Chesapeake City Council Meeting and Work Session – July 14, 2026
Chesapeake City Council Meeting and Work Session – July 14, 2026
The Chesapeake City Council held a work session at 5:00 PM on data center code and policy, followed by the regular meeting at 6:30 PM. The council approved several routine items, heard public testimony on a range of topics, and provided direction on data center regulations, including a plan to eliminate by-right development and hold additional community input sessions. A resolution to put a hold on discretionary data center applications for up to eight months was proposed and received consensus.
Data Center Code and Policy Work Session
- Presentation by Director McNamara: Staff outlined current vulnerabilities, noting that data centers are currently permitted by right in business, industrial, office/institutional districts, and two overlay districts, exposing over 27,000 parcels within 500 feet of residentially zoned property to potential data center development without public hearing or mitigation. The proposed ordinance would make data centers a conditional use in industrial (M-1 and M-2) districts, with the exception of the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park (by right due to existing PUD criteria). Staff recommended setbacks of 100 feet from residential/agricultural zoning and 500 feet from existing residential structures, and noise limits of 73 DBC daytime / 68 DBC nighttime. The Planning Commission recommended stricter standards: quarter-mile setback from residential/agricultural zoning, half-mile from existing residential structures, and noise limits of 60/55 DBC. Staff analysis indicated those changes would effectively prevent any data center development under current conditions.
- Legal Considerations: City Attorney Lindley stated that a total ban on data centers is not permitted under Virginia's Dillon Rule, but reasonable regulations, including subcategorization, are allowed. A memorandum on moratorium law is being prepared for council.
- Council Discussion: Council members expressed the need for stronger language (changing "should" to "shall" in policies), more public input, and a measured approach. Councilwoman Newens proposed a strategy: (1) proceed with the ordinance in August to close the by-right loophole, but remove the comprehensive plan policy from the August agenda for further community engagement; (2) hold publicly advertised input sessions; (3) place a hold on all discretionary data center applications for up to eight months (or until a policy is adopted). The manager noted that by-right applications (e.g., at Coastal Virginia Commerce Park) could not be blocked by this hold. Council consensus supported this direction.
Consent Calendar
- Approved 9-0 (Ward/Whitaker). Included acknowledgments of upcoming zoning reclassification requests (Dominion West Senior Housing, Townes at Rivercrest, Battlefield Blvd Tattoo Parlor), refunds totaling $98,432.31, and resignations from four city boards.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Public Hearing – Easement Vacation (Non-Planning): Amanda Nesmith, representing the property owner, requested approval to vacate a public utility easement at 512 Battlefield Blvd North, along with a waiver of the associated valuation fee, noting the easement was granted at no cost and no utilities were ever installed. The council approved the ordinance with waiver 8-1 (Newins voted no).
- Public Comments on Agenda Items: Vic Nichols criticized the prevalence of apartment developments, opposed data centers, and questioned the cost of mutual aid agreements. No other speakers.
- Citizens' Comments on Non-Agenda Items (12 speakers, 3 minutes each): Topics included:
- Foster Care Concerns: Stephen and Hayden Malfey alleged retaliation and negligence by Chesapeake Department of Human Services, citing improper car seat use, lack of documentation, and emotional harm to children.
- Data Center Policy (multiple speakers): Several residents urged stronger protections, including zero cooling water discharge, closed-loop systems, mandatory decommissioning bonds, increased setbacks (e.g., three-mile buffers from schools, waterways), and cumulative impact assessments. Public requested removal of Fentress Overlay District from data center siting and consistent regulation across all sites.
- Other Topics: Trash pickup on Byron Street, opposition to LS GreenLink (foreign cable company, only one job posted), and allegations of corruption in Chesapeake courts.
Discussion Items
- Regular Agenda – City Manager Items (all approved 9-0):
- Facilities Use Agreement with Chesapeake Amateur Radio Service, Inc. for emergency communications – approved (Whitaker/Newins). Councilman Smith asked about costs; manager stated no cost to the city.
- Mutual Aid Agreement with Pasquotank County, NC for fire/EMS assistance – approved (Whitaker/Smith). Council discussed regional benefits and mutual aid value; Councilman Jeffries shared personal experience. Fire Chief noted existing mutual aid with surrounding jurisdictions and the Navy.
- Appropriation of $26,748 in state revenue for FY27 CASA grant and establishment of two part-time positions – approved (Ritter/Newins). Manager clarified this is supplemental funding above the already budgeted $99,000.
- Unfinished Business: Councilman Whitaker requested a timeline for repairs on Seaboard Avenue; the manager noted cost savings from a recent policy change to use asphalt. Vice Mayor Ritter requested a fresh look at Deep Creek Bridge traffic issues, suggesting possible enforcement cameras under new state legislation. Dr. Ward highlighted safety hazards from lane changes and pavement breaks on Military Highway.
- New Business: Councilwoman Newens proposed a resolution (to be placed on next week's agenda) to: (1) remove data center comprehensive plan policy from August agenda and conduct additional community input sessions; (2) proceed with the ordinance in August only to eliminate by-right data centers; (3) place a hold on processing discretionary data center applications for up to eight months or until policy is adopted. Council consensus supported this approach. Vice Mayor Ritter requested formation of an agritourism task force, with Councilman Bunn to co-lead; item to be added to the next meeting agenda.
Key Outcomes
- Data Centers: Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for the August meeting that eliminates by-right data center development (making them conditional use in industrial districts), and to schedule community input sessions for the comprehensive plan policy. A hold on discretionary (conditional use and rezoning) data center applications will be implemented for up to eight months or until policy adoption, whichever is sooner. By-right applications (e.g., at Coastal Virginia Commerce Park) cannot be held.
