Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/25 PC Packet Planning Commission Agenda Monday, November 11, 2025 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review and Approval of Minutes a. October 14, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes 4. Public Hearing (NA) 5. New Business/ Discussions a. Review and Approval of Proposed Private Drive/ Name Designation 6. Commissioner Comments 7. Reminder of Next Meeting a. Monday, December 8,2025 ; 6:00 p.m. 8. Adjournment Town of Pulaski Planning Commission Meeting Municipal Building, Council Chambers October 14, 2025 1. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked for a roll call. Jeremy Clark- Aye Terry Hale- Aye Conner Compton- Aye Brandon Turcotte- Aye A.J. Schrantz- Absent Kevin Meyer- Aye 2. Review and Approval of Minutes a. September 8, 2025 Planning Commission & Town Council Meeting Minutes Chairman Meyer was not present at that meeting; however, he noted a few typographical and grammatical errors throughout the document. These were described as minor issues, missing or added letters, but he suggested making small corrections for clarity. Ms. Hale agreed to make the edits, and members discussed adopting the minutes with these changes. Chairman Meyer went through the proposed corrections on the record. He noted inserting “that” before “ran” in the sentence about the public hearing advertisement, and correcting “82 years” to something more realistic since it was likely a typo. He suggested replacing “being” with “bring” and changing “nothing” to “noting” in another section. A substantive discussion then emerged regarding a question in the previous meeting about the Millers’ property possibly being used for retention ponds in a development project. Chairman Meyer clarified that such use would constitute a taking and would require a separate legal process. Manager Day confirmed that the retention ponds would be located on land included in the rezoned property, not on private property belonging to the Millers. Any additional land needed would have to be purchased directly by the developer from the owners. There was consensus that the public record should clearly show that no residents would be forced to surrender property for the project. The review continued with small language corrections, such as changing “provided” to “provide” and confirming “tank” was the correct term in one instance. Chairman Meyer also commented on the prior discussion of zoning, noting that while some topics discussed during the public hearing were technically outside the scope of rezoning, it was still useful to air those issues for the benefit of the public. He reflected on his own reasoning for supporting the rezoning at the last meeting, stating that based on the way the project was presented, there were no valid grounds under zoning law to reject it. He mentioned that the proffer from SHAH, which applied to the property, had strengthened the justification for approval. He wanted this reasoning clearly reflected in the minutes. He also observed a missing section under “Town Council Comments” in Section 10 and suggested minor formatting or content corrections there. With former member Van Taylor no longer on the Planning Commission, someone had to assume responsibility for reviewing such details. The Commission commended Ms. Hale for her thorough work on the minutes. The motion was made by Mr. Hale and seconded by Mr. Clark to adopt the minutes with the amendments mentioned. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing (NA) Chairman Meyer noted that there were no public hearings scheduled for the evening. The meeting would move on to items of new business and discussion, beginning with a presentation by Mr. Painter regarding an update to the comprehensive plan. 4. New Business/ Discussions a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Austin Painter, Project Manager Mr. Painter began by reporting that the Main Street Streetscape Project was nearing completion, with final paperwork underway. He explained that the town was now preparing for a new funding cycle and intended to extend the same kind of improvements further down Main Street, toward the “Y” intersection on the east side of town. He requested a motion of support and recommendation to the Town Council to approve a comprehensive plan update. The proposed amendment would express the town’s support for pursuing an additional Streetscape Project phase, extending from Washington Avenue down to Madison Avenue. This would mirror the earlier improvements made along Main Street’s central corridor. Mr. Painter explained that the amendment’s purpose was simple: to add the project to the comprehensive plan’s transportation section (page 54), enabling it to qualify for funding consideration. He outlined three primary goals: 1. Economic Support – The area contains a high density of commercial buildings with strong business potential, and the project would reinforce that vitality through improved infrastructure. 2. Aesthetic Uniformity – Extending the same design and quality from the Main Street core would create a consistent visual identity for those entering downtown from the interstate or Route 99. 