OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Virginia Beach Planning Commission Meeting: June 10, 2026 – Regular and Public Hearing Sessions

Planning Commission Meetings — Thursday, June 11, 2026
BodyVirginia Beach, Virginia
SessionPlanning Commission Meetings
DateThursday, June 11, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

And thank you, Planning Commissioners of CS staff for your participation today.

0:04

My name is John Coston, and I'm the chair of the GB Planning Commission.

0:10

Welcome to the June 10th informal session of the Virginia Beach Planning Commission.

0:16

All this meeting.

0:19

The staff anything has anything for us.

0:22

I don't have any updates this morning.

0:23

I know we have a full agenda, so we'll allot the time to that.

0:28

Let's get started.

0:36

Good morning, everyone.

0:37

I'm Hannah Sabo, the zoning administrator for the city of Virginia Beach.

0:41

Um, these next five items were all briefed to you previously and are updates to the zoning ordinance in response to the new bills that were approved by the state legislature to bring our ordinance into compliance with that updated state code.

0:54

Item one is an ordinance pertaining to solar facilities as conditional and accessory use.

1:00

This update is in response to House Bill 711.

1:02

It codifies an existing interpretation that permits accessory solar equipment and adds solar facilities as a principal use with a conditional use permit in the agricultural, business, and industrial districts.

1:15

The change to state code now requires that localities permit solar facilities in certain districts.

1:21

We can require conditional use permit, which is what this ordinance does.

1:25

So it adds the use to those districts, which are the agricultural districts, business districts, and industrial districts, again, with a conditional use permit required.

1:33

Solar facilities would have to comply with all of the district screening and setback requirements of that base district, and then any conditions that are added to that conditional use permit.

1:42

Due to the short turnaround for this amendment, um, we did not include specific use conditions in the code, but we could always come back and add those to the zoning ordinance.

1:51

And in the meantime, any conditions that are specific to the use specific to the site can be added during that conditional use permit process.

2:01

For accessory structures, this amendment um codifies the existing interpretation that already allows solar panels as an accessory structure on the roofs, they must meet the height requirements, and then ground mounted equipment must comply with the accessory structure setbacks and size limitations for accessory structures.

2:17

So the same setbacks and size limitations that you would have for any other, like a shed, for example, in your backyard.

2:23

Any questions on solar panels?

2:28

One quick question that will apply to all six of these.

2:31

I'll just ask it once.

2:33

When the state law changed and you had to then take those changes and incorporate them into our code, can you tell us did you exercise any discretion or did you only make some limited change permitted by state law?

2:51

For example, if it said you must change this, of course, you would change just that.

2:57

But if it said you may change for a range of things, did you change it for a range of things or just one thing?

3:05

So the answer is yes and no.

3:08

Um because all of these changes were requirements for seat code, so there was not a discretionary decision on should we bring this forward for your consideration.

3:17

But there are elements to some of these, such as the small lots ordinance that Hannah will be getting to that um said that we have to have single family as a permitted use in a small lot and they give some dimensional requirements that they did not nitpick far enough to say your front yard setback has to be this.

3:37

Your lot with for all dimensional requirements, so there was a little bit of discretion that was exercised in that way, but um all of these were must adopt something in in this fashion.

3:49

Understand.

3:50

So if it in any of the other five, if there is some element like you may extend it to five different types of use districts, and you chose to do all five instead of just three, for example.

4:03

Could you just tell us if one of those examples arises?

4:07

Yes, I will do my best to try and solve those.

4:11

Okay.

4:13

So for moving forward to the um next one, item two is an ordinance to amend section 207 of the city zoning ordinance pertaining to building mounted antennas, small wireless facilities, and temporary communication towers.

4:27

So this uh amendment is in response to House Bill 876, which provides specific requirements and limitations for how locality can regulate these temporary wireless structures.

4:36

And I will note that this is one that they have very specific requirements.

4:40

So I think everything listed in here is directly from the state.

4:44

Um, temporary wireless structures are monopoles or other wireless communication facilities that are used to provide wireless transmissions within a designated area.

4:52

Uh, they do not have a permanent foundation.

4:55

And so these types of structures are used during um times when an increase in wireless coverage is needed.

5:02

So during a city permitted special events, wireless testing outages during an emergency.

5:07

And in the code, we specify which of these that you have to meet one of these conditions in order to get this permit.

5:14

They're approved for 180 days initially with an option to extend up to two years if that event or incident is continuing.

5:21

The wireless provider is required to restore the installers required to restore the site within 48 hours of removal.

5:28

Okay, sorry, any questions on that one?

5:32

Item three.

5:33

It's an ordinance to amend Section 203 of the city zoning ordinance pertaining to minimum parking requirements for residential and mixed uses.

5:39

So this amendment is in response to House Bill 888 and adds a parking reduction option for residential uses within half a mile of a public transportation facility.

5:51

It does come from the state.

