OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Blacksburg, Virginia/Town Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Blacksburg Town Council Meeting April 25, 2023: Budget Adoption and Public Comments on Glade Spring Crossing

Town Council — Tuesday, April 25, 2023
BodyBlacksburg, Virginia
SessionTown Council
DateTuesday, April 25, 2023
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 38:44

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:48

Will council please come to order and will the clerk please call the roll?

0:52

Anderson, present.

0:54

Bush.

0:54

Here.

0:55

Oliver.

0:55

Here.

0:56

Oringley?

0:59

Here.

1:00

Here.

1:02

We will start with our consent agenda this evening.

1:05

And that begins with uh the approval of town council minutes for April 4 and 11.

1:11

We have no public hearings tonight.

1:15

Oh, wait a second.

1:16

We got a yeah, we gotta sign up.

1:17

Um gosh, it's just that, huh?

1:20

Okay.

1:20

Uh, do I have a motion on the consent agenda?

1:23

I move approval of the consent agenda.

1:25

Second.

1:26

We have a motion and a second.

1:27

Will the clerk call the roll?

1:29

Bush.

1:29

Aye.

1:30

Oliver.

1:31

Aye.

1:31

Or Smith.

1:33

Aye.

1:34

Aye.

1:35

Stephen?

1:35

Aye.

1:36

Aye.

1:38

Um moving on to public hearings.

1:40

We have none.

1:41

We will have public hearings on May 9.

1:45

Um, and moving on to citizen comments.

1:47

This is a time when anyone can come forward and uh speak on any topic that they wish.

1:53

Please start with your name and your address.

1:59

Hi, my name is Casey Hodges.

2:01

I live at 1223 Village Way South.

2:03

The current Gladespring application is using a planned residential district with a litany of variances to essentially develop a large portion of the site to a density far beyond the future approved land use.

2:16

The town code states that the purpose of the planned residential district is encouraging ingenuity, imagination, and high quality design to create a superior living environment.

2:26

It states that variations can be made, provided that no such action shall prejudice or diminish the protection of the health and safety of the citizens.

2:36

And the development shall provide meaningful benefits such as reduced erosion, protection of health and safety of forested areas, or the preservation of scenic views.

2:46

Many citizens believe this development does not meet this criteria, and the variances do not provide a superior living environment and raise multiple safety and environmental concerns that need to be addressed.

2:58

A few weeks ago, on the next door app, Paul Lancaster, a former planning commission member commented that planned residential zoning has very often been translated by developers, meaning let's cram what we can into this, and suggested that the guidelines should be updated.

3:13

Please consider this.

4:11

Attractiveness, order, and efficiency is encouraged by the requirement of adequate space for individual homes with adequate light, air, and space, and maintaining an appropriate density of residential development.

4:28

Nothing is preventing the developer from developing in accordance with the current zoning.

4:48

When the application for the change of future land use was submitted, town staff as your experts recommended denial.

4:55

When this application went before planning commission after months of work, they too recommended denial.

5:01

You should also vote for denial to uphold the integrity in this process and the town codes.

5:07

This is not the right place for this project.

5:09

Thank you.

5:10

Thank you.

5:16

Robin Jones, 1224 Village Way South.

5:18

Thanks, Casey, for really summing up what we as a coalition believe is a correct course of action at this point in time.

5:24

We've asked both the planning commission and now town council to consider these town codes while evaluating the GSC application, and I've been met with different reactions.

5:32

As the planning commission, as you know, the planning commission voted not to recommend this rezoning for many reasons, including the high volume of variances and the impact of such.

5:41

When the town council is confronted with these same conflicts, the response is that the variances aren't relevant because of how, and I quote, outdated our zoning classifications are.

5:50

If the codes are outdated for such a proposal, do the work and update the codes so that this and any future application can be considered fairly and equitably.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning Ordinance███████████████████████23%
Environmental Protection█████████████████████21%
Affordable Housing████████████████████20%
Procedural███████7%
Stormwater Management██████6%
Personnel Matters██████6%
Transportation Safety█████5%
Budget Equity Analysis█████5%
Public Safety████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Blacksburg Town Council Meeting April 25, 2023: Budget Adoption and Public Comments on Glade Spring Crossing

