the project to the best of the town’s ability, with more outreach to come during the public hearing phase.
Manager Day asked Mr. Semones to share his thoughts and any comments related
to a PUD vs standard zoning. He stated that the PUD is looked at more favorably for the locality, as it gives the town a little more control. Mr. Semones explained that while PUD offers greater control over projects, it can
also complicate administration when staff turnover occurs. Using the example of
the Blacksburg Middle School redevelopment, Mr. Semones explained how changes in planning staff over time created confusion and setbacks in implementing a PUD. The distinction between “general conformance” and
“substantial conformance” was highlighted; substantial conformance, a stricter standard often required in PUDs, can create friction between developers,
localities, and the public when even small adjustments place a project out of
compliance. Despite the challenges, the town’s zoning ordinances are more adaptable and forward-thinking than those of neighboring localities, reducing the need for PUDs in most cases.
Chairman Meyer acknowledged that the current project resembles a PUD in scope
and character, and stressed the need to retain review authority even if standard R-3 zoning applies. He reflected on his personal experience when moving to Pulaski decades earlier, noting the limited housing options available at the time. He argued that a diversity of housing types, including apartments, townhomes, and
single-family homes, was necessary for a healthy community. He questioned
whether the existing water tower in the development would fall under the HOA. Mr. Semones stated that the water tower would not fall under the HOA.
Manager Day commented that the current zoning map shows a business district on
the south side, but it is an error, and asked if the Planning Commission members had any additional questions. Vice-Chairman Schrantz asked whether homes that failed to sell would be
allowed to convert into rental properties.
Mr. Semones stated that he wasn’t aware, from a contractual standpoint, he assumed anyone would have the right to rent their home, if they buy, or if they sit, they can rent them, but he wasn’t aware of anything contractually that says they
have to be for sale or they can’t have some of those for rent.
Clarifications were made that townhomes would be platted individually on fee-simple lots, in compliance with R-3 ordinance requirements. While technically single-family homes, the possibility remains that investors could purchase
multiple townhomes and rent them out, creating a mix of rental and owner-
occupied housing within the development. Mr. Semones reported that the development team heard concerns about the R-3 and PUD, and he suggested putting a proffer in place, restricting a multi-family,
that would give some reassurance and prompt for the master plan. After further
discussion, Mr. Hagan agreed to go with the proffer and agreed to restrict the multi-family units out of the development. Chairman Meyer asked who decides what the terms are under the HOA
agreement.
Mr. Semones stated that it is typically the developer who maintains control until the last lot, the last home is sold, or they can release it earlier if desired.
Chairman Meyer asked if the homeowners could vote to do away with the HOA once the last property is sold.
Manager Day commented that his experiences with HOA, the developer will move on to other opportunities, and by state law, if there’s an overlay in an era of town, the overlay has to be enforced by the locality, as long as it’s created with the locality.
Councilman Burchett gave the example of Pleasant Hill Point, where the developer turned the project over to the HOA. Residents elected officers, followed required meeting schedules, and maintained standards without significant issues, demonstrating that long-term conformance largely depends on
the quality of HOA leadership.
Chairman Meyer asked if the sidewalks, roads, gutters, and lighting would be the responsibility of the town.
Manager Day explained that whether roads are taken over by the town depends on
factors like right-of-way width and construction standards. VDOT requires specific road widths based on traffic volume and subdivision size, and the infrastructure- roads, water, sewer, and stormwater systems- must all meet state agency approvals before being accepted, but the town is compensated by the state
to maintain those.