5:53

This map shows right here the bus stops within a half, and then the ones that have the blue radius around them are those with a bus shelter.

6:05

So it is, and I'll go back to specify that the parking reduction applies to bus stops that have a physical structure or a physical bus shelter.

6:13

It's not just all bus stops with a sign.

6:14

It does need to have some sort of a structure attached to it.

6:18

And so that parking reduction, these specific numbers, uh what they're reduced to, that does come from the state.

6:23

So multifamily or mixed-use residential development.

6:26

The parking would be 0.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and then one space per dwelling unit for one and two family and townhouse uses.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use██████████████████████████████████████████42%
Procedural██████████10%
Transportation Safety██████████10%
Short-Term Rentals█████████9%
Community Engagement███████7%
Conditional Rezoning████4%
Environmental Protection███3%
Engineering And Infrastructure███3%
Assisted Living Facilities███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Virginia Beach Planning Commission Meeting – June 10, 2026

The Virginia Beach Planning Commission held its informal session and public hearing on June 10, 2026, chaired by John Coston. The meeting addressed zoning ordinance updates, rezonings, conditional use permits, and a group home expansion. Key decisions included approval of a parking structure at Westminster Canterbury, denial of a group home expansion, and approval of several short-term rental permits. The commission also voted to request additional time from City Council on a proposed short-term rental boundary overlay.

Consent Calendar

  • Items 1-5 (Zoning Ordinance Updates): Five ordinances amending the zoning code to comply with state legislation (HB 711, HB 876, HB 888, HB 1212, HB 1463) were approved on consent. These addressed solar facilities, temporary communication towers, parking reductions near transit, small lot developments (R2.5 district), and non-conforming mobile homes.
  • Item 6 (Subdivision Variance): A variance for a 9,966 sq ft parcel in the R10 district (deficient in lot area and width) was approved to correct a 1954 improper subdivision.
  • Item 8 (Gunsmithing Home Occupation): Modification of conditions to allow gunsmithing with one customer on-site by appointment was approved, with an added condition: “with the exception of transfers directly related to gunsmithing activities.”
  • Items 15-16 (Auto Repair Garage): Conditional rezoning from R5D to I1 and a conditional use permit for an eight-series auto services facility on Dam Neck Road were approved.
  • Items 17-18 (Adult Daycare): A conditional use permit for an adult daycare facility for adults with disabilities was approved.
  • Item 19 (Food Truck): A conditional use permit for a food truck at Newtown Plaza was approved.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Items 13-14 (Shore Drive Condos): Nine speakers addressed the proposal. Civic league representatives expressed concerns about density, traffic, stormwater, and consistency with the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. Several neighboring property owners voiced support, citing the redevelopment of an eyesore. The applicant noted over 30 community meetings and adjustments to building height and articulation based on Bayfront Advisory Commission recommendations.
  • Item 20 (Group Home Expansion): Twelve of thirteen speakers opposed the expansion from 8 to 14 residents, citing parking overflow, safety on narrow roads (Shorehaven and Batcove roads), and the commercial nature of the use. One speaker supported the expansion, thanking the applicant for her mother’s care. The applicant’s consultant argued the use remains residential under fair housing laws.
  • Items 21-24 (Short-Term Rentals): Speakers from the 20th and a half street neighborhood consistently opposed new STRs, citing parking congestion, noise, and loss of neighborhood character. No speakers appeared in support for these items.

Discussion Items

  • Item 7 (Street Closure – 30-Day Deferral): Applicant requested a 30-day deferral to explore alternatives with city staff; approved.
  • Item 9 (Short-Term Rental – You’re Not Alone LLC): A conditional use permit modification to allow a third parking space for a three-bedroom STR unit was approved after discussion about right-of-way parking practices.
  • Item 10 (Westminster Canterbury Parking Structure): A modification to construct a four-level, 340-space parking garage was approved with additional conditions: live oaks to be preserved/replaced, replacement trees with 4-inch caliper, and a commitment to restore ADA beach access on the property.
  • Item 11 (City Rezoning to P1 Preservation): A 1.68-acre city-owned parcel on Upton Drive was rezoned from R7.5 to P1 preservation. The civic league supported the change for tree planting; staff confirmed tree planting is feasible despite utility easements.
  • Items 13-14 (Shore Drive Condos): A conditional rezoning to B4 mixed-use with a 52-unit condominium and 2,000 sq ft retail was debated. Concerns included traffic exceeding road capacity, need for a stormwater pump station on the site, and density (23.6 units/acre vs. current 4.25). Applicant addressed height by stepping down to three stories near homes. Public Works Director LJ Hanson stated the site is a preferred but not exclusive location for a stormwater pump station. Approved 9-1-1 (Camp nay, Plumley abstained).
  • Item 20 (Group Home – Charlene Livers): The applicant sought to expand an assisted living facility from 8 to 14 residents. Neighbors testified about existing parking issues, emergency vehicle access problems, and a bus stop near a blind curve. Commissioner discussion focused on parking adequacy and whether the site could accommodate the expansion. Denied 7-4.
  • Items 21-24 (Short-Term Rentals): Four STR applications in the Vibe District overlay were considered. Item 21 (404 21st St Unit A) approved 10-1; Item 22 (513 20th St) approved 10-1; Item 23 (511 20th St) approved 9-1; Item 24 (513 20th St) approved 9-1. Dissenting votes were cast by Commissioner Plumley, citing neighborhood opposition and parking concerns.