3. Accessibility – The project would ensure full ADA compliance across the corridor. Mr. Painter emphasized that the effort was still in its early stages, with funding applications submitted within the past month. Chairman Meyer raised a question about an online post describing an incident involving a person in a wheelchair who fell while navigating an intersection. He wondered whether it had occurred in the new project area or was related to recent sidewalk improvements. Manager Day replied that he was unaware of such an incident but confirmed that all ramps and crossings had been built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. He admitted that while the town itself had painted the ramps, something VDOT did not do, some members of the public disliked their appearance. Nonetheless, they were required for safety and compliance. He noted that these features were necessary, even if some residents found them visually unappealing. The conversation closed with agreement that while ramps and crossings can be inconvenient or visually abrupt, they are mandated for ADA accessibility. Manager Day stressed that adding the streetscape project to the comprehensive plan did not guarantee funding; it merely allowed the town to apply. There would be later opportunities for review by both the Planning Commission and Town Council once funding and design details became available. He discussed lessons learned from the previous phase of the Streetscape Project, particularly regarding infrastructure oversight. The earlier phase replaced the water line but not the sewer line, which led to problems with terracotta sewer joints and a subsequent backup near the theater. He noted that with Mr. Painter now more involved, the town planned to address such issues proactively in the next phase, coordinating water and sewer replacements alongside streetscape improvements. Manager Day commented on the remaining old water line and the recent installation of $10,300 valves to shut it off. He acknowledged that while the line remains in place, the staff had gained valuable insight to prevent similar oversights. He also observed that staff turnover and administrative changes had contributed to past communication lapses. Mr. Painter concluded by noting that the lengthy four-to-five-year funding and construction timeline for the next phase would provide ample opportunity to evaluate and upgrade utilities before any physical work begins. Chairman Meyer summarized that the Town Council must add the proposed language to the comprehensive plan to make the town eligible for funding for the next phase of the Streetscape Project. He then asked for a motion to recommend that the Town Council seek and hopefully obtain funding to do the next phase of the streetscape. The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale. Jeremy Clark- Aye Terry Hale- Aye Conner Compton- Aye Brandon Turcotte- Aye A.J. Schrantz- Absent Kevin Meyer- Aye b. Car Storage Chairman Meyer introduced the next discussion topic, explaining that he had added it to the agenda due to widespread concern about inoperable vehicle lots around town. He expressed dissatisfaction with the way certain business owners were handling these properties and noted that many were operating beyond the scope of their agreements with the town or in violation of what had been originally permitted. He gave several examples, beginning with a former automotive repair shop on Main Street that backed up to a creek. Although a potential buyer wanted to reopen it as a repair business, the property had been dormant for over a decade and was no longer grandfathered for that use, particularly given environmental regulations related to its proximity to the creek. Chairman Meyer then cited a towing company operating at the intersection of Madison Avenue and Route 11. Originally, the town had permitted this business to tow and temporarily store vehicles at a fenced gravel lot, with the understanding that the cars would be processed and removed within one to two months. However, many of the vehicles had been sitting there for over a year, and the lot had become increasingly crowded and unsightly. The visual barrier around the lot was also ineffective, allowing the public to see the accumulation of vehicles. He also mentioned a second large facility located behind the Food Lion, downhill from the main shopping area. That operation, which was supposed to cycle vehicles out monthly after ensuring fluids were drained, had similarly expanded over time, creating a poor visual impression for anyone using the nearby walking trail. He emphasized that these lots posed not only aesthetic concerns but also potential environmental risks to the creek system. Chairman Meyer continued by pointing out that additional sites across town had begun hosting inoperable or junk vehicles, including the vacant grass lot beside the old Steer House restaurant, which was under consideration for conversion to an auto repair shop. He expressed concern that this site, too, might receive an exception for outdoor storage of vehicles. He estimated that Pulaski had a disproportionately large number of fenced lots containing disabled or wrecked vehicles for a town of its size. Beyond the more visible sites, he noted there were other smaller locations, such as the fenced property near the newly occupied Bealls building, that were also being used to store equipment or vehicles. He warned that when viewed collectively on a map, these lots gave the impression that large portions of Pulaski were covered with junked cars, similar to the clutter once seen along Route 11 leading toward VuhVanagon. He questioned whether these businesses were operating within zoning regulations or if they had simply ignored agreements with the town. In some cases, it was unclear whether official permits had ever been issued, or if verbal, “gentlemen’s agreements” had since been broken. He stated that he wanted the commission to revisit these issues and determine what, if anything, could be done to ensure compliance and maintain the town’s