HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-26 Planning Commission Minutes
Town of Pulaski Planning Commission Meeting
Municipal Building, Council Chambers June 8, 2026 1. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and asked for a roll call.
Jeremy Clark- Aye Benjamin Linkous- Absent Kevin Meyer- Aye Terry Hale- Aye Amilyn Turcotte- Aye A quorum was determined with the members present.
2. Review and approval of Minutes a. May 11, 2026 Minutes
The motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Hale to approve the
minutes as written. The motion passes unanimously. 3. Public Hearing
No public hearing was scheduled.
4. Old Business No old business was discussed.
5. New Business a. Legislative Update- Andrew McBride, Town of Pulaski Town Attorney
Mr. McBride explained that the presentation had previously been given to Town
Council and provided an overview of legislation from the most recent Virginia General Assembly session. Mr. McBride noted that more than 3,600 bills had been introduced during the
regular session, with over 1,100 ultimately enacted. He also mentioned that the
state budget remained unresolved due to an ongoing special session. His presentation focused on legislation related to planning, zoning, land use, and
housing, including manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), data centers, solar energy projects, and affordable housing initiatives.
He explained that House Bill 655 requires localities to permit manufactured housing in all zoning districts where site-built housing is allowed, subject to several conditions. The manufactured home must be converted to real estate through a legal process that includes placing it on a permanent foundation and
surrendering the vehicle title. Additionally, the home must be less than five years
old, and only one manufactured home may be placed on a lot. Commission members discussed how the legislation affects the town’s existing zoning regulations. Questions from Chairman Meyer were raised regarding
whether the zoning ordinance and definitions would need to be amended. Mr.
McBride stated that while revisions are not necessarily required, any local provisions conflicting with state law would become unenforceable. He explained that current zoning definitions likely exclude manufactured homes from areas where single-family residences are permitted, but state law now preempts those
restrictions. The practical administration of the law would largely fall to staff
responsible for zoning and inspections. Mr. McBride next reviewed Senate Bill 531 concerning accessory dwelling units. He described ADUs as secondary residential units located on the same lot as a
primary dwelling, often referred to as in-law suites, granny flats, or similar
structures. These units contain independent living facilities, including sleeping, kitchen, and bathroom accommodations. Under the new legislation, localities must permit ADUs in areas where single-
family homes are allowed through a prescribed permitting process. While the state
law establishes various requirements and standards, local governments retain some authority regarding issues such as setbacks, size limitations, and placement. Commissioners discussed how the legislation would apply within the town’s
zoning districts, particularly those allowing both single-family and two-family
housing. Mr. McBride indicated that the requirement would generally apply wherever single-family homes are permitted. Questions were also raised from Chairman Meyer about utility connections and whether ADUs would require separate water and sewer service. Mr. McBride stated he was unaware of any state
requirement mandating separate hookups and suggested that such matters would
likely be determined locally or by the property owner. The discussion concluded with the acknowledgment that implementation would primarily be an administrative responsibility handled by town staff.
The commission then reviewed Senate Bill 93 regarding data centers. Mr.
McBride noted that data center development has become a significant issue across Virginia, although it has not yet been a major issue in the Town of Pulaski.
The legislation creates a special site assessment requirement that applicants must complete before moving through the zoning process. One required component of
the assessment is an evaluation of noise impacts. The law also allows localities to
require additional information as part of these assessments. Mr. McBride characterized the requirement as an additional review step intended to provide more information about potential impacts before local land-use decisions are made.
Mr. McBride discussed House Bill 711, which requires localities to establish a special exception process for ground-mounted solar energy projects. Under the law, these projects must be permitted through a special exception procedure in agricultural, commercial, industrial, and mixed-use districts.
He explained that localities retain authority to regulate factors such as setbacks, screening, and visual impacts. Because implementation would require modifications to the zoning ordinance, Mr. McBride indicated that the Planning Commission would likely be involved in reviewing and recommending any
necessary amendments.