Key Outcomes

  • Items 1-6, 8, 15-19: Approved by consent.
  • Item 7: 30-day deferral granted.
  • Items 9, 10, 11, 13-14: Approved as recommended with modifications.
  • Item 12 (Raymond CC LLC mixed-use): Indefinitely deferred (applicant requested).
  • Item 20: Denied (7-4).
  • Items 21-24: Approved (various vote counts).
  • New Business: Commission voted 10-0 to request an extension from City Council on the short-term rental boundary overlay update; the parking restriction amendment will proceed to a July vote.
  • Meeting Schedule Study: Staff presented analysis showing moving the planning commission hearing to the third Wednesday would delay city council timelines; no formal action taken.

Meeting Transcript

And thank you, Planning Commissioners of CS staff for your participation today. My name is John Coston, and I'm the chair of the GB Planning Commission. Welcome to the June 10th informal session of the Virginia Beach Planning Commission. All this meeting. The staff anything has anything for us. I don't have any updates this morning. I know we have a full agenda, so we'll allot the time to that. Let's get started. Good morning, everyone. I'm Hannah Sabo, the zoning administrator for the city of Virginia Beach. Um, these next five items were all briefed to you previously and are updates to the zoning ordinance in response to the new bills that were approved by the state legislature to bring our ordinance into compliance with that updated state code. Item one is an ordinance pertaining to solar facilities as conditional and accessory use. This update is in response to House Bill 711. It codifies an existing interpretation that permits accessory solar equipment and adds solar facilities as a principal use with a conditional use permit in the agricultural, business, and industrial districts. The change to state code now requires that localities permit solar facilities in certain districts. We can require conditional use permit, which is what this ordinance does. So it adds the use to those districts, which are the agricultural districts, business districts, and industrial districts, again, with a conditional use permit required. Solar facilities would have to comply with all of the district screening and setback requirements of that base district, and then any conditions that are added to that conditional use permit. Due to the short turnaround for this amendment, um, we did not include specific use conditions in the code, but we could always come back and add those to the zoning ordinance. And in the meantime, any conditions that are specific to the use specific to the site can be added during that conditional use permit process. For accessory structures, this amendment um codifies the existing interpretation that already allows solar panels as an accessory structure on the roofs, they must meet the height requirements, and then ground mounted equipment must comply with the accessory structure setbacks and size limitations for accessory structures. So the same setbacks and size limitations that you would have for any other, like a shed, for example, in your backyard. Any questions on solar panels? One quick question that will apply to all six of these. I'll just ask it once. When the state law changed and you had to then take those changes and incorporate them into our code, can you tell us did you exercise any discretion or did you only make some limited change permitted by state law? For example, if it said you must change this, of course, you would change just that. But if it said you may change for a range of things, did you change it for a range of things or just one thing? So the answer is yes and no. Um because all of these changes were requirements for seat code, so there was not a discretionary decision on should we bring this forward for your consideration. But there are elements to some of these, such as the small lots ordinance that Hannah will be getting to that um said that we have to have single family as a permitted use in a small lot and they give some dimensional requirements that they did not nitpick far enough to say your front yard setback has to be this. Your lot with for all dimensional requirements, so there was a little bit of discretion that was exercised in that way, but um all of these were must adopt something in in this fashion. Understand. So if it in any of the other five, if there is some element like you may extend it to five different types of use districts, and you chose to do all five instead of just three, for example. Could you just tell us if one of those examples arises? Yes, I will do my best to try and solve those. Okay. So for moving forward to the um next one, item two is an ordinance to amend section 207 of the city zoning ordinance pertaining to building mounted antennas, small wireless facilities, and temporary communication towers. So this uh amendment is in response to House Bill 876, which provides specific requirements and limitations for how locality can regulate these temporary wireless structures. And I will note that this is one that they have very specific requirements. So I think everything listed in here is directly from the state. Um, temporary wireless structures are monopoles or other wireless communication facilities that are used to provide wireless transmissions within a designated area. Uh, they do not have a permanent foundation. And so these types of structures are used during um times when an increase in wireless coverage is needed. So during a city permitted special events, wireless testing outages during an emergency. And in the code, we specify which of these that you have to meet one of these conditions in order to get this permit. They're approved for 180 days initially with an option to extend up to two years if that event or incident is continuing. The wireless provider is required to restore the installers required to restore the site within 48 hours of removal. Okay, sorry, any questions on that one? Item three.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com