He also highlighted the financial benefits of the subdivision. The project was projected to achieve a return on investment in about three and a half years, based on property taxes and infrastructure values, with the subdivision fully paying for
itself within a decade. He noted that this kind of project represents a strong
investment for the town, though a buildout will be gradual, beginning with just a handful of homes and expanding over several phases. While the presented phasing plan still exists, it is not a binding condition; it
provides a general framework. Chairman Meyer questioned what if a homeowner
wanted to purchase a property in a different phase of construction. Mr. Semones stated the purchaser would have to wait. The first phases will focus on areas with road frontage and existing utility access to minimize upfront costs
and encourage early activity. Later phases may shift depending on demand,
particularly concerning townhomes, which would be introduced earlier or later based on market conditions. Ultimately, phasing remains flexible, designed to respond to market realities while maintaining safety and infrastructure compliance.
Vice-Chairman Schrantz asked about the Commonwealth of Virginia code that requires central mailboxes in new subdivisions.
Mr. Semones confirmed this applies to the project and acknowledged the difficulties it creates. Large communities can experience traffic backups around
mailbox stations, especially when multiple residents arrive after work, creating
safety and convenience challenges. The placement of mailbox stations requires careful coordination with the local postmaster to identify suitable locations that minimize disruption while meeting federal postal requirements.
Chairman Meyer asked if VDOT was involved yet in the planning phase.
Mr. Semones stated that they aren’t involved yet, but they are aware of the project, and no studies on intersections have been completed.
Manager Day commented that VDOT’s design requirements include clear sight
distances, traditionally ten times the posted speed limit, though the exact standards have evolved slightly. Mr. Semones indicated they had reviewed intersections and aligned new entrances
with existing roads to improve safety and meet spacing standards. Flexibility
remains in the plan to adjust entrance locations if required, with the priority of balancing accessibility with emergency vehicle needs while avoiding turning the subdivision into a through-route.
Manager Day emphasized that one of the main goals is to improve communication
between the government bodies and avoid situations where Town Council members arrive at public hearings without prior knowledge of the project. He explained that while public input during hearings can legitimately influence decisions, it does not make sense to hold expensive public hearings if council members already know they are opposed to
the project. To prevent wasted time and money, the strategy moving forward is to ensure
both the Planning Commission and Town Council have sufficient information and alignment before scheduling hearings. Manager Day requested that both boards unanimously support the rezoning map and drawing being presented so the project can advance toward a public hearing with a clear direction.
Chairman Meyer stated, “It would be inappropriate for us to vote on the plan, process-wise. The next thing for us is to receive the rezoning request that matches the contract and the drawings. And as we said all along, we asked the question about why not PUD because it looked like a PUD-type development. We've gotten those answers. We've
gotten a proffer that pretty closely gives the town the control that the PUD would have
allowed, and keeps it where the review happens if there are any changes. And so we've got that in place. So, the appropriate thing for us to do would be to move forward with a public hearing. That’s the next step in our process: to schedule a public hearing at our next meeting in September.”
Manager Day asked if any other board members had any reason or any other questions that would hinder them from voting to support an R-3.
No board members had any questions or concerns.
Chairman Meyer has requested that a public hearing be scheduled at the following
Planning Commission meeting on September 8, 2025. Town Attorney, Scot Farthing, commented that since the Planning Commission has directed staff to set forth a public hearing on September 8th, he would request a motion
from the Town Council to set their public hearing as a joint public hearing with the
Planning Commission on September 8, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. The motion was made by Vice-Mayor Dawson and seconded by Councilwoman Cope to set the public hearing as a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission on
September 8, 2025.
Jeremy L. Clark- Aye G. Tyler Clontz- Absent Mayor Collins- Aye Sunshine N. Cope- Aye Steven W. Erickson- Aye Brooks R. Dawson- Aye Joel B. Burchett- Aye
Manager Day commented that the appropriate advertisements for the public hearing, including letters to adjacent property owners, would be posted. 8. Staff Report (NA)
9. Commissioner Comments- No comments were made. 10. Town Council Comments
Vice-Mayor Dawson thanked all staff and parties involved for all the hard work in the
project, stating that it's been a process, going through to beat this thing to death to get where we want to be, but we're going where we want to go and getting done what we need to get done. It’s a huge moment for us, and all the right steps are being done. Councilman Erickson also thanked staff and all parties involved.
