Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-26 Planning Commission Packet Planning Commission Agenda Monday, February 9, 2026 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers 1. Call to Order- Chairman Meyer 2. Roll Call- Ms. Hale 3. Review and Approval of Minutes a. January 12, 2026 Meeting Minutes 4. Public Hearing (NA) 5. Old Business (NA) 6. New Business a. Temporary Housing/Shelter Definition b. Emergency Warming Station 7. Staff Report 8. Other Business 9. Commissioner Comments 10. Reminder of Next Meeting a. Monday, March 9, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. 11. Adjournment Town of Pulaski Planning Commission Meeting Municipal Building, Council Chambers January 12, 2026 1. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and asked for a roll call. Jeremy Clark- Aye Terry Hale- Aye Kevin Meyer- Aye Conner Compton- Aye Brandon Turcotte- Aye A.J. Schrantz- Aye Benjamin Linkous- Aye Chairman Meyer introduced Benjamin Linkous, newest appointee to the board. Mr. Linkous explained that he is recently retired from the military as of July and wanted to find a way to give back to his hometown by serving on the commission. Chairman Meyer thanked him for his willingness to contribute his time. 2. Review and Approval of Minutes a. November 11, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Vice-Chairman Schrantz to adopt the minutes as written. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing- No public hearings were scheduled. 4. Presentation a. Rest and Ride Winter Shelter- Terrie Sternberg Ms. Sternberg explained that rather than giving a formal presentation, she had questions and wanted to provide background context. She explained that the “To Our House” program in Montgomery County, operated primarily through New River Community Action, has existed for about 16 years. It is a seasonal homelessness intervention program that provides temporary shelter for approximately 20 weeks, along with housing counseling and wraparound services to help people move from homelessness into permanent housing. She noted that instability and homelessness increase the risk of substance use, and that opioid abatement authority funds are now being used regionally for prevention, education, and supportive services. As part of a newer “recovery ecosystem” effort, there was interest in expanding this comprehensive seasonal sheltering model into Pulaski from November through the end of March. Because Community Action lacked the resources to expand directly into Pulaski, and because the Pulaski County Ministerial Association had long wanted to improve shelter options for unhoused residents, Ms. Sternberg and others decided that the churches would take on the effort. The To Our House model in Christiansburg and Blacksburg uses rotating church fellowship halls as overnight shelters, moving from one church to another throughout the season. The goal in Pulaski was to do the same so that people could easily access shelter within town and, once approved through intake, be guaranteed a bed for the entire season, providing stability and access to services. Ms. Sternberg explained that, although they had initially been told that churches could allow people to stay overnight, they later discovered that operating a structured shelter program would trigger zoning, ordinance, fire, and building code requirements. While churches routinely have overnight occupants for activities such as youth lock-ins and mission trips, attempting to run a formal seasonal shelter program brought them into a different regulatory category. After presenting their intentions to the Town Council as a courtesy, they met with the Town Manager, who suggested that they might operate under the existing ordinance for “emergency warming stations” as an accessory use within houses of worship. Ms. Sternberg referenced a 2023 ordinance and a letter associated with “Taking It to the Streets,” which already operates a warming station under that framework. However, the leadership of the Rest and Rise effort felt that their goal was broader than an emergency, weather-triggered warming station; they were trying to establish a comprehensive homelessness intervention program. As a result, they did not proceed under the warming-station paperwork and instead anticipated needing to go through a more formal approval process. Ms. Sternberg noted that despite recent warmer weather, there are still people in Pulaski without access to safe overnight warmth, and her phone continued to ring with requests for help. She asked the Planning Commission to help her understand the “house of worship” ordinance that allows emergency warming as an accessory use and how the special exception process is supposed to function. She acknowledged that even if zoning approval were obtained, the churches would still have to meet modern building and fire codes, which could prevent them from operating. She questioned whether any “grandfathering” could apply, given that people have long stayed overnight in church buildings for other purposes, though she recognized that this may reveal that past practices were not fully compliant. She stressed that she is not being antagonistic and is fully committed to life safety, building safety, and working cooperatively with town officials. She framed the situation as a learning process for everyone involved and sought clarification, not confrontation, about how the ordinance is intended to work