Yeah, we'll go ahead and start our work session.

Welcome everyone to our uh work session tonight, uh, August 19, 2025.

Tonight we're here to talk about is one of our rules of uh procedures regarding the number of speakers on agenda items.

You know, there are as we're all aware, times when we have a very full agenda and a number of speakers, and so I think what we're looking for is a recommendation to bring back to count or for us to bring to council to actually vote on as to how to deal with uh situations where you have a number of speakers that may prevent us from finishing an agenda or keeping those who are here for an item, maybe a simple item having to stay for two or three hours and then maybe having their items cons um continued.

So I think the issue is how do we deal when we have with when we have too many speakers for the time allotted.

Uh Ms.

Ritter, I think you have something you've been thinking about, so you want to put that out there?

I think I made this suggestion previously.

We have a protocol that we follow with non-agenda speakers, two out of our three meetings every month.

And it has to do with an allotted number of time, uh amount of time, and how the speaking is divided.

And at the if there are more than six speakers in the allotted 30 minutes, speaking time is reduced to three, and I don't need a prompt out there, thank you.

Um speaking time is reduced to three minutes, but every signed up speaker is allowed their three minutes.

So my suggestion has been that the council choose a number at which point if there are X I'm not you know, I'm just throwing a number out there, it's not necessarily my suggestion, that if there are ten speakers on one item, or fifteen, it's up to council to make that decision.

Then the time is reduced for all speakers to three minutes, and if you have more than i let's say that's a determinant of X, if your determinant is Y, whatever number that may be, the time would be reduced to two minutes.

But it follows the same exact process that we already follow with non-agenda speakers.

So I think that's a fair way to do it.

It allows everyone speaking time, but I know it doesn't sound maybe correct to the public, but even if you're s I I've watched over the years, people who are here and sign up to speak, when it reaches a certain point, they leave and they take away their opportunity to speak because they can't be here for five hours.

They might have brought children.

Um there are all sorts of reasons.

People tune out from home.

So I I think this would be fair, it would allow everyone to speak, and we know the number of speakers who've signed up, so that would start with speaker one.

Um now, whether or not the council wants to, as we do now, extend more time to the applicant that we can, you know, we can still build that in because that's in there now.

They get 10 minutes, is that correct?

That is correct.

And every other speaker five.

Correct.

So I I think that's a good to me.

That's a good starting point.

Any thoughts on Dr.

Dr.

Ward?

Yeah.

My concern, because we have had this discussion before.

My concern is the applicants getting 10 minutes.

And maybe have a number of applicants as we did with the council meeting, there were isn't there were more applicants than we normally have, or we didn't have at the first meeting, and you were talking about a recent meeting.

And if they get 10 minutes as they normally do, and you have eight applicants, you know, eight people speaking on behalf of the applicants or the application or the event, whatever, or the professionals, then that really makes it cuts down on the three-minute people who are the public, and that's the situation too when we do this, we need to try to be a fair at least.

And we've always said I've been here 19 years ago.

I I I thought we had reduced it to only one speaker representing the applicant.

Yes, we have yeah, we only accept the applicant that's listed on there.

But the last time we reduced the speaker times, we also reduced the applicant to five minutes.

Right.

And they were fine with that.

Yeah.

And we and I think we should do that as well.

Whatever we reduce it to you reduce it to the to the one applicant.

Yeah.

I agree.

Uh, one applicant representative.

Let me go to Mr.

Bunn.

Got a light on.

Mr.

Bunn.

Oh, thank you, Mayor West.

Um, I'd like to ask the city manager, is he familiar with any other jurisdictions on how they handle their meetings?

And I have other questions after that.

So there's a wide variety out there, as you can imagine.

So each individual jurisdiction treats uh business meetings uh and public hearing meetings differently.

Um the we are, in my experience, on the very um high end in terms of the amount of time we allot, both in terms of the number of times that speakers can speak during an individual meeting and the amount of time that each speaker is given.

So that I I wouldn't say that there's a there's anything that's like sort of common or best practice, it's it's really individualized up to the needs of locality, but just from a general perspective, um Chesapeake offers a lot more opportunities to speak on each individual um agenda and then more time on each agenda item than most jurisdictions.

Okay.

And then um the other question, I'm not sure if this would be um you if you would know the answer, but the order of the items that were being heard on a particular night, um I know you said earlier that um some of the longer items are heard first.

Can we flip it where the short and sweet ones are done really quickly?

That way the applicant doesn't stick around for three or four hours.

Is that possible?

I think Ms.

Madison can address this better, but I had thought about that.

And so here's the question.

Do you have fewer people waiting longer time?

Or do you if you have a lot of items even though they're shorter items, you're gonna have maybe the auditorium is full for people who want to speak on that one item, so they have to wait for everything else to go through.

But I'm not saying it's not possible.

How do we been determined that well you have the opportunity at the beginning to rearrange the agenda any way you want to?

It's your call.

It's not really our call how we rearrange.

I mean, we have a system that we use, but you can at any point bring anything to the other.

So what is the system for so how is that determined when officially initially establishing an agenda?

If an item has been continued, it's usually first, which kind of is what happened with the last situation we had.

Um after that is just how how they fall.

We keep the rezonings together and that sort of thing.

But yeah, so I think that that's a good remedy.

I I I I knew we could do it, but I had forgotten that we could do that.

But that's something that you know, if you bring up, then it's voted on, and uh everybody gets an equal say.

I think that can solve that part of it rather than to change it ourselves uh prematurely.

Go ahead.

Again, because I didn't get to speak again.

Uh and that needs to be considered too.

I did have my light on to at least speak twice, but uh still had a question about the applicant, not necessarily applicant, but for persons who are speaking in support of the applicant, and if there are a number of them as they were with um the agenda item that was continued, and there were a number of people who were supporting the applicant, and did they also have the 10 minutes it appeared or five minutes, or were they with the same condition that the public group is saying?

Then those supporting the application get the same amount of time as those who are not supporting the application.

So that's that's always been a given.

No difference.

Okay.

Okay.

So do you have some thoughts about what would settle on the table in terms of um limiting the time after a certain number of uh applicants or speakers, excuse me?

And it depends on the time.

And my concern is that public the public didn't know that the last event, they did not know they were going to be able to do that.

Well, while we're doing this, the reason we're doing this is so that we will have a plan that that will not occur again.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Oh, and so that's why I think we ought to get it right.

I still had some concerns about the number of speakers who were supporting, and you weren't supporting it and those who are posed, but somehow the public didn't feel that they're at stake.

That that's they can feel that way, but it's not actually Madison, you speak to that.

We actually do equal support opposition, support opposition, support opposition, as long as there's some on both sides.

That particular night there was as many in support as there were against it.

We didn't run out of speakers.

So there was as there were as many speakers in support that spoke as were not in support.

Oh, I do get that.

I understand.

However, there were so many more people who were against it who did not get to speak at all because uh they didn't realize that they were not going to.

So um we setting the time because I'm still concerned that well, hopefully it won't ever happen again, but you just never know.

Um I just thought that the um public.

What we we are deciding on right now is how we're going through how many minutes or how long.

Right.

Uh I guess and even though they recall you know, support and against, but because you had so many more speakers against, and they did not get fair implementation.

We know in that particular case, you're right, they didn't there were there probably were more people that that uh didn't that were against that didn't get to speak than they were in favor, but uh again we're here tonight to discuss what's the best way to to do that.

So any other thoughts about what's on the table about the Ms.

Miller?

Well, I just like to hear one, how what numbers people think would be fair, right?

At which point to reduce the speaking time, what it should be reduced to, and should we also consider the same rules for the nights when people choose to speak at the beginning of the meeting?

So a month ago, 30 people signed up to speak on the same issue at the beginning of the meeting.

So the whatever rules get in place per agenda item should also I I've never seen that, but um that was an unusual circumstance and the same rule.

So then we would have similar rules for every opportunity to speak.

There would not be a difference in any time during an agenda.

So whatever council thinks it's fair, is it the first tier would be 10 speakers, the second tier would be 20, or 15 and 25.

I don't know.

Ian, I'd like to hear some other opinions on at what point should the time be reduced.

We do have that, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend imposing a time as we do on non-agenda speakers.

That's where the six came in.

They allowed 30 minutes, and some cities don't even allow that to be televised.

Right.

So we do, and when that rule was done, that was pre-me, so it was the early 90s.

That was done with a specific time limit in place.

I'm not suggesting that we have a time limit per item, just that we have the speaking time regulated.

I'm not embarrassed to say at a certain point, if you have five hours worth of speakers signed up, it's difficult.

And it's difficult for people with other agenda items sitting in the audience.

Ms.

News?

I think if people know the rules, they'll I think they'll be happy just that we have put something in place that is fair and across the board.

Thank you.

I think from what I understand, just correct me if I'm wrong, Ms.

Ritter.

We would reduce the amount of time people would speak, but we wouldn't limit the total amount of time.