Councilman Burchett stated that he is excited to see this project move forward, and it’ll be a very good thing for the town. He also thanked all parties involved. Mayor Collins stated that it is a very important time in our town, and he’s glad to be a
part of it. Mr. Semones asked if the meeting on September 8th, with it being a joint meeting, if the Town Council will take action on that night as well, or wait for the following meeting.
Manager Day stated that there is nothing legislative that pushes it out to the next meeting, if there are no impact in questions, he would encourage them to proceed forward at that meeting.
Councilman Erickson asked if the Council Chambers would be sufficient space if a large group is expected.
Manager Day stated that the Council Chambers would be fine. 11. Reminder of Next Meeting
a. Planning Commission Meeting- September 8, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
b. Town Council Meeting- August 19, 2025, Closed Session at 6:00 p.m.; Open Session at 7:00 p.m.
12. Adjournment from the Planning Commission Meeting
The motion was made by Mr. Hale and seconded by Vice-Chairman Schrantz to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 7:01 p.m.
13. Adjournment from the Town Council Meeting.
With no further business, the Mayor adjourned the Town Council meeting.
Notice of Public Hearing
Planning Commission and Town Council Joint Meeting
Public Hearing regarding rezoning 3012 Lee Highway
The Town of Pulaski Town Council and Town of Pulaski Planning Commission will hold a joint meeting to
consider a recommendation on the following change to the Zoning Map. In accordance with the Code of
Virginia, the Planning Commission and Town Council will host a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Monday,
September 8, 2025 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building located at 42 1st Street NW,
Pulaski, VA 24301 to consider comments regarding the application listed below;
Petition by applicant the Town of Pulaski to rezone 176 wooded acres from Single Family Residential
District (R-1) to Multi-Family Residential District (R-3) and General Business District (B-2) located at 3012
Lee Highway, at Tax Map #63-1-219, #63-1-220, and #63-42-1.
A copy of the proposed rezoning ordinance, with supporting documentation, may be found in the Town
Manager’s Office at 42 1st Street NW, Pulaski, VA 24301
Comments may be presented orally, or in writing to the Clerk of Council at 540-994-8602 or
ohale@pulaskitown.org, prior to the meeting or in person at the public hearing. Information regarding
the matter(s) referenced above is available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m.- 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday in the Town Manager’s Office at the Municipal Building, 42 1st Street NW, Pulaski, VA 24301 or by
phoning (540) 994-8600.
For disabled individuals who may require auxiliary aids or services, the Town, upon request, will make
reasonable accommodations available. Please contact the Clerk of Council at 540-994-8602 ten (10) days
prior to the above meeting date to arrange for these special accommodations.
Ordinance 2025-03
Rezoning 3012 Lee Highway from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) and General Business (B-2)
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Pulaski, Virginia, has considered the best
interest of its citizens and determined, after a review of the Planning Commission’s
recommendation and the requisite of a public hearing held on September 8, 2025, that it is in the
best interest of the community and consistent with the public necessity, conveniences, general
welfare, and good zoning practices, to rezone 3012 Lee Highway [ Tax Map # 63-1-219, #63-1-
220, and #63-42-1] from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) and
General Business (B-2)
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of Pulaski, Virginia, sitting in
regular session this 8th day of September 2025, rezones the Tax Map # 63-1-219, #63-1-220, and
#63-42-1 from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) and General
Business (B-2).
This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption on this 8th day of September 2025
by the duly recorded roll call vote of the Town Council of the Town of Pulaski, Virginia, as
follows:
Jeremy L. Clark- G. Tyler Clontz-Sunshine N. Cope- Steven W. Erickson-Brooks R. Dawson- Joel B. Burchett-
TOWN of PULASKI, VIRGINIA
____________________________________
W. Shannon CollinsMayor
ATTEST
_______________________________ Olivia C. Hale Clerk of Council