Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-26 Planning Commission MinutesTown of Pulaski Planning Commission Meeting Municipal Building, Council Chambers May 11, 2026 1. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked for a roll call. Jeremy Clark- Aye Benjamin Linkous- Aye Kevin Meyer- Aye Terry Hale- Aye Amilyn Turcotte- Aye 2. Review and Approval of Minutes a.March 9, 2026 Meeting Minutes The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale to adopt the minutes. The motion passed unanimously. b. April 13, 2026 Meeting Minutes The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale to the adopt the minutes. The motion passed unanimously. 3.Public Hearing a.RR Zoning Amendment The first case introduced was zoning text amendment case number 2026-ZA-001, the first zoning amendment request of the year. The applicant was identified as Horner Acer Farm LLC. Chairman Meyer summarized the request as an effort to add a definition for “farm markets” and to permit farm markets as an allowed use within the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district. The amendment would also require changes to off-street parking regulations related to farm markets. Chairman Meyer then invited Mr. Smythers to present the staff report on behalf of the town. Mr. Smythers explained that the zoning text amendment proposed revisions to Article 4, Section 4.1 governing the Rural Residential District. Specifically, the amendment would add “farmers market” as a permitted use in the RR district. In addition, revisions to Article 5, Section 5.3 regarding off-street parking would modify parking surface requirements for farm markets. He noted that the property associated with the request was currently zoned R-1 Residential and consisted of approximately 13.9 acres within town limits. Mr. Smythers also used part of his allotted time to introduce Mr. Semones, who would assist in presenting information related to the code text amendments. Chairman Meyer clarified for the record that the zoning text amendment itself was a town-wide change to the zoning ordinance and not solely tied to the individual property discussed in the rezoning request, although the property in question was the catalyst for the amendment. Mr. Steve Semones of Westwood Professional Services introduced himself and asked whether the commission would permit him to discuss both the rezoning request and the zoning text amendment together because the two matters were closely connected. He explained that while separate votes would ultimately be required, presenting them jointly would provide a clearer understanding of the overall proposal and save time. The commission agreed to allow the combined presentation, though Chairman Meyer noted they might still ask separate questions later. Mr. Semones then explained that the evening involved two linked requests. The first was a rezoning application seeking to change a property’s zoning designation from R-1 Residential to Rural Residential (RR). The second was the code text amendment that would modify RR district regulations to allow permanent farm markets. He emphasized that the zoning text amendment would apply generally throughout the town to all RR-zoned properties, not solely to the applicant’s property, though it originated as part of this specific case. Mr. Semones described the subject property as approximately 14 acres located at 2321 Pleasant Hill Drive. He explained that the land had historically been and is currently used for agricultural purposes. The property owners, identified as the Horner family, purchased the property in May 2024 after relocating from North Carolina to Pulaski to begin farming operations locally. He referenced additional materials that had been submitted to the Planning Commission and town staff the previous week. According to Mr. Semones, those documents were intended to demonstrate that all parties involved, including town officials, county representatives, and the Horner’s themselves, had acted in good faith throughout the process. However, as the family neared completion of their farm stand, misunderstandings and crossed communications reportedly resulted in a zoning violation. Mr. Semones stated that since that time, his team and the Horner’s had worked collaboratively with the town to identify a solution that would allow the family to continue operating their small farm business without losing the substantial financial investment they had already made in the property. Mr. Semones explained that the rezoning request sought to “downzone” the property from R-1 Residential to RR Rural Residential. According to him, doing so would bring the property’s existing agricultural activities into compliance with zoning regulations. He noted that the land had been used agriculturally since the 1970s and currently contained livestock, gardens, flowers, and farming operations. He stated that these activities were already permitted by right in the RR district, provided certain conditions were met, and that the property currently satisfied those requirements. The primary issue, however, was that the zoning ordinance did not presently permit a permanent farm stand. Instead, the ordinance only allowed a temporary farm stand of approximately 200 to 250 square feet, limited in duration and requiring periodic relocation. The proposed rezoning, combined with the requested text amendment, would therefore permit the permanent farm market structure while keeping the remainder of the agricultural operations consistent with RR zoning standards. Mr. Semones next discussed the specific changes proposed in the zoning text amendment. He referenced updated documents provided to the commission the previous week and noted that revisions and deletions were highlighted in blue text. He explained that the amendment would permit permanent farm stands by right within the RR district. This, he argued, would support local farmers by allowing them to sell products directly on-site rather than relying solely on weekly farmers markets, which require transportation, setup, and limited selling opportunities. One major proposed change involved removing existing language in Section 4.1 that prohibited permanently maintained retail or wholesale stores on agricultural properties. In