So it wouldn't be we only going to do an hour on this item.

It would be everyone gets to speak, but we reduce the amount of time.

I liked the proposal you just mentioned about the two tiers.

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what the magic number is, too.

If it's 10 or 15, I think maybe we err on the side of caution and try 15.

And if we um notice that that maybe we need to tweak it again, we can always come back and reduce it to 10.

But uh and then I don't know what the second tier would be.

Would that be we reduce it maybe from three minutes to two minutes?

If that's what council decides, yes.

Okay.

So maybe if if we then I mean I don't know.

I I most of you have been on council much longer than I have, so it's hard to tell what is a high number of speakers on an item.

Is it 30?

Is it 50?

When should the second tier trigger to go to two minutes?

But I do like the consistency.

I think it's important that at the beginning of the agenda, all agenda items, we should have the same rule basically across the board.

And then we have that second tier for those high speaker nights, so everyone's voice gets heard.

And I'm fine with the applicant not getting any additional time than every other speaker too.

When we reduce it to three minutes, maybe they get three minutes as well.

When we reduce it to two minutes, they get two minutes as well.

Because something we see is I think this is what Dr.

Ward was indicating, even though there's one applicant, the applicant has like all their attorneys and employees, and everyone come and speak.

So even though there's only one applicant, they're still getting their voice heard, and they're still getting their point of cross.

So I'm fine with fully reducing the applicant time to the same as the other speakers when we do go into that reduced rule rate, whichever number that is.

But I would maybe start with 15 people and then we can always tweak it from there.

I would prefer to actually leave the a primary applicant presentation at 10.

Because they usually have maps, they have pictures, they have illustrative, but anybody else with them, I agree.

You know.

And 10 is just a number.

I mean, it could be five.

Well, let's start this way.

Five.

How long do you think is reasonable to consider to hear opinions and consider one agenda item total?

I mean, I know you don't want the time.

I'm not putting I'm not saying we're putting a time on it.

I'm saying reasonably to me, you should be able to hear and vote on an item within an hour and a half or two hours.

That's that would be considering how it would fit to it in a regular meeting.

So if an hour and a half is a reasonable amount of time, and then if you had 15 speakers.

If you had up to 15 speakers giving three minutes, that's 45 minutes all right there.

Okay.

So if you had 10, that's 30 minutes.

So let's start with that.

Let's start with the three minutes.

And how much time do you think total we should be considering being uh on a on a an item?

Is it 15 minutes?

Oh, I mean, is it an hour or is it 30 minutes, 40 minutes?

What do you think?

I I think that, you know, if you look historically, there's so few items that go over two hours.

Right.

That I I I don't think it's there's too much of a value to put a time limit on the other.

I'm not talking about putting a time limit.

I'm talking about using that information to determine how much whether you at what how many speakers have three minutes and how many have two minutes and how many have five minutes?

Okay, so 50 speakers at three minutes each is two and a half hours of just speakers.

Right.

That's not reasonable.

That's no, I don't think so either.

So maybe we can try ten and twenty.

Twenty is a lot.

We don't get twenty speakers all that often.

Yeah.

I think so.

If you say ten, then that means up to nineteen people can speak for three minutes.

Yes.

That's sixty minutes.

Yes.

Almost 60 minutes.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I would if you said ten.

At 10, it's reduced to three.

Okay.

And then where would it go the two?

At 20.

Yeah.

Well, that's up to council.

I'd be happy to hear that.

Yeah, I personally, again, I look at three minutes.

I don't think so, because that's given twenty.

That's an hour of hearing speakers.

If you go three and then the next level is twenty.

I think the next level should be fifteen.

And then it goes to two.

I mean, you have plenty of time to say whether you're for or against something in two minutes.

Three at 15, but could be 25 minutes.

So we can't.

Sorry.

Sorry about that.

Three.

If you did 15 minutes, that's 45.

Right.

But yeah.

That's right.

That's still a lot.

Okay.

But would that be other than the applicant itself?

Himself or herself.

But the other speakers in support of the applicant also would be three minutes without the same amount of time.

Right.

Right.

The applicant.

Well, not the applicant.

The applicant gets the 10, I just but anybody supporting the applicant would be due through the same three.

Everybody's getting the same, whatever that is, two or three.

I think it's easy to write words that work, right, Mr.

Price.

Any other speakers for or against are allocated for this amount of time.

So you indicate you have one person, and then everybody else is treated exactly the same.

Why can't they get five?

Huh?

I think five would be enough.

I'm in two.

I was looking at five, you have to do that.

I'm looking, I mean why can't they get five?

Here we go.

Can we can we go back to the applicant after we've determined what we're going to give speakers then?

Well because I agree with you, there's I could see five, I could see ten.

But let's let's stick with the amount of time the speaker so we don't get it get off.

So Mr.

Bunn.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Russ.

Uh I'm fine with um any time that the consensus of the council would isn't agreeable with that.

The main thing is I just want to make sure that every speaker has the opportunity to speak, even if it's a minute.

Right.

And if you that and that I think that's all of our goal.

So it's if that's what you want, then it's really important to carefully consider how much time you're allocating.

And that's to me the cost.

Any other thoughts about what time it would.

Can we just like the 10 and 20?

I'll just throw my opinion.

I vote for the 10 and 20.

I can't vote, but I would suggest the 10 and 20.

10 is the first threshold at 10 minutes or 10 speakers, it goes down to 3, and then at 20 speakers, it goes down to two, is what I would prefer.

And I I like 10 and 15.

Ms.

Madison, did you have a any thoughts on it?

Okay.

So we've got two suggestions.

So we got a 10 and 20.

And again, I think if you get if you go 20, you got 19 speakers with three minutes.

That's that's an hour almost.

So that's why I think 15 is a is a better number.

Fifteen.

Right.

In the beginning.

With the three minutes.

So you up to up to 15, it's two minutes.

Two minutes.

After 15, it's three minutes.

Vice versa.

Yeah.

Yeah.

First 15, if it's just 15, 3 minutes.

If it's 16 or more, 2 minutes.

That's fine.

Just for clever.

You said the speeches.

Well, I meant to, I should just it's better to say.

I think it's better to go have a cutoff, don't you?

Because you're that's what you're doing.

When do we start three versus five, though?

Because it starts at five.

Oh, right.

For one person.

So we're we have to have a cutoff where it goes from five to three, and then we have to have the cutoff where it goes from three to two.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Ten and so ten is the cutoff where it goes from five to three.

Right.

And then fifteen or twenty, whichever council's preferences is where it goes from three minutes to two minutes.

That's good.

That's well said.

Yeah.

Ms.

But I'm going to go on a limb here.

Uh I hear what everybody's saying, and and like Mr.

Bunn, I I am concerned that everybody should get the opportunity to speak.

Uh but uh honestly, whether it's an hour, hour and a half, uh we only have maybe five agenda items a year that go over 20 speakers.

Let's just limit it three minutes of speaker, five minutes for the applicant, or a straight ten minutes for the applicant's party.

In other words, legal counsel, engineer, uh speaker, you know.

Uh I think it's too confusing.

Well, I'm saying you give a total of 10 minutes, so you could have, you know, four or five speakers, but that's their ten minutes uh for their presentation.

Uh I mean it's just a thought, but I think I think three minute three minutes, you know.

Uh very rarely will we have very rarely will we have more than twenty speakers on an agenda item.

That's just a few times a year, maybe.

And if it's that contentious, you know, there's a good possibility maybe we should hear them.

Well, we will.

We will hear them.

It's just how much time they're going to take saying it so that and uh again, this is so that other items that people are here to talk about get heard in a reasonable amount of time.

That's how you have to look at it.

It's not restricting anybody's speech, it's trying to hear from everybody who comes to this chamber with an item that they want to talk about.

And if you let everybody anybody speak as long as you want, some people are not gonna come, not gonna be able to be heard.

It's that simple.

So we have a couple of suggestions up to five minutes.

I mean, you get five minutes up to ten, and then ten uh three minutes up to fifteen, and then two minutes after.

That's that's kind of on the floor.

You uh agree with that.

May I just go ahead.

So can the agenda be changed around based on how many people are here to speak?

Yes.

Can that be done?

It can be that at uh at that that night it can't be changed, but unless council votes on it that night.

And here's the downside, if you change it.

Um you will have if you have one item that would normally be first and it's not till last, and there's a lot of people here for that one item, and you you move it to the end of the night, they have to listen to a whole night of other items.

Neither of them are good.

I mean, if you're here and you got a small item, and then the one that gets a lot of attention is first, they've got to listen to all that.

So I don't it's I don't know that I mean we can still always do that.

We can always change the order.

That's that's our right as a council to do, so we always can consider that each each time there's a meeting.

But but again, for the speakers, that we're would would you stand on stand for what's just been recommended?

Yeah, two fifteen and plus.

Yeah, yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right, is it 10 and 15 or 10 and 20?

We got 10 to 15.

