Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-26 Planning Commission Minutes/ Town of Pulaski Planning Commission Meeting Municipal Building, Council Chambers February 9, 2026 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- Absent Brandon Turcotte- Aye A.J. Schrantz- Aye Benjamin Linkous- Aye Review and Approval of Minutes January 12, 2026 Meeting Minutes A few corrections were identified by Chairman Meyer. He questioned language in the next-to-last paragraph on the page, beginning with “can be sheltered without going through normal zoning processes,” specifically noting that the phrase “It is explained, the definitions” did not clearly identify who provided the explanation. It was agreed that this would be clarified after reviewing the recording. Another correction involved a paragraph on the following page that attributed comments to Ms. Sternberg; Chairman Meyer indicated that he was actually the one who had made those remarks. The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale to adopt the minutes with the corrections. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing There were no public hearings scheduled. Old Business No old business was discussed. New Business Temporary Housing/Shelter Definition Ms. Hale stated she researched surrounding counties and municipalities to see how they address similar uses. She found that most nearby localities have no specific provisions addressing temporary housing shelters. Blacksburg was the only example located, and its regulations categorize shelters under “residential dwelling,” with subdivisions such as apartments and multifamily housing. However, Blacksburg does not have a distinct definition for a “warming shelter.” Chairman Meyer noted that Blacksburg’s framework appeared similar to the town’s existing residential dwelling categories, though organized differently. Chairman Meyer acknowledged that the town currently lacks a definition covering temporary housing that is not emergency-related. Existing regulations address either permanent residences or emergency provisions, leaving a gap in the middle. He recognized that crafting a new definition could involve “breaking new ground” for the town. Chairman Meyer recommended developing a simple and broad definition rather than an overly detailed one. The idea would be to establish general parameters in the code while handling specifics through zoning districts and the special exception process. This approach would allow individual applicants, such as churches, to present their proposed rules and operational details, enabling the town to approve or deny each case based on its unique characteristics rather than imposing rigid, one-size-fits-all restrictions in advance. He discussed how churches differ significantly in structure and layout, meaning that one church’s proposal might include certain services or accommodations that another could not provide. Keeping the definition open-ended would offer flexibility while allowing the town to evaluate each application individually. The board, along with Nathan Smythers, Zoning Administrator, discussed whether temporary housing shelters should be permitted by special exception in all zoning districts or only certain ones. Because churches exist in various zones, sometimes due to grandfathering or outdated zoning classifications, Vice-Chairman Schrantz questioned whether it would be practical or even possible to exclude specific districts, such as industrial zones. However, it was noted that churches sometimes operate in converted warehouses or industrial buildings, making blanket exclusions potentially problematic. Mr. Smythers reviewed whether there were any districts in which churches are not allowed and found no obvious prohibitions. The discussion highlighted the need to determine in which districts temporary shelters would be permitted and under what process. Chairman Meyer concluded that members should consider possible language and submit suggestions for review rather than drafting final language during the meeting. The conversation broadened to include similar or related housing models. Chairman Meyer referenced the former Maple Lodge property, which historically functioned as a group-home-style lodging facility, renting rooms nightly or weekly with shared bathrooms and kitchens. Such arrangements, similar to hostelries in Europe, are not currently permitted in town. He questioned whether such uses should be allowed and whether previous restrictions were based on compatibility concerns or simply declining popularity. Vice-Chairman Schrantz discussed how uses like hostels or rooming houses might not align well if placed directly within dense residential neighborhoods, particularly if operated as businesses. However, Chairman Meyer noted that the town had previously found a way to permit a bed and breakfast within a residential zone, demonstrating flexibility when a proposal fits neighborhood characteristics. Vice-Chairman Schrantz emphasized the importance of evaluating each proposal in context, considering whether it serves as a buffer between commercial and residential areas or disrupts a purely residential setting. The special exception process was viewed as valuable because it allows case-by-case review and provides neighbors the opportunity to voice concerns before approval. Chairman Meyer clarified that the town currently has no definition for a temporary housing shelter, only provisions related to emergency shelters. The existing framework, developed in connection with “Taking It to the Streets,” was intentionally minimalistic to give applicants flexibility in presenting their operational plans. However, Vice-Chairman Schrantz cautioned against drafting a definition that is too broad, as it could make future enforcement or reversal difficult. He suggested starting with a narrowly scoped definition and possibly incorporating input from Ms. Sternberg to better understand operational goals. Based on prior discussions, the envisioned temporary shelter would operate seasonally, approximately October through March, and provide overnight shelter. Participants