- Agritourism Task Force: To be formed and brought back for council approval; Vice Mayor Ritter and Councilman Bunn to co-lead.
- Closed Meeting (7:49 PM – 8:18 PM): Council conducted a closed session under Va. Code § 2.2-3711(A)(3) to discuss acquisition and conveyance of real property in the Great Bridge Planning Area and the Open Space and Agricultural Preservation (OSAP) program. Certification of compliance was adopted 9-0.
- All recorded votes were unanimous (9-0) except for the easement vacation (8-1).
Meeting Transcript
Welcome everyone to our city council work session, July 14, 2026. Mr. Manager, we have some interesting interesting topic. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So this definitely is an interesting topic. A lot of conversation that's happening out there, not just in Chesapeake, but all around the Commonwealth and really all around the country about data centers. I'm going to turn it over to Director McNamara in a moment, but I will say obviously we've had a long journey with this. As you'll recall from the application, the data center application we had some time ago, Chesapeake is really exposed in our existing ordinances. We have a lot of zoning classifications that allow for buy right data centers. And council asked us to find an appropriate space for data centers in the community, but to make sure that it they're in areas that that won't um won't harm, particularly residential communities, won't really harm any communities, and that we have an opportunity for the public to um provide input when we do have data center applications. So Director McNamara is going to go over um the work that staff has done, um, some recommendations that the planning commission has, and then we'll walk you through uh next step. So, Jimmy. Good evening, everyone, and thank you, Mr. Manager, for your time this evening. Uh data centers are certainly a topic that uh we've heard a lot about and we've engaged with a number of uh of residents, and uh as of last week, uh this this item appeared before planning commission for a recommendation. So as uh the the manager mentioned that we are currently exposed. When we talk about uh buy right uses, and those are uses that can go into place without city council approval. So unlike rezonings and conditional use permits, these do not require city council approval. And as it's currently designated right now, uh data centers are permitted use in the business uh districts, in industrial districts, office and institutional districts, and then our South Norfolk and Great Bridge overlay districts. So we are currently very exposed, and when we say very exposed, uh we talk about buy right sites within 500 feet of residential property, zone property. We have over 27,000 parcels. And what this means is uh a data center could submit a site plan uh and within you know essentially a 45-day period, we would review that site plan for compliance with codes and ordinances, uh, and then it would go into place. And this is in place with no mitigation measures, no analysis as far as uh the impacts to the to the adjacent root neighborhood or any residential structures nearby. So we are currently uh very exposed. With the proposed ordinance that is uh recommended by staff. We go from by right development potential on the left, uh, where you see all the green uh the our buy right uh parcels at this time to the right, which is basically the Coastal Virginia Commerce Park as is as those are a permitted uh data centers are permitted use uh as per the development criteria that was adopted with that rezoning. So we go from the exposure of over 27,000 uh residentially zoned parcels within 500 feet of a data center down to zero. With the proposal, uh what's recommended is and this is the staff recommendation is making this a conditional use in our industrial districts, and that's the M1 and M2 uh districts. And this means that data centers require a public hearing before planning commission and city council for every single one of them, with the exception of the coastal Virginia Commerce Park, which is the only place that those would be a by right use. But everywhere else we would have the ability to require a conditional use permit, uh and that would allow us to look at these on a case-by-case basis and determine appropriateness uh as far as compatibility and uh the the use itself. Now, what's before you there are two components. The first component is the city zoning ordinance text amendment, and this is used to establish requirements. So we're talking things like minimum setbacks, height, uh the application submission materials such as uh sound studies, uh visual impact, those types of things. And these are required, requir these are these requirements are not flexible. These have to become to have to be uh uh adhered to. The other component is the comprehensive plan policy, and this provides policies and standards related to location and siting, uh, landscaping. Uh it's flexible and allows for advancements and broader interpretation, and and these this is very similar to our solar energy policy, and this helps guide staff's recommendations when we talk about things like you know being appropriately sited. Uh, that's one of the policies in here that talks about appropriate sighting. But what does that look like? You know, you you have the policy that establishes that, and that's and the conditional use permit allows us to look at this on a case-by-case basis. So many of the topics that are discussed within both the ordinance and uh within uh the ordinance also have the companion policy that goes along with them. And one of the first topics that comes up is the topic of noise, and this is you know something that we've heard time and time again uh as part of our research uh with with with both uh other ordinances as well with uh with talking with other localities. Uh and this establishes standards for the DBA, uh, which is the higher frequency audible uh sound that we that we typically regulate within our city code, and it establishes a new DBC range, which is that lower frequency rumble, which is typically associated with uh data centers. Uh this is a a much uh a much different sound wave that uh our city ordinance right now does not regulate. So what is being recommended is the uh by staff is the daytime rate of 73 DBC and the nighttime rate of 68 DBC. Uh these numbers are not random, uh they were polled specifically uh by uh uh Prince William County in particular up in Northern Virginia, who did an extensive study over multiple years, uh hired uh you know some of the best uh sound tech uh uh uh experts to determine uh what noise was appropriate, and we certainly have had uh many conversations with them about their recommendations, and based on the science, that uh these this is where these recommendations came from. It also requires a sound study. So when these applications come in, uh a sound study will be required that will show the the pre construction level noise that's around the site currently, uh the projected sound levels that are anticipated with the type of equipment and the siting of the data center itself, and then it would require a post-construction study to determine compliance with the adopted uh ordinance itself. So you have the three layers of protection the establishing the baseline, the projected, and then uh concurrence uh and post-construction to determine to make sure that we are in compliance.
openpublica.com