Okay.

We might want to keep it an even number so you get the same amount of opposition and the same amount of support.

Fifteen, you're gonna have more one than you do the other.

So if you have 10 or 20 or 30 of whatever it is.

So you go ten and then sixteen.

You can do sixteen, just as long as you have the same time to speak for those in opposition and those in support.

Right.

Just have to have an even number.

Right.

Because then you're not gonna be able to tell the rest of the speakers that now you are.

No, we we when we know how many people sign up.

That's when we'll that we will allocate the amount of time.

Right.

That's correct.

May I ask Madison a question based on that?

Yes.

Would that 16, does that include the applicant?

Because then you wouldn't have.

Okay, so the applicant would stand alone, and then the 16 would be eight and eight speakers.

Okay.

So when we're looking at time, we're really looking at this plus the applicant as our total amount of time.

Okay.

That makes sense.

So we Ms.

Whitaker, are you okay with what's proposed?

And do you are you clear on what is proposed?

Okay.

All right.

So let's talk about the applicant, because we have heard two things.

We have said some want 10, some want five.

Five.

Five.

I think five.

That's fine.

Five is five.

Okay.

Well for the most part.

That's true.

But it looks like if you shorten them and they don't have a whole presentation for the audience and the public, it lends more to look like there's a foregone conclusion, in my estimation.

So I'm not sure we need to change that.

We can ask them to keep it less if they can.

Well, to the audience, and we've heard they think it's unfair because they get more time than they are getting to present their case.

So you know, I mean, I don't I'm not sure that there's going to be a someone's not going to be happy with it, whichever way we go.

Mr.

Whitaker.

Yes, sir.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh you know, the applicant is the vested party.

They're the one that's, you know, looking at, you know, potentially investing in the city.

Uh it could be their land use project.

Uh I think we should be sensitive to that.

These are people in the business community, these are residents, some people may be investors coming to the city.

And I think we should certainly consider that before we limit the opportunity.

And that's why I I was sort of leaning towards or thinking, you know, uh dangerous thing.

You know, giving them a 10-minute window for them, their attorney, their engineer.

That gives 10 minutes is plenty enough time to present, make any presentation with and it would be up to them to split that up into two minutes, three minutes, five minutes, or whatever the case be.

But I think we have a due diligence to our to our uh our business community, citizens and applicants in general.

Well, the council will be willing to consider ten minutes as a trial, and then if it ends up being not seeming to work, revisit this and after uh seeing this.

So it's I think if we're gonna reduce the amount of time that the general public gets to speak, it's only fair we also reduce the applicant time.

So I think for me, I think we should use the same trigger.

So at 10 minutes it gets reduced.

Uh or at 10 speakers, it gets reduced to a certain amount, and maybe we just leave it at that.

After 10 speakers, applicant only gets five minutes.

But I just don't think it is fair that the applicant still gets the same amount of time when we are reducing everyone else's time.

So if if they get if we're at the five-minute mark for general speakers, I'm fine with the ten minutes remaining.

But if we're reducing the speakers time, we should also reduce the applicant's time.

I agree.

That's a good point.

Would we bill uh would be willing to settle for a lesser reduction, seven minutes to seven minutes?

Five, I've got five.

I'm just I want to be able I'm with you, Mr.

Wedaker.

I want the person to be able to present their case.

But you know, at the same time, I also see where people who come to speak speak on the matter really want to um I mean they've kind of come to speak, they already had their minds made up, honestly.

And we have gotten enough information from uh meetings and emails that they send and the backup information from it's in our packet.

We have a lot of information about the application.

So I mean they should be able to be fairly precise.

Yeah.

Go ahead, Ms.

Whitaker.

Yeah.

Uh uh I really like what uh what council lady new ones have brought up, that there should be probably that trigger based on the amount of speakers that we have uh and and let that be the time trigger potentially for uh uh the the applicant.

Uh and and let that be the time trigger potentially for uh uh the the applicant.

Okay.

We have whether it be 10, 15, 20.

Um, but uh I think again, you know, I believe that we should uh uh I don't want to call it uh uh special favor, but well, in a sense, yeah, special favor to the applicant because it is their investment.

So Mr.

Noise, what was your recommendation about the reducing it at what point for the applicant?

When we reduce the general public.

So when we hit 10 speakers, that's when we reduce general public from five to three.

I think that's when we should reduce the applicant to.

I think it was proposed ten to seven, is what the mayor threw out.

I think the mayor threw out a number, like well, could we agree on seven?

Sounds good.

Ten to seven sounds good to me.

And then if we're gonna do that, then I would then propose when we get to sixteen speakers when we reduce the public again to two minutes, we consider going to five at that point.

I like it.

Okay.

Ms.

Madison, you're gonna have to we're gonna have to get this presented to council in a form, so let's make sure we're on the same page.

What do you understand we are agreeing on?

Well, we need to be clear on the applicant because you have an applicant agent and usually an attorney.

That's three of those.

So all three of those are going to get five minutes, are you going to have ten minutes for the item and let them decide how they want to present it?

That would be my first question.

Because you almost always have an attorney with the applicant.

And they've always been allowed ten minutes.

The applicant, the agent, and the attorney.

So the ten minute rule and let them decide who's going to speak the most might work simpler.

Otherwise, they are all going to get either the but if they don't have three, and it's just the uh applicant, they're going to get 10 minutes?

Do they normally get 10 minutes?

Because I know that sometimes they come with three, but sometimes it's just one.

If they only have one, I would say five minutes would be sufficient if if the other people are reduced to three.

If you only have one, but when you come up here and have an applicant, an agent and an attorney sign up, that that's where it's going to get confusing.

Are we going to give all three of them five minutes?

Are we going to have a set time of 10 minutes for the item?

No matter how many people you got to speak.

If it's helpful right now, the rules of order and procedure just give the ten minutes to one principal applicant.

And so we've allowed them to kind of choose that person who will be their figurehead, I guess.

And I assumed when we were discussing these times that maybe we would follow that same model.

So if they want to appoint their engineer to be their principal applicant, that's their choice.

If the owner wants to be the principal applicant, that's their choice.

Right.

Right.

Which was what, yeah, that was my suggestion.

Which is what?

What is that time frame?

Are we still talking about 10 7, 5?

10 75?

Okay.

I think we're I think we're clear on that.

All right.

Who is Ms.

Madison?

I'm sorry?

Are you clear?

No.

But we'll get it.

Well, I I think what can you say what you think, and then we'll say whether that's what to be clear, if we have, say, just more than 15 or 20 speakers, everybody's going to get three minutes each.

At what point?

Okay, here's what we're saying.

Okay.

Uh I tell you, I'm probably not the best person.

Okay.

Up to give it a shot.

Up to 10 speakers.

Each speaker will get five minutes.

The applic, the principal applicant will get 10.

Everybody else will get five.

What we do now.

Right.

At 10 speakers.

Oh, 11, sorry.

Once we exceed 10.

Got to be even number two.

Well, not this long.

Yeah, so one to nine.

Yeah.

Once we exceed 10, the applicant will receive a principal applicant seven minutes.

And other speakers three minutes.

When we exceed 20 speakers.

I thought 16.

The principal at applicant will get five minutes.

Every other speaker will get two.

Correction.

Is that correct?

I think we agree.

I think we agreed on 16, not 10.

Oh, 16.

Okay.

Other than that, correct.

I'm being more generous than everybody.

Is that your understanding?

It is.

What I wrote down is that exactly what Councilwoman Rutter was saying that at the first year will be basically zero to ten people, and under zero to ten total speakers, you would give the principal applicant, one principal applicant ten minutes.

All other speakers get five minutes.

When you have 10 to 16 total speakers, one principal applicant gets seven minutes, all other speakers get three minutes.

Anything over 17 people, one principal applicant gets five minutes, and all other speakers get two minutes.

That's good.

I get all in agreement?

I think we have a I think we are all agreed.

Okay.

You know, I did uh notice, and I want to just take this opportunity while we're in work session.

Uh there is a provision in there are under our rules and procedures during work session.

If there are any agenda items that we want to discuss for continuance or what was the other thing, agenda items for continuance or withdrawal.

Or withdrawals.

So I'm going to try to remember to ask if there's if so we can save that.

But also we could use work session to talk about announcements and accomplishments.

I agree.

So I think it since that is our rules, I'm going to try to enforce them.

So anybody have any announcements they want to make for tonight?

So we started tonight.

Yeah.

Yes.

That's going to be it.

Well, the of the council?

Oh, good.

Okay.

Oh.

I'm sorry.

Um designation in a renaming.

Right.

We want the public to hear that.

A lot of the public doesn't have any idea that doesn't happen.

Let's let's have some discussion.

Let's not start it tonight.

Okay.

Let's let's talk amongst ourselves and see how we want to handle the uh announcements.

So you've got a point.

Yeah, you're doing it for the announcement.

For the general uh public's knowledge.

