OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Chesapeake City Council Meeting - February 18, 2025: Work Session on Temporary Signs, Regular Meeting with Public Hearings and New Business

City Council — Tuesday, February 18, 2025
BodyChesapeake, Virginia
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, February 18, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
5:59

We're going to begin our uh work session, February 28, 2025.

6:04

We have just one item, Mr.

6:07

Manager.

6:08

Maybe two.

6:10

Thank you, Mr.

6:10

Mayor.

6:11

Um, so we've recently had some questions about uh temporary signage, particularly as pertains to uh political signage.

6:18

Uh we've talked to council about this um periodically over the over the years.

6:23

Um as council uh recalls uh we've initiated the zoning text amendment to try to address uh an issue that the council brought up last year.

6:31

Um so we just wanted to quickly go through the state of play right now with um what the rules are, what uh what the kind of legal foundation is for those rules, and then really give you all some time to talk about your desired outcomes from our temporary signage program because if you all agree on a set of desired outcomes, um we can help develop the uh program to implement those outcomes, and we just want to make sure we have clarity there.

6:57

So, really quickly, I touched on we want to get to council's desired outcomes.

7:01

We'll talk a little bit about our existing processes.

7:04

Really, the focus is getting council to have some discussion and get any direction um on those desired outcomes.

7:11

But we want to start with uh Catherine to give a brief overview of the legal landscape that we're operating under.

7:18

All right.

7:18

Um so this all started in 2015.

7:21

The United States Supreme Court put down a decision in the Reed versus Town of Gilbert case.

7:25

And essentially the ruling was localities have an interest in regulating the size, the placement, and the number of signs, but they do not have an interest in regulating signs differently based on their content.

7:36

And that was very significantly significant for a lot of localities across the country because most local sign ordinances did regulate signs differently based on whether it's a political conveyed a political sign, like conveying a political message, then there's going to be special rules for political signs.

7:51

Are you conveying a real estate sale sign?

7:53

There's special rules for real estate signs, or you know, garage sales, special events.

7:58

We had special rules for all these little buckets of signs based on the message that that sign was conveying.

8:03

And the Supreme Court essentially said that violates a First Amendment, you know, freedom of speech because you're treating people differently based on the message they're putting out to the world.

8:11

So they said no content-based restrictions, just regulate signs based on the time, place, and manner of the sign.

8:17

So we went to what we call a location-based zoning ordinance, wherein we have special rules based on where the sign is placed.

8:24

So if you look in the zoning ordinance, we have a table, all the zoning and the zoning districts are laid out, and there's different rules for the signs based on the district in which that sign is placed.

8:34

And there's different signs for permanent signs or different rules for permanent signs and temporary signs.

8:40

Obviously, the difference between the two is a permanent is permanently affixed and is always in place.

8:44

Temporary signs are not permanently affixed to the ground, and they can only be up for up to 90 calendar days in a year because of the durational limit.

8:52

Um and then in the table that I mentioned earlier in our zoning ordinance, we do have a permit requirement for some signs based on the zoning district that they're placed, although that requirement is proposed to be removed, and that was on council's agenda next month to remove the permit requirement for all temporary signs.

9:07

So that is currently where we are, and we are in this place to comply with the mandate of the United States Supreme Court.

9:15

And council knows uh um or or or if if if you're not aware, we send these rules, and they are that's a lot of rules, but we send them to all candidates in advance of the election, so they get an election package to their campaign uh address to talk about the state of play here in the city of Chesapeake.

9:32

Um from a desired outcomes perspective.

9:34

This isn't something that you all have ever like adopted.

9:37

It's it's what we've gleaned from the conversations that councils had in the past.

9:42

Um the very reason we have these regulations on temporary signs is to reduce sign clutter.

9:47

We get a lot of complaints from citizens when we start to have a proliferation of signs, especially um on our major transportation corridors.

9:56

Um it really got significant during the pandemic.

10:10

So council a couple years ago asked us to really crack down on it again, and we've done that.

10:16

Obviously, we we we want our um our processes are built to be legally defensible.

