All right.

Good evening.

The Planning Commission preming for December 10th, 2025 is now in session.

Welcome to our pre-meeting tonight.

Thank you for taking part in the business of our city.

First order of business is the agenda overview discussion.

Tonight we have a total of eight applications, of which one application is for continuance or withdrawal.

Mr.

Bostwick, would you please provide the commission commission with an overview of the application?

Yes, good evening, Commissioners.

We have no applications for continuance, but we do have a withdrawal that is PLN dash USC-2024-005 Oak Grove School Expansion.

It's being administratively withdrawn.

And as such, it's coming before you beeting because it was advertised, but no vote will be taken on the withdrawal.

It just has to be read into the record.

Very good.

Thank you, Mr.

Boswick.

Any commissioners have any comments or questions regarding that item?

Okay.

So now we will we will review the uh remaining items before us and we'll determine if we want them on the consent or the regular agenda.

So the first item is item number one, pioneer lane subdivision variants.

Mr.

Hannigan, any updates?

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh as you recall, this item was continued from last planning commission.

Um we have no staff updates to provide, and still same old, same old.

Okay, thank you very much.

Commissioners, any conflicts with the application?

Any questions for staff?

Any discussion.

All right.

Any objection to placing this item on the No, this is uh for denial, so it will be uh placed on the regular agenda.

So that is regular.

Okay, next item.

Item number two, Patrick Street.

Ms.

Ott, any updates for us.

I don't think your mic was on.

There we go.

Sorry.

There are no updates and no public comments for this one.

All right.

Thanks, Ms.

Ott.

Commissioner, is any conflicts with the application?

Uh any questions for staff?

Any discussion?

Any objection to placing this item on the consent agenda?

All right, seeing none, item two will be placed on the consent agenda.

Next items.

Item three, Hanbury Manor Section Four.

Ms.

Peebles, updates.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I have no updates at this time, and staff has not received any comments on it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any conflicts, Commissioners, with this application.

Any questions for staff?

I actually do have a question for Mr.

Tate, but I do not see him, so I will hold off.

Any discussion.

Okay, next items.

Four and five Royal Farms.

Back to you.

So there are no updates on this application.

However, there has been about 16 public comment submissions that are provided to y'all with concerns on traffic safety and the proximity of the proposed use to the Jaw landing townhomes, as well as I received two phone calls just requesting information on the application.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any conflicts?

Any questions for staff?

Any discussion?

Any objection to placing this item on the consent agenda?

Like to put it on regular.

All right.

Items four and five will be placed on the regular agenda.

Next item.

Item seven, American Legion Grassfield.

Mr.

Bell, updates.

Sorry.

Good evening, Commissioners.

We have no updates for you and we have not received any uh comment forms as well.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Bell.

Commissioners, any conflicts?

Any questions for staff?

Any discussion?

Any objection to placing on the consent agenda?

All right.

Seeing none, item seven will be placed on the consent agenda.

Next item.

Item number eight.

Involuntarily involuntarily removed billboards.

Mr.

Bell, back to you.

Yeah, and again on this one, no updates and no comments were received.

So conflicts with this this application.

Any questions for staff?

Any discussion?

Any objection to placing this item on the consent agenda?

All right.

Seeing none.

Item eight will be placed on the consent agenda.

So as of now, the consent agenda consists of items two, seven, and eight.

Everybody good with that?

Yes.

Okay.

And our regular agenda is one, three, four, and five.

Okay.

Next order of business is the planning commission committee reports, old business.

Anything to report, commissioners?

Any committee action?

All right.

Next we have upcoming items.

Summary of new public hearing applications received.

Mr.

Bostwick.

This month's summary of new applications in the pipeline include two rezonings, a rezoning with the companion conditional use permit, and five conditional use permits.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Initiated text amendments.

Ms.

Neal.

Good evening, Commissioners, and happy holiday season.

It's been another quiet period with no new initiated text amendments to report.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All right, Mr.

McNamara, special presentations, comp plan update.

All you all right.

So we have some news to uh to update you with this uh this evening.

So first up is our Deep Creek area plan.

Uh the news is that we have a public draft that is posted on our website for public comment, and we are receiving comment already on that.

Uh we have one more community meeting, and that's gonna be on January 7th from 5:30 to 7:30 at the Deep Creek Community Center.

Purpose of this meeting is really just to answer any questions uh with regards to the to the draft plan.

But we are requesting that public uh take a look at this and provide us any comments uh as as needed.

All right, comprehensive plan update.

So uh public meetings for the MTP.

We we're able to have our December 3rd meeting.

Uh so that one is complete, but the SNO did not agree with us having our our meeting that was scheduled for this uh past Monday.

So that meeting has been rescheduled uh for December 17th.

That's next Wednesday at the Major Hill Yard Library, uh same uh same time, so this could be from 5 to 6.30 as was the previous meeting.

So looking forward to seeing folks out there.

And perhaps the biggest news that we have is uh we we completed our city council uh work session last evening with regards to the comp plan and the comp plan will be scheduled for public hearing on January 20th.

So uh we have a date.

Uh we look forward to seeing the public out at that uh at that meeting and uh hoping to get this thing across the finish line.

Some updates with our transferable development rights program.

Our draft ordinance is being reviewed by staff and and our consultant at this time to ensure that everything is in line.

Uh we do have a community meeting, city council work session and plan and commission presentation, all planned for early March.

So that's going to be the next point where we will be looking to uh touch base with folks uh specifically on the work that's been done with the transferable development rights program.

So uh good news all around, um, but we should have some more uh concrete action and and material for folks to consider uh as we get closer to the March time frame.

And then our final update for tonight is we don't really have an update.

Uh so the Western Branch Area Plan uh is we're still working with procurement to find a consultant for this plan, uh, but we do anticipate this moving forward in the early part of 2026.

We're just uh waiting to get through the process at this point.

So uh that is our update for this evening.

Be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

McNamara.

Commissioners, any questions.

All right.

Thanks as always.

So now I believe we turn the floor over to boy.

All right.

So is our chair and vice chair make their way out.

I guess this means that no one's in charge of the meeting right now.

Am I in charge of the meeting?

Chaos is will ensue.

Uh so it's my pleasure uh this evening to recognize two um humble public servants that have served the city of Chesapeake for a combined 12 years for for one of our members here, and then another 10 years for the other member.

And uh I cannot say uh you know how much I've appreciated working with these two gentlemen uh through this process.

You know, it's Planning Commission is certainly a uh a board that uh requires a special hand.

And uh I think that that these two gentlemen have done such a great job uh working through uh difficult applications uh you know and and serving in the best uh public interest of of uh of our citizens and we we really appreciate that.

Specifically, I'll talk uh uh uh about uh Commissioner Gerloff for a minute here.

Uh Commissioner Gerloff was on uh the planning commission prior to me coming here, and I actually uh served as a planner in the city of Virginia Beach before this, and Commissioner Gerloff's uncle actually served as a planning commissioner over there.

And when I moved over, he goes, You gotta watch out for my nephew.

He's gonna cause you a lot of problems, but he's he's a good egg after all.

So uh, you know, I what I will say about Josh is uh that you know I have no doubt that when we put out staff reports and when these applications were put before him, he was gonna put the time and effort in to reading every detail about these applications and make sure that he was well educated on all of the aspects of these applications, and that uh you know is is so important for planning commissioners, and I really, really appreciate uh his time and his his diligence as uh he considered these really difficult applications uh throughout his tenure.

Commissioner Cruz, me and you tackled a uh quite a uh a lot of uh uh difficult meetings uh when it comes to in particular the agricultural text amendment uh for the uh agricultural subdivisions.

Commissioner Cruz was my my ride or die at every single one of those meetings.

He was with me from the start to the finish, and you know, having that support, particularly through a very difficult uh uh amendment to you know that that was really gonna impact uh a lot of folks throughout the city of Chesapeake, but you know, looking at the public interest and trying to find a solution to a really, really difficult problem.

Uh Commissioner Cruz was there uh through from the start to the finish.

Uh Commissioner Cruz also served uh uh on the South Norfolk Revitalization Commission for many years before his time with the planning commission, and his uh contributions during that time are also uh noteworthy as well.

So uh to both of you on behalf of the staff, we really appreciate everything that you've done and your service to our city.

So we'd like to present you these plaques at this time.

I need to get a picture with you and the plaques exposed.

Let's give them a minute to have some words.

I'll just be very brief.

Um it's been an honor to serve on this planning commission for gosh, 10 years now.

But working with Jimmy and Gil and your staff, nothing but true professionals.

Every question answered in a timely fashion.

Um and with patience, because some of these issues are really tough and heavy, and you know, and you really wrestle with them, but the staff is so professional every time and and uh dialoguing with the planning commission, and of course, serving with all of you has been just an honor and a pleasure.

Um I really enjoyed it.

Um, and uh look forward to seeing the great things that all of you will do in the coming years.

So thank you.

I should have went first.

I was uh again, I want to thank these staff.