Commission members noted that the town has already dealt with related renewable energy projects, including a battery storage facility and a previously proposed solar project adjacent to that site. Members recalled that those projects
were processed through a special exception procedure and suggested that existing
regulations may already address many of the new state requirements. Turning to affordable housing legislation, Mr. McBride reviewed changes affecting Industrial Development Authorities (IDAs). He explained that under
existing law, IDAs generally could not participate in housing projects when a
housing authority already existed within the locality. Since the Town of Pulaski has a housing authority, that restriction had applied locally. The new legislation removes that limitation, allowing IDAs to become involved in
housing initiatives regardless of whether a housing authority exists.
Commissioners discussed whether a county IDA could undertake housing activities within the town limits or whether such efforts would require a town-authorized IDA. Mr. McBride indicated that he was uncertain about how jurisdictional responsibilities would overlap and stated that additional research
would be needed.
Mr. McBride concluded this portion of the presentation by discussing Senate Bill 388, which provides significant zoning relief for certain affordable housing developments undertaken by nonprofit organizations or tax-exempt religious
institutions.
The legislation applies to mixed-use or residential projects in which at least 60 percent of the units qualify as affordable housing. He explained that the law is
designed primarily to encourage organizations to utilize property they already own rather than purchase new land for development. To qualify, the organization
must have owned the property for at least five years, and the legislation includes a
limited period during which the provisions are effective. Commissioners acknowledged that the bill is intended to facilitate affordable housing projects on existing nonprofit or religious properties.
Continuing the discussion of housing legislation, Mr. McBride explained that
several recently enacted bills are intended to help facilitate affordable housing projects. He noted that the provisions discussed earlier regarding nonprofit and religious organization housing developments appeared intentionally designed to encourage projects that had already been contemplated or planned on existing
properties. Although the legislation currently contains sunset provisions, he
observed that the General Assembly could later choose to extend or make the changes permanent. Mr. McBride then highlighted Senate Bill 74 and House Bill 594, both of which
provide mechanisms for relaxing zoning requirements or allowing localities to
adopt ordinances that relax zoning standards for affordable housing developments. He explained that if the Town of Pulaski wished to take advantage of these new authorities, amendments to the zoning ordinance would likely be necessary, meaning such proposals could eventually come before the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation.
Additional legislation affecting housing included House Bill 4, dealing with rights of first refusal for housing subject to affordability restrictions, and Senate Bill 181 concerning real estate tax exemptions. Mr. McBride emphasized that several of
these measures could require local implementation through zoning changes if the
town chose to utilize them. A discussion followed regarding the meaning of “affordable housing.” Chairman Meyer asked whether Virginia has a single statewide definition. Mr. McBride
explained that there is no universal definition applied across all statutes. Instead,
different bills often establish their own criteria. He noted that affordability is frequently tied to area median income, with some programs using thresholds such as housing affordable to households earning 80 percent of median income for rental units or 120 percent of median income for owner-occupied housing. He
further explained that affordability is commonly measured by whether housing
costs, including certain utilities and related expenses, consume no more than approximately 30 percent of household income. Chairman Meyer observed that the term “affordable housing” is frequently used, yet many projects labeled as affordable still appear expensive to the public. Mr. McBride acknowledged that
the varying definitions contribute to that confusion.
Mr. McBride next discussed Senate Bill 699, which amends Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act requirements regarding meeting agendas and actions taken by
public bodies. He explained that the law generally prohibits a public body from taking final action on an item that was not included on a properly posted agenda.
He clarified that “final action” refers to actions that completely and finally
determine a matter before a board or commission. Actions such as ceremonial resolutions, procedural motions, referrals, or recommendations for future action would generally not be considered final actions under the law. For example, a board could still vote to schedule a future public hearing even if that item had not
appeared on the agenda, because such a vote would not constitute a final
determination. Mr. McBride stated that the law becomes problematic only when a public body attempts to make a final decision on an item that was not listed on a publicly
posted agenda. He noted that town staff have consistently followed agenda
posting requirements and indicated that he did not expect the new law to create practical issues for either the Town Council or the Planning Commission, though members should remain aware of the requirement.