and what steps would be required to move forward. Chairman Meyer began responding by referencing the earlier “Taking It to the Streets” warming station operation. He explained that they had been housing people and later purchased and renovated a new building, which triggered involvement by the town, building inspectors, and the fire marshal, especially when a commercial kitchen was installed, requiring code-compliant equipment, hoods, and sprinklers. He then explained that the accessory-use language for emergency warming stations in houses of worship was intentionally limited. When the ordinance was being developed, the commission considered codifying all of the detailed operational rules used by “Taking It to the Streets,” such as length of stay and strict behavioral requirements. However, because that organization’s rules were already more restrictive than what the town itself had drafted, the commission chose not to embed all of those specifics in the ordinance. Instead, the ordinance allows the use by special exception, leaving the details to be reviewed case-by- case. Chairman Meyer explained that under this approach, each location would need to apply for a special exception. The town’s role is not to adopt the shelter operator’s internal rules wholesale, but to determine what should be allowed as long as life safety, building, and fire codes are met. Because the ordinance is not highly specific, the Planning Commission can, through the special exception process, impose conditions such as the length of the season of operation, the rules governing guests, and other operational limits. An applicant like Ms. Sternberg’s group would submit their proposed operating period and rules, and the commission would review them and, if appropriate, grant approval with conditions tailored to that specific use. He continued by explaining that, if the Planning Commission agrees with an application, it would issue a recommendation, and then the Town Council would take it up and go through a similar public process. The purpose of the ordinance language, he said, is to give groups like Ms. Sternberg’s the opportunity to come forward and formally ask, “We want to do this, will you allow it?” The more detailed the application, the better the commission can evaluate it: information about volunteers, staffing, hours of operation, and the specific services to be provided would all be relevant. He noted that in the case of “Taking It to the Streets,” a major issue was that they took an empty building and installed a commercial kitchen and sleeping accommodations, which required code-compliant bathrooms, fire protection, and other facilities. The commission’s role is to review what is being proposed, what will be provided and how, and determine whether it is appropriate to approve it under a special exception, assuming life safety and building code requirements are met. Ms. Sternberg responded that her difficulty is with the language of the ordinance. To her, “accessory use permitted” sounds like something allowed by right, without needing special permission, whereas a “special exception” is a different legal category. She explained that, according to the zoning administrator, the five churches willing to host people overnight are located in three different zoning districts, RO, B2, and B3, and that three of them are in zones that do not allow lodging or dwelling on the first floor of mixed-use buildings. She asked whether she was misunderstanding the ordinance, because it appears to say the use is permitted, yet in practice, she is being told that a special exception is still required. She wanted to understand how “accessory use” is defined and how it interacts with the zoning regulations for each district. Chairman Meyer explained that each zoning district, RO, B2, B3, and others, has its own list of permitted uses and uses allowed by special exception. Even if something is residential in nature, it is not automatically allowed in every district; for example, some districts allow certain types of housing by right, while others require special exceptions. The key is whether the proposed use appears in the list of permitted uses for that specific district or in the list of uses requiring a special exception. Ms. Sternberg pointed out that the ordinance states, “as an accessory use, emergency warming stations are permitted,” and emphasized the word “permitted.” She also noted the word “emergency,” questioning whether that implies that the state or county must formally declare an emergency before the provision can be used. Discussion turned to how “Taking It to the Streets” has been operating. It is clarified that they function under specific operating standards, such as opening when temperatures are forecast to fall below 40 degrees, based on what they proposed and what was approved through their special exception, not because a formal state or county emergency was declared. The zoning and operating permissions were tailored to their site and application, and the situation is more complex than simply relying on the definition in the ordinance. Ms. Sternberg expressed frustration that the word “permitted” sounds like a green light, while “emergency” suggests a declaration that, in her understanding, would override zoning entirely. She argues that if a true emergency is declared, people can be sheltered without going through normal zoning processes. Mr. Clark responded that, in Pulaski, even