Um everyone in the planning commission uh on the planning commission, uh the commissioners that served previously with uh those who are no longer with us who taught me so much.

Uh so I really want to thank everyone for your dedication to the work of the city and to the staff.

I mentioned this to Jimmy at a pre-meeting that uh they are just outstanding and awesome.

So thank you for your support, and I enjoyed my time here on the commission.

Thank you.

Right there is fine.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So I'll serve as a buffer as they make their way back up.

And uh I'll I remember vividly, I believe it was about three years ago, uh, when Commissioner Gerloff in particular was really beating the drum for the need to update our comprehensive plan.

You know, we really needed to do this, and we really needed to get this thing done.

I said, be patient with me.

We are working towards it.

I promise you that we will get this thing done and across the finish line uh before you're off the commission.

We almost made it.

So we got it through Planning Commission, but it's on the city council, but again, thank you for your contributions, particularly for this through this very large, very impactful project as well.

Yes, yeah, I was very glad to see that that got almost done uh during my tenure.

And you know, and you always get in trouble when you start naming names and uh forgetting people, but I did want to mention as well you know, Mr.

Titter back there, who sorry to embarrass you, Ben, but the advice and guidance that you give to this commission is invaluable and so sound and so clear all the time.

So really appreciate um everything you do for us.

So thank you.

Okay.

Next order of business.

We need to replace us.

We need to have our um elections for our uh officers for next year.

So I believe are we turning things over to Jimmy in the back.

It's always dangerous when you hand the gavel over to me.

So at this time I'd like to call to order the annual election for planning commission officers for 2026.

As Chairman Gurloff mentioned, the first part of the meeting will be will involve the annual election of officers.

Under the planning commission's amended bylaws, the election occurs the first meeting of planning commission in December of each year.

The new officers will take place at the annual reorganization meeting to be held on the first monthly meeting in January of each year.

That meeting will be January 14, 2026.

To those in the City Council chambers and the viewing public, as Planning Director and non-member of the Planning Commission, I've been requested to preside over the election of officers.

Tonight we will hold elections for the offices of the planning commission officers, chair, vice chair, and secretary.

Article 3, section two of the planning commission bylaws indicates that election will be by majority vote, and that all three offices will serve at one-year term, and that no officers shall serve more than two consecutive terms for that each elected position.

In accordance with the revised bylaws, commission nominations are taken from the floor and require a second.

I will first request nominations for the office of chairman, followed by the vice chairman and then secretary.

Also, the commissioner's recording secretary must be appointed by its commission.

We will do that last.

Are there any questions regarding this process?

Mr.

Bostwick, will you please take roll call of the commission?

Commissioner Bearfield.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Present.

Commissioner Gilman.

Present.

Commissioner Hackworth.

Present.

Commissioner Malone is excused.

Commissioner Swelia.

Present.

Commissioner Spruell.

Present.

Commissioner Williams.

Present.

Chairman Gurloff.

Here.

The floor is now open for nominations for the Office of Chair.

Mr.

McAmara, I nominate Commissioner Hackworth for Chair.

Second.

Okay.

We have a nomination of Commissioner Hackworth.

Moved by Commissioner Gerloff and then seconded by Commissioner Cruz.

Are there any other nominations?

Hearing none.

Is there a motion to close the nominations?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

The motion to close nominations has been moved and seconded.

Those in favor of closing nominations, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

The nominations are now closed.

I'll now ask the commissioners to vote on the nominees.

This will be a roll call vote.

All commissioners voting for Commissioner Hackworth as chairman.

Please prepare to vote.

Please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Boswick, please record the vote.

We can do that.

Okay.

Commissioner Bearfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes.

Commissioner Gillman.

Yes.

Commissioner Hackworth.

Yes.

Commissioner.

Yes.

Commissioner Spruer.

Yes.

Commissioner Williams?

Yes.

Chairman Girloff.

Yes.

All right.

Commissioner Hackworth has been voted as Chairman for the Planning Commission in 2026.

Congratulations, sir.

All right.

We'll now move on to the next.

The floor is now open for nominations for the Office of Vice Chairman.

Mr.

McNamara, I would like to nominate Commissioner Squelia for the Vice Chair position.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Yes.

We have a second.

We have two seconds.

Are there any other nominations?

Hearing none, is there a motion to close the nominations?

I move to close the nominations.

Second.

Second.

Second.

We have a motion to close the nom.

The motion to close nominations has been moved and seconded.

Those in favor of closing nominations, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

The nominations are now closed.

I will now ask the commissioners to vote on the nominees.

This will be a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bearfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes.

Commissioner Gilman.

Yes.

Commissioner Hackworth.

Yes.

Commissioner Swelia.

Yes.

Commissioner Spruell.

Yes.

Commissioner Williams.

Yes.

Chairman Gerloff.

Yes.

The vote is unanimous for Commissioner Squelia as Vice Chairman for the Plan Commission in 2026.

Congratulations.

All right.

We'll move on.

The floor is now open for nominations for the Office of Secretary.

You're going to do that.

Mr.

McNamara, I will nominate Commissioner Malone.

We have a nomination.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Are there any other nominations?

Hearing none, do we have a motion to close the nominations?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

The motion to close nominations has been moved and seconded.

Those in favor of closing nominations, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

The nominations are now closed.

I'll now ask the commission to vote on the nominees.

This will be a roll call vote.

All commissioners voting for Commissioner Malone as Secretary, please prepare to vote by roll call.

Commissioner Bearfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes.

Commissioner Gilman.

Yes.

Commissioner Hackworth.

Yes.

Commissioner Swelia.

Yes.

Commissioner Spruell.

Yes.

Commissioner Williams?

Yes.

Chairman Gerloff.

Yes.

The vote is unanimous for Commissioner Malone as Secretary for Planning Commission 2026.

Congratulations, sir.

The commissioners are now asked for nominations for the appointment of the Commissioner's recording secretary, which Mr.

Boswick now holds, and we would like him to continue holding.

Are there any other nominations?

Are there any nominations?

I nominate Gil Boswick.

Is there a second?

A second.

Hearing only one nomination, Gilbert Boswick is appointed the recording secretary by acclamation.

Congratulations, Mr.

Boswick.

I'd like to take this opportunity on behalf of staff to congratulate our new officers, and we do look forward to working with you during 2026.

Would any members of Planning Commission like to make any comments at this time?

Okay.

Having all the year 2026 Planning Commission elections fulfilled, I now turn the gavel back over to Chair Gerloff.

It's yours.

Thank you very much, Mr.

McNamara.

Congratulations to our new elected positions.

I have no doubt it will be a great couple of years.

Okay.

Anyone else have anything else we need to talk about during the pre-meeting?

All right.

If not, we will stand adjourned at 6.24.

May I have the attention of everyone in the council chambers and those outside in the lobby tonight's planning commission meeting is scheduled to begin in fifteen minutes.

If you wish to speak at tonight's meeting, we ask that you complete and submit a speaker card before the meeting begins.

Speaker cards are available on the table outside the council chambers.

May I have the attention of everyone in the council chambers and those outside in the lobby?

Tonight's planning commission meeting is scheduled to begin in five minutes.

If you wish to speak at tonight's meeting, we ask that you complete and submit a speaker card before the meeting begins.

Speaker cards are available on the table outside of the council chambers.

Good evening, everyone.

The Planning Commission public hearing for December 10th, 2025 is now in session.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

For those who wish to participate, you're also invited to remain standing for the invocation.

Commissioner Hackworth will lead the Pledge of Allegiance, and the invocation will be offered by Commissioner Squelia.

Good evening.

We give thanks for the work of this city.

The planning done here helps to shape how our community grows, how our neighborhoods function, and how Chesapeake prepares for the future.

The decisions made tonight and every month reflect our commitment to serve the people well with clarity and fairness.

We acknowledge the commissioners who have given their time this year, including those completing their service tonight.

Their work has supported the progress of the city, and we are very, very grateful.

We pray for those who remain in this role, and for those who will soon step into it.

Grant them the wisdom, steady judgment, and a shared dedication to responsible growth.

Bless this meeting and the work ahead.

Amen.

Please be seated, and as a reminder, please silence your cell phones.

I'd like to welcome each of you to our meeting tonight.

Thank you for taking part in the business of our city.

Mr.

Bostwick, please call the roll.

Commissioner Bearfield.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Present.

Commissioner Gilman.

Present.

Commissioner Hackworth.

Present.

Commissioner Malone is excused.

Commissioner Squelia.

Here.

Commissioner Spruel.

Present.

Commissioner Williams.

Present.

Chairman Gurloff.

Here.

The minutes for the November 13th, 2025 public hearing are being considered for approval.

Any commissioners have any corrections or revisions?

The commission rules and procedures are available at the table in front of the chambers on the screen in the chambers, and they're also available online at our website.

The chair asks that each of you please follow these guidelines this evening.

Speakers who violate the rules of the public hearing will receive one verbal warning warning within the course of the evening.

Upon Planning Commission action of either approval or denial, the remainder of the items shall be heard by City Council next month on either the third or fourth Tuesday beginning 6 30 p.m.

in this chamber unless otherwise announced tonight.