place of that prohibition, the amendment would establish new regulations governing farm markets. Among the proposed standards were restrictions on the origin of products sold at the farm market. Mr. Semones explained that all products, including meat, dairy, produce, and flowers, would need to originate within a 75-mile radius. He stated that this language was intentionally modeled after the same 75-mile standard already used by the town’s farmers market at the train depot, providing consistency with existing local agricultural policies. The amendment would also establish a maximum size of 2,500 square feet for permanent farm market buildings. Mr. Semones noted that the Horner family’s existing structure was only about 1,100 square feet, well below the proposed cap. Additional requirements included setback standards mandating that no farm stand building or associated parking area be located within 30 feet of adjacent property lines. Mr. Semones stated that the existing building already exceeded this requirement, sitting approximately 51 feet from the nearest property line. Parking requirements would follow the town’s standard retail parking formula of one parking space per 250 square feet of building area, meaning the Horner property would require approximately four spaces. The amendment would also permit gravel parking surfaces rather than requiring asphalt or concrete. A second amendment would modify Section 5.3 regarding parking surface regulations. Farm stands would be added to an existing exemption that currently applies to single-family and two-family dwellings, allowing gravel parking and driveways instead of paved surfaces. Mr. Semones emphasized that the Horner farm market already complied with all of the proposed standards, including setbacks, size limits, and parking requirements. Toward the end of his presentation, Mr. Semones addressed questions previously raised by the commission concerning operating hours and traffic impacts. He clarified that the proposed farm market would not operate as a full-time retail business. Instead, the Horner family planned limited hours of operation: Fridays from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sundays from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He noted that these operating hours were specific to the Horner’s business and were not part of the proposed zoning text amendment itself. Finally, Mr. Semones began discussing traffic generation analysis, stating that the proposed use represented a very low traffic-generating activity when evaluated according to Institute standards, though the transcript segment ended before he completed that explanation. Continuing his presentation, Mr. Semones referenced standards from the Institute of Transportation Engineers regarding the relatively low traffic generation associated with farm markets. He also emphasized that both the town and county comprehensive plans repeatedly reference support for local small businesses and acknowledge agriculture as a major historic and economic component of Pulaski County. He argued that the proposal aligned with those broader planning goals and community values. Mr. Semones concluded his remarks by stating that he, along with the Horner family, would be available to answer questions from the Planning Commission. Before the public hearing formally opened, Mr. Semones added one more point related to questions raised previously by the commission concerning the continuity of agricultural use on the property. He explained that commissioners had asked for confirmation that the land had continuously operated agriculturally without a lapse significant enough to invalidate any grandfathered status. Mr. Semones stated that additional documentation had been obtained that evening and would be provided to the Planning Department the following morning. He explained that earlier records already submitted to the town documented agricultural use of the property dating back to at least 1957 and continuing through approximately July 2020. The newly obtained information was intended to bridge the remaining gap in the timeline and demonstrate uninterrupted agricultural activity. Chairman Meyer clarified for those present that there had been ongoing exchanges of information between the town and the Horner family throughout the process, and that the materials submitted formed part of the overall record related to the case. Mr. Smythers also referenced the staff reports distributed to commissioners, which included a history of correspondence and events leading up to the hearing. Chairman Meyer opened the Public Hearing. Seira Reynolds, a resident of Pleasant Hill Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. She argued that the applicants were already in violation of existing zoning regulations and were now seeking to change those laws for their own benefit instead of complying with them. According to Ms. Reynolds, approving the request would create a dangerous precedent by suggesting that zoning ordinances were optional and that violations could simply be legalized after the fact. She stated that residents who had complied with existing regulations and relied on established zoning protections would effectively be penalized, while those who violated the rules would be rewarded. Ms. Reynolds described the proposal as more than a minor adjustment, arguing that it threatened to introduce increased traffic, noise, commercial signage, and expanded activity into what she characterized as a residential neighborhood never intended to support commercial operations. Ms. Reynolds further stated that these changes would negatively impact the peace, safety, and quality of life of nearby residents, especially elderly neighbors who depended on a quiet environment. She warned that granting the request would make it more difficult to deny similar requests in the future, gradually weakening the integrity of the zoning process. She concluded by urging the board to deny the request and uphold the zoning protections residents had relied upon for many years. After her remarks, Chairman Meyer clarified that her comments primarily addressed the rezoning request rather than the zoning text amendment currently under discussion. He explained that the commission would still take