emergency sheltering is ultimately a local decision about where people can be housed. Ms. Sternberg noted that last year, under emergency conditions, the City of Refuge was allowed to operate, but that the town manager has since said that emergency sheltering must be provided for the general public, not just for people experiencing homelessness. As a result, she felt the current ordinance is not very helpful for the situation they are facing. In her view, it should at least clearly state that one may apply for a special exception and outline the process. Chairman Meyer explained that, before this ordinance existed, the only way an emergency warming shelter could legally operate in town was if a formal emergency were declared and the locality designated a shelter location. The current language was intended as an incremental step toward allowing such uses through normal zoning processes. However, he emphasizes that what Ms. Sternberg is describing, a seasonal, comprehensive sheltering and housing intervention program, is different from a short-term emergency warming station meant simply to get people out of the cold. Vice- Chairman Schrantz stressed that they want the church group to succeed, but must ensure everything is done through the proper legal and safety procedures so no one is shut down or cited for violations. He emphasized that the town is willing to work collaboratively and, if the current ordinance proves inadequate or unclear, it can be amended through the proper legislative process, just as was done previously. Chairman Meyer clarified that the current language is only a definition related to emergency warming stations and was primarily written to address “Taking It to the Streets” and similar efforts. It allows such uses to be considered through the special exception process, provided the site and zoning district are appropriate. It is explained that definitions in the zoning code apply throughout the entire ordinance, which is lengthy and complex. That is why localities rely on planning and zoning administrators to interpret how definitions and use categories interact with district regulations and to guide applicants through the process. Vice- Chairman Schrantz acknowledged that the zoning administrator is also on a learning curve and that some back-and-forth is inevitable. Ms. Sternberg stated she now understands that, despite the wording, the use is not automatically permitted and still requires permission, much like other uses listed in the code that are possible in theory but require special approval, such as radio towers or public swimming pools. Ms. Sternberg confirmed her understanding that “Taking It to the Streets” operates under approved standards, such as the “40 and falling” temperature trigger, through a special exception, not through a formal emergency declaration. She noted that she is trying to compare similar things, but that their proposed program is fundamentally different in scope. She then asked a final interpretive question: since houses of worship are a permitted use in their respective zoning districts, is there a way to consider overnight sheltering as part of the ministry function of a church itself, rather than immediately classifying it under “mixed-use buildings” with restrictions on first- floor lodging? She acknowledged that life safety, fire, and building codes must apply, and says she fully supports those protections, but she is trying to understand whether, in zoning terms, a house of worship might be treated as a distinct category when it comes to providing overnight shelter as part of its mission. Ms. Sternberg continued by emphasizing that houses of worship are different from private residences or ordinary businesses and have unique legal protections. She noted that historically, some churches have kept their doors open around the clock for anyone who wanted to come in off the street to pray or rest, and that the law has treated such practices differently. She referenced concepts such as sanctuary, where churches may shelter people in ways that are not typical for other types of buildings, reinforcing her view that a church is “a different animal” under the law. Returning to the practical zoning question, the discussion acknowledged that even if a building is a house of worship, once people are allowed to sleep there nightly, store belongings, and return consistently, the town may define them as occupants or residents. In zoning and building-code terms, that effectively creates a residential use, even if it is only overnight and even if people are not present during the day. This is why staff have been pointing Ms. Sternberg toward mixed- use and residential occupancy provisions and the associated special exception process. Ms. Sternberg expressed concern and curiosity about whether this framework could be reviewed or revised, especially since churches in Christiansburg and Blacksburg have been operating the To Our House program for many years without apparent zoning hurdles. She wondered whether those programs were formally approved, grandfathered in under older ordinances, or simply never subjected to the same level of zoning review. Ms. Hale reported that when she contacted officials in those localities and Community Action, there was no clear record of the program ever having gone before a planning commission or town councils, suggesting that it may have begun without formal zoning action. Ms. Sternberg reflected on the