Mr.

Bosterwick, are there any items for withdrawal or continuance?

There are no items requesting continuance, and we have one item being administratively withdrawn.

Based upon staff's determination, PLN-USC-2024-055 has been administratively withdrawn.

Please note that no vote is necessary for an application to be withdrawn.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Bostwick.

So we will now move on.

So the second order of business tonight is the consideration of our consent agenda.

The consent agenda contains those items that the planning staff believes are unopposed and have a favorable staff recommendation.

Speakers on the items placed on the consent agenda will be given a total of five minutes to address the commission.

If you have an objection to an item being placed on the consent agenda, please note your objection when you address the commission.

Commissioner Hackworth, are there any items on the consent agenda in which there are three or more speakers in opposition?

There are not.

Okay, thank you.

So at this point, the consent agenda uh is as follows items two, seven, and eight.

Mr.

Boswick, please read the consent agenda items into the record.

The first item is agenda item number two.

PLN-REZ-2024-020.

The project is Patrick Street.

Applicant owner, El Navado Properties LLC.

Agency is civil engineering and construction services.

The proposal is a conditional zoning reclassification of approximately 0.27 acres from B1 neighborhood business district to R8 residential district.

The location is one moment, please.

2228 Patrick Street in the South Norfolk Planning District.

Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommends that PLN dash REZ-2024-020 be approved with proffers as listed in the official agenda.

Next is agenda item 7.

PLN-USC dash 2025-042.

The project is American Legion Grassfield.

The applicant owner is Grassfield Parkway LLC.

Agency is William Smolen.

The proposal is a conditional use permit to operate a private membership club within an existing shopping center.

The location is 648 Grassfield Parkway Suite 20B in the grass field planning area.

Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommend that PLN-USC-2025-042 be approved with stipulations as listed in the official agenda.

The final item is I agenda item 8.

PLN dash TXT-2025-009.

The project is involuntarily removed billboards.

The proposal is an ordinance amending appendix A of the Chesapeake City Code entitled Zoning.

Article 14, Section 14-706 to allow City Council to approve modifications to setbacks and other design requirements for involuntarily removed billboards as part of the conditional use permit approval process.

Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommend that PLN-TXT-2025-009 version dated October 24, 2025, be approved as listed in the official agenda.

That concludes our items.

Thank you, Mr.

Boswick.

Commissioner Hackworth, do we have any speakers for items on the consent agenda?

We do.

Please call them.

First speaker, speaking in support of agenda item number two, Sam Baraki has indicated that they are available for questions.

Okay, next speaker.

Next speaker speaking in opposition of agenda item number two, Rachel Scott.

Ms.

Scott.

Would you like to speak?

I think your mic not might not be on.

You gotta push the button right in front of you.

There you go.

Good evening.

My name is Rachel Scott.

I'm a resident at 1037 Old Wood Street, Chesapeake, Virginia, 2324.

And we as a neighborhood, an objective of the rezoning to R8.

We already had three townhouses built on our road recently, and it has disturbed not only our peace, but our study government neighborhood.

We are an old established neighborhood of all single family homes.

When we were building these townhomes, it blocked our little road.

It caused people to be late for work.

It caused me to be late for school because of the concrete getting put in.

Also, it is environmental impact of our neighborhood already because of the old drainage system.

They are not improving it.

And we had water main a water drain system break in front of my neighbor's house.

Also, our um electric grid is very old.

They have no plans on upgrading it, and it's going to cause problems in our neighborhood too.

It also is going to raise our property tax about raising our values.

We all know the townhouses, they are usually bought and rented out, and renters do not have respect for property value.

Also, there's no screening of who can go in there.

I'm a single widow mother who is a full-time student, and I have two teenaged daughters who would be home by themselves with having people coming in and out of our neighborhood without being screening is a concern as a mother.

And also when they were constructing these townhouses, they had no respect for for times.

We had the workers out there 11 to midnight at night trying to finish these houses.

The house directly across street has a baby.

She was telling me when I had her sign a supposition that have neighborhood sign that it had disrupted the baby's sleeping patterns.

I have two teenage daughters that were in high school.

They couldn't study because they hear out of their window, them doing construction.

They also had no respect for holidays.

One day I had to go over there and tell them, hey, this is a holiday.

You can't do construction on a holiday, and that's when they shut it down.

But they were trying to work through many holidays too.

So that's my basic.

Good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Somebody may call you back if they have questions.

Did you want the petition from the neighborhood?

You can submit it up here.

Thank you, Ms.

Scott.

All right.

Next speaker?

That concludes the speakers.

Okay.

Commissioners, any discussion for items on the consent agenda.

All right.

Hearing none, a motion is an order for the approval of the consent agenda with applicable stipulations or proffers as read into the record by Mr.

Bostwick.

I motion move rule.

A motion to approve the consent agenda as read into the agenda.

Second.

All right.

We have a properly made motion by Commissioner Cruz and a second by Commissioner Squelia.

Commissioners, please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Bostwick, please record the vote.

By a vote of eight to zero, the motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

The next order of business this evening is the regular public hearing agenda.

When there are three or fewer speakers, each speaker will have five minutes to present comments to the Commission.

If there are four or more speakers, each speaker will have three minutes to present comments to the Commission.

Mr.

Bostrich, please present the first public hearing item.

The first item is item number one, PLN-SUBV-2025-003.

The project is 3233 Pioneer Lane Subdivision variants.

The applicant owner is Mars Brothers D Incorporated.

Agency is Kinzer Leftwich and Cayley PC.

The proposal is a subdivision variance from Section 70-89 of the subdivision ordinance to allow for the creation of two lots with reduced with reduced lot frontage of 106.65 and 106.64 feet from the 169.15 and 169 feet required respectively by the excessive depth rule.

The location is 3233 Pioneer Lane in the Deep Creek planning area.

Mr.

Hannigan will now present staff's findings.

Thank you, Mr.

Balswick.

Staff offers the following findings.

Staff finds that there are no topographic or other conditions peculiar to this site that would cause an undue hardship that would justify the proposed residential parcels having reduced lot frontage.

The property can be developed by right with one single family residence, which offers a viable use to the site as it exists today.

In addition, the variance is not consistent with the 2035 comprehensive plan, which does not recommend creating substandard lots within mature neighborhoods when there is no process in place to ensure that new units blend harmoniously into the existing neighborhood pattern.

Based on the findings contained within the staff report, staff recommends that the requested item be denied.

However, if this application is approved, staff recommends the stipulation as found within the staff report.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Hannigan.

All right.

Before I ask uh Commissioner Heckworth about speakers, I did want to just um make a comment about this this application.

And this is really for uh the commissioners who will be considering this application and for our speakers who are gonna be addressing the commission.

This is not like the typical application that we hear a rezoning or a use permit with certain land use criteria that may apply.

In this case, this is a variance application.

So in this case, the criteria with which we are, you know, going to be uh judging through which we're gonna be judging this application is very narrow.

So I would just like to remind the Commission that you know once we a motion needs to be based on these commit uh criteria, and it would be very helpful for our speakers if they would also frame their comments around these uh three criteria as well.

So I'll just read them very quickly.

In order to grant uh the variance, um, one or more of the following quite criteria need to be met and justified.

So the first one is there is no rational nexus between the improvement or requirement and the proposed development or the improvement or requirement is not in rough proportionality to the impact of the proposed development.

The second one, strict application of the requirements or regulations will deprive the landowner of all viable use of the property.

And the third one, the configuration or design of the improvement or requirement makes the development dangerous or unsafe as determined by the city manager or designee.

Those are the three things we need to consider.

Um everything else is not appropriate uh for this discussion.

So uh through that lens, and having said that, we'll call the speakers.

So, Commissioner Hackworth, I assume we have speakers.

We do.

So please call them.

Our first speaker speaking in support of agenda item number one, James A.

Lefwich, Jr.

Good evening, uh, Mr.

Chairman, Vice Chair, Mr.

Stafford.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, uh, Vice Chairman, members of staff, and uh other folk folks in the chamber.

Uh James A.

Leftwich Jr., my business address is 308 Cedar Lakes Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia 23322.

I appreciate the uh the Chairman's comments, and I am going to focus on the first item uh of those criteria.

But to begin with, I want to provide a little bit of of uh uh uh background.

And so uh by doing so, I would like to indicate that um this is all driven by the four-tenth square root rule, which is a policy that um uh frankly I've I've dealt with since shortly after beginning my my practice of law in 1988, it's been around for quite some time.

And um this matter was continued from last hearing because there was a there was a piece of property not more than a hundred or so yards down the road two years ago that was subdivided um administratively with actually greater depth.

And so we were a little confused as to why that was handled administratively and this was required to go through the variance um process.

And in exploring that, uh I learned from um my um my partner, my my cohort in crime here, that that policy was really developed to address um properties in the South Norfolk and more urban areas as opposed to more rural and and um uh suburban areas.

And so with that background, I would say that that policy is not ordinance, it's not law, it's guidance.