appearance. Manager Day agreed with Chairman Meyer’s assessment, acknowledging that the frustration was justified. He explained that his staff would begin reviewing historical records to determine what formal agreements or permissions existed for each of these sites. Many of the relevant documents, he noted, might only be found in old Planning Commission minutes from when those operations were first approved. Chairman Meyer observed that some of the towing operations were relatively recent, while others, such as the large facility near the interstate where vehicles were auctioned, had been around for several years. He identified that operation as “Peak Creek Investments” and noted that the business appeared to have expanded its storage area significantly over time. He added that it was now difficult to tell where one property ended and another began, and that long-stationary items like campers made the problem even more visible and persistent. Manager Day assured the commission that staff intended to “pick the ball up and dig” to learn how these situations had developed. He admitted that while staff had begun examining the issue, progress had been slow due to limited capacity and competing priorities. Still, he rejected the idea that workload was an excuse for allowing the violations to continue. Manager Day and Chairman Meyer agreed that the situation around Peak Creek Investments and similar properties was especially troubling. He confirmed that the area in question was zoned I-1 (Industrial), which might not authorize long- term vehicle storage as a by-right use. Chairman Meyer also referenced a past site, formerly Gem City Iron, that had been approved for a controlled auto recycling operation involving vehicle fluid removal and rail shipping. However, that business never reached full operation before shutting down. Manager Day reiterated that staff would continue reviewing records to determine how current vehicle lots had been permitted and what restrictions, if any, still applied. The discussion shifted back to a Main Street property Chairman Meyer had previously mentioned, a former garage located across from the large parking lot in front of Central Gym. Manager Day confirmed that this location was currently under a brownfield assessment, a process designed to evaluate and mitigate potential environmental contamination. He clarified that this designation did not override zoning restrictions. When asked about its zoning classification, Nathan Smythers, Planning and Zoning Administrator responded that it was likely B-2 or B-3, both of which allow certain commercial uses with restrictions. Manager Day remarked that the wording of the zoning ordinance could be interpreted in multiple ways, suggesting that some revisions might be needed to clarify what activities were truly allowed. Chairman Meyer recounted that a potential buyer once wanted to reopen the garage for auto repair, but environmental and EPA concerns, particularly related to the nearby creek, had ultimately halted the project. Mr. Smythers added that the structure had since been deemed unsafe under property maintenance standards, meaning any redevelopment would require extensive upgrades to meet current codes. Manager Day promised to search the administrative records and old files for any previous agreements related to the site. He also invited long-serving commission members to share recollections or leads that could help locate missing documentation. Chairman Meyer acknowledged that the town’s recordkeeping had historically been inconsistent. Many agreements and zoning decisions were once kept in paper files or even loose stacks within the office, and some materials might no longer be easily traceable. Manager Day committed to pursuing the necessary research and confirmed that staff shared the commission’s frustration about the issue. Chairman Meyer asked if there were any further comments. Hearing none, he moved the meeting forward to the next item on the agenda, Horner Acre Farms LLC, and invited staff to present the update. c. Horner Acre Farms LLC- Manager Day Manager Day introduced the Horner Acre Farms LLC matter by referencing a letter included in the commissioners’ meeting packets. He explained that the letter’s wording had been drafted under the advice of the town attorney and served as a formal notice regarding zoning and permitting violations. The property in question is located off Pleasant Hill Drive, with a portion of it, approximately 13 to 15 acres, lying inside the Town of Pulaski’s jurisdiction, while the rest extends into Pulaski County. Recently, a farm store had been constructed on the town’s portion of the property. However, upon investigation, staff discovered that no building permits, zoning permits, or business licenses had been issued for the structure or the operation. He explained that the town only became aware of the situation after learning about a planned groundbreaking and ribbon-cutting event at the site. Following consultation with legal counsel, staff drafted and sent the letter to the property owners, outlining the violations and potential corrective actions. He promised to keep the commission updated as the situation developed. Manager Day added that several nearby residents had already approached him about the unauthorized construction, and he had spoken with them directly. He noted that such cases often come to the town’s attention not through inspections but through community reports, “we don’t have to go out and look for trouble; it finds us.” Chairman Meyer recalled that the property had come up in past discussions about development along Pleasant