her comments into account during consideration of the rezoning matter later in the hearing process. The next speaker, Mark Weikel of 2231 Pleasant Hill, addressed both the rezoning request and the proposed zoning text amendment. Referring to a copy of the Rural Residential District regulations provided by Mr. Smythers, Mr. Weikel read portions of Section 4.1.2-2 regarding special exceptions permitted within the RR district. He listed several examples of uses that could potentially be approved through special exception permits, including livestock operations, dairy farms, nursing homes, schools, recreational clubs, and up to 50-foot towers. His concern was that approving the rezoning would open the door to a broad range of additional uses beyond the current farm market proposal. Mr. Weikel argued that such changes could lower surrounding property values while taxes continued to rise. He noted that the neighborhood had existed under R-1 zoning since 1957 and that many homes in the area, including his own, had been built during the 1960s. He expressed concern that rezoning the property would permanently alter the character of the neighborhood and make homes more difficult to sell in the future. When asked directly by Chairman Meyer, Mr. Weikel confirmed that he opposed both the rezoning request and the zoning text amendment. Jane MacAdoo, a longtime town resident and adjacent property owner, spoke next. She explained that she and her husband had lived in the area for decades and had contributed extensively to the local economy through taxes and charitable donations. Ms. MacAdoo clarified that while she had not fully decided her position on the farm store-related zoning amendments themselves, her comments were primarily directed toward the rezoning request. Ms. MacAdoo emphasized that she and her husband had as much right as anyone else to the quiet enjoyment of their property adjoining the Horner farm. She stated that she strongly supported local agriculture and farm products generally, naming several local farms and vendors from whom she regularly purchased goods, including Mountain View Farms, Home Acre House Farms, Weathertop, Martha Biggar, Elizabeth Whitman, Cookies for Breakfast, other vendors from the Marketplace, The Merc Farms, and the Horner’s themselves. She explained that she might have been willing to support some form of limited zoning exception specifically for the farm store in the interest of compromise. However, she stated that the existing activities had already significantly changed daily life around her home. She described problems involving noise, dust, mud accumulation near her slate sidewalk, and dangers associated with speeding vehicles traveling on gravel roads. Ms. MacAdoo also voiced concern about the broader implications of permanently rezoning the property to Rural Residential. She worried that agritourism-related activities could eventually include music events, alcohol sales, nighttime gatherings, and additional noise, all of which she believed would create hardships given her health concerns and her husband’s work schedule. She contrasted those possibilities with the traditional agricultural activities historically associated with the property, such as cattle grazing, hay mowing, and baling, which she said had existed quietly for more than fifty years since her grandparents built her home at 2311 Pleasant Hill Drive. Another major concern she raised involved the permanence of the rezoning itself. Ms. MacAdoo noted that future ownership of the property could not be guaranteed and that future owners might pursue more intensive uses allowed within the RR district. She argued that once the rezoning occurred, the town would have less control over future uses permitted through special exceptions, potentially impacting both the subdivision and surrounding property values. Ms. MacAdoo concluded by reiterating that while she supported farming and agricultural activities generally, she opposed permanently rezoning the property because she believed the original R-1 zoning protections were enacted specifically to safeguard the neighborhood’s character and property values. Jeff Walke, a resident of 2224 Pleasant Hill Drive, then spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that farming activity had existed in the area for decades and that he had personally witnessed agricultural operations on the property since moving there in 2009. He recalled earlier years when cattle occasionally escaped fencing and neighbors worked together to return them, emphasizing that farming had always been part of the area’s character. Addressing concerns about traffic, Mr. Walke noted that he and his wife had previously advocated for 25-mile-per-hour speed limit signs in the neighborhood because of children riding bicycles and pedestrian activity. However, he stated that he had not observed any increase in traffic attributable to the farm market itself. Instead, he argued that construction traffic associated with nearby homebuilding projects posed a greater concern. Mr. Walke also dismissed complaints about noise, dust, or signage, stating that such conditions were not significantly different from historical farming operations under previous property owners. He said the only signage he had observed was a small sign placed out on Fridays and Saturdays indicating the farm store was open. In his opinion, the farm store had not negatively changed the neighborhood or created noticeable problems. He concluded by expressing support for the operation and stating that he did not understand many of the complaints being raised. Chairman Meyer then acknowledged a late sign-up from Larry and Ellen Marshall, who identified themselves as residents of properties at 2421 and 2401. Mr. Marshall stated that they had a vested interest in the proceedings and wanted clarification about how the situation had progressed to this point. They questioned how permits had been issued and how construction of the building had proceeded if town and county officials already understood where the town boundary and applicable zoning regulations were located. They expressed confusion about how approvals had apparently been granted despite the later determination that zoning violations existed. The Marshalls clarified