And so with that in mind, I think we look at uh the first criteria here, and I want to focus on is uh is that the requirement is not in proportional to the impact of the proposed development.

So let's look at the at the history of this, and that it was it was originally derived for different areas of the City of Chesapeake.

There was a similar property, very, very, very close that was uh subdivided by administrative action not long ago.

And so this property is could be residential.

Um it could be developed as a as a single building lot.

And so what makes the subdivision different than uh their surrounding neighborhoods or character, just simply the depth, and that's it.

If it was not if it was a more shallow lot, the width would be 75 feet.

But because of the depth, which quite frankly will add a lot of aesthetics and character to these properties and give a homeowner a lot of value, I would argue that the requirement is not in proportion to the impacts.

I would say the impacts are good, whereas the requirements are a little bit harsh under the circumstances and the consideration of how this 410th square root rule was developed.

Now, I understand that there are uh maybe a speaker or two that expressed opposition, and I don't know what their opposition may be, but what I would say to them in hopes of maybe in addressing that in advance is that if the owner purchased the paper street that runs down beside this property and utilize that street, they could develop four or more lots.

And the proposal in front of the commission tonight is to do two.

So if this fails, perhaps there would be four lots smaller than the ones that are proposed, which I think would be a greater impact, negative impact to the community than than the request that's before you this evening.

So again, I would argue that the um that the requirement uh is roughly not in proportion to the impact, the positive impact that this will have.

And I would ask for your support and stand by for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Lovwich.

Uh, next speaker.

Our next speaker speaking in support of agenda item one is Taylor Grissom, who's indicated that they're available for questions.

Next speaker.

Next speaker speaking in opposition of agenda item number one, Rodney Gaylord.

How are y'all?

Thank you.

My name's Rodney Gaylord.

I live at 3225 Pioneer Lane, adjacent to the property 323.

We want to go on record.

Linda and my wife want to go on record as being opposed to the two lots built directly beside us.

As a 47-year-old resident on Pioneer, we feel this is not within the true design of Pioneer when lots were sold at three acre many farms, and it's not compatible with the true original design.

When I first moved to Pioneer, I was the youngest owner.

Forty-seven years later, I'm the oldest owner.

Linda and myself moved there in 1978.

We rented six months with option to buy.

Mr.

Decker was always exercising, and I was too.

Which we did.

Two days later, we went to his office, and he told us right up front, those lots are exactly what the other owners are telling you.

They can't be subdivided.

They were sold as a sort of a mini farm, three acres.

There.

One of them has five acres.

He's already mentioned, which I have heard.

Well, wait a minute, they're going to put this a two, they want to put two homes over there.

I got five acres.

Maybe I can do something a little extra and make some.

Well, you're going to hear people talk like that.

That's the way it is.

We would lose the quietness of the neighborhood, the more growth there is and traffic that we would have.

Plus, let me tell you this, the loss of vegetation for the wildlife as well.

And people might say, you're talking about the well life, all that.

What kind of wildlife have you got?

Three weeks ago I had seven turkeys in the back of my land.

We have deer, fox.

I've had fox under one of my sheds at back, seven.

We're at squirrels, rabbits, whatever.

Things that crawl in the grass.

So they're there.

We have the quietness of the neighborhood, the more growth and traffic.

Yes, we do.

And we want to keep everything very quiet and nice.

Neighbors are fantastic.

They really are.

If another property gets approved for two lots, it truly will have a domino effect on the rest of a peaceful quaint street.

The question here lies, will it negatively affect the direct neighbors?

And is it in alignment with the planning department's guidelines?

On 3233 property, I walk that street every morning.

I'm barring a minute.

I walk that street when the lie is not up.

I get up very early in the morning.

I have a border collie.

And I'm not kidding you.

We were coming back this morning.

The sun was coming up.

It was beautiful.

And I stopped right in front of that acreage, 3233, and you look right there where Mr.

and Robert Jackson's home was, right in the middle of that acreage.

It was beautiful.

And I said to myself, man, it would be so nice to have that one home there.

Yes, two homes can be done.

Mr.

Gaylord, your time's up.

Thank you very much.

Somebody may call call you back.

Thank you.

All right, thank you all.

Yes, sir.

Next speaker.

That concludes our that concludes our speakers.

Okay.

Commissioners, any discussion for this item.

Commissioner Ackworth.

Yeah.

So uh Mr.

McN McNamara, maybe you can talk a little bit.

We heard that uh, you know, and when you're looking at this property and you're looking at the front of the neighborhood, um, there are some narrower properties, and and it was actually a house that was built, I believe, in in 2023.

So uh maybe you can address um how that occurred to where we're at now.

Um I'm gonna push that to Mr.

Hannigan, who has pretty extensive uh knowledge on what's gone on in that street.

Thank you, Ms.

McMara.

If you can uh direct your attention to this screen, I've laid out sort of a timeline here.

The top of the timeline blue is that property you're referencing to the east of this.

Um in black is the determination and the excessive lot policy being implemented.

And so what happened in this instance is the property to the east was um had an approved final subdivision plan that predates the implementation of this excessive lot depth.

So while it was then built after the excessive dot uh the excessive lot depth policy being implemented, it had already had an approved subdivision plan, so we weren't going to walk back on on that approval that staff had given.

Um then obviously this one has come in after that implementation.

And I guess as I follow up, and maybe for legal counsel, um, you know, we talk a lot about codes and statutes and ordinances, but we're here we're talking about a policy.

Um, can you talk about the effects of the of a policy versus being an ordinance that is uh that is actually a law?

Um, what type of leeway does it give and does that affect on our decision?

So right now, the planning commission is being asked to balance the language of the subdivision ordinance that requires lots of excessive depth, have additional road frontage that allows for the Commission to approve variances to that requirement in certain circumstances, balance that with a policy, and the policy is designed to implement that ordinance.

Our subdivision ordinance simply says that a lot of excessive depth has to have additional road frontage without defining what is or isn't excessively deep.

It defers to the discretion of the planning director.

Mr.

McNamara exercised his discretion to put a policy in place that created a mathematical formula and a calculation to make it a standard application of this ordinance across properties.

That policy again is implementing the ordinance.

And what the Planning Commission is being asked for tonight is an authority to vary that requirement for the additional road frontage.

I think Chairman Gerloff did an excellent job of summarizing the three factors that are listed in the subdivision ordinance.

And those are there to guide the Commission in determining when and when not to grant a requested variance like this.

And then I guess the follow question is if you look at kind of the site plan we've got, and you'll notice if you look at Pioneer Lane, you'll look at lots that may be across that aren't as deep.

And so there is the potential that if one of those lots was subdivided, they very well may not have to meet this criteria just from the fact that their lot is not as deep as this one is.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

If there is if their lot is deemed to not be of excessive depth, then the additional frontage requirements would not be applied to those lots.

Okay.

And then I guess my final is, you know, we see this Cresthaven Avenue that kind of goes along, and if that road was actually put in, there is the true potential that lots could be subdivided to to go along that road.

And instead of having one lot that goes along, you have four or five lots that would kind of front on that.

Is that correct as well?

Yes, there is the potential that there could be additional lots subdivided off of an improved street if that street were to be placed in, and those lots would not be of excessive depth, so they would uh not require the additional frontage that's required in this instance.

Thank you.

Other commissioners.

Yes, Commissioner Gilman.

I have a question, probably from Mr.

Lefwitz.

The drawing submitted has this proposed mixed open space.

Can you tell me what that means?

I can't probably read that with my glasses on.

But I believe what that is intended to depict is that after we get the house built with the traditional yard and a drain field, that there is no intended construction within that area.

Now I suppose someone could put a barn if it complies with the accessory building requirements or a shed or something like that, but there's there is no intent from my understanding to build anything on that.

And if um I'm not going to blurt things out, but um, if someone wanted to ask me a question about the 14th square root rule and how long it's been around, I would love to address that.

Thank you.

All right.

If no other questions or comments or discussion, a motion is in order.

Mr.

Chair, um I would move as authorized by State Code, uh, the subdivision ordinance gives the Commission the ability to vary certain subdivision requirements, including the required additional road frontage for lots of excessive depth in order to approve a variance like this.

Um we as a commission have to find at least one or three factors were listed, which you had brought up uh prior to this, and is justified by evidence and facts.

Um tonight we have heard discussion and we have heard for and against uh this variance.

However, what is factually true as presented by the staff report is that the property is roughly 550 feet deep.

The applicants requesting a variance to create lots that will each be about 65 feet narrower than what the ordinance requires.

The applicant plans to construct one single family home on each of the lots, and each of these proposed lots could adequately uh be served by public roads and private utilities.

So based on those facts, I would move uh to approve the public care and item uh PLN-SUBV-2025-003 with the stipulations as provided in the report because reporting the additional road uh requiring the additional road frontage has no rational nexus to a lot of this size, and it's not roughly proportionate with the minimal impacts of one additional lot.

We have a second.

Mr.

Chair, I second the motion.

All right.