Hill Drive, near the site of the new school and a nearby planned unit development (PUD). At that time, the land had been discussed primarily for agricultural use, not retail or commercial development. He remarked that he had been unaware that a store had been built there until reading about the ribbon-cutting in local news, underscoring how the project had bypassed the usual approval process. The discussion resumed with members revisiting the area near Pleasant Hill Drive where zoning classifications of R1, PUD, and business properties converge. The Chairman recalled that the Planning Commission had previously opted to leave this area alone, recognizing it as one of the few remaining large open tracts of land within the town. However, this area has recently resurfaced in discussions due to development concerns. He described visiting the site, noting confusion with directions that caused him to make a wrong turn into a residential area. He observed that the property’s entrance sits between two homes, which likely belong to the residents who have voiced the most complaints about the new activity there. He sympathized with their situation, explaining that the sudden increase in traffic and disruption to neighborhood tranquility would frustrate any nearby homeowner. He noted that when he visited, the gate was locked and he was unable to access the site, forcing him to back into a private driveway to turn around. Overall, he characterized the situation as an unfortunate one that seemed to stem from miscommunication or possibly poor advice given to the property owners, either from county sources or private consultants. The discussion then shifted toward the continuing issues with the Horner Acre Farms property. The Chairman emphasized how regrettable the situation had become, as the business itself might have been a positive addition to the community if located appropriately. Manager Day echoed that sentiment, noting that such misunderstandings occasionally occur when citizens are unaware of zoning requirements. Typically, staff intervene quickly to bring everyone into compliance, but this case had already progressed too far before discovery. He clarified that their investigation revealed only one prior communication between the property owners and a town official, a former building official who incorrectly told them they did not need a building permit for an agricultural building. While technically true under certain conditions, this advice was inappropriate for land zoned R1, which does not allow agricultural structures. The current administration acknowledged the mistake but underscored that no written records exist to support the owners’ actions. It was further revealed that the property contains only a camper, not a permanent home. The camper had been placed there under a temporary permit from a previous administration, allowing it during home construction, construction that never occurred. The situation has since evolved into unauthorized use of the land. Chairman Meyer then discussed whether the existing structure could be converted into a residence. Manager Day explained that since the building was constructed without a permit, it was never inspected and therefore could not legally be used as a dwelling. Even if it were retrofitted into a house, it would remain noncompliant with both zoning and inspection standards. The town’s building official, Nathan Smythers, would have to assess it if the owners attempted conversion, but issues like setbacks and other regulatory conflicts would likely arise. The Chairman remarked that even though the building sits back from the entrance, its position and traffic flow create unnecessary disruption for nearby residents. He observed that a simple reconfiguration of fencing might have made it less intrusive, but the volume of visitors would still generate unwanted traffic on a narrow residential street. The discussion concluded with general agreement that the situation was unfortunate but ongoing, and that updates would follow as the town continued to address the matter. d. DCT Collision Next, the Town Manager introduced the case of DCT Collision, a new auto repair business planning to occupy the former Steer House property. He explained that several months earlier, he became aware of the proposed use and immediately felt uneasy about it. He contacted town staff and the economic development department to determine what was happening, only to discover that the project had already been approved under zoning. He expressed frustration at finding out too late, emphasizing that while the staff was still relatively new, the situation was regrettable. A letter included in the members’ packets, written under guidance from the town attorney, confirmed that the business had been permitted under the B2 zoning designation. According to the code, “automotive repair service, minor,” with accessory outdoor storage, is a permitted use in B2 zones. However, he noted that the ordinance prohibits outdoor storage of abandoned or inoperative vehicles, parts, or machinery, conditions that could be at risk with this type of business. Despite his objections, the land purchase had already gone through by the time he reviewed it. The sale from Bob Strenz, who owned the land around the former restaurant, was complete, and the business was moving forward. He noted that in his personal view, the type of work planned for the site, collision repair and vehicle restoration, resembled heavy industrial activity, which did not align with the intended character of a B2 district. He compared it to the difference between a car dealership, which typically has