would be able to leave personal belongings in assigned spaces during the shelter’s operational months, but it would not constitute a permanent address. Vice-Chairman Schrantz stressed the importance of ensuring law enforcement has clear authority to address problems and that the ordinance does not inadvertently limit enforcement options. Chairman Meyer discussed whether requirements for cooperation with law enforcement and emergency services should be included in the code itself, required as part of a special exception application, or imposed as a condition of approval. While there had been no issues with cooperation to date, he agreed it was important to address enforcement mechanisms carefully. Additionally, the Chairman Meyer noted that under the existing code, regularly staying overnight, even for two or three consecutive nights, can establish a residence for regulatory purposes, triggering other legal considerations. The discussion concluded with reference to a bill currently circulating in the Virginia General Assembly. Mr. Smythers read from the bill, explaining that it would allow administrative approval for the development and construction of housing on land owned by property tax-exempt religious organizations and certain tax-exempt nonprofit organizations. Under the proposed legislation, zoning ordinances would be required to allow by-right development of housing on such properties. Localities would be prohibited from requiring special exceptions, special use permits, conditional use permits, rezoning, or other discretionary review processes. Chairman Meyer expressed concern that this legislation could significantly limit the town’s authority, effectively allowing religious organizations or qualifying nonprofits to construct housing on their property without local discretionary review. The source of the bill was identified as the Virginia Legislative Information System, and clarification was sought regarding its current status in the legislative process. Mr. Smythers clarified that Senate Bill 367 has not yet passed but remains active in the legislative process, with a delayed effective date of September 1, 2026, if enacted. Chairman Meyer identified the Virginia Legislative Information System (lis.virginia.gov) as the source for tracking the bill and noted that it can be located through the site’s search function. Beyond SB 367, Chairman Meyer raised concerns about other pending legislation that could affect the town. One bill reportedly would prohibit localities from enforcing ordinances that restrict individuals experiencing homelessness from sleeping in cars, setting up tents in public parks, or otherwise sheltering themselves in public spaces. He noted that the town currently has code provisions addressing camping on public or private land and possibly sleeping in doorways, but enforcement practices and how frequently such situations arise were unclear. There had been recent social media discussions questioning whether it should be unlawful for someone to sleep in a legally parked vehicle if they have no other option. Another bill was mentioned that could broadly limit localities’ authority to regulate land uses within zoning districts, potentially preventing towns from prohibiting certain property uses as they currently can. Although details were unclear and the bill’s status unknown, Chairman Meyer acknowledged that such legislation could significantly impact local zoning control. He also noted that many localities are attempting to repurpose industrial areas for housing or smaller-scale business uses, and statewide legislative changes could either support or complicate those efforts. If enacted, these bills might require the town to revisit its zoning definitions, permitted uses, and restrictions. Mr. Clark referenced an article by Tom Combs, Community Outreach and Diversity, which included a comparison of temporary housing and shelter versus emergency home and shelter, along with suggested definitions and ordinance language. The proposed definition for temporary housing and shelter describes it as a facility providing short-term residential accommodations, sleeping quarters, and supportive services to individuals or families experiencing homelessness or housing instability. It would typically operate continuously, 24 hours a day, and allow stays longer than an emergency overnight refuge. The article also suggested ordinance language defining such a facility as one providing short-term residential lodging and supportive services for persons lacking permanent housing, operating on a continuous basis and not classified as a hotel, motel, or single-family dwelling. Additional materials included zoning characteristics, conditional use standards, key zoning distinctions, comparative charts, and considerations such as traffic, infrastructure review, and economic corridor protection. Members expressed interest in reviewing the full article and requested that the materials be scanned and distributed. Chairman Meyer agreed that the proposed definition provided a strong starting point. Vice-Chairman Schrantz suggested reviewing the language carefully to identify any terms that might need modification to better align with the town’s context. Once a working draft is developed, it is suggested to consult with the town attorney to ensure the language is legally sound and appropriately structured. He acknowledged that this iterative process could lengthen the timeline but emphasized the importance of getting the wording correct before moving forward with formal adoption. Chairman Meyer noted the importance of beginning this work promptly rather than canceling the current meeting, with the goal of having appropriate provisions in place by October to support those who may need seasonal shelter. The intent is to create a clear and workable framework that allows organizations to provide these services “the right way” while maintaining appropriate oversight. Chairman Meyer proposed that the town consider waiving application fees for houses of worship seeking approval for temporary housing or similar uses. The rationale