larger purpose behind the effort. She stated that the community should be wise and compassionate in helping people who have ended up in homelessness, often due to poor life skills, addiction, mental health struggles, and poverty. She linked this to Pulaski’s town slogan, “Where Your New Path Begins,” and argued that if the town wants to attract businesses and be healthy, it must also address the realities of addiction, mental health, and housing insecurity. She expressed hope that the town will be open to comprehensive homelessness intervention, including peer support and other services, and thanked the commission for helping her better understand an ordinance that she feels is poorly written and confusing. Vice-Chairman Schrantz asked about the “sleeping pods” mentioned in the operating plan, clarifying whether tents, air mattresses, and linens would be set up inside the churches. Ms. Sternberg confirmed that they would. He noted that this raises fire-safety concerns, particularly because tents and similar materials are flammable and can make evacuation more difficult. He referenced past incidents where small heating devices or open flames ignited tent material and stressed that this is exactly the type of risk that fire codes are meant to address. He suggested that Chief Connor and the fire department would need to be involved in reviewing these issues. Ms. Sternberg responded that the operating procedures used by the To Our House program are very strict and would not allow dangerous practices such as open flames, but she acknowledged that the concern is valid and that safety must still be formally evaluated. Vice-Chairman Schrantz explained that Pulaski has an older building stock and infrastructure, and that the town is in a process of catching up with modern safety standards. This is part of why the churches are encountering regulatory and inspection hurdles now. Both sides, they say, are trying to do the right thing, and the challenges arise from reconciling good intentions with outdated buildings and current codes. Ms. Sternberg spoke personally, noting that she has lived in the community for decades, loves the town, and has even housed people in her own home in hopes of helping them get their lives back on track. She emphasized that she is committed to the safety of everyone involved and wants to be a partner and ally to town staff and officials. She reiterated that her frustration comes from the ordinance reading like a “green light” when, in practice, it is not, but she accepts that the process will take time and must be followed. Commissioners and staff acknowledged her good-faith approach and thanked her for not attempting to operate without approval, which could create legal and safety problems. They encouraged her to continue working through the formal channels. Ms. Sternberg noted that she has been told many church buildings do not meet modern fire and building codes, raising questions about what would be required if their use were expanded or formally changed. She again raised the issue of “grandfathering,” since people have long gathered and even stayed overnight in these buildings. Chairman Meyer responded that these are exactly the kinds of issues that would be examined during the application and review process. Ms. Sternberg told Chief Connor that the Ministerial Association plans to invite the fire department to meet with church leaders to review building and fire safety and to receive guidance on prevention and preparedness. Chief Connor explained that many churches predate modern codes and therefore cannot be compelled to retrofit fully, but the department can make recommendations and would be glad to help. Ms. Sternberg described steps her own church has already taken, such as installing exit signage, conducting evacuation drills, and accounting for occupants, to show that safety is a priority. Ms. Sternberg concluded that, given the time required for approvals and inspections, the churches will likely not be able to operate a shelter this winter, but they will begin the formal process as soon as possible. She noted that Community Action should be involved in any application, since the To Our House model and services are central to the proposal. Vice-Chairman Schrantz closed by observing that this ordinance and definition are relatively new and were created because previously there was no framework at all for warming stations or similar uses. He emphasized that the language is not permanently fixed and can be revised or clarified through the planning and legislative process if it proves inadequate, just as it was created in response to earlier needs. The conversation resumed with members noting that earlier attempts to insert definitions into the ordinance risked creating more confusion, especially as new situations arose. They emphasized that what is being envisioned is not simply a “warming center” or “warming station,” but something broader and more complex, which current definitions do not adequately cover. Because this concept does not neatly fit within existing categories, they recognized that they are essentially breaking new ground and that it will be important to begin researching how other communities have approached similar efforts. It was clarified that what is being discussed is truly an intervention program, with overnight shelter being only one component. The model included daily involvement by counselors and service providers, similar to programs in Christiansburg and Blacksburg, where individuals receive guidance and help connecting to needed resources. Ms. Sternberg stressed that this comprehensive approach gives people a much better chance at long-term stability and improvement, rather than being a temporary or superficial fix. The goal, as she put it, is not to “put a bayonet on something,” but to create sustainable development that genuinely improves outcomes. The discussion closed with expressions of appreciation for the work being done and a shared understanding that progress will come step by step. 5. 