a clean display of new vehicles, and a body shop, which often has damaged cars awaiting repair. The Town Manager elaborated on the relevant code provisions. He cited Section 4.9.2-1 of the zoning ordinance, which allows automotive repair as a minor use, but excludes operations that involve major fabrication or prolonged outdoor storage of nonfunctional vehicles. He also highlighted another section, General Standards 5, that explicitly prohibits activities such as spray painting, welding, and power tool operations in the B2 district. Given that nearly every auto repair shop relies on welders, compressors, and spray equipment, he suggested that the current wording of the code may be outdated or inconsistent with practical business realities. He admitted that while the code technically allowed the use, the language left is significantly vague, creating room for differing interpretations. This discrepancy had also been noted among the seven elected officials, with opinions divided. He acknowledged that while zoning enforcement needed improvement, the decision had already been made and the business could not be reversed. Chairman Meyer also discussed the property’s boundaries. The parcel in question forms a U-shaped lot surrounding the old Pizza Hut building and extends to Main Street. Manager Day believed that the entire tract, including the grass area behind the tree line near the Sheriff’s Office, had been purchased for the business’s operations, although he noted that an updated site plan might differ from what was currently on file. Manager Day concluded this section by comparing the DCT Collision case to existing businesses across the road, particularly Duncan Automotive, which had long operated in the same area. He acknowledged that the existence of similar businesses nearby likely influenced the zoning administrator’s earlier decision to approve the new use. However, he maintained his stance that such activities, despite being permissible under the letter of the law, did not align with the spirit of the B2 zoning district, which was intended for lighter commercial uses. He reiterated that the previous property owner, Mr. Hagan, and the current owner, Daryn Cockram, were aware of his objections and had discussed them respectfully. Nonetheless, the decision stood, and the business was moving forward. Manager Day summarized the situation as another example of where clearer zoning language and stronger administrative processes could help prevent similar conflicts in the future. The Town Manager resumed discussion of the DCT Collision project, emphasizing that while he accepted that the use technically fit the zoning category, he personally disagreed with that interpretation. He reiterated that, in his view, the business operated closer to an industrial function than a commercial one and did not align with the spirit of the town’s B2 zoning. Nonetheless, he conceded that there was insufficient legal standing to challenge the existing permit and acknowledged the zoning administrator’s authority. Chairman Meyer shifted focus to environmental concerns, expressing unease about the scale of the property and the potential for fluid leakage from numerous inoperable vehicles. Even if the business intended to repair them inside the building, the number of cars on-site would likely be high, posing possible contamination risks. He questioned how the business planned to handle such volume and whether additional employees would be hired, emphasizing that “that’s a lot of vehicles sitting around.” Manager Day agreed that placing cars near the hill leading down to the Sheriff’s Office would be impractical and environmentally risky, noting that runoff could become an issue. He said the owners had been fully cooperative with all requests for mitigation, including the installation of screening barriers. When asked about additional paving, staff confirmed that none had been approved yet and that any such plans would need separate review, especially given the potential for fluids from damaged vehicles. The discussion turned toward the broader implications of environmental management in zoning decisions. Chairman Meyer reminded the group that a significant portion of nearby land could not be developed due to existing environmental restrictions. He stressed that the town did not need to create more unusable land through improper site management. Manager Day added that while the zoning administrator had cited accurate sections of the ordinance to justify the approval, inconsistencies in how the code layers its permissions and restrictions made it difficult to interpret. Chairman Meyer acknowledged that the town’s zoning regulations often contained overlapping provisions—one allowing a use while another quietly restricted it through a subsection or exception. This complexity, he said, made it easy for even experienced officials to misinterpret the rules. Manager Day reiterated that while he personally did not believe the business fit within the B2 classification, prior approvals and communication gaps before his involvement had left him with little room to act. Manager Day then asked Building Official, Mr. Smythers to summarize the conditions attached to DCT Collision’s zoning permit. He explained that the town had added an appendix to the permit containing six stipulations to ensure compliance. Among these, the most significant were: • A requirement to use evergreen trees to provide full year-round visual screening of any inoperable vehicles, preventing them from being seen from the street. • A restriction prohibiting inoperable vehicles from being parked or stored in the front