So let's let's not start anything on that tonight.

Okay.

Very good.

Okay.

All right.

Council.

Mr.

Bond.

Yeah.

I'm not sure this is the right time or not, but what about like um a deadline for the applicant to like want to postpone?

Like you have people to come show up a certain night and then they ask for continuance the night of.

I mean, can that can there be a deadline to request a continuance?

That is a whole new subject that I don't think we are prepared to talk about.

But I don't think I don't I think it's a good subject to bring up.

Uh Ms.

Lindley, do you have any thoughts on that one?

A legal standpoint?

There's no legal ban on saying that, you know, it's going to be the policy of the council to say that if we get a continuous request after a certain day, we won't consider it.

You're not depriving them of their opportunity to be heard.

You're just basically sequencing it out when you think it's appropriate.

But I just don't think we this is a I am prepared to talk about it anyway.

When we do discuss that, can we also consider the legalities of a pre-continuance?

So if someone reaches out to us well in advance of the agenda, council could um maybe make a decision.

Like if an email comes that says I'd like to ask for a continuance.

I don't know if it's legal for us to all respond like without it, we don't have any objection to the continuance, and then we can put a notice out and saying council is agreed this matter is to be continued to this date, so people don't show up.

So I don't know if that's legal or not, but perhaps we could do some research.

Mr.

Manager, what I would like to see is you and Ms.

Lindley and our planning director get together and bring in a recommendation on that.

Agreed.

And if I could, I'd like to add the notion of you've seen this a couple times where as a matter of course, applications go through the planning commission, they get a recommendation the next month they come to council, and sometimes it's clear it's not ripe to go on an agenda, but we schedule on an agenda anyway because that's our protocol.

So we might want to consider adding it when it's ripe for council's consideration.

Bring us that recommendation.

I totally agree with that.

It would be very helpful.

Okay, I have a question about that.

How is it getting through Planning Commission if it's not ripe for council?

So an example would be um the event center that you had.

I think it might have been last month, but um staff had significant concerns related to um uh fire department uh uh um access, and those concerns were worked out at the planning commission, but the language wasn't written for what was was uh ultimately going to come before council.

Um and the planning staff didn't have to respond because with advertising deadlines, we are almost immediately scheduling the item for consideration.

So in that instance, staff might have actually changed their recommendation.

Or staff might not have enough time to address things that were brought up at the planning commission meeting for the benefit of the public.

Council is now in session.

I'd like to recognize Councilmember Smith at this time for the invocation and delete us in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

Heavenly Father, thank you for this day.

Thank you for letting us letting our good days outweigh our bad days.

Father, we pray for the families that have lost loved ones to violence in our city in recent weeks.

Father, we pray for their healing.

And we pray for our Vice Mayor Dr.

Dietrich, and he will rejoin us real soon.

We pray tonight that we shall have a productive meeting.

Councilmember Bond.

Here.

Councilmember King is excused.

Council Member Newman here.

Councilmember Ritter.

Here.

Councilmember Smith.

Here.

Councilmember Ward.

Present.

Councilmember Whitaker?

Present.

Vice Mayor D.

is excused.

Mayor West.

Here.

Next is the approval of the proposed agenda.

Are there any changes for the proposed agenda?

See none.

Move approval.

Second.

Ms.

Newlands, Dr.

Ward, please prepare to vote.

Please vote and record.

Motion to approve the agenda as presented is adopted by a seven-o vote.

Next is applicants, agents, and citizens' comments on public hearing items.

The City Council meeting constitutes a limited public forum.

Therefore, public comments must be relevant and related to the items on council's agenda tonight.

When speaking on an agenda item, please make sure your comments directly relate to the merits of the application.

Which means you focus you focus on the details and the facts of the proposed agenda item.

Focusing on comments on the merits of the application will ensure that this public hearing serves its intended purpose of gathering relevant information for the voting body.

Further, to strike a balance between maintaining order and honoring the public's right to express themselves and as established by City Council's rules of order and procedures.

Any speaker that delays, interrupts or otherwise disrupts City Council's ability to conduct its meetings in an orderly manner by disorderly, insolent or disturbing action, speech or other conduct will be declared out of order.

Madam Clerk, are there any speakers who wish to speak prior to the presentation of the public hearing item?

No, sir.

Would you please present the public item A?

PLN Comp 2025-002, Greenbrier Area Plan, a resolution to amend the text correlating maps and technical document of the 2035 Chesapeake Comprehensive Plan as necessary to adopt and incorporate the Greenbrier Area Plan and design guidelines.

This item was continued from July the 15th.

The planning commission recommends approval of the version dated May 13, 2025.

What are the planning staff recommendations, Mr.

McNamara?

The 2035 Comprehensive Plan calls for establishment of unique economic, cultural, and visual identities in each of the planning areas across the city.

Robust community engagement was conducted throughout the planning process to involve as many residents, businesses, and other stakeholders as possible.

The Green Bar Area Plan and Design Guidelines promote a vision to support economic prosperity and improvements to the physical environment of the Greenborough area that will benefit the community and city at large.

Staff recommends approval.

Thank you.

Are there any speakers?

Madam Clerk.

Yes, sir.

We have two speakers.

The first is Vic Nichols, followed by Rogard Ross.

Well, as an actual resident of the Greenbrier Property Owners Association, so I live off of Eden Way.

So as one of those that is we're hugely affected, the about a thousand of our homes are right off Eden Way there.

One of the problems, and let me clarify this.

I've lived there in that place for over 25 years since the late 90s.

And one of the problems that we have, which is traffic, is really not getting addressed.

I have brought it up.

The Green Bar Plan has always said that the number one issue there is traffic.

But we can't seem to get anything done on that.

Some of the problems that we have are specifically at Edenway and Greenbrier, because that's one of the places that you want to extend out to battlefield to try to relieve traffic off of Volvo.

Here's the problem.

If you're trying to turn off of Edenway and on to Greenbrier, because traffic backs up in the middle, blocks the intersection.

You are taking of that light, that right turn light, anywhere from I've timed it, 22 to 30 seconds of that light.

That is why things progressively back up to them all, because people can't get out of there already, because you've got traffic that's coming off of Volvo and cutting through.

The other part of the problem that you have is Edenway that is turning left on to Volvo.

That is a disaster also, simply because there are too many people using that as a cut through.

The maximization of using Volvo is there for a reason.

Once you start putting these problems there on Edenway, it's going to get worse.

It was so bad that Fairfax County at the state level tried to get a bill introduced so that they could start tolling roads like that because it would be 10, 15, 20 minutes.

And of course, if grandma has a heart attack, granddad has a stroke, you cannot get first responders in there, and they die.

That's what is happening.

So those types of things really need to be checked to see, because if you want to put all this density there and you don't have the roads to take care of it, that's a problem.

People are not going to be doing a whole lot of buses.

It's something that we have discussed for years, all amongst those that live in the area.

You've got a few of them that are willing to do the bikes and some of the buses.

But the vast majority of them, especially if you have young people, young people with families or something, that is very terrorizing to sit there and deal with that trying to cross roads, ride bikes or anything else.

And I have biked along there, and I only go to certain areas because I have to, I have mirrors now to make sure to watch behind me so that I don't get hit.

So unless we're going to do something about those roads, this is not really going to work.

And if you take them all down and put in mixed use, that's going to be even worse.

We got people upon people upon people.

So whatever has to be done, that needs to be addressed is those traffic situations.

And I know that can be done.

We had a problem one year with a huge uproar because of the mall traffic.

And I had a discussion with somebody, and they changed the lights.

Didn't have a problem.

People quit complaining.

We have the same problem when I leave to go to Kempsville in the morning for the recenter.

Only the Chesapeake lights, when I'm getting out there are problem.

Start, stop, start, stop, start, start.

Hit Virginia Beach, blow on through.

There are many things that are great about this plan.

But we have to have the ability to get around there and not be known as a problem section.

Crossways and Jarman is another one.

Those areas need to be checked.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Rogard Ross.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and members of the City Council.

I'm here to speak in support of the Green Bar Area Plan, mostly.

The Green Blair Area Plan describes an opportunity to reimagine the future of Green Blair as Hampton Road's first community to fully embrace sustainable practices.

I think the draft plan does an excellent job of defining human-scale neighborhoods and commercial districts that are pedestrian and bicycle-friendly.

Hopefully, if we build all these sidewalks and build these bike paths that we're talking about in the plan, we'll get some folks out of the cars.

And hope traffic.

That's what I would hope happens.

And that's kind of what the plan envisions.

Now, my area where I have concern about in the plan is tree preservation.

Between 2018 and 2023, we've lost 81 acres of trees in the Green Brewer area.

That's 60 football fields cut down in over five years.

The tree canopy dropped from 29 and a half percent to 28.4 percent.

In the plans area of enhancement are another 360 acres of forested parcels, of course, seven parcels.

That includes the Tree Oaks property that economic development is actively marketing.