All right, Commissioners, we have a properly made motion by Commissioner Hackworth for approval and a second by Commissioner Squelia.

Commissioners, please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Bostwick, please record the vote.

By a vote of 8 to 0, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Bostrick, please present the next public hearing item.

The next item is item 3, PLN-REZ-2025-008.

The project is Hanbury Manor Section 4.

Agency is Parish Lane Design Group.

Applicant owner is GTO Judge LLC.

The proposal is a conditional zoning reclassification of approximately three acres from A1 agriculture and R 10 S residential to R 10 S residential.

The location is the southern side of Hanbury Road, west of Kingsbury Drive in Madison Lynn Way in the Great Bridge planning area.

Ms.

Peebles will now present staff's findings.

Staff offers the following findings.

The proposed residential development is consistent with the 2035 land use plan designation of low density and is located on an appropriate site in terms of size access and compatibility with its neighbors to ensure that new development supports and complements existing development.

The proposal incorporates City Council's desired outcomes of connectivity and the walkable neighborhood smart growth principle by connecting the proposed development via sidewalks that integrate into larger walkable networks.

Based on the analysis found in this report and findings, staff recommends approval of this request with proffers.

Thank you, Ms.

Peebles.

Commissioner Hackworth, do we have any speakers?

We do.

Please call them.

Our first speaker speaking in support of agenda item number three, Brian Lane.

Push a button.

Thought I did.

Good evening, uh Chairman, Vice Chairman, Brian Lane, 1500, Rick Fletcher Court, Chesapeake, Virginia.

Of course, I'm here to speak on support of the project.

I am an agent for the project.

It's been a long time getting here.

Not a whole lot we can really add to this.

Staff has really vetted it.

We're aware of the proffers.

The owner has talked with the neighbors in the in the um neighborhood.

The owner developer is here tonight, Mr.

Porter Young.

Uh he was also involved with the other three sections of this development.

And um I think it's a happy neighborhood.

I think the neighborhood would be glad to see that this land is finally getting developed with the extension of the road.

Uh there was some discussion on connecting with uh connectivity uh into uh Hanbury or the secondary road that you see on the mapping, uh, but the residents were really not in support of that.

Uh so if there's any questions on that, we can certainly address that a little further.

Uh but without adding a whole lot to it than what you already know, the technical merit of the property, the property is there.

Uh you can see the proffers in in that are conditioned for this development.

Uh the reason they were there because they were offered during the other three phases, and the developer thought that that would be appropriate for this one also.

Uh so if you have any questions, uh I'll be sitting and available for this additional support.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Lane.

Next speaker.

That concludes our speakers.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioners, any uh questions, comments, discussion.

Okay.

I I asked for this one to be uh put on the regular agenda, and I actually have a couple questions for Mr.

Tate.

Good evening, sir.

Yes, sir.

All right.

So in the uh department review comments in the staff report, uh development of permits started out with their comments with saying this rezoning will increase the traffic volume on Hanbury Road, and the existing two-lane road is inadequate to serve the impacts generated by this development.

Now I know that it passed the traffic impact study.

I believe the roads graded as a C, but uh that comment is sort of interesting that it's inadequate.

But what would really flag this one for me was in October we had the application on Bainbridge Boulevard with the homes with the driveways that dumped right on the Bainbridge, 35 mile an hour road, Hanbury is a 35 mile an hour road.

And I'm just wondering what the difference is between the two applications, because there it was a safety issue, roads back cars backing out on the Bainbridge.

We're gonna have the same situation here.

So what's the difference?

There may be a difference.

I'm I'm just not sure.

Okay.

So going in, ideally we would not have any homes on any type of arterial roadway.

That's the goal.

And on some subdivisions where you have raw land, we don't even discuss do we let one entrance shared by two property owners, or do we have no entrances.

With a blank piece of property, there's minimal expense to providing no additional ingress and egress to the existing parcel.

As you start to deal with infill, what you have to do is you have to balance what is the benefit to the roadway versus what is the detriment to the developer and is it a reasonable proportionate fix?

So in the case of Bainbridge, we said ideally we would not have homes going on Bainbridge Boulevard, but it's not the worst road, plus there's no reasonable alternative to developing the parcels.

So what we came up with was what we thought was reasonable mitigation.

We can't get down to zero entrances, but we could with reasonable effect on the parcels get down to two entrances instead of four.

So that's the shared access.

You are talking about Hambury.

No on Bainbridge.

So that's what we looked for on Bainbridge.

And the developer was, oh no, you can't have a shared access for homes.

And we actually went back throughout the city and even in other cities and saw whether it's low income or high income, you could really have effective shared access.

So in our minds, there was a benefit to a shared entrance that outweighed the detriment.

And we didn't think it was proportionate to say, well, you just can't develop this property.

On Hanbury Road, it was very similar.

There's three lots that front, and I think maybe there were two lots to start with.

And so there was already going to be two entrances there.

One of the homes was built, and they were going to split the other one lot into having two.

So if you wanted to say those two lots had to have access off of there, you would have had to do a major adjustment on well, where are you going to put the pond because you don't have any big acreage?

And you would have had to extend the street.

So we thought it was reasonable to have one shared entrance for the two new lots, and we didn't really think the existing lot, you know, was a change.

So we thought they were somewhat similar, but ideally, raw land we would have zero entrances.

Very good.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else have any questions for Mr.

Tate?

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners?

I guess maybe I do have one question for that for the applicant.

Because I think when we, if you can just come up, I think one of the issues we had with Bainbridge was the fact of that the frontage was very close to the road.

And so when you backed up, you couldn't uh you know you wouldn't be able to see very well.

And in this case, I think that there's some distance.

So how far back will these houses sit from the actual and I guess it's actually our the the easement, correct?

That that that the frontage would have to go.

How far back will they be sitting from the roadway?

So there's uh in the proffers, there's consideration for a um right-of-way dedication.

So we're planning everything to be 32 feet off of the right-of-way, ultimate right-of-way.

Um to answer your question from the existing roadway as it sits now, that should give you about 42 feet of separation.

Maybe more, maybe closer to 50 because there will be a dedication in there.

So between 42 and 50 from the roadway.

Okay.

And uh thank you.

And and I know that was one of my major concerns with also with the difference was uh I don't think we want anybody backing backing up into a road that's busy or you know, it's always nice to pull out, but I understand um, you know, we uh I mean anywhere you go on Chuspeak, you see that.

So um so thank you.

Any other commissioners?

All right, if not a motion is in order.

Mr.

Chair, um I would move that PLN dash uh REZ-2025-008 um be as proved with the proffers as listed in the agenda.

Second.

Oh second.

Okay, we have a properly made motion by Commissioner Hackworth and a second by Commissioner Gilman.

Commissioners, please prepare to vote, please vote.

Mr.

Bostwick, record the vote.

By a vote of 8 to 0, the motion carries.

All right.

Thank you.

Please present the next public hearing item, Mr.

Bostwick.

Okay.

The next items are PLN-REZ-2025-014.

The project is Royal Farms.

Applicant is two farms incorporated.

The owner is Portsmouth Boulevard Enterprises LLC.

Agency is Williams Mullen.

The proposal is a conditional zoning reclassification of approximately four acres from R 15S residential district, O and I Office and Institutional District, and A1 agricultural district to B2 General Business District.

The location is 5028 Portsmouth Boulevard in the Western Branch Planning Area.

And the companion application is PLN-USC-2025-033.

The project is Royal Farms.

Applicant is two Farms Incorporated.

The owner is Portsmouth Boulevard Enterprises LLC.

Agency is Williams Mullen.

The proposal is a conditional use permit to allow fuel operations.

The location is 5028 Portsmouth Boulevard in the Western Branch Planning Area.

Ms.

Ott will now present staff's findings.

Staff offers the following findings.

The proposal is consistent with an action strategy of the land use section of the 2035 comprehensive plan as the site has appropriate size and access to accommodate the proposed use and is compatible with the adjacent uses.

The proposed commercial use of the property accomplishes the desired outcome of City Council for economic prosperity by increasing the non-residential tax base, providing additional job opportunities in the city.

The proposal incorporates City Council's desired outcomes of connectivity by connecting the proposed development via sidewalks that integrate into larger walkable networks.

Based on the findings, staff recommends that PLN REZ 2025014 and PLN use 2025 033 be approved with the proffers listed in the official agenda.

Thank you, Ms.

Ott.

Commissioner Hackworth, do you have any speakers?

We do.

Please call them.

Our first speaker speaking in support of agenda items 4 and 5.

Tyler Rose.

Okay.

Good evening, uh Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Vice Chair, Mr.

Chairman Elect, and Madam Vice Chair, congratulations to you both.

My name is Tyler Rosé.

I'm an attorney of the law firm Williams Mullen.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant.

Business address is 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1700, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

This project for you tonight is uh consistent and will promote the commercial development of this property in the surrounding area.

Comprehensive plan designates this property and the surrounding area for commercial development.

Um this surrounding area has already been developed with a Starbucks as a B-2 property as well.