lot area, specifically the former Steer House and Little Caesars parking areas. Only the designated screened section behind the building could be used for such storage. • A clause specifying that the approval was non-transferable, meaning it applied exclusively to the current property owner and would not automatically carry over to future owners. Manager Day also confirmed that the town had attempted to comply with VDOT visibility regulations, ensuring that vehicles could not be seen from Route 99 or surrounding public roads. He remarked that while these conditions helped, the situation still “ate at him,” promising that the town would handle future reviews with greater diligence. Chairman Meyer asked whether DCT Collision was the same company as DCT Towing, to which Manager Day replied that it was indeed the same type of operation. He then inquired whether the owner planned to move vehicles from the old Pulaski Furniture property to the new site. Manager Day said he did not know but noted that many of those vehicles appeared inoperable, some possibly under court process due to towing and storage regulations. Manager Day explained that the issuance of the zoning permit had been complicated by informal administrative actions taken under a previous administration, which forced the town to formalize the approval. The project’s building design and setbacks would still need to comply with code once plans were submitted. He added that the owner was investing “a ton of money” into the project, though he clarified that this did not excuse or justify the earlier procedural mistakes. 5. Commissioner Comments Chairman Meyer shared a news article from the City of Richmond, where the Mayor had asked the governor to allocate $80 million over the next two fiscal years to assist with Richmond’s aging waterworks infrastructure. He noted that Richmond’s water system had faced severe flooding and months-long boil advisories due to outdated pumps and poor maintenance, and that the state had already invested over $323.5 million in related projects, including $200 million approved by Governor Youngkin. He questioned why other localities, like Pulaski, could not seek similar state funding for infrastructure upgrades, remarking, “If it’s good for Richmond, it should be good for us.” The Town Manager agreed, adding that Pulaski’s health department director had recently written a letter requesting congressional earmark funding on the town’s behalf. He commented on the influence of the state capital in securing such funds and encouraged pursuing the same opportunities for Pulaski. The group agreed it was an issue worth exploring further. The meeting concluded with a public comment from Grant Horner, owner of Horner Acre Farms, the property at the center of earlier discussions. Mr. Horner began by explaining that he and his family had researched the property thoroughly before purchasing it and had consulted both town and county officials to ensure their planned agricultural operations were permitted. He said they had also spoken with nearby residents before moving in, receiving positive responses about their plan to maintain a farm rather than pursue residential development. He described how, upon purchase, the land only had electricity, prompting him to pull permits for water and septic systems. During that process, he spoke with Tim Hale, the former building inspector, who advised him that his proposed agricultural structure would be agriculturally exempt from standard building requirements. Although he admitted that he did not get this information in writing, he said he trusted the face-to-face guidance provided at the time. Mr. Horner explained that he believed his building met setback requirements and invited officials to visit the property to verify. He estimated the closest boundary line to be several dozen feet from the structure, likely behind a nearby white house. He added that historical documentation from a former owner, Ms. English, indicated that the property had been used as a farm prior to the town’s adoption of modern zoning ordinances, suggesting a preexisting agricultural use. He emphasized that he had met with most of his neighbors before moving in, and that many of them regularly purchase products from his farm or other local farmers who sell there. He expressed regret that the situation had escalated into conflict, saying that had he known it would cause such issues, “we would have never bought the land.” Finally, he acknowledged that one or two older residents might still oppose the operation but maintained that the vast majority of the community supported them. He mentioned that some town staff referred to frequent complainants as “frequent flyers,” and insisted that he had always been respectful and cooperative. He closed by noting that, as a disabled veteran, farming was his primary livelihood and that he and his family were simply trying to build an honest life in Pulaski. He reiterated that they had made efforts to document the construction process, including taking pictures of the footers during the building phase. They emphasized that the structure, a metal building on a concrete foundation, was built within code requirements and that care was taken to ensure compliance and quality. Mr. Horner explained that the building was erected based on the understanding and guidance received at the time, noting that personnel changes over the years may have caused confusion or inconsistent information. He stated that their intent was never to violate any regulations but to proceed according to the permissions they had been given. He clarified that the store was built