that they initially had no objection to the building itself or to its use for a farm-related purpose, but started questioning the use of the property once commercial use started, and how the rezoning debate came into existence. Ms. Marshall explained that they and many of their neighbors had initially remained quiet about the situation in an effort to preserve peace within the neighborhood. They described the Pleasant Hill area as one of the most desirable neighborhoods in both the Town of Pulaski and Pulaski County, emphasizing its quiet atmosphere, scenic mountain views, farmland, and longstanding residential character. According to the Marshalls, homes in the area typically sold quickly because people specifically wanted to live in a peaceful rural-residential setting. They clarified that they had no objection to agricultural activities themselves, including the cattle and animals already present on the property. Their concern arose when the use shifted into what they viewed as a commercial operation. Mr. Marshall also criticized the appearance of campers that had reportedly remained on the property for several years, describing them as visually disruptive and inconsistent with ordinances that residents had previously been told would prohibit such uses. Mr. Marshall referenced his own experiences interacting with town regulations, explaining that he and his family had once been told they could not place a tiny house or camper on adjacent property for temporary living purposes. He questioned why similar restrictions did not appear to apply in this case and argued that residents deserved answers regarding how the approval and permitting process had unfolded. The Marshall’s stressed that they were not necessarily fully opposed to the proposal but wanted clarity about how the situation had developed and what future activities might ultimately be permitted if the rezoning moved forward. They expressed concern about the possibility of alcohol sales, late-night music, and other entertainment uses becoming associated with the property in the future. Mr. Marshall stated that while the Horner’s may have good intentions, future ownership or business pressures could eventually lead to more intensive commercial activities. As an example, she referenced Sinkland Farms and described heavy traffic and activity there on weekends, stating that residents did not want similar conditions developing within their neighborhood. She repeatedly emphasized concerns about precedent, arguing that residents should not be allowed to violate regulations first and then seek forgiveness later through zoning changes. Drawing on Mr. Marshall’s own experience owning and selling businesses, he cautioned the commission to consider how far future operators might push the limits of the zoning if the requests were approved. Chairman Meyer responded directly to some of the concerns raised by the Marshalls and other speakers. He explained that the Planning Commission had not been involved in the matter until the rezoning and text amendment requests were formally submitted. According to him, the situation developed through interactions between the property owners, the town, and the county, particularly because part of the property lies within county jurisdiction. Regarding the camper permit questions, Chairman Meyer stated that the trailer on the property had apparently been issued a temporary permit, although details regarding duration and enforcement were unclear from the available documentation. He also explained that many of the town employees and administrators who had initially handled the matter were no longer employed by the town, meaning current staff had effectively inherited the situation. Chairman Meyer acknowledged that the matter might have been handled differently earlier in the process, but stressed that the commission could only deal with the circumstances as they currently existed. He reminded attendees that the Planning Commission’s role that evening was limited to making recommendations to Town Council regarding two specific requests: the zoning text amendment allowing farm stores in Rural Residential districts and the rezoning of the subject property itself. He explained that the commission operated under strict legal standards when considering rezoning and that there were only limited statutory reasons for recommending denial. He also emphasized that the Planning Commission’s recommendation would not be binding on the Town Council and encouraged residents to participate again during the Town Council public hearing process. Chairman Meyer attempted to address fears about future entertainment or alcohol- related uses by clarifying that the proposed RR zoning district did not allow alcohol sales or similar commercial entertainment uses by right. He explained that any such activities would require additional zoning changes, permits, and approvals, including compliance with Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations and town permitting processes. At the same time, he acknowledged the validity of neighbors’ concerns regarding impacts on surrounding properties and property values. He specifically noted that the commission had to consider how the rezoning could affect neighboring landowners and recognized the proximity of several adjacent homes to the subject property. Tom Underwood, who identified himself as the owner of a longtime farm on the opposite end of Pleasant Hill, spoke strongly against both the rezoning request and the zoning text amendment. He explained that when he previously sought to place livestock or other agricultural uses on his own property, he had been required to work through town procedures and verify grandfathered agricultural rights before proceeding. Mr. Underwood argued that the issue was not primarily about the current property owners themselves but rather about the town’s handling of the situation. He stated that he was frustrated by suggestions that the town could no longer correct earlier mistakes. Drawing from his own experiences, he explained that he had previously been denied permission to temporarily place a trailer on his agricultural property for his daughter to live in while building a home. He criticized what he viewed as inconsistent enforcement of