And the site has been designed to allow for the future development of the surrounding area with road connections through Pennsylvania Avenue and uh Jolliffe Landing Parkway.

As you will see in your packet, the um architectural designs here uh provide an elevated architectural finish and design to the project with an experienced operator with Royal Farms known for producing a quality product.

We've also designed the site to help mitigate the traffic impacts in Portsmouth Avenue.

We've closed the existing entrances on Portsmouth uh of Portsmouth Boulevard and have moved the new entrance farther away from the intersection and have extended the right turn lane to allow for uh traffic to easily enter enter the site as well.

Um general comment about traffic and gas stations, gas stations are generally best thought of as a traffic interceptor, not necessarily a traffic generator.

They don't generate new trips, they're intercepting bypassing traffic.

Um so that's just kind of a an arrow generally considered a low traffic generating use.

Um the site will have regular pumps and also a small number of diesel pumps.

The diesel pumps are uh more geared towards uh facilitating uh refueling of recreational vehicles.

Uh site is not designed and not promoting uh truck refilling of those diesel um uh diesel spots as well.

So um the primary intent of those diesel um pumps are actually for recreational vehicles and to accommodate the rural farms customers with those types of vehicles.

Um the site isn't designed for trucks, uh there's no trucks parking, there's no amenities that you would find at a uh at a uh gas station that would be traditionally a uh that would promote truck uses like showers or anything like that.

Um we're also uh expanding and uh improving the eastern side of Hampton Roads Parkway with a new sidewalk that will run from Portsmouth Avenue all the way up to Pennsylvania Avenue uh to allow for pedestrian circulation.

It will connect into the existing sidewalks on Pennsylvania Avenue and Portsmouth Avenue to allow for safe pedestrian circulation through the area.

Um it'll be a 10-foot sidewalk with a four-foot land uh landscape strip there to allow for safe circulation, so there's a buffer between the ride-of-way.

Um also have enhanced landscape landscaping along Portsmouth uh Boulevard and Hampton Roads Parkway to mitigate any uh visual impacts from the project.

Um the project will be 24 hours, so in addition to convenience, the 24 hour facilities generally promote uh safety by having lighting and being constantly monitored and occupied.

So in conclusion, this is a thoughtfully designed project that uh will allow for the planned redevelopment of the area that's consistent with a comprehensive plan.

So uh we would uh request your recommendation of approval tonight.

Um stand by for any questions.

We also have the project engineer who I believe you signed up for questions uh after me, but we can answer any technical questions that uh I can't.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Roset.

Uh next speaker.

Next speaker speaking in support of agenda item number four and five is Greg Smith, who's indicated that they're available for questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Schmidt.

Next speaker.

Next speaker, speaking in opposition of agenda item number four and five, Vicky Evans.

Good evening.

My name is Vicki Evans.

I live at 2212 Hampton Roads Parkway.

Just peak two uh three three two one.

Um for a little more than two years, my husband and I have watched our community grow.

We live in the manor homes at Jolliffe Landing.

I'm here tonight to lend input to this hearing about the proposed war royal farms.

I'm not here to oppose progress and economic growth for the city, which is the best direction.

However, I'm not opposed to Royal Farms either.

But I do have concerns like many of my neighbors, like added traffic, noise, light pollution, and the opportunity for increased public safety issues that this retail outlet will bring, not to mention the potential for declined real estate values.

What we are asking is not for a stopped economic opportunity, but rather the consideration for additional public safety measures for Hampton Roads Parkway and Jolliffe Landing Parkway.

We would request um assistance from the city for additional signage to ensure that the maximum safety is available for our community.

In addition to our small ask, it would be helpful to have more of a police presence from precinct four to ensure that this um same few neighbors are not shouldering the burden to report semi-trucks and make calls about speeding vehicles in the neighborhood.

A few months after moving into our neighborhood, we experienced large speeding dump trucks up and down Hampton Roads Parkway from sun up to sunset every day, including Sundays and oftentimes before 6.20 a.m., which clearly violated the city's uh noise ordinance.

Some trucks would speed well in expense in excess of the posted 25 mile an hour speed limit.

And because there is not a single stop sign from Portsmouth Boulevard to the end of the street to the north, which is over three-quarters of a mile.

The 13-ton trucks would sometimes speed in excess of 40 miles an hour.

I've spoken extensively with the city's traffic engineering department and arranged for calming studies, each of which were sabotaged by the companies contracted to shore up infrastructure to the neighborhood immediately behind ours that happens to lie in the city of Suffolk's jurisdiction.

That neighborhood, the trucks and construction vehicles are far from being finished as we still have over 140 homes left that need to be built.

I've spent hours composing emails, making phone calls, returning phone calls, making complaints to the city, all while working a federal job.

The developer and the contractor have been non-compliant and will not hear any more of my requests.

All we want in the neighborhood is additional signage to slow the cars, trucks, and other vehicles down to a safe speed.

Add a few signs to discourage 18-wheelers from parking in front of our homes.

Thank you, Ms.

Evans.

Someone may call you back for questions.

Next speaker.

Next speaker speaking in opposition of agenda item four and five, Robin Hayes.

Good evening, Council members.

I am a homeowner at town at Landing Town.

Sorry I'm the little dovers.

Um I don't do public speaking that much.

Um I have been a homeowner from day one.

I feel that I love Royal Farms, but not in my community.

Um I think with this being a 24-hour convenience store, it's gonna bring a hot spot to crime.

It is basically gonna be 700 feet from my home.

A lot of children live in the community.

I just feel that um it's gonna be a lot of traffic with the gas pumps being underground.

There could be a leak, potential safety issues there.

Um children getting on and off the school bus.

We already have a lot of traffic.

We live across the street from the Amazon.

That being said, that's that enough is enough.

A lot of traffic.

Um as the lady before me was speaking, there is a lot of trucks that do come to the neighborhood, park there.

I feel that there's going to be a lot more crime in our neighborhood.

Um, my husband just retired from the police department.

I hear a lot of stories.

So with that being said, I truly, truly hope you guys do not approve this at our community.

Thank you.

Ms.

Hayes, will you state your name and address for the record?

Sorry.

That's okay.

It's Robin Hayes, 5121 Delancy Street.

Thank you.

Chesapeake.

Thank you.

Uh next speaker.

Next speaker speaking in opposition of agenda items four and five, SC Amagi.

Uh good evening, sir, ma'am.

Uh my name is A.

I live on 215 Stanley Street, Chesapeake, Virginia.

Uh I'm here today to respectfully ask you to oppose Royal Farm in our neighborhood.

Um this 24-hour fuel and retail operation or sit merely Robin Jesse, few yards from houses.

And we have plenty of kids in our neighborhood, big school bus, and we just really concerned about safety.

Uh also like she said, Amazon is right across and I've been here six years now, and I was here before the building Amazon, and I saw the difference in traffic trucks, and Royal Farm would just make it worse.

And I do not want to lose my uh lose the value of my home.

And uh, I just recalled from the military, and I cannot afford to go by another house because I don't really want to leave uh near store royal farm either.

So uh property value, public health, and environmental risk, uh gas station runoff, fuel emission.

We need to consider all that.

Um is you know, if it's 24 hours, so people will come in uh every time of the day and night, and we already have crumb issues.

We don't want that to grow exponentially, and I believe that royal farm uh any convenience store that close to residential area will just be detrimental to all of us.

So please consider our request tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Amigi.

Yes, sir.

Uh next speaker.

Next speaker speaking in opposition of agenda item four and five, Taylor Colby.

Hello.

My name's Taylor Colby.

I live at 5235 Lombard Street, Chesapeake, Virginia, 23321.

I am in opposition of this.

I live in the townhomes that you can see on that picture.

This is directly across the street, which is part of why we're very concerned.

The first thing would just be neighborhood quality.

I come in every day on Hampton Roads Parkway.

And personally, I don't really want to pass a lit up gas station sign every time I come in and out.

Along that, we are concerned about decreased property value.

We're a military family moving, is what happens.

This is not what we're looking forward to.

Just even the consideration that our property might devalue when we are told we have to move.

That's not a choice we have.

Something else with this is there is currently a gas station fueling center located 0.8 miles away at the 7-Eleven fuel station.

So I do believe that this Royal Farms is redundant.

It will only increase the traffic on Portsmouth Boulevard and obviously on Hampton Roads Parkway.

So that is within one mile of each other.

I understand that this does not have truck services, which I really appreciate.

However, it is still a big concern of ours that the trucks used to park along this street.

And it did get to the point where some of us were feeling unsafe.

It was trucks loitering for a very long time.

And I am not normally someone who gets nervous about those things, but I was uncomfortable letting my children play outside because I didn't I felt I always needed to have eyes on them.

Something else to note, we are in a child care crisis.

This current location is actually a child care facility.

I understand they might be selling the facility to Royal Farms.

What I'd like to consider rail farms is promoting the economic prosperity of the area.

I think we would be better off keeping this as a child care facility for future owners who want to help that big crisis that we're in.

If they don't, I do think it would still be more beneficial as an office space.

