Petersburg delays decision on special-use permit for proposed assisted‑living facility at 36 West Fillmore Street

The Petersburg Planning Commission on Tuesday deferred action on a request to operate an assisted‑living facility at 36 West Fillmore Street and the City Council moved to shorten the period for the commission’s review, sending the matter back for further work and a report to council in October.

The item drew more than two dozen public speakers — some urging approval to expand senior housing options in the city and others saying the site is inappropriate for the proposed use and pointing to past regulatory problems at the location. Planning staff and the applicant said the facility will seek licensure from the Virginia Department of Social Services and that the owner has completed about $1.8 million in renovations to the roughly 22,000‑square‑foot building on about 1.3 acres.

Planning staff said the owner, SP 13 Properties LLC, seeks permission to operate an assisted‑living facility with up to 60 beds in the RB (office‑apartment) zoning district. The planning memorandum and staff presentation noted the property’s historical use as a senior care facility, the city comprehensive plan’s designation of the area as a “historic core neighborhood,” and the code requirement that assisted‑living uses obtain a special‑use permit in Petersburg. Jared Cruz, planning staff, detailed recommended conditions tying the use to the submitted site plans, requiring state licensure and 24‑hour qualified staffing, and reserving the city’s right to review or revoke the permit if there are substantiated complaints.

Applicant representatives told the council the project aims to provide a local assisted‑living option for older residents and to reduce emergency‑room visits by providing on‑site medical oversight. "We are going to agree to that licensure," said Chris Winslow, the applicant’s representative, referring to the requirement to obtain and maintain licensure through the Virginia Department of Social Services. Owner and project proponent Mark Parson said the operator expects a mix of two‑person rooms and to market the facility first to Petersburg families.

Opponents — including residents and attorneys representing the Historic Poplar Lawn Association — urged tighter, enforceable conditions. "The SUP that is currently before council and the Planning Commission is inconsistent with the promises made," said attorney Dale Mullen, who represents neighborhood groups. Mullen and other speakers expressed concern that the broad regulatory definition of "assisted living" could permit a variety of resident populations unless council imposes narrower conditions.

Commissioners voted to defer consideration so staff could draft revised conditions; the motion to defer was moved by Commissioner Tommy Harrison and seconded by Commissioner Cannon and carried with recorded votes of Aye: Hairston, Norman, Bland, Ford; Abstain: Kachenbach (other commissioners’ votes were not recorded in the transcript excerpt). On the city side, Councilmember Charles C. Myers Jr. moved and council seconded (second not verbally identified in the record) a schedule shortening the planning commission’s review period: the council directed staff to advertise a special public hearing on Oct. 7 and required the planning commission to report back by the council business meeting on Oct. 21.

Items in the public record and at the hearing included: the property’s parcel ID (022360001), the applicant’s application for 50–60 beds with a maximum of 60, the planner’s statement that the prior Fillmore Place operation lost its license in 2022, and the planning staff recommendation that the permit be tied to the facility, its plans, and the state licensure. Several speakers pressed for enforceable restrictions such as an explicit age restriction, limits on the permitted resident population, detailed staffing and inspection protocols and a community complaints process; applicant representatives said state licensing requirements and the agreed conditions would address many operational issues.

Following the deferral motion by the Planning Commission, council members voted to shorten the review timetable so the commission’s revised recommendation and staff‑draft conditions would return to council in October. Council voted unanimously for that schedule. The planning commission’s deferral and council’s scheduling do not grant the special‑use permit; they require staff and commissioners to draft and evaluate additional conditions and return recommendations to council.

The matter remains active. The planning commission will redraft conditions and revisit the application at its next regular meeting; City Council set a special hearing for Oct. 7 and directed that a planning commission recommendation be filed with council on or before Oct. 21, 2025.