Virginia Beach Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Virginia Beach Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 2026
The Virginia Beach Planning Commission held an all-day meeting on April 9, 2026, beginning with an informal session (briefing) followed by a formal public hearing. The commission reviewed 17 agenda items, heard public testimony on several, and voted on recommendations to City Council. A key topic was a briefing on data center proliferation and the need for updated regulations, leading to a motion to send a letter to City Council.
Consent Calendar
- Items 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, 15, 16 and the minutes of prior meetings were approved by consent. These included: adding cemeteries/columbariums/crematories/mausoleums to industrial districts (Item 1); a subdivision variance for a Seven Brew coffee shop at 1605 Laskin Road (Item 3); an alley closure for 4502 and 4504 Myrtle Avenue (Item 5); a conditional use permit for a home-based wildlife rehabilitation facility (Item 12); and three short-term rental conditional use permits at 213 16th Street and two units at 4005 Atlantic Avenue (Items 14-16).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 2 – Lighthouse Development LLC (Ash Avenue subdivision variance): Wayne Beagle and Shirley Williams, property owners on Ash Avenue, expressed strong opposition due to chronic flooding in the area. They described repeated flooding events and frustrations with city inaction. Councilmember Dr. Amelia Ross Hammond attended to hear the concerns. The applicants noted the proposal would not increase density but would improve lot sizes.
- Item 4 – Schroeder alley closure (Croatan): Stephen Donini and Ashley Donini, owners of 624 Surfside Avenue, spoke in opposition. They stated they had invested over $60,000 in improvements on the alley, were unaware of the property lines, and argued the closure should reflect historical use. The applicant’s attorney countered that the Schroeders had legal rights to half the alley and the opponents were encroaching on city property.
- Item 8 – Montessori Schoolhouse LLC family daycare home: No public speakers were signed up, but the commission noted eight letters of support and five letters of opposition from neighbors concerned about traffic, noise, and property values.
- Item 10 – Colin Nannary e-bike rental business: Debbie Jeter and Hatcher Jeter, neighbors at 3700 Sandpiper Road, spoke in opposition citing safety concerns, reckless e-bike use, and lack of bike lanes. James Barton, the applicant’s father, spoke in support, emphasizing safety measures and economic benefits. The applicant clarified the business would rent only Class 1 and 2 e-bikes with geofencing and GPS tracking.
- Item 11 – Southside Barbell LLC gym: No public speakers were present. The applicant requested an indefinite deferral to pursue a professional parking study.
- Item 13 – Pembroke Square Associates (Pembroke Mall redevelopment): The applicant requested minor modifications to conditions regarding sidewalk width and the definition of “street” in the form-based code requirements. No public speakers.
Discussion Items
- Data Center Briefing: Zoning Administrator Hannah Sabo presented an overview of data centers, their energy and water use, noise impacts, and regulatory gaps. Commissioners discussed the lack of specific zoning tools in Virginia Beach compared to other localities (e.g., Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William) and the urgency to address potential applications. The commission agreed to send a letter to City Council highlighting the need for updated regulations.
- Comprehensive Plan Transition: Staff discussed how the pending adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (scheduled for City Council on April 21) would affect applications submitted under the 2016 plan. Staff noted that applications would still be evaluated against the 2016 plan but the commission could consider conformance with the new plan.
Key Outcomes
- Item 2 – Lighthouse Development LLC: Approved (10-0). The commission recognized the flooding concerns but noted the variance only slightly enlarges existing buildable lots and does not increase density. Councilmember Ross Hammond pledged to advocate for drainage improvements.
- Item 4 – Schroeder alley closure: Approved (10-0). The commission determined the street closure was routine and that ownership disputes are a civil matter outside the commission’s purview.
- Item 6 – Commonwealth Brewing Company extension: Approved (9-0) with a modified condition extending the deadline to 180 days from City Council approval (approximately November 2026).
- Item 8 – Montessori Schoolhouse LLC: Approved (9-0) with a modified condition limiting the number of children to eight (instead of twelve) to address neighborhood concerns. The applicant agreed.
- Item 10 – Colin Nannary e-bike rental: Approved (9-0) with added conditions limiting the fleet to 25 Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, requiring helmets and safety education, and enforcing geofencing within Sandbridge.
- Item 11 – Southside Barbell LLC: Indefinite deferral granted (9-0) at the applicant’s request to allow time for a professional parking study.
- Item 13 – Pembroke Square Associates: Approved (7-0-2) with the modified condition removing the word “sidewalks” from Condition 8, as requested by the applicant. Commissioners Biler and Plumley abstained due to business affiliations.
- New Business – Data Centers: The commission voted (9-0) to authorize the chair to draft and send a letter to City Council regarding the secondary impacts of data centers and the need for updated zoning regulations. The letter will include reference to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) study and other relevant materials.
Meeting Transcript
Ladies and gentlemen. Good morning, everyone, and thank you. For this for your participation today. My name is John Cost, and I'm the chair of the G B Planning Commission. Welcome to the April 8th informed session of the Virginia Beach Committee Commission. Call this meeting to a lot. There will be some changes in the way we conduct the business today. Presentations. Right after their presentation. Speakers, we'll move to the speakers. Okay. Good. Okay. Roger back. Ms. Gatelin. And I did just want to make one point. Uh Commissioner Anderson is absent today. He's out of town for work. I just have two quick things. Um, so thank you for all of those who responded to the panic button app email. Um, for those who have heard from, I did forward that on to get you added to that system. Um, I'm waiting on confirmation when that has gone through. There is a brief training that you'll have to do, just that goes into the ins and outs of using that panic button. If there's anyone who did not respond but is interested, just let me know, and we can get you set up for that. Um other thing. So looking ahead to our May agenda, informal agenda specifically, Kathy will be giving a briefing on the planning commission city council application process in response to the request of trying to get information early and potentially looking at pushing the planning commission meeting back a week and kind of what impacts that would have. So that will be on your May agenda. That's all I have. City Council has the uh comp plan on their docket, I believe April 21st. So the potential is when we meet again in May, the new comprehensive plan will have been approved. The agenda items that we would encounter in May would have worked through the process under the existing comprehensive plan. Can you discuss for a minute how we might expect to approach things on the May docket given that circumstance? So, in my opinion, and as you mentioned, they'll already be going through the process. Staff review and analysis will have been already been completed by that point. So they will have been analyzed against the current so the 2016 comprehensive plan. Um so I would think if if an application maybe doesn't adhere to the 2016 plan, but it would be in conformance with the 2040 plan if it's adopted. I think you could be could take that into consideration. I would hesitate, and I don't think staff would um hold an application if it doesn't conform with the imagined 2040 comprehensive plan. We wouldn't hold the application to that since at the time of submit of the 2016 plan, is what would have been an effect. Um so that's how we will be evaluating it. But I think in terms of y'all's discussion, if maybe it does conform with the newer plan, but maybe not the old. I think you can factor that in, but I'd hesitate holding it to it since it was they would have been submitted prior to adoption. And since we will only get the staff report five days before the vote, that our basis for understanding really anything about these in any detail would be based on the what's still current, the 2016 plan. So if we were to formulate our opinions based on the current plan, that would not be incorrect, even though in the intervening week the city council may have adopted something new. Is that correct? Thank you, sir. Any other comments, Mr. Poolley? What is the purpose of changing the uh procedure for questioning the applicant?
openpublica.com