They are also promoting building a sidewalk as a benefit on Hampton Roads Parkway.

I do not think that that benefit outweighs the negativities of building a 24-hour convenience store directly across from our neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you, Ms.

Colby.

Next speaker.

Our next speaker speaking in opposition of agenda item four and five, Tiffany M.

Davis.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Tiffany M.

Davis.

I reside at 2253 Santa Bulane.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak in front of you tonight.

I know it's hectic.

I know it's long hours, but thank you.

Um I stand before you as a 24-year retired Army veteran, and I now reside in the city of Chesapeake, which I love.

Um I'm not opposed to progress, but I'm deeply committed to ensuring that progress coming to our area enhances the area and not endanger our neighborhood that we invest in, that we live in, that we raise our children in.

There is a lot of safety issues in the area.

Um we do have 18 wheelers in our neighborhood, which are a nuisance.

We do have increased crime rate that precinct four takes forever to adhere to because of their existing workload.

Our concerns are rooted in the real impacts the project will bring.

Within a three-mile radius, we have seven gas stations.

We do not need another.

What we do need is another daycare facility.

What we do need is something that would accommodate the Jolliffe Landing Estates community.

Um this doesn't fit the current structure of that.

Um we're not asking the city to halt the progress because we know that this is something that enhances the current progression.

All we're asking is the city to partner with us and look at our concerns and value our concerns and our thoughts.

Um, like enhancing public safety, uh clear signage and things of that nature.

Um, if this is approved, my request for royal farms are simple.

Strict management of your large vehicle parking, idling to prevent spillover, um, a dedicated safety traffic plan, which they have not laid out, um, an enhance online, I mean, enhance on light siding surveillance and security measures.

Um, in addition to that, proactive communication with the neighborhood.

If they want to be a part of this neighborhood, um, we expect them to show value to the people in Jolliffe Landing.

Um, these are not unreasonable ask.

Um, these are basic safeguards for taxpayers who feel the daily consequences of this development after tonight.

Um, what we're asking for is not perfection because we know that doesn't exist.

We're asking for protection and we're asking for at least um sorry.

We're we're asking for that at least for our community.

Um, and thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.

Thank you, Ms.

Davis.

Next speaker.

That concludes our speakers.

All right.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any discussion for this item.

So uh I'll I'll go.

Um and and I don't know which from the city staff want to address this.

You know, we we heard a number of concerns about public safety, and of course, you know, that that's always huge.

Um but I don't think this process is just the fact of approving this and in a facility gets built, there's quite a bit of input that goes in.

And so from the city staff, as we start to talk about public safety, and and you're talking about this facility being right across from the townhomes.

Um not only I think do we have fire input, but we have police input.

Can you talk a little bit about what goes into the review and and what type of input we do get for public safety when a when a facility like this?

Because whether it's a Royal Farms or it's a 7-Eleven, or regardless, you know, I think it's important for the community to know kind of what goes into this.

Thanks for that question.

That and that is absolutely a critical component of our review.

Um a little bit about our review process.

Um we have what's called the agenda review committee, and on that committee we have representation from both fire and police.

Uh one of the things that in in particular with the police uh review, we look at uh SEPTED, which is our crime prevention through environmental design.

Uh and that's uh really a a critical component of any development that comes through Chesapeake, is making sure uh that the site is designed in such a way with with lighting and with uh its layout so that it it prevents crime uh through through the way that it's designed.

Uh when we look at fire, you know, there there's uh certainly a lot in the fire code that requires uh access points and the ability to get to and from a parcel in a timely manner, and uh you know it's absolutely critical that if any of these uh these reviews show up something that that is uh that is uh inferior or does not meet the the standards, then uh that comment would be made and we'd be recommending uh denials a result of those.

Um in this case, we have not received any comments that show any concerns specifically with this the SEPTED with the with the with the site design or with any concerns from a fire access standpoint.

And I think I did note that uh and I know they did some preliminary that they did want to look at lighting and some things like that.

So um I just wanted to know that there is some some processes in place for this.

My other question would be that when you get a concern from a neighborhood like this, and we're talking about maybe additional signage because you have traffic and you have things coming out.

Is that appropriate?

Can is that something that can be can be accomplished, or is that something that the city would have to evaluate further?

How would that work?

Yeah, signage is typically reviewed by our public works department.

So when we look at what type of signage is placed where on public streets in particular, uh that that would go through public works.

Now, on-site signage uh specifically on royal farms, that can certainly be addressed uh through this process if there was something that uh that was that was brought up that you'd like to see.

And then I guess I just would have a question for the applicant if if there was any communication just with the the community, the neighbors that went to address concerns.

Um we uh hosted a community meeting, um, met for about an hour and a half, um, talked about uh with uh actually several of these uh uh speakers here this evening.

Uh Ms.

Davis and Ms.

Evans, I recognize from that meeting as well.

And so we had a uh a very productive conversation at that time.

And uh, you know, there seems to be broader traffic concerns in that area.

Obviously, we as a developer of one site can only do so much, but we think we've designed the site in such a way that we've especially the improvements to uh Portsmouth Boulevard and trying to do our part and and address some of those traffic concerns.

But um during that conversation, we uh we definitely said that you know, if there are broader traffic impacts or concerns that they should bring those to the city and uh you know be part of that process as well.

And we did talk about the site plan process, and we talked about um this being a longer uh the this is a zoning component, and then there's like a development component as well, and there's a pretty holistic view of these type of projects.

So um that that that was part of the uh it was very productive community meeting, and I do thank them for coming out this evening and for attending that community meeting as well.

Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Commissioner Williams?

Sir, if you you don't mind, back I just wanted to knock a couple of questions down.

And I'm not sure if this is for you or the planning department.

Is there any information that shows that a that a property like this will cause their these good folks to lose property value?

Do we have any data that shows that anywhere?

Yeah, I'm not familiar with any of those statistics or studies.

That was a pretty subjective standard, obviously.

Yeah, I understand that.

Yeah, that's not something when we're looking at a land use compatibility standpoint, that's not something that we necessarily take into consideration.

Okay.

Um then in some of the responses, there was questions about uh health and environmental impacts.

Does I'm assuming Royal Farms is a big giant company.

I've gone to many of them.

You guys that your your client will have the latest and most advanced safeguard systems in place for a fuel distribution center and so forth and so on.

Is there anything you can kind of speak about those?

Yeah.

It kind of helped to put the folks at ease.

Yeah, I mean, this isn't their uh first Royal Farms location, and there's all kinds of standards and regulations that need to abide by um during the site plan process and the engineer.

I also have the engineer here as well.

So if I it just if he will like see him jumping up, but um I just play one on time.

Come on down, how are you all doing?

Greg Schmidt, 4525 Main Street, uh Virginia Beach is my business address.

I work with Kimley Horn, we're a civil engineering consulting firm who works with Royal Farms up and down the East Coast.

Um related to the fuel service station itself, um all the underground tanks are modern dual-walled fiberglass tanks, they don't corrode, they don't have some of the issues that that prior tank designs have.

Um there is also a leak detection monitoring system that is underground that has a response plan that if a leak is identified, there's very specific measures that they have to do to address that concern immediately.

So related to the fueling station itself, those safeguards exist and their standards for how they operate their business in that sense.

Question?

Yes, sir.

I was not able to attend the community meeting, so I can't speak to some of that information.

I we did not discuss those specific technical components.

Obviously, I wasn't uh even able to articulate it here tonight.

But uh we were we did have a more general discussion just about safety and uh the quality of the product and um the you know environmental safeguards that generally are taking place on these type of projects.

I understand.

I understand.

But I'm talking about that uh explain to the people within the community to ease their minds with the with the children and so forth and so on.

You know, a peace of mind goes a long way.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, well we're happy to um have you promote uh additional discussion on that topic and provide any additional information as that concern is raised.

I I can share some additional details about site security lighting, those types of things.

Please.

Is that a question?

You have to do that.

Yeah, that was my next on the list.

Very good.

Okay.

So I don't know how familiar folks are with lighting design, but there's a rating for light fixtures that's called the bug rating.

The U in that rating is the up lighting.

So visible lighting that would appear as glare.

Um all the light fixtures that we design on these properties have a U rating of zero, which means that there is all the lighting is directional downward lighting.

So you don't get that glare.

It's not lights, you know, shining into the street, lights shining into people's windows.

It is directional downward lighting that is focused on the parking lot.

That doesn't mitigate the fact that you will see light, but it is not lighting that is projecting um into the roadways, into adjacent properties or into uh homes specific for the lighting.

Um for the security side, Royal Farms is operating a business and they don't like crime no different than the neighbors.

So they do have a robust security and camera system that is located around the building and on site.

Part of that is for operations and maintenance of the fueling station.

They have to meet certain standards for visibility to the fueling station from their manager's office and things like that.

Um but in addition, it's for their site security as well for their patrons and and for their employees.

So that is something that um in the ARARC meeting, I believe that that Mr.

McNamara had mentioned.

Those were some of the things that were discussed with the police representative at those meetings.