was that these organizations already commit substantial financial and volunteer resources to provide shelter services, and eliminating application fees, such as those associated with special use or special exception permits, would reduce administrative burdens and demonstrate community support. Chairman Meyer viewed this as a relatively small concession in light of the community benefit provided by such programs. The suggestion to waive fees was framed as a practical way to support charitable efforts without a significant fiscal impact. Emergency Warming Station Chairman Meyer revisited language from the previous month’s minutes concerning confusion over whether certain uses were allowed “by right.” It appeared that some had interpreted the term “permitted use” to mean automatically allowed without further approval. However, in the town’s zoning structure, even emergency shelters are permitted only by special exception. Vice-Chairman Schrantz and Chairman Meyer discussed possible revisions to clarify this distinction. One option would be to explicitly add “by special exception” to the relevant sections of the code. Another would be to reference that uses are allowed or restricted pursuant to other sections of the town’s zoning ordinances, though that approach might create additional confusion. The consensus leaned toward the simpler solution of explicitly stating “by special exception,” despite the procedural steps required to amend the code formally. Chairman Meyer also suggested that if temporary housing provisions are successfully established under a special exception framework, there may be fewer requests specifically for emergency warming stations, as organizations might prefer the broader temporary housing model. Staff Report During the staff report, attention turned to the zoning permit process. Mr. Smythers explained that the zoning ordinance currently references a permit requirement for structures under 256 square feet, with a $50 fee, but there appears to be no active permit application form or consistent enforcement of that provision. He expressed a desire to formalize and strengthen the zoning permit application process. Currently, applicants seeking to install accessory structures are often verbally advised of setback requirements, but there is limited written documentation and no systematic follow-up inspection to verify compliance. From a building code perspective, permits are generally required only for structures exceeding 256 square feet, leaving smaller structures without formal review. The proposed approach would establish a comprehensive zoning permit requirement for all applicable projects, regardless of size, including accessory buildings, additions, and other site improvements affecting setbacks. This would involve a flat-rate fee (similar to neighboring localities, which charge between $30 and $50) and written documentation of applicants’ plans. The zoning approval would then support the building department’s issuance of permits where required. Under this proposal, the 256-square-foot threshold for zoning review would effectively be eliminated, ensuring that even smaller or pre-assembled structures are subject to setback verification and potential site inspection. Mr. Smythers emphasized that this would improve documentation, accountability, and enforcement consistency moving forward. The discussion continued regarding the proposed zoning permit requirement, clarifying that prefabricated buildings would also need to go through the application process. Mr. Smythers explained that applicants would complete the form and then a site inspection would be conducted to verify compliance with setback requirements. This would prevent situations where a property owner unknowingly places a structure too close to a property line. If a property owner cannot meet setback requirements due to hardship related to lot size or other constraints, the appropriate avenue would be to apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a variance. If someone installs a structure without first completing the required process, they would receive a Notice of Violation. Enforcement responsibility currently rests with the zoning administrator, though it was noted that action would only occur if the violation is discovered. Chairman Meyer and Mr. Smythers briefly discussed the statute of limitations for zoning violations, estimating it to be approximately two to three years, though no definitive answer was provided. It was clarified that both failing to submit the required application and failing to meet setback requirements would constitute violations. Potential penalties could reach up to $2,500 if a property owner refuses to comply after notice, though typically enforcement would begin with communication and an opportunity to correct the issue. If a structure already meets setback requirements but the application was not filed, the remedy would primarily involve submitting the paperwork and documenting compliance. Chairman Meyer explored how broadly the proposed requirement would apply. Mr. Smythers explained that the intent is to require documentation for any additional square footage added to a property, including small storage sheds, accessory buildings, decks, and similar structures, even those under 256 square feet. The current 256-square-foot threshold originates from the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, which exempts accessory buildings under that size from building permit requirements. However, zoning review is a separate matter. Currently, structures under 256 square feet often receive no formal zoning documentation, even though the town’s fee schedule references a $50 zoning permit for such buildings. Mr. Smythers noted that no corresponding permit application form could be found. Under the proposed change, all structures, regardless of size, would require zoning review to verify setbacks and create written documentation. Even new homes would go through this zoning process as part of the overall review. Chairman Meyer also discussed distinctions between permanent and non-permanent structures