Following the legislative presentation, Chairman Meyer raised a question
regarding the practical effects of the manufactured housing legislation, particularly in larger and more affluent jurisdictions such as Loudoun and Fairfax Counties. He wondered how many residential lots in those localities could now potentially accommodate manufactured homes under the new law.
Mr. McBride responded that the number would likely be substantial and acknowledged that the legislation represents a significant policy change. He noted that some observers have expressed concern that manufactured homes could now be placed in established residential neighborhoods where they were previously
prohibited. Legally, he indicated, that possibility generally exists under the new
law. However, Mr. McBride suggested that the practical impact may be less dramatic than some fear because private restrictions, such as restrictive covenants and
homeowner’s association rules, could still limit manufactured housing in many
neighborhoods. He also observed that the legislation passed the General Assembly with overwhelming support, with very little opposition, and that he had not seen significant public controversy surrounding the bill despite its potentially far-reaching implications.
The commission reflected on previous local discussions regarding manufactured housing. Members noted that the town had previously amended regulations to allow certain manufactured homes when converted to real property, which aligns in some respects with the new state requirements. Mr. Smythers reiterated that the
town’s current zoning ordinance excludes manufactured homes through the
definition of “single-family dwelling,” but that exclusion is now effectively preempted by state law and can no longer be enforced.
6. Staff Report
The commission then received a staff report concerning a recently identified zoning issue
involving a proposed automobile detailing business at 929 Newbern Road. Mr. Smythers explained that the issue arose during the business license review process. Under current procedures, business license applications are reviewed by both the zoning
administrator and the town’s economic development office to ensure multiple
departments are aware of proposed business activities before approval. The prospective tenant sought to operate an automobile detailing business at the property. Mr. Smythers noted that the property owner had previously sought approvals for other
business uses that had been denied, but had argued that the property historically
functioned as a car wash. Based on the physical characteristics of the site, staff believed that claim appeared plausible. While reviewing the zoning ordinance, staff discovered that the ordinance contains a
definition for an “automobile service station,” including references to vehicle washing
and cleaning activities. However, that use is not specifically listed as either a permitted use or a special exception use within any zoning district. As a result, there was no clear zoning classification available for the proposed detailing operation.
Mr. Smythers recommended initiating a zoning text amendment to address the issue,
potentially by adding the use to the B-1 district or another appropriate district. Commissioners discussed whether the existing automobile service station definition was suitable. Several members expressed concern that using that definition would unintentionally authorize a much broader range of automotive activities, including fuel
sales, vehicle repairs, lifts, equipment installation, and other operations beyond simple
detailing. The commission reviewed another existing definition covering minor automobile repair services, which includes activities such as tire services, brake work, lubrication services,
and routine maintenance. Members concluded that this definition was also broader than
the intended detailing use. A consensus emerged that the cleanest approach would likely be to create a new, more narrowly tailored definition specifically for automobile detailing services. Several
commissioners favored making the use subject to a special exception process rather than
a by-right use, particularly to ensure that future expansions beyond detailing could not occur without additional review. Mr. Smythers agreed to research how other localities define and regulate automobile detailing businesses and to develop potential language for future consideration.
Commissioners also reflected on prior experiences where broad automotive use classifications had allowed businesses to expand into more intensive repair operations than originally contemplated, reinforcing the desire for a narrowly crafted definition.
7. Other Business
No other business was discussed. 8. Commissioner Comments
Mr. Clark inquired about the status of the previously approved battery storage facility
project. Staff reported that discussions had occurred with the property owner and that legal agreements had been under development, but no recent activity had been reported and construction had not yet begun.
9. Reminder of Next meeting
a. Monday, July 13, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. 10. Adjournment
With no further business, Chairman Meyer asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:32 p.m. The motion was made by Mr. Clark and was unanimously approved.
____________________________ Kevin Meyer Chairman
____________________________
Olivia C. Hale Clerk of Council