2026 Election of Officers The meeting then moved to the election of officers for 2026. Nominations for secretary were opened, and Ms. Hale was nominated by Chairman Meyer and seconded by Mr. Hale. With no further nominations and no opposition, the motion passed unanimously. Attention then turned to the position of the chair. The current chair nominated himself to continue serving. The nomination was seconded by Mr. Clark, and with no other candidates and no opposition, the motion passed unanimously. The vice chair position was addressed next. Nominations for AJ Schrantz to continue to serve as Vice-Chairman were opened, and Mr. Hale made the nomination, seconded by Mr. Clark. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 2026 Meeting Calendar The commission reviewed the proposed 2026 meeting calendar, which was shown on a version of the state calendar with the commission’s meeting dates highlighted. A conflict was noted for the October 12 meeting, which falls on Columbus Day. The group discussed options and agreed that the meeting on that date would be canceled, with the understanding that a special meeting could be called if necessary. A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Schrantz and seconded by Mr. Clark to adopt the meeting schedule with that adjustment. The motion passed unanimously, and the calendar was officially approved. 7. Disclosure of Real Estate Holding Forms Members were reminded about the annual disclosure of real estate holdings forms, which are due by the end of the month. It was explained that there is a $250 filing fee imposed if the forms are not submitted on time and have to be forwarded to the appropriate county office. Historically, no one on the commission has incurred this penalty, and the hope was expressed that this record would continue. Ms. Hale clarified that the forms are maintained locally for several years and, although they are no longer sent to the state, they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Members were reminded that even owning a single piece of property requires filing the form and that it is a simple, one-page document, which can be submitted electronically. 8. Commissioner Comments During commissioner comments, Vice-Chairman Schrantz asked about why the traffic signal at Madison Avenue and Fifth Street had not been removed when other stoplights in town were taken out. It was suggested that the original traffic study may not have included that intersection and may have focused primarily on two-way versus one-way traffic patterns elsewhere. He argued that, with reduced truck traffic and generally low volumes at that location, a full traffic signal no longer seems justified. They proposed converting the intersection to a two-way stop, allowing through traffic on Route 11 to flow without stopping, which could also improve emergency response times. There was some discussion about the light’s timing and how it often stops traffic unnecessarily when no vehicles are present on Madison. The idea of further studying the intersection was welcomed, and it was indicated that the matter could be forwarded to engineering staff for evaluation and for taking the appropriate steps, potentially in coordination with the council. Chairman Meyer welcomed Chief Conner to the meeting, as it was his first time attending a Planning Commission meeting. Chief Conner shared an anecdote about having to appear before the Architectural Review Board regarding window replacements at a historic fire station, highlighting the challenges of maintaining a century-old building while complying with preservation requirements. The discussion then returned to the earlier topic of shelter definitions. It was emphasized that the existing definition related to emergencies should remain, because it is essential in situations where a formal emergency is declared by the town, county, or state. In such cases, any suitable building with heat and power might need to be used to protect people, regardless of its usual designation. However, the group acknowledged that the language could be clarified, possibly by specifying that certain uses are “permitted by special exception,” and by developing a separate definition for temporary or intervention-type shelters that are not strictly tied to declared emergencies. There was also a brief explanation of how emergency declarations work, from local authority up through the governor, and how the town coordinates with county emergency management. The emergency manager was identified as a valuable resource for helping refine and draft clearer definitions and frameworks for these different types of sheltering and intervention programs. 9. Reminder of Next Meeting a. Monday, February 9, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. 10. With no further business, the motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.