and noted past confusion over whether certain features, such as decks attached versus detached from a house, were treated differently. Mr. Smythers clarified that current attachment restrictions primarily apply to modular or manufactured housing. Mr. Linkous questioned whether eliminating the 256-square-foot threshold entirely was appropriate, particularly when it comes to charging a fee. Chairman Meyer noted that a 256-square-foot structure, roughly equivalent to a 12-by-20-foot building, represents a relatively significant project. For larger projects costing several thousand dollars, a $40 fee would likely be minimal. However, for very small projects, such as a small prefabricated shed, the fee could represent a disproportionate expense. The discussion focused on whether a minimum size threshold should remain in place to avoid imposing unnecessary financial or administrative burdens on property owners undertaking very small projects. Vice-Chairman Schrantz suggested a lower threshold, such as 100 square feet, below which no application or fee would be required. Chairman Meyer emphasized the importance of ensuring setback compliance regardless of structure size, noting that even small structures can create neighbor disputes if placed too close to property lines. Vice-Chairman Schrantz and Chairman Meyer acknowledged that requiring documentation helps avoid scenarios where a structure must later be moved due to setback violations. At the same time, concerns were raised about fairness and proportionality, particularly if someone purchases a small, inexpensive storage unit and must then pay a significant additional fee simply to place it on their property, even when it is clearly far from any property boundary. One possible compromise discussed was maintaining free review for structures under 256 square feet while applying the $40 fee only to larger projects. Vice-Chairman Schrantz noted that projects exceeding 256 square feet are generally more substantial and costly, making the fee less burdensome in proportion. The conversation concluded with continued consideration of whether specific categories, such as decks or additions, should be treated differently, reflecting an ongoing effort to balance enforcement, administrative efficiency, and fairness to residents. The Commission continued discussing how setback requirements are addressed during the building permit process, noting that additions, decks, and new construction should already trigger review for compliance. Chairman Meyer questioned why setback awareness would not be built into existing permit forms and suggested that applicants could be asked directly whether they understand their property’s setbacks and whether their project complies. It was emphasized that property owners are responsible for knowing their setbacks, and if they proceed without compliance, violations would ultimately fall on them. There was also discussion about smaller structures, such as portable sheds purchased from retail stores, which may not always go through formal review. While some acknowledged that many of these structures likely already exist without permits, there was agreement that educating residents about proper procedures is beneficial. As an informational measure, the idea of including a yearly reminder about setback requirements in the Town’s quarterly utility bill newsletter was suggested to help trigger awareness for residents considering improvements. Mr. Smythers discussed the possibility of additional permits, including a potential “change of use” permit, which other localities have adopted. Though still under research, this permit would serve as a trigger mechanism to document and review changes such as converting a residential property to a business use. Vice-Chairman Schrantz noted that such changes could affect homeowners’ insurance coverage or premiums, and that a permitting process would provide an opportunity to ensure property owners understand potential financial and regulatory consequences. It was acknowledged that most zoning compliance relies on self-reporting unless violations are discovered after the fact. There was further conversation about ensuring that any new permit fees are not cost-prohibitive, especially for small projects. Vice- Chairman Schrantz emphasized the need to balance compliance and education with fairness and practicality. Mr. Smythers informed the Commission that an individual is considering submitting a rezoning application for the gravel parking lot below Calfee Ballpark, near the intersection of Dora Highway and Pierce, above the Centos property. The request would involve rezoning the property to residential. Although no application has been formally submitted, the matter may come before the Commission in the future. Chairman Meyer recalled that the property had previously been rezoned for use as a parking lot and referenced earlier development discussions, including a prior proposal involving 3D buildings that did not move forward. The property is surrounded primarily by residential zoning districts. Other Business No other business was discussed. Commissioner Comments During closing comments, Vice-Chairman Schrantz announced that this would be his final meeting. He submitted a letter of resignation and was thanked for nearly four years of service on the Planning Commission. Vice-Chairman Schrantz reflected on his time living in the Town for the past ten years, raising his family there, and serving both on the Commission and in the fire department. He expressed appreciation for the Town staff and fellow commissioners, noting the positive direction of the Town and improvements made during his tenure. He stated he would continue to advocate for the Town, encourage others to move there, and remain involved in the community through the fire department. Commissioners expressed gratitude for his contributions and encouraged him to stay engaged. Reminder of Next Meeting Monday, March 9, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. With no further discussions, Chairman Meyer adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m.