Chesapeake Planning Commission Public Hearing – May 22, 2024

The Chesapeake Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 22, 2024, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chamber. The primary agenda item was a proposed text amendment (PLN-TXT-2023-013) to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, aimed at adding definitions and standards for preservation divisions and updating development rules in conservation and agricultural districts. The meeting was continued from February 14 and April 10, 2024. After hearing public testimony and deliberation, the commission voted 6-2 to approve Version A of the amendment. A brief business item on a new multi-factor authentication process was also presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Eugene White (third-generation farmer, 1041 Ballock Road) spoke in opposition, expressing that permanent easements unfairly restrict land value and family land transfers, and that the proposal would make it impossible for family members to build homes on subdivided farmland. He argued that any unforeseen financial need (e.g., nursing home costs) would be impossible to meet under the restrictions.
• Jennifer Economy (citizen, Cedarville Road, Hickory area) voiced opposition, stating that the loophole allowing overdevelopment has harmed roads, schools, and rural character. She found the 85-page document confusing and questioned whether the amendment truly closes loopholes or merely facilitates development.
• Byron Stonecypher (Chesapeake Farm Bureau representative) opposed the amendment, criticizing the lack of compromise and the imposition of forever easements without compensation. He noted that an online survey showed 8 of 9 responses were against the amendment, and recommended a five-year use restriction easement that automatically lifts, rather than a permanent one.
• Tom Freeman (1900 Pocatee Road, former treasurer of Chesapeake Farm Bureau) opposed the amendment, arguing that lumping multiple issues together creates problems for farmers. He highlighted that farmers depend on selling small parcels for health, college, or retirement, and that the proposed five-lot limit with simultaneous development is cost-prohibitive. He also noted that OSAP (Open Space Agricultural Preservation) compensates landowners for lost development rights, but this proposal does not.
• Jeff Staples (1453 Boxwood Drive, Deep Creek) opposed, stating the 85-page document is confusing and that the voluntary aspect does not address growth. He requested information on how other cities handle similar issues.
• Jenny McPherson (3316 Ballahack Road) opposed for the third time. She criticized the process, noting that a 90-day continuance was promised but the item returned after only 30 days, and that no planning commissioners attended the Agriculture Advisory Commission meeting. She stated that Version A still requires uncompensated preservation easements and could conflict with OSAP eligibility.
• Linda Tyndall (1045 West Road) opposed, raising concerns about high-density development causing drainage, septic, and well problems. She advocated for increasing minimum lot sizes to ensure safe wells and septic systems, and opposed cluster subdivisions and agrihoods that place wells and septic too close together.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Blair Miller presented staff findings, stating the amendments would better align with the rural overlay district, prevent incremental divisions that lead to major subdivisions, ensure protection of agricultural land through easements, and continue to allow farmers to divide property for bona fide agricultural or conservation purposes. Staff recommended Version A.
• Commissioner Questions: Commissioners asked about comparisons with neighboring cities. Staff reported that Virginia Beach uses density controls (1 unit per 15 acres), while Suffolk has family subdivisions but faces similar issues. Regarding a proposed five-year easement alternative (from the Agricultural Advisory Committee), staff expressed concern that a time limit would allow the same problems to recur and that Version A better addresses the three guiding principles. It was clarified that minor subdivisions (up to five lots) are still permitted without an easement, and the preservation division is a voluntary tool. The commission noted that changes to minor subdivision policy were outside the scope of this initiating resolution, but the planning commission could request council to initiate a text amendment on that topic.
• Business Item: Planning Director McMurry introduced a multi-factor authentication process for city computer systems, effective the week of May 28 – June 4, 2024. Commissioners were instructed to register to receive a code via text message for login verification.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on PLN-TXT-2023-013: The commission voted 6-2 to approve Version A of the text amendment, as recommended by staff. The motion was made by Commissioner Cruz and seconded by Commissioner Stichler. Commissioners Hackworth and Sgueglia opposed (Commissioner Gilbert was excused). The amendment will be forwarded to City Council for a hearing on a future third or fourth Tuesday at 6:30 PM.
• Next Meeting: The next Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for June 12, 2024, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chamber.
• Comp Plan Open Houses: The Planning Director reminded attendees of upcoming community open houses for the comprehensive plan update (Chesapeake 2045), with dates and locations available on the city website.