So in that in that security camera system, it uh sounds it's pretty extensive, right?

Yes, sir.

Yeah, that covers pretty much any angle you could wish to cover.

And that can to be honest with you, they potentially even bleed over to being able to see the properties across the street from it to provide a potential security for them.

Would that be a good idea?

Yes.

I would agree with that statement.

There will be exterior cameras that will be focused on on the site.

So, you know, related to cameras facing the public right-of-way sidewalks, things like that.

Um I would anticipate that there would be some visibility into that from a security perspective.

Thank you, sir.

We appreciate yes, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Squalya?

Thank you.

Either either of you.

Um things were mentioned tonight about being afraid of the safety, um, gas leaks, for example, things of that nature.

Could you talk a little bit about maybe what kind of safety precautions you have, shut-off things, things like that that we may not be aware of?

Yeah, one of the things that that I had mentioned previously is is what actually happens in the underground tanks.

Um, you know, they're they're modern tanks that are used across the country and are are designed to be located underground.

There's leak detection systems that notify the operations team if there is a leak identified with a specific response plan.

In addition to the fueling station itself, they have to have emergency shutoffs at the fuel pumps and at the at the front of the building that the manager um has visibility to to make sure that if there is something happening in the in the canopy itself that would be relating to a leak or a fire or anything like that, that they have the ability to shut that off quickly.

Um, beyond that, the uh as Mr.

McEnrad mentioned, the the site development plan process goes through a detailed review on development and permits.

Um they're looking at everything from stormwater quality to stormwater quantity, how much runoff are we producing, um, and all that is evaluated extensively at the at the site plan stage.

But also uh mentioned that uh modern cars actually have a vapor capper capture system for when actually pumping gas, there won't be exhausts that are just coming from the gas station out of the car.

So there's a mechanism within vehicles to actually capture any of that uh extra exhaust as well.

Other commissioners.

Okay.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you all.

Any other general questions or comments for staff or otherwise?

I'm just gonna make a comment.

Please.

Um I I do appreciate the fact that the entry is going to be off on the on the side as opposed to coming right off Portsmouth Boulevard and flying in there.

I think it will slow people down.

Um I went out to look at the site today, and initially, um, my feeling was well, this looks like a residential area, and they plopped it in the middle, but it's really commercial.

And it's that's what is zoned for.

Um, and I I don't think it is going to be too close to the houses because there is that that daycare there now, and I looked at where I think Royal Farms is going to fit on the lot, and I hope it will be an asset to the neighborhood.

Um and based on some of the things that they have said, the mitigation uh that they have taken, I I I think it will be an enhancement, not a detraction.

Other commissioners, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

McNamara, could you speak to I know uh level of service goes down a tad bit in the evening.

Um I'm thinking about the 18-wheeler situation or the the tractor trailer situation.

I am not sure that the gas station is tied into 18-wheelers parking in the neighborhood, but what's that all about?

I I heard one speaker say that it is still happening.

I heard one say that it used to happen.

Not sure that that changes anything here, but it's a concern that I just wanted to address.

Yeah, so those types of situations are best reported uh, you know, as as those come up, uh specifically to you know, police uh, you know, to to let them know that if there's any unnecessary uh and illegal parking of vehicles within the right-of-way, that would be the way to do that.

I am I am assuming at this point that you know, with the large uh shipping operations around the area, uh that that's probably what is generating a lot of that specific traffic.

Um so, you know, unfortunately with this application, as you said, you know, it's it's it's not necessarily tied with that existing traffic that's coming through and that existing issue.

Um but you know, uh I I'm speaking a little out of turn here, but I know that you know the city is is certainly uh, you know, looks out for our citizens and and if there are situations where uh you know that there is illegal activity that is taking place, whether it be parking a vehicle or loitering or what whatever that may be, uh, you know, it by reporting it uh to the appropriate authorities that we will certainly uh jump on that situation.

So, Mr.

Chair, do I understand correctly that the parking of those vehicles now is illegally done?

And so that even adding more signs probably isn't gonna change anything because if they're breaking the law with the signs there now, more signs is not gonna do anything.

Allegedly.

I was gonna say I can't speak to that to the nature of the you know whether it if there is an illegal situation that is taking place, then it should absolutely be reported.

Uh if they're blocking the right-of-way with parking, that would certainly uh be an unauthorized stop within the right-of-way that was impeding uh impeding things.

Uh but I I think you know if if there is specific questions about whether vehicles can be in a location or not, we know I would encourage them to the community to continue to have dialogue with the city uh by calling 382 uh 382 City and reporting that situation, and they will certainly connect you with whether it's uh it's public works or the police department or whoever it needs to be.

Uh but we can certainly look into those situations as they arise.

Perfect.

Yes, ma'am.

Commercial vehicles, they should be parked on private property in designated areas that they're permitted to park.

Um enforcement is distributed throughout the city.

Development and permits handles properties that have illegal commercial vehicles parked as a zoning violation, and the police handles commercial vehicles parked and the public right-of-way.

And that's actually enforced much quicker because you can call the non-emergency number and they'll dispatch a police officer.

And if it's a person that lives there, they'll take the friendly approach of notifying them and making sure they move on.

If it's somebody who doesn't live there, they can ticket them right on the spot and have them move on.

It's been our experience that the less developed the property is, the more likely somebody is to feel accommodating that, you know, what does it hurt if we park there?

I know around the corner there were actually large trucks that were parking along that street parallel to Portsmouth Boulevard closer to Jolliffe Road while they were um, you know, staying at the hotel.

And there's been fairly um a lot of concerns raised with the police department, and they have done some enforcement already, but I think that would be the best approach for residents.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, thank you for the lengthy questions.

Um that that helps me and I will be voting in support of the project.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other commissioners?

I do I do Mr.

Schmidt, maybe you can just help me.

I just want to make sure I look, because I think I heard uh one of the comments talk about really not a turn or the entrance really wasn't on Portsmouth Boulevard, but there's a turn, right-hand turn lane that goes there.

Uh and I'm looking at the site plan that was developed.

And I think there actually is access from Portsmouth Boulevard and that that turn lane is going to be extended to allow is that correct?

I it's kind of blurry on here, so I just want to make sure we do have an entrance that that that comes and it's it's been pushed a little bit further back and and there is a turn lane that's been extended, correct?

Is that that's correct.

As Mr.

Rosé had mentioned, there is a number of residential driveway aprons that were installed when Portsmouth Boulevard wasn't approved.

Those are being removed.

Um and we are extending the right turn lane another 400 feet, I think, down towards Jolliffe Landing Road.

And that right turn lane will facilitate a right-in-right-out movement onto Portsmouth Boulevard.

Okay.

And the main intent of that is where we do have the diesel canopy located, that it will allow those diesel trucks to enter from Portsmouth Boulevard and to exit back onto Portsmouth Boulevard, whether it be large recreational vehicles, uh farm equipment, whatever, whatever they might be filling up in that diesel canopy.

Okay.

I I was just looking and the iPad is a little fuzzy and with the site plan, so I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that.

Okay.

That's right.

All right.

Other commissioners questions, comments.

If not, a motion is an order.

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve.

Okay.

With proffers?

With proffers.

All right.

And we have a second.

Second.

A second.

All right.

We have a properly made motion by Commissioner Squelia and a second by Commissioner Bearfield.

Okay.

Commissioners, please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Bostwick, please record the vote.

By a vote of eight to zero, the motion carries.

Okay.

That brings us to the end of our uh public hearing this evening.

Mr.

McNamara, do you have any items to bring up at this time?

It's Mr.

Lewis.

Uh Mr.

Martinez, am I reading you correctly that we've only taken action on the rezoning and that we need to take action on the use permit now?

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you for that uh clarification there.

We all we need a motion now for the uh use permit.

Uh motion to approve the use permit.

Okay.

We have a second.

A second.

Okay.

We have a motion by Commissioner Williams and a second by uh with stipulation.

With stipul are there other stipulations?

There are no stipulations.

Mr.

Chairman, point of order, there are no stipulations on this use permit, so it would just be a straight approval for the commission.

Correct.

Okay, so we have a properly made motion by Commissioner Williams and a second by Commissioner Gilman.

Commissioners, please prepare to vote.

Please vote.

Mr.

Bostrick record the vote.

By vote of eight to zero, the motion carries.

Well, I think it would be appropriate, Mr.

Chair, to thank uh both you and uh Commissioner Cruz for your service on the record uh uh in front of everyone.

Uh again, uh reiterating some points from earlier.

We we greatly appreciate your service to the city uh and your your your selfless uh dedication and sacrifice through these years, and we look forward to carrying forward that uh the work that you've done.

Thank you very much.

Very much appreciated.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Uh Commissioners, cancellation of the December 24th, 2025 meeting is now being considered due to there being no business.

Any commissioners have objections to canceling the Christmas Eve meeting?

All right.

Hearing no objections, the December 24th, 2025 meeting is canceled by unanimous consent.

Uh any other unfinished or new business to be brought up for the good of the Commission.