Once those 360 acres get developed, we're likely going to lose another 300 acres of trees.

That will push us down to 24 and a half percent tree canopy going in the wrong direction.

I'm actually all in favor of focusing higher density development in the green bar area, but higher density does not necessarily mean that you're gonna have that you don't need as many trees.

We really should be doing more to mitigate the loss of trees and just preserve what we have left and plant more.

Now we're looking forward to working in the comp plan, making sure that uh has some good stuff addressing it.

Um we can look at is planting more street trees.

We can probably put 500 street trees along the medians of our major roadways.

We should be working on encouraging development projects to preserve mature trees.

And also find ways to encourage them to voluntarily plant more than the 10 or 20 percent tree canopy required by ordinance.

We also need to look at the existing parking lots and see how we can encourage them to plant more trees and do some better stormwater management.

And the city owns 95 acres of trees between Oak Grove Park and the bypass.

We should make sure those are preserved in perpetuity.

A few other things we saw in the plan was a kind of being touched upon in the comp plan also is lighting standards.

The comp plan does talk something good about the need to do something about light pollution.

When you guys approve the Virginia Commerce Park design guidelines in 2022, you actually have some really good design lighting standards in there.

We should be looking at taking those lighting standards and carrying them forward as we go into other plans.

And the last thing is actually mitigating hazards to wildlife, and particularly birds crashing into windows.

Again, the Green Bay Area Plan did put some wording in there about window collisions.

It could have stated that more clearly.

So there are some minor tweaks we could have made to the plan.

I think we have a chance to go into the comp plan to make sure we address some of those.

And also as we do future planning.

So I know you are probably not going to change the comp plan tonight.

I mean the green buyer area plan tonight.

So I think the plan takes us in the right direction.

I am glad to be here to support it.

I think the planning department did excellent work on it.

Uh and the sustainability community and the environmental community will continue to look forward to working with staff and city council to make sure we keep making our city providing a high quality of life, healthy and livable environment for all with clean air and clean water and ecologically vibrant green spaces.

Thank you so much.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

That concludes the speakers.

Thank you, ma'am.

Motion is in order with a version dated May 13, 2025.

Mr.

Smith Move approval.

Thank you, sir.

We have a second.

Second.

Mr.

Whitaker.

Thank you.

Any discussion.

To them first.

If anybody turns their light on before I uh before we go to any other discussion, I did want to uh ask Mr.

McMayer, I think there was the concern about Edenway and Greenbrier.

I believe part of that with that with the increase if there are when there are, or if there are increased density in in housing or retail in that area.

I believe the plan does call for improvements.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

There's uh as as uh the speaker pointed out, traffic was the number one concern that we got when we went out for public engagement.

And the traffic strategy uh specifically within the Greenbrier plan is multifaceted.

Um I do want to take a moment to introduce the team that is here.

So I have got Nat McCormick, who is our project manager from the city side.

We also have Devin Simpson who is here from Kimley Horn, who is our project manager uh from the consulting side as well.

So I'll take my first swing at this question, and then if there's anything to add from either of them, I'd I'd like to invite them to speak as well.

But uh you are absolutely correct that when we look at uh traffic in this area, particularly with Eden and Volvo and Greenbrier and Battlefield, uh, you know, more connections are absolutely necessary.

There are certain intersections that need improvements, uh, you know, particularly at the battlefield and uh Volvo intersection.

Uh but there's another piece that goes with this as well.

When we start mixing uses, the paradigm changes.

Uh so right now what we have with Greenbrier is a a place in our city that is a powerhouse, but it is a there is a separation of uses.

So everyone goes into Greenbrier at the same time and everyone leaves Greenbrier at the same time.

So we're talking about uh a lot of stress on our system where people are all in uh going in and leaving at the same time.

When you start mixing uses, a lot of that uh that that changes.

So there's this uh this concept of internal capture, uh, which Ms.

Simpson can certainly explain a little bit better.

But when we start mixing the uses, you start having less need to move in and out of the area, which allows you to use a lot of the side streets.

And one thing that the the plan does uh extensively is establish a gridded network that provides redundant routes throughout the area.

So if there is congestion on one area, there is alternative routes where people can go uh to get to the same place uh by using different streets.

Another aspect of this is certainly the transit component.

And uh, you know, I I think you know, we've we've said extensively, you know, HRT provides good service uh to many areas within our region, but uh Chesapeake is certainly a challenge uh based on our density.

Uh there's a lot of uh of uh area to cover and there's a lack of of consistent timing.

So a lot of times uh the use the the users of our system are dependent on that system and not necessarily choice users because uh ride times may be an hour in between a bus.

So in an area like this where you have density, you can create local circulation where uh you can actually provide that service as a much higher frequency uh that certainly helps out.

Another component of this was also was the pedestrian and the bicycling uh and the ability to get around the the area as well.

And you'll see from our within the plan that there is an extensive uh emphasis on providing those connections throughout the area.

So I'd like to invite for just a moment, Devin, do you have anything to add uh with regards to the traffic question?

Sure.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Good evening.

Um, Jimmy covered a lot of it and he did a great job with that.

One of the other things that I'll mention to address McNick, Ms.

Nichols' comment is some of the short-term improvements that we have in the plan.

So one of those is access management improvements along Greenbrier Parkway.

So we understand that between the interstate and between Volvo Parkway, you have a lot of density, you have a lot of traffic, and they we saw a lot of opportunity for some access management improvements to get to reduce congestion in that area.

Um then longer term things that Jimmy had already mentioned are getting more of a block structure in there, getting more connectivity, and that will reduce trip length.

People will be able to use back streets and cut throughs instead of having to go out on Green Bark Parkway and Volfo Parkway for where everywhere that they're trying to get.

So those are some of the other things.

Um and then from a policy standpoint, um, just adopting this plan won't make it policy, but one of the policy recommendations that we have in the plan for you all to potentially implement is transportation impact fees, um, which would then go to improve transportation improvements within the study area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh any other discussion on this item.

Shredder?

I guess it's left to me.

I know Mr.

Price is really looking forward to this.

I'm sure you are too, Mr.

McNamara.

I would like to say, I know that a ton of work and effort has gone into this.

And your whole team is to be congratulated on the presentation of how many pages to us, 300 that we got Thursday?

And um I appreciated the weekend full of work to read it.

So I'm sure it doesn't come as much of a surprise to you that I just can't support this.

And I haven't supported any of the small area plants with the exception of the water front study, which truly was very deserving of all the awards that you got.

And maybe I know this isn't a word somebody sitting up here should use.

I'm a little bit of a geek on this stuff.

And I've been here a long, long time.

And I have watched plan after plan that proceeds only in some areas.

So I'm gonna take you back to my favorite one.

Can you guess what that is?

Does it start with a D?

It could be the Dominion Plan.

So when that was approved, uh I'll go back even further to the early days of my service when we developed the transportation overlay district, which was to preserve main arteries for economic development.

And then came the Dominion.

I'm going to try to truncate this.

Then came the Dominion Plan.

It sort of tossed the transportation corridor plan out the window with the exception of design guidelines.

But that area was supposed to be for commercial and industrial, you know, economic development.

How many economic development facilities, if I might ask, have we gotten there?

I'll start by saying it's it's a complicated answer to the question.

Um what we have seen is that there has been preservation of a lot of the acreage that's associated with some of the developments that's been set aside for commercial purposes in the future as the market does develop.

In particular, I know the plan, you know, sets out that we understand that a lot of the residential will come first, but there is absolutely an emphasis on keeping that balance, which a lot of uh staff's recommendations have been based on keeping that balance with the different uses that have showed up.

I appreciate that answer.

How many actual applications have we gotten?

Are we speaking for industrial uses or commercial, industrial?

It's specifically on one use, not any.

But usually what we are seeing is a balance of you know portion of the property being used for commercial type uses and the other piece being used for residential.

Okay, and um we've had how many acres of residential?

I do not know the answer.

Everything from apartments to a few single family, correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

And in that policy, there was in the Dominion plan, there were six recommended policies to make the plan a success.

And that's probably due to councils in action, but we haven't been able to do one of those policies.

Is that correct?

I don't know specifically which policies you are speaking of.

Okay, right in the beginning of the plan, it outlined six policies that will make the plan a success.

And we haven't been you all have been at the mercy of every individual application to try to develop those policies.

Connectivity, open space, correct?

Is that a Yes, ma'am?

We we certainly evaluate each application to make sure it is consistent with the policies.

Okay.

So coming back to this, I I kind of see the same thing.

I I see a heavy, very heavy concentration of urban type development, which I understand is the flavor of the day.

But I've read so I I want to keep this brief.

I don't want to bore people.

Um I've read a stack you were kind enough to give me printed out of all the comments, and I followed all the comments.

I I didn't see that this has captured the imagination of the public.

I I think it is pointed out, traffic is a huge issue.

And I think the public's kind of, I mean, our people are really a little bit fed up with pl always playing catch-up.

