HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-23 Planning Commission MinutesCommissioners Present: Kevin Meyer, Chairman; AJ Schrantz; Van Taylor, Terry Hale, Rachel Arthur
Commissioners Absent: Frank Neice
Town Staff: Summer Bork, Town Planner.
Guest: Councilman Reis
Call to Order
Chairman Meyer called the Planning Commission to order at 6:04 p.m.
Roll Call of Commission
A quorum was determined with five commissioners present.
Ms. Arthur requested a moment of silence to remember the 9/11 causalities.
(Moment of Silence)
Review and Approval of Minutes
Chairman Meyer called for a review of the minutes and asked for corrections. Several Commission made corrections requests, namely a word substitution and a couple of punctuation errors.
Mr. Schrantz motioned to accept the minutes with corrections, seconded by Mr. Hale. With no objections, the motion passed unanimously.
4. Public Hearing—NA
5. Old Business— Council’s Request to revisit the language of “Substance Abuse Disorder Services”
Mr. Meyer summarized the commission's previous action, and Mr. Reis accepted the Commission’s invitation to discuss the matter.
Ms. Bork gave the staff a report, reminding the commission that they had moved conditionally to hearing the definition in question last session, pending favorable comments from the town
council that their concerns had been adequately addressed. The council’s concerns were not satisfied, and Chairman Meyer decided to review the matter further instead of sending it
to a public hearing.
Chairman Meyer spoke regarding the need to examine the issues of medical office definition and subsequent work that the commission had done to define more effectively the phrase
“Substance Abuse Disorder Services” within the broader context of the entire zoning ordinances and its definition. Further examination of the alignment of town documents is needed to
ensure a continuity of government. He encouraged staff and commissioners to examine the zoning map, zoning ordinance, town code, and comprehensive plan to ensure they are aligned and
current. He expressed concerns about the town’s citizens being informed of changes that are made. He was concerned about the map’s accuracy and when the map was officially sent to the
council and adopted.
Ms. Bork stated that this issue had been addressed and resolved recently. Mr. Reis confirmed this.
Further discussion regarding the circumstances and legalities of the zoning maps adoption occurred. Whether citizens were adequately informed, Mr. Reis commented that it is the property
owner's responsibility to pay attention to the zoning of their property. The town has no affirmative duty to ensure citizens understand what we are doing. This would be unreasonable.
The town had held two advertised public hearings and fulfilled its duty to inform the public that change was occurring.
Ms. Arthur asked what recourse property owners have to learn about their rights regarding their property.
An explanation of what actions citizens can take to learn about their property rights, how to avail themselves of those rights, and the role of non-conforming uses occurred.
Mr. Meyer reiterated his issues with the zoning regulation, particularly regarding archaic terminology and potentially discriminatory language, and his desire to review and update the
whole document and ensure it aligns with other guiding documentation within the town.
The discussion then turned to how to parameterize future definitions, whether CMS would be helpful for this process, and his belief that the commission needs to evaluate the entire zoning
ordinances and ensure they are internally cohesive and adequately address the town's needs, and what the best course of action for fixing/redrafting the zoning ordinances might be.
Mr. Meyer invited Mr. Reis to share his comments and concerns. Councilman Reis briefly explained the objections, which included:
The term “substance abuse” no longer exists as a medically defined term. The term should be “substance use”.
The term “services” is broad and may extend beyond medical facilities; how can this term be better parameterized?
“may” make the definition less defensible from a legal standpoint.
There was a change in what and how these types of medication are available. Now, doctors’ offices can prescribe detoxification medication to patients.
Certain “substance use” prevention is available over the counter; is this prohibited in town?
“May” is ambiguous and needs to be clearer.
His primary concern is that the town was effectively guaranteeing Pulaski Medical a monopoly by excluding other treatment facility models. If the town wants to discourage this model
of treating substance use, enabling citizens to choose from various services would be a better approach.
Mr. Meyer explained the primary concern that he and other members had with the methadone clinic and how its business operation differed from other clinics and providers. The commission
was trying to limit establishments that diagnose and provide other services, such as counseling and meetings, but also dispense controlled substances from an in-house pharmacy. These
facilities are a by-right within certain areas of town under the definition of “medical office.”
With the understanding of what the commission is trying to draw, a distinction between specific business models and other types of medical practices. Continued clarification and wordsmithing
went on between Mr. Reis and the Commission. The resulting definition is as follows: Substance Abused Disorder Clinic(s): An outpatient establishment where patients receive diagnosis,
assessments, treatments, and follow-up care for suspected cases of substance use disorders which dispense and/or administer controlled substances on the clinic premises, which are not
available to non-patients.
There was then a discussion about whether “services” should be replaced with another word, if so, what word.
Mr. Meyer asked commissioners if they would make a motion or if further discussion was needed.
Ms. Arthur made a motion to table the agenda item. Mr. Schrantz seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously by members present.
6. New Business—Review and Revision of Hospital Definition
Ms. Bork gave the staff report. The town’s definition of a hospital needs to be addressed. It has inconsistent language that should be clarified, and too many accessory uses mentioned
were not reasonable auxiliary uses, such as HVAC maintenance and Landscaping. She had provided commissioners with definitions from several sources, including the state of VA and Pulaski
County, and had drafted initial language for a new town definition of “Hospital.”
There was some discussion regarding aviation uses, freestanding emergency rooms, and ambulatory surgery offices, whether they would be considered a hospital or medical office, and whether
another definition was needed.
Commissioners decided to table the item for the next meeting so the commission might be better prepared to discuss the issue. Ms. Arthur moved to the table for the discussion. Mr. Hale
seconded the motion. With no objections from members present, the motion passed unanimously.
7. Other Business – NA
8. Staff Report— Review of Town Definitions and Ordinances Related to Medical Use.
Ms. Bork explained that in light of a conversation with Chairman Meyer earlier in the month and the ongoing need to shore up the zoning. She had compiled a list of all the town’s current
zoning definitions related to medical care and referenced which zones they appear, whether permitted conditional or accessory. She also created a list of the uses in the town’s zoning
that is not presently defined. She asked commissioners to evaluate the definitions and uses based on three guiding questions. This ranking would help determine what they would tackle
addressing the zoning ordinances. She would appreciate it if they could bring these completed to the next meeting.
9. Commissioner Comments
The Commissioner brought up the McGill Park Parcel and the need for green space in that section of town. They asked Ms. Bork what recourse they had as Council requested that the town
accept proposals for this property and at what point that was expected to occur.
Ms. Bork commented that, to her knowledge, the town had not received a proposal for the property in question, and as Council had authorized it, addressing their concerns to Town Council.
She stated it could be a direct address to the council in a meeting or a letter.
She was then asked if she knew of a timeframe. She stated that the RFP had been on the town’s website for quite some time, so sooner rather than later would likely be prudent.
Further discussion among the commissioners occurs regarding logistics and who would do what in drafting an initial letter. The commissioners asked several questions regarding whom to
avoid an unintentional quorum, which was answered.
10. Adjournment
With no further business to discuss, Mr. Schrantz moved that the meeting be adjourned. Ms. Arthur seconded the motion. With no objections from the members present, the motion passed
unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:54 PM.
Kevin Meyer, Chair
Summer Bork, Town Planner