Martinsville planning commission deadlocks on Artesian Avenue PUD; application expires

The Martinsville City Planning Commission failed to reach a majority decision on Oct. 28 on a final planned unit development (docket PC25017) for property along Artesian Avenue, and the application expired under the commission’s 90‑day timing rule.

Applicant Brian Donnell of T and H Investments presented revised plans and said the submission addressed items the commission requested at a prior meeting. Donnell described three fence areas added to the plans (a 4‑foot aluminum picket fence around a playground; 4‑foot powder‑coated chain‑link fences around two wet drainage ponds; and a fenced play area outside a proposed daycare) and a draft commitment that the property owner would perform snow removal on the internal drive. Donnell also asked that Habitat for Humanity be allowed to begin building its houses after the major site work and roadway binder were complete.

The commission and applicant confirmed the parcel was listed as about 10.512 acres; Donnell said the undeveloped portion is about 2 acres. He described the housing as “purely rental” and said the project would remain income‑restricted with a maximum of 80% of area median income. Donnell also said the team expects to finance construction with tax‑credit equity and a construction loan and that a city‑applied REDI grant of $850,000 remained shown as available in their last check.

Public commenters and several commissioners expressed mixed views. Speakers and commissioners acknowledged the need for more affordable housing in Martinsville, but multiple commissioners and nearby residents emphasized a preference for owner‑occupied housing and raised concerns about reduced owner‑occupancy features compared with earlier proposals and a reduced daycare capacity relative to prior materials.

Commissioner Richard Baston moved to deny PC25017; the motion was seconded by Anne Miller and went to a roll-call. The chair announced the roll call produced a 4–4 split. Because the petition first came before the commission more than 90 days earlier and no affirmative majority was recorded, the application “died for lack of an affirmative vote” and will not be returned to the commission without a new application or modification filed in accordance with the city’s rules.

No additional formal conditions or approvals were adopted by the commission that night. The applicant may file a modified application and is required to wait the city’s 30‑day filing period before bringing a new or revised request back to the commission.

Clarifying details recorded at the hearing included the parcel size (10.512 acres), added fencing details, the applicant’s snow‑plow commitment for the internal drive (applicant commitment letter), proposed staging to allow Habitat for Humanity to start homes after site stabilization, an income restriction to a maximum of 80% AMI for the rental units, and mention of an $850,000 REDI grant the city had applied for on the project’s behalf.