My understanding you don't want to do everything ahead, but it's almost like a hard cycle to live through.

And I know that you have other things coming, but when we talk about developing a grid of side streets, then you have, I mean, I we live in the world of reality.

You have neighbors who come and they don't want their neighborhoods connected.

And then we're put in the middle of those controversies.

You can put all the signs up you want, you can make every great intelligent argument about why we need to do this, but the people who live there don't want that.

And then the council is in the middle of that decision.

I usually see us go with the neighbors.

And then that cuts off part of the solution.

So there are, I agree with um, Mr.

Ross, there's some really good pieces in here.

And I I think their other the area of independence where that office park is, it is a very plus piece of this.

But as long as the focus is developing urban areas for living, I think we could run into a significant issue with that and being able to provide what we need.

I do want to say to people who are listening.

Roads are super important to people.

They really have taken the top point in what our citizens are concerned about is traffic.

And I will say for the Greenbrier Schools and Indian River High School, they have plenty of capacity.

And it's my understanding, the schools have now moved their teacher store into Greenbrier Middle School.

So there's plenty of capacity for the schools, and I congratulate everyone on that.

Is there capacity on the roadway?

I don't know.

And that is, you know, that's a concern.

And I think I would love to see the public more on board.

So I I think you have done good work.

This is a tremendous amount of work.

I don't want to be overly critical of the work you have done.

I just can't buy in.

So thank you very much for listening.

Sorry, folks, that's my usual concern about the future and what the taxpayers are willing to bear secondarily to Mr.

Price.

I think this will pass.

Yes, two minutes.

That's fine.

Um since everybody else is using up their time.

I think we need to take a serious look at the boundaries of the tax increment finance district, where it might be beneficial if we need to provide this infrastructure.

Much of that, the what's coming in now is encumbered and planned for.

So are there places you and the staff would recommend that that area be expanded?

Um that would go a long way towards helping provide.

I know Ms.

Nichols is here, she discusses this all the time, but she does not live within the tax increment finance area.

The housing area, which is what is that, east of Greenbar Parkway, or is it north?

I don't know, I'm not good at direction.

I'm going to turn right at 71.

Um that area is mostly residential.

And going back pre-me, the business and industrial growth in Greenbar exceeded what was anticipated.

And that's all on the other side of the parkway.

So I hope that we can consider paying more attention to job creation and less attention to such high density.

One more quickie in 30 seconds.

Sorry I'm boring.

Um, is looking at your watch, you made me forget.

But I think it was important, but I'll tell you all later.

Thank you.

Any other discussion on this topic?

Mr.

Bond.

Thank you, Mayor West.

Um I definitely agree with um Councilmember Debbie Ritter on the road issues.

That's definitely a big concern of, I think, all of us.

Um the question I have for the manager, though, if we were to adopt this tonight, um, how can changes be made in the future?

Or can changes be made in the future?

So uh it's an excellent question.

So tonight is just the policy framework for the vision of what you would want to see in the future of Greenbrier, but there's still a lot of work to be done to make that happen.

So without you know, belaboring some of the things we talked about before, think about things like the transfer of development rights, which will be the most powerful tool that you have to preserve um uh rural Chesapeake.

That's one tool that we will link up with this.

Um we've talked about the transportation network.

Um, you have access to TIFF funds for the transportation network and possibly a transportation impact fee, which would be another policy that we would bring forward for council's consideration.

So if you got to the point in the future, either during the overall comp plan process or as we're bringing you these effectuating ordinances that you felt like you know what, we're we're not on the right track, we're you know, we're not gonna be able to finance this.

You have you have the ability at any time to initiate us to take another look to see if if we can tweak this.

So this is a big picture policy that will help us get to work on the tools to effectuate.

So financing traffic improvements, making sure we have the right um traffic improvements in the right location, but without that vision, we're never going to get started.

Thank you.

Mr.

Bond, did that?

Ms.

Newlands?

I just wanted to clarify since this has come up a couple times, the transportation impact fees.

Uh Mr.

Manager, just for the public's knowledge, because Ms.

Ritter did indicate this is a big report, so it's going to be hard for them to find what are we talking about fees?

Those are fees that the city would consider imposing on potentially developers who are wanting to develop in Greenbrier, and that could be used to build up the infrastructure.

So it takes the burden off the taxpayer and puts it on the developer to build the infrastructure.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Redder?

Just using up my last few seconds.

I don't want people to go away thinking transportation impact fees are easy.

It's a very high bar to be able to have those.

Virginia does not allow impact fees unless they come through the subdivision ordinance or there is an avenue that was approved by the General Assembly.

I think only Stafford has used that, Mr.

Manager, or Spotsylvania.

I'm not sure if it is going to be.

But it is a huge bar.

So I don't want people to go away thinking we can snap our fingers and have an impact fee.

Thank you, Mr.

We cannot.

And the TDRs.

I would like to take a look, Mr.

McNamara, at looking at reducing what is allowed now in density so that we can compensate with the TDRs.

Any other discussion from council members on this item?

Mr.

McNameyer.

The summit point is a mixed use development.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And has traffic, I mean, it seems to me that that hasn't created any traffic problems.

And could you explain maybe why?

Well, a lot of it goes back to the mixed-use nature and the initial vision of Summit Point, which was to create a place for Dollar Tree employees to be able to live and work in the same area.

Now, certainly there are issues when you get to Volvo at 5 o'clock.

You know, that's that's something that uh you know is notoriously an issue.

Um but I would say that you know, when you look at things here, particularly at Summit Point with about 1,400 units that are on the ground now, that it it there are a lot of self-contained trips that do occur within that development.

So to the manager's point, if there were another going about this, we would adopt this, and the proposal comes about, and uh we would have an opportunity to see if that's successful in accomplishing our goals.

Is that correct?

Thank you, yes, sir.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, we do have a motion for approval and second.

Uh please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

And Madam Clerk, please record motion to approve PLN Comp 2025-002, version dated May 13th, 2025, as presented, is adopted by six to one vote.

Thank you.

Would you please prepare uh present the next item?

PLN REZ 2025-006, Unit 3 Hotel Proffer Modification.

Halifax Holdings Inc.

applicant, R and J Motel Management Inc.

owner, Michael G.

Sweeney, agent, for proffer modification request to develop the property with a hotel chain not recognized as mid-scale on the Smith Travel Research STR chain scales for North America and the Caribbean.

The property is located at 1664 Devon Avenue in the River Crest Planning Area.

The planning commission recommends approval with the proffers listed in the official agenda.

Thank you.

Mr.

McNamara, the proposed proffer modification will not affect the project's consistency with the comprehensive plan as the use will remain the same and the quality and value of the products will not be reduced while providing additional architectural control over the site.

Staff recommends approval.

And we do have a speaker's sir.

We have one speaker, Mr.

Michael Swainy.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor.

Michael Sweeney, attorney, agent for the applicant.

My business address is 1105 Madison Plaza, suite 120 in the beautiful city of Chesapeake.

Today I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

The applicant is Halifax.

I just wanted to share some information with City Council tonight.

Halifax is a nationwide operator, really a worldwide operator in the hospitality industry.

It manages over 87,000 rooms worldwide, and it manages over 450 hotels around the world.

Halifax has identified Chesapeake as a place where they would like to do business in a place where they would like to make an investment.

The investment in this hotel would be approximately 11,500,000.

During construction, it would employ approximately 100 employees.

Once the hotel opens, then it would employ somewhere between 10, 15, maybe as many as 20 jobs for the City of Chesapeake.

They have also this hotel is called Stay Wright Hotel.

And this hotel is being built across the country, but it will be new, and there are 20 new stay right hotels being constructed across the country, one in Suffolk as well.

Today I'd like to introduce our team.

Today we have Mr.

Ray Patel with us.

Mr.

Patel is sitting right here.

He's the owner of the property.

We have the contract owner, which is Jennifer Tedrick of Highgate and Halifax.

She has a very interesting background.

She was with a planning department during her career, and now she's in the entitlement field working for Highgate Halifax.

A little bit more information about this project, if I may.

The economic impact of the project.

Again, I know I I talk about this a lot, but hotels contribute to the tax space of the city.

In this case, we have the $2 room tax, which it's contributing, as well as the 8% tax, sales tax, and the 1% tax, not to mention the real estate taxes, personal property taxes, as well as the state taxes that it contributes.

These taxes can be used for roads, schools, parks, and I would say this is a great investment, and I'm glad to see that uh a business such as this is willing to make this wise investment here in the city of Chesapeake.

Um I believe that's all the information I can share.

But I do thank each and every one of you, and I would ask that you'd vote in favor of this application.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Swain.

Motion is in order with proffers.

Move approval with proffers.

Thank you, Mr.

Second.

Thank you, Mr.

Whitaker.

Any discussion?

Just an inquiry.

Isn't this just a proper modification?

It is.

So it's not approving an application, but the modification is the same.

That is correct.