10:22

We try to make them as clear and as fair as possible, but these are ordinances and they exist in lots of different places and ordinance and policy and practice, and so we we could always do better in in using um more clear language, but we try to do that, especially when we send those those um uh disclosure forms or or uh the the process requirements to campaigns every year.

10:43

We really want to enforce the rules equally.

10:45

You've all heard me tell stories about I I have on and on on the same day gotten calls from opposing campaigns saying that we favor the other candidate.

10:54

We we don't favor any candidate.

10:56

We're trying to to enforce the rules um equally.

11:00

Um council knows that we try as with lots of our programs to do this with the lowest possible cost, and so that drives some of the decisions I'm gonna talk about in a moment.

11:09

And then we really have gentle enforcement.

11:12

We really are a complaint-based organization where we're not really proactively going out looking for a violation.

11:18

So again, I'll I'll touch on that here.

11:20

So we last time we touched on this in any depth was May 2023.

11:24

We had a work session with council, um, got a little bit of clarity.

11:28

There was a proposal to hire city inspectors on on you know, uh to to go out and proactively enforce.

11:37

And council rejected that proposal.

11:39

But what we did do, and I I would say pretty successfully, do in large part to the leadership of Jay Tate and his team, is really reactivated and re-energize the volunteer scienceweeper program.

11:51

So that's our principal mechanism of enforcement is through um is through citizen volunteers that help um uh that get trained up and then help us um remove uh illegal signage.

12:03

Um and then Catherine mentioned there's the pending changes to address the permit requirements.

12:08

So we've had some complaints or at a minimum some lack of clarity about um the requirement for the large signs in particular on business properties.

12:18

Um and so there's a there's a pending amendment to remove um to remove that that requirement.

12:26

Now that's that's relative to this next one, the the lack of clarity.

12:31

You've probably already heard this, and I've been victim of this myself.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use and Zoning█████████████████████████████████████████████59%
Procedural███████████14%
Legal Affairs█████7%
Parks and Recreation███4%
Public Safety███4%
Youth Programs██2%
Historic Preservation██2%
Waste Management██2%
Emergency Management██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Chesapeake City Council Meeting – February 18, 2025

The Chesapeake City Council convened on February 18, 2025, for a work session at 5:30 p.m. and a regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. The work session focused on temporary sign regulations, while the regular meeting included a presentation, public hearings on seven items, and new business. A closed meeting was held from 5:00–6:04 p.m. and again from 7:56–8:43 p.m.

Work Session: Temporary Signs

  • City Manager Christopher Price and City Attorney Catherine Lindley presented an overview of the legal framework after the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, which prohibits content-based sign regulations. Chesapeake currently uses a location-based ordinance with a 90-day per calendar year limit for temporary signs.
  • Council discussed desired outcomes: reducing sign clutter, fair enforcement, complaint-based enforcement, and low cost. A permit requirement for temporary signs (only 14 permits issued in 2024) is proposed for removal.
  • Council Member Newins suggested requiring a non-fee affidavit or certification from candidates listing sign locations to track the 90-day limit. Council Member Ritter proposed a permission slip system for candidates and a 24–48 hour complaint response. Council Member Smith raised the possibility of a time limit tied to elections (e.g., 90 days before – 10 days after), similar to Hampton’s model, but content-based concerns remain.
  • Council Member Whitaker raised concerns about permit fees infringing on First Amendment rights. The consensus was to continue exploring solutions, with no final decision made.

Presentation

  • Certificate of Recognition – Virginia United Youth Football & Cheer 14U 757 Colts
    • Head Coach Levon Jenkins accepted the certificate for the team’s third consecutive national championship (2022, 2023, 2024). He noted that all enrolled athletes in the Redirect Academy program averaged a 3.0 GPA over four years. He requested a permanent game field from the city to support the organization’s growth.

Public Hearings & Council Actions

A. PLN-USE-2024-031 – Homestead Road Pet Crematorium

  • Action: Continued to the March 18, 2025, meeting by unanimous vote (9-0). The Planning Commission had recommended denial. Stipulations were provided but not voted on.

B. PLN-USE-2024-044 – Topsail Chiropractic (Level II Home Occupation)

  • Speakers:
    • Support: Sara Gainor (applicant) stated she would not contest the denial and wanted to put the matter to rest.
    • Opposition: Seven residents (Jackie Bauer, Michael Hopkins, David Frost, Julie Hayes, Regina Summerville, Amy Gowin, Ronald Allen) cited incompatibility with the quiet residential neighborhood, traffic concerns (estimated 120–150 patient visits per week), and safety for children.
  • Action: Denied by a 9-0 vote based on incompatibility with the surrounding area. The applicants retain the right to refile in the future.

C. PLN-TXT-2024-011 – Amendment to Nonconforming Use Regulations

  • Speakers (all in opposition): Nine speakers, including Bryan Plumlee, Jack Claud, Gary Szymanski (Sunray Farmers Association), Michael Zydron, Nikolas Larum, Nicole Pasho, Joseph Sherman, and Lauren Rose. They argued the amendment would infringe on vested property rights, lacked due process, and was unprecedented in Virginia. They requested a delay for an Attorney General opinion.
  • Council Discussion: Council Member Ritter expressed concerns about placing too much power in the zoning administrator and the short 30-day notice. City Attorney Lindley clarified that the amendment mirrors state code, includes appeal rights to the BZA (with enforcement stayed during appeal), and is similar to ordinances in Portsmouth and Richmond. Council Member Newins suggested exploring exemptions for residential uses.
  • Action: Continued to the April 15, 2025, meeting by a 7-2 vote (Council Members Bunn and Whitaker dissenting).

D. PLN-TXT-2024-012 – South Norfolk Historic District Design Guidelines

  • Action: Continued to the March 18, 2025, meeting by unanimous consent.

E. PLN-TXT-2024-013 – Clerical and Technical Corrections to Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances

  • Action: Approved (version dated January 9, 2025) by a 9-0 vote.

F. PLN-TXT-2024-014 – Prohibition of Non-Self-Propelled Commercial Vehicles in Residential Districts

  • Action: Approved (version dated December 16, 2024) by an 8-1 vote (Council Member Newins dissenting).

G. PLN-PUFA-2024-002 – Activation of Public Utility Franchise Area at 1640 Battlefield Blvd S

  • Speaker: Vic Nicholls (opposition) questioned the continued expansion of the PUFA.
  • Action: Approved by an 8-1 vote (Council Member Ritter dissenting).

New Business

  • Council Member King requested the City Manager procure an update from the Southeastern Public Service Authority on a one-bin waste disposal option and explore funding sources to restore curbside recycling without a fee to citizens, to be presented at the March budget work session.
  • Council Member Newins asked the City Manager to work with the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Advisory Board to explore honoring fallen Police Officer Timothy B. Schock and former Parks Director Claire Askew at Oak Grove Park, with a report back in 60 days.
  • Council Member Ritter noted a potential $2 million state grant to combat gun violence through community-based organizations and asked the City Manager to explore distribution options, possibly involving groups like the 757 Colts.
  • Council Member Ward requested an update on expenses and timelines for the Superintendent’s House, Visitor Center, and Underground Railroad replicas at the Historical Village at the Dismal Swamp, noting that 22 of 26 original stakeholders have died since the project began.
  • Mayor West requested an initiating resolution to consider reducing parking requirements on a case-by-case basis for certain properties (e.g., assisted living, commercial, multifamily).

Key Outcomes

  • Votes:
    • Topsail Chiropractic denied (9-0).
    • Nonconforming use amendment continued to April 15 (7-2).
    • Clerical corrections approved (9-0).
    • Commercial vehicle parking restriction approved (8-1).
    • PUFA activation approved (8-1).
  • Continuances: Pet crematorium and South Norfolk Historic District Guidelines deferred to March 18.
  • Directives: Multiple requests for staff reports on recycling, park honors, gun violence grants, and historical village updates.
  • City Manager announced a state of emergency for an anticipated 8–12 inches of snow on February 19, with city offices closed and decisions on Thursday operations forthcoming.

Closed Meetings

  • 5:00–6:04 p.m.: Certification of closed meeting (approved 9-0) – topics not specified but lawfully exempted.
  • 7:56–8:43 p.m.: Closed meeting to discuss performance of Airport Authority appointees, potential leasing of city property, and economic development opportunities in Pleasant Grove borough (approved 9-0).

Meeting Transcript

We're going to begin our uh work session, February 28, 2025. We have just one item, Mr. Manager. Maybe two. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so we've recently had some questions about uh temporary signage, particularly as pertains to uh political signage. Uh we've talked to council about this um periodically over the over the years. Um as council uh recalls uh we've initiated the zoning text amendment to try to address uh an issue that the council brought up last year. Um so we just wanted to quickly go through the state of play right now with um what the rules are, what uh what the kind of legal foundation is for those rules, and then really give you all some time to talk about your desired outcomes from our temporary signage program because if you all agree on a set of desired outcomes, um we can help develop the uh program to implement those outcomes, and we just want to make sure we have clarity there. So, really quickly, I touched on we want to get to council's desired outcomes. We'll talk a little bit about our existing processes. Really, the focus is getting council to have some discussion and get any direction um on those desired outcomes. But we want to start with uh Catherine to give a brief overview of the legal landscape that we're operating under. All right. Um so this all started in 2015. The United States Supreme Court put down a decision in the Reed versus Town of Gilbert case. And essentially the ruling was localities have an interest in regulating the size, the placement, and the number of signs, but they do not have an interest in regulating signs differently based on their content. And that was very significantly significant for a lot of localities across the country because most local sign ordinances did regulate signs differently based on whether it's a political conveyed a political sign, like conveying a political message, then there's going to be special rules for political signs. Are you conveying a real estate sale sign? There's special rules for real estate signs, or you know, garage sales, special events. We had special rules for all these little buckets of signs based on the message that that sign was conveying. And the Supreme Court essentially said that violates a First Amendment, you know, freedom of speech because you're treating people differently based on the message they're putting out to the world. So they said no content-based restrictions, just regulate signs based on the time, place, and manner of the sign. So we went to what we call a location-based zoning ordinance, wherein we have special rules based on where the sign is placed. So if you look in the zoning ordinance, we have a table, all the zoning and the zoning districts are laid out, and there's different rules for the signs based on the district in which that sign is placed. And there's different signs for permanent signs or different rules for permanent signs and temporary signs. Obviously, the difference between the two is a permanent is permanently affixed and is always in place. Temporary signs are not permanently affixed to the ground, and they can only be up for up to 90 calendar days in a year because of the durational limit. Um and then in the table that I mentioned earlier in our zoning ordinance, we do have a permit requirement for some signs based on the zoning district that they're placed, although that requirement is proposed to be removed, and that was on council's agenda next month to remove the permit requirement for all temporary signs. So that is currently where we are, and we are in this place to comply with the mandate of the United States Supreme Court. And council knows uh um or or or if if if you're not aware, we send these rules, and they are that's a lot of rules, but we send them to all candidates in advance of the election, so they get an election package to their campaign uh address to talk about the state of play here in the city of Chesapeake. Um from a desired outcomes perspective. This isn't something that you all have ever like adopted. It's it's what we've gleaned from the conversations that councils had in the past. Um the very reason we have these regulations on temporary signs is to reduce sign clutter. We get a lot of complaints from citizens when we start to have a proliferation of signs, especially um on our major transportation corridors. Um it really got significant during the pandemic. So council a couple years ago asked us to really crack down on it again, and we've done that. Obviously, we we we want our um our processes are built to be legally defensible. We try to make them as clear and as fair as possible, but these are ordinances and they exist in lots of different places and ordinance and policy and practice, and so we we could always do better in in using um more clear language, but we try to do that, especially when we send those those um uh disclosure forms or or uh the the process requirements to campaigns every year. We really want to enforce the rules equally. You've all heard me tell stories about I I have on and on on the same day gotten calls from opposing campaigns saying that we favor the other candidate. We we don't favor any candidate. We're trying to to enforce the rules um equally. Um council knows that we try as with lots of our programs to do this with the lowest possible cost, and so that drives some of the decisions I'm gonna talk about in a moment. And then we really have gentle enforcement. We really are a complaint-based organization where we're not really proactively going out looking for a violation. So again, I'll I'll touch on that here. So we last time we touched on this in any depth was May 2023.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com