The Blacksburg Town Council met on Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 6:30 p.m. in the Roger E. Hedgepeth Chambers. The meeting included adoption of the FY2023/24 budget package, a closed session, and a work session. Council heard extensive public comments opposing the proposed Glade Spring Crossing development.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the minutes of the April 4 and April 11, 2023 meetings unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Many residents spoke against the proposed Glade Spring Crossing development during the citizen comments period. Speakers included:
    • Kacie Hodges (1232 Village Way South): Voiced concerns about density, multiple variances, and planned land use, noting that town staff and planning commission recommended denial.
    • Robin Jones (1224 Village Way South): Spoke against the development, citing high volume of variance requests and outdated zoning requirements. Noted that as of that morning, no recent application documents were publicly available and that approximately 225 residents signed a petition opposing the project.
    • Rosaire Bushey (1222 Village Way South): Raised safety and livability issues regarding the proposed wet retention pond, including drowning risks for children and pets, and questioned liability.
    • Amy Burton (1005 Glade Road): Discussed traffic and bicycle safety concerns, requesting a third-party independent traffic assessment and a roundabout intersection.
    • Chris Bundren (1219 Village Way South): Addressed the variance request for street tree reduction from one every 30 feet to one every 100 feet, stating this would result in over 200 missing street trees.
    • Marcus Hightower (1207 Village Way South): Provided handouts showing density and topography comparisons, arguing the proposal is not ecologically sound due to removal of mature trees.
    • Rebecca Hightower (1207 Village Way South): Asked council to consult objective experts on environmental impact, pause for zoning law changes, and consider meaningful town involvement.
    • Guy Acciai (1221 Village Way South): Expressed frustration with lack of clarity, noted plans to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and stated legal standing for a challenge.
    • Gloria Schoenholtz (1201 Glen Cove Lane): Thanked council for stormwater management consideration but questioned why workforce housing was needed on that side of town and suggested reducing density and investing in redevelopment.
    • Ed Hokanson (209 Orchard View Lane): Spoke generally against overdevelopment and urged council to prioritize citizens over developers and Virginia Tech.

Discussion Items

  • Unfinished Business: FY23/24 Recommended Budget Package. Mayor Hager-Smith announced that two council members read disqualification statements on April 11 and would not vote on parts of Amended Ordinance 2020. The budget package included three ordinances.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Agenda: Approved unanimously (7-0).
  • Amended Ordinance 2020 (Budget and Real Estate Tax Rate): Main motion (excluding certain sections) passed 7-0. Then section 4(a)(v) (real estate tax rate) adopted 6-0-1 (Councilmember Mattingly abstained). Then sections 4(a)(ii), 6, and 7 (appropriations, real estate tax levy, and effective date) adopted 6-0-1 (Councilmember Sutphin abstained).
  • Ordinance 2019 (Increase Cigarette Tax Rate): Approved unanimously (7-0).
  • Ordinance 2021 (Increase Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Fees): Approved unanimously (7-0).
  • Closed Meeting: Council unanimously adjourned to a closed meeting at 7:08 p.m. to discuss the Town Attorney (personnel), reconvening to open meeting at 7:23 p.m., and certified the propriety of the closed meeting via Resolution 4-E-23.
  • Work Session: Following the closed meeting, Council held a work session on the Glade Spring Crossing Development Agreement. Town Attorney Lawrence Spencer reviewed key elements of the contract, including development of homes, future affordability, and compliance requirements. No further action was taken.

Meeting Transcript

Will council please come to order and will the clerk please call the roll? Anderson, present. Bush. Here. Oliver. Here. Oringley? Here. Here. We will start with our consent agenda this evening. And that begins with uh the approval of town council minutes for April 4 and 11. We have no public hearings tonight. Oh, wait a second. We got a yeah, we gotta sign up. Um gosh, it's just that, huh? Okay. Uh, do I have a motion on the consent agenda? I move approval of the consent agenda. Second. We have a motion and a second. Will the clerk call the roll? Bush. Aye. Oliver. Aye. Or Smith. Aye. Aye. Stephen? Aye. Aye. Um moving on to public hearings. We have none. We will have public hearings on May 9. Um, and moving on to citizen comments. This is a time when anyone can come forward and uh speak on any topic that they wish. Please start with your name and your address. Hi, my name is Casey Hodges. I live at 1223 Village Way South. The current Gladespring application is using a planned residential district with a litany of variances to essentially develop a large portion of the site to a density far beyond the future approved land use. The town code states that the purpose of the planned residential district is encouraging ingenuity, imagination, and high quality design to create a superior living environment. It states that variations can be made, provided that no such action shall prejudice or diminish the protection of the health and safety of the citizens. And the development shall provide meaningful benefits such as reduced erosion, protection of health and safety of forested areas, or the preservation of scenic views. Many citizens believe this development does not meet this criteria, and the variances do not provide a superior living environment and raise multiple safety and environmental concerns that need to be addressed. A few weeks ago, on the next door app, Paul Lancaster, a former planning commission member commented that planned residential zoning has very often been translated by developers, meaning let's cram what we can into this, and suggested that the guidelines should be updated. Please consider this. Attractiveness, order, and efficiency is encouraged by the requirement of adequate space for individual homes with adequate light, air, and space, and maintaining an appropriate density of residential development. Nothing is preventing the developer from developing in accordance with the current zoning. When the application for the change of future land use was submitted, town staff as your experts recommended denial. When this application went before planning commission after months of work, they too recommended denial.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com