Thank you.

Any other discussion questions?

Mr.

Bower.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor West.

What is the flagged flag?

Is it a Hilton property, the Amerriot?

Do you know do you know because I never heard of Highgate before?

Just out of curiosity, just wondering.

Thank you for that question, Councilman Bunn.

Um Halifax Highgate, they're a worldwide company.

Um they have all brands.

Um they would have Hilton brands, they would have Marriott brands.

In this case, it's a brand new brand that they've created themselves.

Uh we worked with um Mr.

McCormick, Nate McCormick.

We worked with the city with regard to the design.

And um, this is a brand new design and a brand new hotel.

Um, as I mentioned earlier, um, one is being constructed in Suffolk, and one will be here.

Um it's their own unique brand.

Thank you so much.

Any other discussion from council members?

Council members, please prepare to vote.

Please vote and record.

Motion to approve PLN R E Z-2025-006 with profers as presented is adopted by a 7-0 vote.

Thank you.

Next item, please.

PLN REZ 2025-007, Hubbard Farm.

Owen Hubbard applicant, Benjamin and Mary Hubbard, owners for a zoning reclassification of approximately 22 acres of a portion of an 84-acre property from RE1 residential to A1 agricultural.

The property is located at 4216 Ballahack Road in the Southern Chesapeake planning area.

The planning commission recommends approval.

Thank you.

And do we have a uh Mr.

McMayer, would you please?

The proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan land use section and is appropriate in terms of size access and is therefore compatible with the surrounding development pattern and land uses and will result in no more than five residential lots.

Staff recommends approval.

Thank you.

And do we have any speakers?

Benjamin Hubbard is here for questions only.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Hubbard.

You just are here for questions.

If so, I'll answer any questions concerning rezoning questions.

Yes, sir.

Could you hit your microphone, sir?

Can you hit that microphone if you're going to speak on it?

There's a little button there to turn you on.

There you go.

All right.

Ben Hubbard of 5276 Shenstone Circle, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

I've owned the property for 40 years.

And I'm requesting rezoning because the 82 acres are used as farmland.

70 acres are open.

The balance is in woods, paths that support the farming operation.

Same farmers has farmed it for all these years, but 22 acres of it are happen to be zoned RE1.

I didn't request that.

I have I bought it that way.

And because it has a minority portion of it zoned, a different zoning from agricultural, it doesn't fit into the city's rules for property to benefit agricultural property or to the responsibilities of having agricultural property.

I want to change it all.

So the one tract is all agricultural property.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate you.

Yes.

Motion, please.

Move.

One more speaker.

Sorry, we have one more speaker.

Oh, I thought you said we'll only have a seat.

Thank you, sir.

I'm pretty sure I can speak for the over 1,600 people on Stop Developing Southern Chesapeake.

You know who I'm referring to.

That would dearly love to see this.

So we're hoping very much that you will approve that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Move approval.

Thank you.

Dr.

Ward.

Second.

Second.

Mr.

Whitaker.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

And record.

Madam Clerk.

Motion to approve PLN REZ 2025-007 as presented is adopted by a 7-0 vote.

Next item.

PLN Use 2025-017.

Ms.

G's kids in home child care.

Gilabona Williams applicant Cornelius and Giloba Williams owners for a conditional use permit to operate a child daycare as a level two home occupation.

The property is located at 2702 Anna Maria Way in the Camelot Planning Area.

The planning commission recommends approval with the stipulation listed in the official agenda.

Mr.

McMayre.

As stipulated, the proposal is consistent with the 2035 comprehensive plan quality of life section as it provides a valuable service to the community.

Staff recommends approval with stipulations.

Thank you.

Do we have any speakers?

Yes, sir.

We have one speaker, Adrian Shaw.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Adrian Shaw.

I want to express my strong support for Miss G's daycare in Chesapeake.

From the very first day my wife and I met her, my daughter, who is usually very selective with new people, immediately connected with Ms.

G.

That trust and comfort have only grown over the years.

She started with Ms.

G as an infant and is now eight years old.

Right here.

She gets occasional drop-in care.

Ms.

G provides a safe, clean, and welcoming home filled with love, structure, and learning.

I have peace of mind knowing my child is not only cared for, but also engaged in fun educational and new nurturing activities that support her growth.

Ms.

G has proven herself to be dedicated, professional, and truly gifted in her ability to care for children.

I wholeheartedly urge you to approve her request for licensure so more families in our community can benefit from the exceptional care she provides.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Motion please.

Move approval.

Mr.

Bunn.

Second.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dr.

Ward.

Any discussion?

Dr.

Ward?

No.

Any other any discussion from council members?

Please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

And Madam Clerk, please record.

Motion to approve PL un use 2025-017 with stipulations as presented is adopted by a 7-0 vote.

Thank you.

Please present next item.

PLN use 2025-020.

Ms.

Ties House.

Ms.

Ties House, FFC, excuse me, FCC L L C applicant.

Tyler Singleton, owner, for conditional use permit to operate a child daycare as a level two home occupation.

The property is located at 3402 Cricket Hollow Lane in the Western Branch Planning Area.

The planning commission recommends approval with the stipulations listed in the official agenda.

Mr.

McNamair.

The proposed conditional use is consistent with the quality of life section of the comp plan and it provides a valuable service to the community.

Staff recommends approval.

Thank you.

Any speakers, Madam Clerk?

No, sir.

Motion, please, with uh with stipulations.

Move to approve a stipulation.

Thank you, Mr.

Bond.

Second.

Thank you, Dr.

Ward.

Any discussion.

Please prepare to vote.

Please vote and record.

Motion to approve PLN use 2025-020 with stipulations as presented as adopted by a 7-0 vote.

Next item, please.

PLN Text 2025-005, urban overlay density.

An ordinance amending appendix A of the City Code and Title Zoning, Article 5, Sections 5-502 and 800 to increase the permitted density in the urban overlay district.

The Planning Commission recommends approval with version dated May 22nd, 2025.

Mr.

McNameyer.

The proposed increase in density for single family residential development in the urban overlay is consistent with the established development pattern of the area and will align with the dimensional requirements and with the minimum lot size of R 6 zoning district and will encourage infill development within the South Norfolk Business Overlay District.

Staff recommends approval.

Thank you, sir.

Any speakers, Madam Clerk?

Yes, sir.

We have two speakers.

The first speaker is Vic Nichols, followed by Marquille Moore.

The urban overlay district includes part of Greenbrier.

And what I would want to see is guarantees that we are not going to get overdeveloped because this is actually asking for more development in the urban area.

And really, that's the last thing Green Bar needs right now.

If the number one issue people keep telling you is traffic, then that means we have too many people, not enough roads, the infrastructure is an issue.

We need to get that resolved.

If you're going to deal with the other areas, that's fine.

But there is so much change going on right now.

We really need to take a look at what's going on and figure out from there, this is not going to help it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mark Hila Moore.

Good evening.

My name is Markila Moore, and I live in the Washington borough.

And I am against the proposed text change because I could not figure out why it's for the entire urban overlay.

The justification to increase density, all of the reasons appear to be pertaining to the South Norfolk area.

I mean, it appears that if we continue using the tradition of two 25 by 100 foot lots, we would not need to increase the density requirement.

In any event, you know, there doesn't seem to be a reason to include the entire urban overlay, and I'm hoping that that part of it can be rethought.

How does it impact this?

I think it would be important for us to see what recommendations pertain to South Norfolk as a result of that waterfront study, so that we perhaps will not have uh conflicting text changes.

We want to ensure that text changes align with the broader vision laid out in the study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

McNair, would you please address the question about more development or more density in regarding to this uh ordinance?

Yes, sir.

So with regards to why it pertains to the entire urban overlay, the zoning ordinance breaks the city down into three overlay districts, the rural, the suburban, and the urban.

The code that uh that discusses the single-family density requirement is found in the urban overlay portion of it, which restricts it to seven dwelling units to the acre at the moment.

Uh so when we do math here with regards to the amount of acreage and the density within that acreage, when we look at an R6 or an RSFA uh zoning designation, the lot characteristics, so the size of the lots that are permitted is more than that of the seven that seven restriction of seven dwelling units per acre that is allowed in the code at the moment.

So, in essence, what we have here is a we can allow these lots, but we can't allow them to be developed on.

This will not have any additional impact on property that is not zoned for R6 or RSFA as it is already, and a lot of those lots are already platted.

So those lots that are already platted, uh this will not impact them either because they already have the development potential on them.

This is really looking at new development, so anything that has to come before council.

So we're talking about rezonings or a conditional use permit within the South Norfolk Business Overlay District or any future subdivisions.

But in regards to uh uh uh unmitigated uh density within other areas, it it is really curtailed specifically to uh any new action that would be required by city council.

So there there are protections in place so that uh this the impact of this will be really uh targeted towards only specific uh discretionary actions.

Thank you for that clarification.

Our motion is in order with the version dated May 22nd, 2025.

Move approval.

Thank you, Mr.

Whitaker.

We have a second, please.

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Newens.

Any discussion?

No discussion.

Please prepare to vote.

We have a motion for approval.

Please prepare to vote.

Please vote and record.

Motion to approve PL and text 2025-005, version dated May 22nd, 2025 as presented is adopted by a 5-2 vote.

Next is council's consideration of non-planning public hearing items.

Madam Clerk, would you please present item G.

An appeal by Lee Hicks of the decision by the Chesapeake Historic and Architectural Review Board to deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness at 1332 Stewart Street?

Thank you.

Mr.

McNamara.

If I may, Mr.

Mayor, uh just to give a brief overview of this item.

We uh staff has begun uh making recommendations uh to the Historic and Architectural Review Board when it comes to these applications based on the passage of the South Norfolk Business, excuse me, the South Norfolk Design Guidelines.

Um we had previously recommended approval of this request.

Uh it went before the board and uh was subsequently uh denied.

Since that time, there have been uh there's been a substantial amount of conversation between the board members uh discussing solar panels in uh at length.

Um at this time, I believe the and I'll let the board speak for themselves, but staff would be recommending uh that this be remanded back to the HARB board so that they can further deliberate this item.

Uh the next scheduled meeting, I believe, is September 3rd.

Uh so that we this is a pretty quick turnaround, and we we feel confident that we could have a package ready for the HARB to consider at that time.

Uh motion, Mr.

Whitaker.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I'd uh uh I would like to have this remanded back to the HARP for further consideration.

So the motion is remand back to our thank you.

You have a second, please?

Second.

Thank you, Mr.

Vine.

Any discussion?

Say none, please prepare to vote.

Please vote and record.

Motion to remand the item back to the HARP for a meeting on September the third, stop it by 708.

Thank you.

Uh next is unfinished business.

Council members, do we have any uh unfinished business items?

Seeing none, we'll go to new business.

We have any new business items.

Mr.

Smith.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh, my comments is in reference to the Deep Creek CSEP uh building and also to the former Deep Creek Middle School, these two buildings, as far as those standing and being maintained, are they being maintained by the school system or are they being maintained by the city?

And what can we do to either continue to maintain them or demolish them?

Where do we stand?

So the city maintains them.

They were turned over from the schools to the city several years ago.

Um city maintains them.

The planning department right now is working on a Deep Creek Village plan, um, and we've solicited comments from the community, and Jimmy correct me if I'm wrong.

But um, and there's a variety of perspectives.

There's people in the community that think that absolutely they should remain, you know, they're part of a part of the village, they should remain and be reused for some other purpose, and and then other folks in the community that think they absolutely should be torn down and it couldn't happen quickly enough.

And so um, as planning is tracking through that process, we'll be making recommendations to council for the future of those facilities.

Um that being said, we have uh we received some citizen comments recently, and we've stepped up um uh cleaning up the site, uh mowing the site, and we're installing cameras and signage um to pursue um you know charges against people that are illegally dumping on the site.

Thank you.

Mr.

That's that's what is CSAP, correct?

And not the old Deep Creek metal.

Um you're talking about both of the sites right there together in Deep Creek.

Yes, but I'm talking the one for the cleanup and what have you, that's CSAP?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Ms.

Newlands.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, Mr.

Manager, I just wanted to publicly uh thank our fire department for partnering and specifically with McPherson Farms and the Chesapeake Farm Bureau.

Um the McPherson Farms and the Farm Bureau offered a training to our fire department, which I'm sure you're aware of on farm safety, and they got hands-on experience, they got to go to the farm, they got to experience what it's like uh being involved with the grain silo and the dangers that presents.

So uh really appreciate our leadership of Chief Gillisano and being so innovative and having those relationships with our farming community to put those type of trainings on for our department.

So I appreciate your leadership and Mr.

I almost said Sam, the Chief Gillisano's leadership and partnering with those those community members, and thank you to the McPherson Farms and our Chesapeake Farm Bureau for putting that on for our department.

Thank you, Mr.

Dr.

Ward.

Oh, thank you.

I thought Mr.

News was going to speak about the um school site, but because we were there, I mean, well, I go past often, but I just want to make sure I'm thank uh Councilman Smith for bringing that up.

Uh we were there at National Night Out, and um, even though there have been some attempts to, you know, do at least start you know, removing the debris in the trash, but um I would just like to have an update since we because I wasn't sure if we owned it or it was the school system, but uh the community is right.

I mean, it was truly an eye saw, I think uh the things that were done.

Uh and I kind of felt like it was done because National Night Out was gonna have a lot of people there, but the thing about it is it needed to have been done, and it's been really an eye saw for a time.

So thank you, Mr.

Smith for bringing that up.

And could we get an update on progress that's made, uh Mr.

Manager, uh, with that whatever's gonna happen there.

I know we have some concerns about the school, you're right, some about historic preservation of it, but an update, you know, and just keep us informed of what we are able to do uh with those sites.

Since they now belong to the city, not to the school system.

Yes, ma'am.

We dispatched a report a few days ago, I think, on uh where we are right now.

The next report you'll get is um will will be what I mentioned from the the Deep Creek plan, but we'll pay special attention.

It'll be the whole village, but we'll pay special attention to those sites.

Thank you so much, and truly appreciate that.

Any other items?

I would like to take this time up and ask to announce tonight at 7 o'clock.

The SPN ESPNU is uh broadcasting a American Legion Championship World Series and Chesapeake's Post 280 is uh sponsor of this team.

First time in 40 years, the Chesapeake team has had this kind of success.

If they win tonight, they will be the world champions of the American League Senior Baseball first pitch.

So congratulations for getting there and hopefully we will see victory tonight in Chesapeake's name will be in the lights once again.

Any other items council members like to bring on a new business?

Announcements?

Can we get through the war?

Thank you so much, Mr.

Mayor, and thank you for that.

Uh ESPN is going to be bringing uh the first game for North State on the coach Michael Bick, too, on the 28th.

But thank you so very much.

I do want to announce though uh Mr.

Mayor and to the listening audience is that the city uh is engaged in renaming the park uh for the Oha Acres area that uh South West Park and honor of Ms.

Clementine Elliott, who has done so much for Ahaw Acres and for that part of the city, and we are truly excited about this.

It's gonna happen this Saturday, uh August 23rd at 2 p.m.

So we want the audience to know um Clementine has just worked so hard and works so well with us and even when we had the task force this man.

I thank you for that.

I was on that task force along with some other council members, but uh it's truly exciting.

And there'll be a lot of things, yeah.

I know the 23rd, so many things are going on in our city.

But please come out if you can at two.

It's gonna be a health there and down houses and base painting and all kinds of things for the young people too before they go back to school in Chesapeake.

So if you can, please make it.

And because we are not meeting uh prior to the renaming of our own courtyard in honor of the honorable um judge, former judge Aline Olds, uh, in her honor, uh we are asking that we please come out on September 4th uh for that.

I think it's going to be exciting.

Um, she has done so much for our juvenile on domestic court uh for years.

I think the first female and the first African American female.

So please come out and support the renaming of our city part to the Honorable Aline Owls.

And that will be on September the fourth at three PM.

So please come out.

And we have these great ladies and women are making slides, Mr.

Mayor.

I'm proud of them.

Please come out and support.

I'm going to comment on that.

Um, two years ago, or three, I'm getting old, I can't quite remember.

Our grandson Tom played on the post two eighty team, and they also got to the World Series, but not that far.

Tom, I hope is like his grandmother.

He's a pretty unassuming young man, and told us Saturday that his team was full of scrappers.

This team was full of talent.

So we'll keep our and you know, he's uh he's very supportive, and we wish them well and thank Post 280 for all of the work they do with the youth in our community.

Thank you.

Yes.

A motion to conduct a closed meeting to one, consult with the city attorney regarding actual litigation where such consultation in an open meeting would adversely affect the litigation posture of the city council, specifically regarding the opioid litigation.

Two, consult with the city attorney regarding actual litigation, where consultation in an open meeting would adversely affect the litigating posture of the city council, specifically regarding plumber v.

Chapman et al.

And three, discussion or consideration of the investment of public funds where competition or bargaining is involved, where if made public initially, the financial interests of the governmental unit will be adversely affected, specifically regarding a utility proposal in the Southern Chesapeake planning area as permitted by Section 2.2711 A six and seven of the Code of Virginia.

Motion please do approve.

Please vote and record.

Motion to conduct a closed meeting is adopted by a seven oh vote.

Slender, would you please provide the certification of the closed meeting?

A motion is certified that to the best of each member's knowledge.

Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements were discussed.

And only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered.

Father, we thank you for working with us once again and allowing the meeting to go well.

Father, we pray for families across the city and ask you to keep us all out of harm's way.

Until we meet again, Father, we ask for traveling mercies as we travel the mighty roads and highways of our city and state.

Amen.

Council is adjourned at 757.