first as part of a larger plan to eventually construct a house on the back side of the property, on the county portion of the land. Mr. Horner expressed that they had no intention of doing anything improperly and that he came before the Commission simply to clarify the situation and ensure everyone was aligned. Manager Day acknowledged the effort, noting that the matter was under legal advisement and that their ability to act was limited while that process was ongoing. Nonetheless, they appreciated Mr. Horner’s transparency and willingness to communicate directly. Chairman Meyer asked what zoning classification in town would permit such a building, specifically whether B1 or B2 zoning would allow it. Manager Day indicated that several commercial designations, such as B1, could accommodate the type of business in question. It was noted that the Hitchcock portion of the property along the road is zoned B1, while the rear sections remain agricultural. A key concern raised was whether reclassifying part of the property would eliminate its agricultural status. Mr. Horner explained that the land had been used continuously as a farm since before the 1950s and had never ceased agricultural operation. Documentation from Evelyn English confirmed the property’s longstanding agricultural use. Chairman Meyer asked whether that letter applied only to the county portion of the property, but Mr. Horner clarified that the statement referred to the entire parcel before it was divided by zoning changes. He reiterated that extensive research was done prior to purchasing the land to confirm that farming would remain a permitted use on both sides. Manager Day acknowledged that both parties had legal representation and expressed hope for a positive resolution that would be mutually beneficial. Mr. Horner added that they had no further comments but appreciated the opportunity to clarify the situation publicly. Manager Day reiterated earlier concerns that there appeared to be no building, zoning, or occupancy permits on file for the structure. Mr. Horner responded that a special use permit had been granted earlier in the summer, which allowed them to continue their farming operations and on-site sales. He explained that the property still lacked some permanent infrastructure, but the goal was to continue developing it responsibly as resources allowed. Mr. Horner described the farm’s operations, explaining that they are open three days a week, Fridays and Sundays from 2–6 p.m. and Saturdays from 10 a.m.–6 p.m. They noted that, due to a back injury, participating in off-site farmers’ markets had become difficult, which was part of the reason for focusing on on-site sales. Mr. Horner emphasized the value of giving customers a chance to see where their food is produced. All meat sold in the store is raised directly on the property, alongside fresh flowers and produce. He said the business has been met with “incredible support” from the community, including a petition signed by supportive neighbors. Visitors regularly come from Pulaski, as well as Christiansburg, Blacksburg, and Westfield. Mr. Horner added that they intend to partner with local businesses, such as restaurants and breweries, including Scot with Great Wilderness Brewery, by reusing brewery grain as animal feed. He expressed pride in helping reduce waste while contributing to the local economy. He stated that community feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, with only two individuals expressing concerns. Most neighbors, he said, appreciate the farm’s presence and the family-friendly environment it provides. Manager Day acknowledged that the speaker likely received incomplete or inaccurate information in the past and reassured them that no ill will was assumed. Mr. Horner responded that their intent was simply to make an honest living for their family. He noted that they are a military retiree and that the farm represents their livelihood and passion. He shared that their family relocated from out of state, over four hours away, to operate the farm, moving all their livestock with them. They concluded by reiterating their commitment to transparency and willingness to answer any questions to ensure mutual understanding. Chairman Meyer thanked Mr. Horner for attending and providing clarification. 6. Reminder of Next Meeting a. Monday, November 10, 2025; 6:00 p.m. 7. Adjournment The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale to adjourn. With no further business, Chairman Meyer adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m. 1000 1313 1317 1309 1311 1044 1056 1020 1032 1064 1052 1060 1072 1415 1310 901 1321 913 917 1004 905 1076 1008 1412 906 1080 1068 1088 1084 1326 1316 1324 1314 1352 1332 1328 1322 1320 1348 1318 1346 1350 1330 1177 1176 1181 1178 1180 1175 1179 1170 1168 11741172 1240 1246 1250 1244 1160 1245 1241 1225 1235 1248 910 1239 072-165-10 072-67-I-3 072-165-7 072-165-4 072-165-9 072-165-6 072-165-5 072-67-J-1 072-165-8 072-67-H-4 072-165-11 072-67-J-7 072-131-4 072-67-A-1 072-67-2 072-67-A-2 072-140-48 P e p p e r s F e r r y R dOakhurstAve H e a t h e r w o o d S t P e p p e r s F e r r y R d G u n n e P l P e p p e r s F e r r y R d M e m o ria l D r EstesPark F l o y d L n G u n n e Pl Pulaski County Parcel Map Microsoft, Vantor, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Address Points Bldgs Structures Parcels Roads Pulaski Town Road 10/28/2025, 7:47:26 AM 0 0.03 0.060.01 mi 0 0.04 0.090.02 km 1:2,257 Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS Vantor | Esri Community Maps Contributors, VGIN, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau,