OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Chesapeake City Council Meeting August 19, 2025: Greenbrier Plan, Hotel Proffer, Rezonings, & Child Care Approvals

City Council — Tuesday, August 19, 2025
BodyChesapeake, Virginia
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, August 19, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:55:21

Transcript — Verbatim
0:38

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

0:41

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

0:48

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

0:57

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.

1:37

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

1:47

Uh Ms.

1:48

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

1:53

I think I made this suggestion previously.

1:57

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

2:07

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

2:16

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.

2:31

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

2:40

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.

3:08

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.

3:32

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

3:40

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

3:43

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.

4:09

They might have brought children.

4:12

Um there are all sorts of reasons.

4:14

People tune out from home.

4:17

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.

4:28

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.

4:45

They get 10 minutes, is that correct?

4:48

That is correct.

4:49

And every other speaker five.

4:51

Correct.

4:52

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

4:55

That's a good starting point.

4:58

Any thoughts on Dr.

5:00

Dr.

5:00

Ward?

5:00

Yeah.

5:01

My concern, because we have had this discussion before.

5:06

My concern is the applicants getting 10 minutes.

5:12

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.

5:26

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.

5:51

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

5:54

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

6:00

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

6:04

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

6:09

Right.

6:09

And they were fine with that.

6:11

Yeah.

6:11

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

6:15

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

6:18

Yeah.

6:19

I agree.

6:20

Uh, one applicant representative.

6:22

Let me go to Mr.

6:22

Bunn.

6:23

Got a light on.

6:24

Mr.

6:25

Bunn.

6:25

Oh, thank you, Mayor West.

6:27

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

6:33

And I have other questions after that.

6:34

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

6:37

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

6:42

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.

6:58

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.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural█████████████████████████████████████████████52%
Pending Litigation████████████14%
Transportation Safety███████8%
Land Use and Zoning███████8%
Public Engagement███4%
Community Engagement███4%
Economic Development███3%
Historic Preservation███3%
Environmental Protection██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Chesapeake City Council Meeting August 19, 2025

The Chesapeake City Council held a regular meeting on August 19, 2025, convening at 6:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chamber. The meeting began with an invocation and Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Les Smith, Jr., followed by roll call. Seven members were present; Vice Mayor John M. de Triquet and Council Member Patricia Y. “Pat” King were excused. The council approved the agenda and minutes, then proceeded through a series of public hearings and business items, including adoption of the Greenbrier Area Plan, a hotel proffer modification, a rezoning to agricultural, two child care conditional use permits, a zoning text amendment to increase density in the urban overlay district, and an appeal remand. The meeting concluded with a closed session at 7:34 PM, reconvening at 7:55 PM, and adjourning at 7:57 PM.

Consent Calendar

  • None identified. The meeting did not have a separate consent calendar; all items were handled individually.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Vic Nicholls (representing self, Greenbrier Property Owners Association resident): Expressed concerns about traffic congestion at Eden Way and Greenbrier Parkway, stating that the Greenbrier Area Plan does not adequately address traffic issues. He noted that turning right from Eden Way onto Greenbrier Parkway is blocked for 22–30 seconds of each light cycle, and that left turns from Eden Way onto Volvo Parkway are a “disaster” due to cut-through traffic. He argued that increasing density without road improvements would worsen conditions and hinder emergency response. He also criticized the plan for promoting density without guaranteeing road capacity.
  • Rogard Ross (representing self): Spoke in support of the Greenbrier Area Plan, praising its focus on sustainable, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods. However, he expressed concern about tree loss—81 acres of trees lost between 2018 and 2023, dropping tree canopy from 29.5% to 28.4%—and warned of up to 300 more acres of trees lost if 360 forested parcels are developed. He advocated for stronger tree preservation, better lighting standards (citing the Virginia Commerce Park design guidelines), and mitigation of bird-window collisions. He concluded that the plan is a positive step but needs environmental safeguards.
  • Mike Sweeney (attorney representing applicant, Halifax Holdings, Inc.): Spoke in support of the Unit 3 Hotel Proffer Modification. He stated that Halifax is a worldwide operator managing over 87,000 rooms and 450 hotels. The proposed Stay Right Hotel at 1664 Debaun Avenue (Unit 3, Debaun Plaza) represents an $11.5 million investment, would employ about 100 people during construction and 10–20 permanent jobs. He highlighted that the hotel would generate various taxes, including a $2 room tax, 8% sales tax, and 1% tax.
  • Benjamin Hubbard (owner, representing self): Spoke in support of the Hubbard Farm rezoning, explaining that he has owned the 84-acre farm for 40 years and seeks to rezone 22 acres from RE-1 to A-1 to make the entire tract agricultural, which would better fit city rules for agricultural property benefits.
  • Vic Nicholls (second instance): Expressed support for the Hubbard Farm rezoning, stating he speaks for the over 1,600 members of “Stop Developing Southern Chesapeake” who want this change.
  • Adrian Shaw (representing self): Spoke in strong support of Mrs. G’z Kidz In-home Childcare (PLN-USE-2025-017). He stated that his daughter, now eight, began care with Ms. G as an infant and receives occasional drop-in care in a safe, clean, educational environment.
  • Vic Nicholls (third instance): Opposed the Urban Overlay Density text amendment (PLN-TXT-2025-005), arguing it would allow more development in areas where traffic is already a number-one concern and that infrastructure is not ready.
  • Markiella Moore (representing self): Opposed the Urban Overlay Density text amendment, questioning why it applies citywide rather than solely to South Norfolk. She argued that existing 25×100 foot lots don’t require increased density and that changes should align with the South Norfolk Waterfront Study to avoid conflicting policies.

Discussion Items

  • Greenbrier Area Plan (PLN-COMP-2025-002): The resolution to adopt the Greenbrier Area Plan and Design Guidelines was continued from July 15, 2025. Planning Director James McNamara, Community Design Manager Nat McCormick, and Kimley-Horn project manager Devin Simpson presented. They explained that the plan includes traffic improvements, a gridded network, access management, transportation impact fees, and a mix of uses to reduce trips. Council Member S. Z. “Debbie” Ritter spoke against the plan, citing concerns about heavy urban concentration, traffic issues, and lack of public support. Council Member C. Jeff Bunn and City Manager Christopher Price discussed future amendment options. The plan passed 6–1 (Ritter dissenting).
  • Unit 3 Hotel Proffer Modification (PLN-REZ-2025-006): A proffer modification to allow a hotel brand not listed as “Midscale” on STR Chain Scales. Staff and planning commission recommended approval with proffers. Council Member Newins moved approval; Council Member Bunn asked the applicant about the brand, learning it is a new brand created by Halifax/Highgate. Unanimously approved (7–0).
  • Hubbard Farm Rezoning (PLN-REZ-2025-007): Reclassification of 22 acres from RE-1 to A-1 Agricultural. No discussion. Unanimously approved (7–0).
  • Mrs. G’z Kidz In-home Childcare (PLN-USE-2025-017): Conditional use permit for Level II Home Occupation child day care at 2702 Anna Maria Way. No discussion. Unanimously approved (7–0).
  • Ms. Ty’s House (PLN-USE-2025-020): Conditional use permit for Level II Home Occupation child day care at 3402 Cricket Hollow Lane. No discussion. Unanimously approved (7–0).
  • Urban Overlay Density Text Amendment (PLN-TXT-2025-005): Ordinance to increase permitted density in the urban overlay district (from 7 dwelling units per acre to match R-6 districts). Planning Director McNamara explained the change targets lots already zoned R-6 or RSFA but restricted by the urban overlay, and only affects new discretionary actions (rezonings, conditional use permits). Council Members Ritter and Ward voted no. Passed 5–2.
  • Appeal of HARB Denial (Non-Planning Item G): Lee Hicks appealed the Historic and Architectural Review Board’s denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for solar panels at 1332 Stewart Street. Staff recommended remand. Council Member Whitaker moved to remand to HARB for its September 4, 2025 meeting. Unanimously approved (7–0).
  • Work Session (5:00 PM): The council discussed proposed rule changes to speaker time limits. They agreed to a tiered system: for up to 10 total speakers, the principal applicant receives 10 minutes, others 5 minutes; for 11–16 speakers, principal applicant receives 7 minutes, others 3 minutes; for 17+ speakers, principal applicant receives 5 minutes, others 2 minutes. The city manager was directed to research deadlines for continuance requests and when items are “ripe” for council.
  • New Business: Council Member Smith inquired about maintenance of the Deep Creek SECEP building and former Deep Creek Middle School; City Manager Price said the city maintains them and a Deep Creek Village plan will make recommendations. Council Member Ward requested updates on cleanup progress. Council Member Newins thanked McPherson Farms and Chesapeake Farm Bureau for agricultural safety training. Mayor West announced the American Legion World Series featuring Chesapeake Post 280 (first time in 40 years). Council Member Ritter thanked the American Legion. Community events were announced: renaming of Southwest Park in honor of Clementine Elliott on August 23, and renaming of the City Hall courtyard in honor of former Judge Aline Olds on September 4.
  • Closed Meeting (7:34 PM – 7:55 PM): Council conducted a closed meeting to consult with the city attorney regarding opioid litigation, Plummer v. Chatmon litigation, and a utility proposal in Southern Chesapeake. Certification of compliance with open meeting requirements was approved 7–0.

Key Outcomes

  • Greenbrier Area Plan (PLN-COMP-2025-002): Approved (6–1). The resolution adopts the plan and design guidelines; the official version includes Resolution dated July 8, 2025, the updated Greenbrier Area Plan dated June 2025, and Design Guidelines dated May 7, 2025.
  • Unit 3 Hotel Proffer Modification (PLN-REZ-2025-006): Approved (7–0) with modified proffers dated July 16, 2025.
  • Hubbard Farm Rezoning (PLN-REZ-2025-007): Approved (7–0).
  • Mrs. G’z Kidz In-home Childcare (PLN-USE-2025-017): Approved (7–0) with stipulations.
  • Ms. Ty’s House (PLN-USE-2025-020): Approved (7–0) with stipulations.
  • Urban Overlay Density Text Amendment (PLN-TXT-2025-005): Approved (5–2) version dated May 22, 2025. Council Members Ritter and Ward voted no.
  • Appeal Remand: Approved (7–0) to remand the HARB decision to the September 4, 2025 HARB meeting.
  • Closed Meeting: Approved (7–0) and certified as compliant.
  • Next Steps: The city manager and attorney will research continuance deadline policies and bring recommendations to council. Staff will continue cleanup and security at the SECEP/Deep Creek sites. The council will monitor the implementation of the Greenbrier Area Plan, including potential transportation impact fees and transfer of development rights.

Meeting Transcript

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com