regulations. He argued that building a home within six months was entirely feasible and stated that residents should be expected to follow permitting processes and established procedures rather than receiving exceptions after the fact. While he said he had no objection to the existence of the building itself, he believed the town should have intervened much earlier when it became clear that a large metal structure intended for retail activity was being constructed. Mr. Underwood characterized the operation as commercial because products from multiple farms were being sold there, not solely products from the property itself. He warned that approving the proposal would effectively legitimize commercial activity in a residential area and compared it to someone constructing an unauthorized commercial building elsewhere in town. He also raised significant traffic safety concerns related to the nearby intersection close to the hospital, describing it as one of the most dangerous intersections in Pulaski. Mr. Underwood expressed fear that increased traffic associated with the farm store could eventually result in accidents or injuries, especially involving elderly customers unfamiliar with the area. Throughout his remarks, Mr. Underwood repeatedly stated that the responsibility for the situation rested with the town rather than solely with the property owners. He criticized the proposed zoning text changes as an attempt to retroactively “rewrite” the rules in order to accommodate an already-constructed operation. He questioned whether proper permits had ever been issued for the building and argued that allowing the changes would undermine public confidence in zoning enforcement. Mr. Underwood urged residents opposed to the rezoning to also oppose the zoning text amendment because he believed the ordinance revisions were specifically designed to make approval easier. He described the situation as an example of the government gradually loosening standards through incremental changes. In closing, he reiterated concerns about preserving neighborhood safety and quality of life, referencing pedestrians, children, and elderly residents who regularly used the roads in the area. He opposed both the rezoning and the text amendment and argued that there were already numerous vacant buildings elsewhere in town that could accommodate a farm store without altering the residential character of Pleasant Hill Drive. Continuing his remarks, Mr. Underwood argued that there was no legitimate reason to establish a retail business on Pleasant Hill Drive when numerous vacant commercial buildings already existed elsewhere in town. He stated that, in his opinion, the town should simply acknowledge mistakes that had been made during the permitting and oversight process rather than attempting to resolve the issue through rezoning and ordinance amendments. Mr. Underwood strongly opposed modifying the zoning language to accommodate a single case, warning that once the wording of the ordinance was changed, it would become easier to justify additional exceptions and future changes. He questioned how many other situations could eventually arise once the ordinance language had been softened and stated that the current regulations had originally been written for a reason. He described the entire process as “ridiculous” and “ludicrous,” criticizing the way he believed the town had handled the matter. Another resident, Debra Wright, spoke next. She explained that she lived at 2221 Pleasant Hill Drive, directly in the middle of the affected, area and stated clearly that she supported the Horner family and their farm store. She said that from her backyard, she could observe the farm stand and the people entering and leaving the property, but had not seen any noticeable increase in traffic on weekends compared to normal weekday conditions. Instead, she attributed much of the traffic in the neighborhood to drivers associated with the nearby Skyline Drive apartments who used Pleasant Hill Drive to avoid traffic lights and congestion elsewhere. She also addressed speeding concerns, explaining that she and others, including Mr. Locke, had frequently confronted speeding drivers in the area, particularly teenagers traveling well above the posted 25-mile-per-hour speed limit. According to her, speeding had long been an existing issue unrelated to the farm store. She stated that in her experience, traffic associated with the farm market was minimal, often consisting of one family arriving while another departed. She suggested that any remaining concerns about vehicle flow could potentially be reduced simply by relocating signage so customers approached from a different direction. She emphasized that she wanted to preserve the quiet rural character of the neighborhood and did not want unrelated commercial development moving into the area. However, she distinguished the Horner’s operation from other potential businesses and said she had enjoyed both the farm itself and the opportunity to purchase products from the store. Addressing concerns raised earlier about campers and jurisdictional confusion, she stated that town and county boundary lines in the area had shifted years ago and that the location of the property line had created confusion for many residents over time. She recalled that former property owner Bob Cody had been upset when those boundary changes occurred decades earlier. Despite acknowledging that there were issues to work through, she described the Horners as good people who were willing to communicate and cooperate with neighbors. She encouraged residents and officials to work together toward a solution rather than assume negative intentions. Michele Lawton of 2413 Pleasant Hill Drive then addressed the commission. She explained that her property ran the full length of the Horner farm and overlooked both the 13-acre tract and the surrounding farmland. She said she had originally purchased her home because she valued the scenic rural view from her porch and admitted that she initially worried the farm development might negatively alter that view. However, Ms. Lawton stated that over time she had come to appreciate the operation. She described purchasing products from the farm store regularly, including pork, eggs, meat products, and sourdough bread, and even joked about eating pulled pork while looking out over the pigs on the property. Ms. Lawton explained that she had spent three decades working in manufacturing as a management systems professional dealing with environmental laws and regulatory compliance. Drawing from that experience, she agreed with earlier comments suggesting that the town shared responsibility for allowing the situation to develop. She argued that proper procedures and processes should have prevented confusion over permits and zoning from reaching this point. At the same time, she stressed that laws and regulations cannot remain permanently static. Comparing the zoning ordinance to outdated environmental regulations from the 1970s, she argued that governing documents should evolve over time to address new realities. In her professional experience, organizations received “extra credit” during audits for updating and improving outdated procedures rather than simply relying on decades-old documents. Ms. Lawton stated that she believed zoning laws and ordinances should be revisited and revised when appropriate, and that public boards such as the Planning Commission existed specifically to evaluate those evolving needs. She also shared personal experiences related to the shifting town and county boundaries in the area, noting that her own property had been affected by earlier annexation and boundary disputes involving former owner Bob Cody. Ultimately, Ms. Lawton expressed confidence in the commission’s ability to make thoughtful decisions and stated clearly that she supported the farm store and the proposed changes. She added that her gravel driveway was located approximately 51 feet from the building, referencing earlier testimony about setback distances, and indicated that she did not view the operation as harmful to her property. Jenny Newman, who described herself as a newer resident and future permanent resident of Pulaski, spoke next in support of the proposal. She explained that after spending years working in the corporate world, she had chosen to retire to Pulaski because she was seeking a quieter lifestyle and stronger community involvement. Ms. Newman characterized herself as part of a newer wave of residents helping to reshape what she called a previously “sleeping town.” She acknowledged that many concerns expressed during the hearing focused on hypothetical future businesses or uses that might eventually become possible if the RR zoning language were amended. However, Ms. Newman argued that opponents were overlooking a fundamental reality about how businesses operate. According to her, businesses only invest significant amounts of money into communities when there is local demand and support for their products or services. She stated that undesirable businesses would not willingly locate themselves in communities that clearly opposed them. Using the example of a bar or other mismatched commercial venue, Ms. Newman pointed out that nearly everyone in the room appeared opposed to such development on Pleasant Hill Drive. She argued that because local residents would not support that type of business, it was highly unlikely such a venture would choose to locate there regardless of zoning language. In contrast, Ms. Newman described the Horner farm store as exactly the type of family-owned, community-oriented business that residents generally do support. She argued that the current use of the property was desirable, beneficial, and likely to increase in value to the community over time. Ms. Newman framed the operation as a long-term generational business that could continue serving Pulaski residents well into the future. She concluded by stating that she personally intended to continue supporting and purchasing products from the farm store and believed the community should support businesses that residents genuinely wanted and valued. Grant Horner, owner of Horner Acre Farms, then addressed the Commission directly. He began by emphasizing the long agricultural history of the property, noting that the farm existed long before the surrounding neighborhood was developed in the 1960s. He pointed out that Pleasant Hill Drive already contained several active farms and agricultural operations, including cattle and horse farms. Mr. Horner then walked through a detailed timeline of events leading to the current dispute. He explained that he and his family began searching for farmland in southwest Virginia in late 2023 and ultimately purchased the Pleasant Hill property in May 2024 after discussions with town and county officials about zoning, split jurisdiction issues, temporary camper living arrangements, and maintaining agricultural uses. According to Mr. Horner, neighbors initially expressed relief and support because they feared the land might otherwise be subdivided into housing developments. After purchasing the property, the family invested significant money into fencing, utilities, water, sewage, and infrastructure improvements before even taking formal ownership. Mr. Horner stated that the family received approval to temporarily live in a camper while constructing a future home and that their intention was always to establish a functioning farm business first so they could demonstrate income needed for home construction financing. Mr. Horner explained that former town building inspector, Tim Hale, told them agricultural buildings did not require permits under town regulations and that “ag is ag,” meaning agricultural uses should be treated consistently. Based on those discussions, the family proceeded with the construction of the farm store and utility work. Mr. Horner also described receiving encouragement from Pulaski County Economic Development officials to apply for an agribusiness grant specifically for the farm store project, ultimately receiving a $15,000 grant award in November 2024. He continued outlining the substantial investments made into the project, including septic and well permits, a construction loan exceeding $50,000, and the eventual completion of the farm store building in 2025. Mr. Horner stated that the Town did not raise zoning concerns until just days before the scheduled ribbon- cutting ceremony, after construction was already complete. He said they were initially told the issues could be worked out afterward, which led them to believe the matter would be resolved cooperatively. Mr. Horner stressed that the family had no plans for large-scale entertainment, slaughterhouses, or other rumored activities. He described the operation as a modest family farm run by himself, his wife, and their young child. He also cited Virginia state code provisions limiting local government authority to regulate agricultural operations unless there was a substantial impact on public health or safety. He argued that selling agricultural products and related agritourism activities were specifically protected under state law. Mr. Clark then asked for clarification regarding what “lines were crossed” that triggered the zoning conflict. Mr. Semones responded by explaining that the main issue stemmed from the distinction between grandfathered agricultural use and the addition of a permanent farm store use that was not specifically permitted under existing town zoning. He explained that while agriculture itself may have been grandfathered, the retail farm market component was not explicitly allowed under current regulations, which is why the rezoning and text amendment requests became necessary. The discussion continued with clarification about the core zoning issue. Chairman Meyer confirmed that a farm store use currently does not exist as a permitted use anywhere within the Town’s zoning code. Mr. Semones explained that even if farm markets were permitted in another zoning district, the Horner’s would still have encountered problems because the property is currently zoned R1, where such a use is not allowed. Mr. Semones elaborated that the existing agricultural activities on the property, including livestock, chickens, pigs, and farming, had effectively continued under grandfathered agricultural use protections. However, the construction and operation of a permanent farm store introduced a new agricultural-related use that had never previously existed on the property and was not specifically permitted under current zoning regulations. According to him, this addition is what caused the zoning issue to emerge. He argued that rezoning the property to RR would actually reduce potential impacts compared to what could otherwise occur under the current R1 zoning. Mr. Semones pointed out that the existing R1 zoning theoretically allowed substantial residential development, potentially including dozens of homes, which, in his opinion, would generate far more traffic and neighborhood impact than the proposed farm market operation. Mr. Clark stated that he wanted to understand exactly what “wires were crossed” administratively. He acknowledged that several speakers had argued the Town made mistakes in handling the matter and said the Commission now had to address the consequences. Mr. Semones responded that he did not believe former officials intentionally made bad decisions, but rather that communication breakdowns occurred between agricultural approvals and zoning review processes. He suggested that the project may not have been fully communicated to zoning or planning staff as construction progressed. Mr. Clark then clarified for everyone present that if the proposed zoning text amendment passed, farm markets would become an allowed use in all RR-zoned districts throughout town, not just on the Horner property. During the ongoing discussion, a member of the audience interrupted to argue that the issue was not agriculture itself but rather the transition into retail activity. In response, Mr. Horner began reading portions of the Virginia state agricultural and agritourism code definitions into the record. Mr. Horner cited sections defining agricultural products, agritourism activities, agritourism professionals, and farms or ranches. He emphasized that Virginia law broadly defines agritourism and agricultural activities to include public interaction, education, recreation, product sales, and “harvest your own” activities associated with farms. He also referenced language describing the inherent risks associated with agritourism and farming operations. Mr. Horner argued that agricultural operations in Virginia include the right to grow and sell products directly from the farm. He explained that Horner Acre Farms was created after his military retirement because he and his family wanted to provide high-quality, locally sourced food products directly to the community. He said they believed there was a lack of access to trustworthy fresh food and farm products in Pulaski and that their operation sought to address that need. He described the farm as not only a business but also an educational opportunity where visitors could learn about farming practices and agricultural production. Mr. Horner stated that many visitors simply came to talk, ask questions, and engage with farm life. Addressing complaints about traffic and dust, Mr. Horner maintained that customer traffic was relatively light and respectful of the neighborhood. He said he could not control weather-related mud or dust conditions and noted that the operation maintained only modest signage located directly at the property entrance. Mr. Horner repeatedly emphasized that from the beginning, the family believed they were acting within the permissions and guidance they had received from town officials. He concluded by inviting any additional questions from the Commission regarding the operation or future plans. After Mr. Horner finished speaking, Mr. Clark invited Town Manager Todd Day to address the matter because of his involvement in the process. Manager Day respectfully declined to provide detailed commentary during the hearing itself, stating that public hearings should remain focused on citizen input in accordance with state law and local procedures. Manager Day emphasized that differing opinions existed on the issue and that both supporters and opponents had presented their perspectives professionally. He stated that he maintained an open-door policy and would be willing to discuss the Town’s views with residents privately outside the hearing process. However, Manager Day did briefly confirm one important point raised earlier by Mr. Horner: under existing regulations, agricultural buildings themselves do not require permits in agricultural contexts. He suggested that this contributed significantly to the confusion and administrative breakdown surrounding the project. Chairman Meyer acknowledged that Manager Day’s statement raised additional questions for him personally, though he deferred further discussion for another time. Allison Beck of Radford, a close family friend of the Horner’s, then addressed the Commission. She explained that she met the family through the Radford Farmers Market, where both families participated and where their young children quickly became friends. Ms. Beck described learning about the Horner’s dream of relocating from North Carolina to southwest Virginia to establish a family farm. She praised the family’s work ethic and determination, recounting the extensive effort involved in moving animals and equipment while raising a young child. Ms. Beck also described many conversations she had with Rebecca Horner during the development of the farm store, emphasizing how excited the family was to provide fresh food and local products to Pulaski residents. According to Ms. Beck, the Horner’s believed they were filling a gap in the local market because Pulaski lacked the variety of fresh local farm products available in surrounding communities. She acknowledged that residents naturally had differing opinions and emotional reactions, but argued that emotions alone should not determine the outcome if the applicants ultimately met legal and procedural requirements. Beck stated that the Horner’s followed the guidance provided by town officials and argued that the town’s mistakes should not jeopardize the family’s livelihood. She also referenced her own status as a disabled veteran and expressed sympathy for Grant Horner’s physical limitations and efforts to support his family through farming. Ms. Beck stated that the Horners consistently followed the guidance they received from Town officials throughout the process. She argued that criticisms claiming they intentionally ignored the rules were unfair because the family relied upon information and approvals given to them at each stage. She closed by reaffirming her strong support for the Horners and their efforts to build a family-centered local farm business. Another supporter, Laura Brown from Montgomery County, described the farm store as a “community connector,” drawing customers from neighboring counties into Pulaski. Ms. Brown argued that modern farming often requires multiple revenue streams and that direct-to-consumer farm stores represent a growing and necessary part of agricultural sustainability. She encouraged the commission to view the operation as a positive economic opportunity rather than a threat. With no additional speakers, Chairman Meyer closed the Public Hearing. The Commissioners began deliberating on the proposed text amendment that would allow farm stores within the Rural Residential zoning district. Mr. Clark acknowledged concerns raised by residents and stated that the issue felt “dangerously close” to backdoor politics, though he also recognized the need for zoning regulations to evolve over time. Chairman Meyer discussed the fact that Pulaski currently has no zoning district anywhere in town that explicitly allows permanent farm stores. Chairman Meyer stated that RR zoning appeared to be the most logical location for such uses, given the agricultural character of those areas. Commissioners acknowledged that approving the amendment would apply town- wide to all RR-zoned properties, not solely to Horner Acre Farms. Nonetheless, several members expressed the opinion that the proposed amendment aligned with broader trends toward supporting rural agricultural businesses and agritourism. The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Ms. Turcotte to approve the recommendation of the text amendment changes to the Town Council. Jeremy Clark- Aye Benjamin Linkous- Aye Kevin Meyer- Aye Terry Hale- Aye Amilyn Turcotte- Aye b. Rezoning Request The commission then moved to the second request: rezoning the approximately 13.9-acre Horner property from R-1 Residential to Rural Residential. Chairman Meyer opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Meyer closed the Public Hearing as there were no speakers. Chairman Meyer reflected on the lengthy controversy and stated that numerous mistakes had been made involving both the town and county. He emphasized that the applicants appeared to have acted in good faith based on official guidance and that the town shares responsibility for the current predicament. Chairman Meyer expressed concern that forcing the Horner’s to dismantle the farm store after investing substantial money and effort could create legal and ethical complications. He also emphasized the importance of encouraging businesses and generating revenue within the town rather than discouraging economic activity. The commissioners noted that the property has a long history of agricultural use predating the surrounding subdivision and acknowledged differing opinions among nearby residents regarding the impact of the farm store. The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale to recommend approving the rezoning request from R-1 to RR to the Town Council for final consideration. Jeremy Clark- Aye Benjamin Linkous- Aye Kevin Meyer- Aye Terry Hale- Aye Amilyn Turcotte- Aye Following the votes, Chairman Meyer thanked attendees for participating and explained that the final decisions would rest with the Town Council after additional public hearings and required legal advertisements. 4. Old Business No old business was discussed. 5.New Business No new business was discussed. 6.Staff Report No additional staff reports were presented. 7.Other Business No other business was discussed. 8.Commissioner Comments No comments were made. 9.Reminder of Next Meeting Members agreed that if no new business arose requiring formal action, the June meeting would be canceled. They also noted that if issues did emerge that required attention, a special meeting could be called with as much advance notice as possible. 10. Adjournment With no further business, Chairman Meyer adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Kevin Meyer Chairman __________________________ Olivia Hale Clerk of Council