[0:06] Good morning everyone. Thank you to be meeting their.

[0:11] Participation today. John Costa is the chair of the planning commission. Welcome to the August 12th informal hearing.

[0:24] Excuse us.

[0:27] You have a date for us this morning, ma'am. Move on into education.

[0:38] And sharing.

[0:41] Your hearing.

[0:42] Okay, I'll speak up.

[0:52] Good morning, planning commission. I'm Hannah Szabo, zoning administrator. The first two items are related to short term rentals at the oceanfront. Short term rentals, also called STRs. So I'll be using the acronym STR. Moving forward. Item one is an amendment to section 241.2 of the zoning ordinance. And then item two is an amendment to the Oceanfront Resort Short Term Rental Overlay District on April 21st, 2026. City Council approved a referral resolution sponsored by Vice Mayor Wilson and council members Remick, Schulman, and Henley relating to short term rentals within the oceanfront resort district. Um, that was a twofold change or proposed change and update and reduction in the str overlay map to address the proliferation of STRs at the oceanfront and reduce impacts to the neighborhood. And I'll just note that during the 2024 Virginia Beach Housing Study, stakeholders did identify concerns with STRs reducing the supply of rental housing, and so that was the reason for that overlay change. The other portion of this was a revision to the parking requirements for STRs within the overlay that was held at your last Planning Commission meeting. You guys voted on that. And then it was last night, deferred at City council to the September 1st City Council meeting to be heard along with the map update as well. So today we will just be talking about the overlay boundary revision. So with the there are two different maps that we'll be looking at. And we'll get to those in a moment. But first I wanted to discuss what will happen to those STRs if they are mapped out of the overlay. So legally operating short term rentals which are mapped out of the overlay. So they are currently within the str overlay. And this a proposal would perhaps map them out of that. They would become grandfathered. They would be permitted to continue their STR use under the conditions of their CP, with the exception that grandfathered STRs can't expand the footprint of the dwelling beyond 25% or 1000ft², whichever is less. And if they are not used as an STR for a period of two years, they will lose their grandfathered designation if this ordinance is approved. Any stores operating illegally so without a copy or without their um STR permit or properties which don't currently have a copy for an STR that are mapped out of that overlay, they would no longer be able to apply for a copy for an str, so the updated str overlay map proposed as part of the resolution is shown here, and I'll zoom in in a moment. But the portions in purple here would be removed. With this map. There are 50 permitted STRs that would become grandfathered by that change. Those STRs would go from about Pacific in 20.5 street to the blocks facing 17th Street. During the July 8th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, an alternative map was presented. This map, alternative A, keeps a portion of the vibe district within the STR overlay, along with the block to the north of 17th Street and the half block the south of 17th Street, and there are 19 STRs that would become grandfathered by this amendment. So zooming in here to the area that differentiates between the two. We have I'll also just note here that this, when you zoom in, also shows an update to the compliant versus non-compliant stars. We didn't change it when we're doing all of the briefings. We want to keep the same kind of data on there. But this data was from 2025. The compliant versus non-compliant data, I'll say. And then um, so these zoomed in ones have the current data as of last month. And I'll just note that non-compliant STRs within the oceanfront resort overlay at large went from 107 in December of 2025 to only 16 this month. So just a shout out to our SDR team that is doing great work on that. So here we have the STR resolution map. And then if we toggle to alternative A, you can see that this one keeps a portion of that vibe district within the SDR overlay, along with the block to the north of 17th Street and the half block to the south of 17th.

[4:55] Since the resolution was adopted by City Council during their April 21st meeting, a number of public meetings and outreach efforts have occurred. Briefings to the Planning Commission, resort advisory commissions, and subcommittees, among others, all of which were open to the public. We also briefed the Hampton Roads Real Estate Association during the July 7th City Council hearing to extend the resolution time frame, and then that July 8th Public Planning Commission hearing, which deferred the item. There were no speakers signed up to speak at either of those items. On July 22nd, a landing page was added to the STR website, which provided information on the proposed amendment that had both maps on there and then contact information for any questions, and that a link to that website was included, where we sent out the mailers to all affected properties for this meeting so they could go on the website and see all the information. Also included in the mailers was information on a drop in style citizen outreach meeting, which was held on August 4th. That information was also on the website, so anyone who went to the website could also find out about that. That was August 4th in the evening. It was within walking distance of the affected area. We had two property owners actually walked. It was raining a little bit, but they made the trek to that meeting and we had a total of five members of the public come and then asked questions. Staff has received about 15 calls in the last month with questions about the overlay change. There was one letter of opposition which was included in your supplement package. There are two maps as previously mentioned. So during the vote this afternoon, Planning Commission will be asked to identify which map you were making the vote on, whether it's the map that is included in the resolution, or alternative A, which was brought forward during the last Planning Commission meeting. There are any questions on this item, and I know this is two items. Item one is the text amendment that updates that grandfather date to include these properties. And then item two, which is the actual map change. So those two kind of go hand in hand.

[6:54] And I just wanted to be clear I want to say this. So here's this. So if you're grandfathered there's no admin renewal.

[7:02] Correct.

[7:03] So going forward there if you have your position now within that purple zone you don't have to come back or admin renewal. I just want to make sure that that was heard and said.

[7:15] Okay.

[7:16] You still need to get a.

[7:18] Yearly permit to make sure that we are up to date on everything. We would still make sure that the, um, safety plan is up to date, all that information, but there's no administrative removal. That conditional use permit. That's correct.

[7:30] I'm really appreciative of all the time spent on this and that we had extended the time period to consider it. I think it was very useful, gave more time to the community to weigh in. I will say the comments I've received are pretty neutral about it. Um, the folks most concerned obviously either have interest in having an FDR there, or they already have an STR in that area. When they learned about, uh, the grandfathering position they would be in that they they seemed content with that. Generally speaking, not everybody is 100% happy. I, I prefer alternative A, because I felt like the vibe district should have more opportunity for STRs. To me, reducing the number of STRs is a benefit to our community. It's been my position pretty consistently on the Planning Commission, but this plan isn't so drastic as you can see as to, um, dramatically cut into it. And we're now affecting a small number of folks with current STRs. So that's why I'm in favor of alternate A. I just wanted to let you know which one after all this time that I that I favor and the reasons why.

[8:40] Okay.

[8:43] Thank you, miss. I have a couple of questions about the map itself, please. At the top of both maps on Pacific Avenue, we see a dark line there within the dark green boundary. Why? Why isn't it just the outline? Is there something we can't see on this detail that's excluded? Why is there a line in the middle of the zone?

[9:07] I believe that that is just a in the way that the map was created. It has a that street is wider there. I have to check, but there's no change to the overlay in that area. But I'll check what the. Um, I'll have to check what that what that is and make sure that there is in fact no change to that area.

[9:26] I would respectfully suggest if the line doesn't signify anything, then by the time this goes to council, delete the line so that it's just an outline boundary of the area you intend to regulate here. Second, if we go down toward the bottom third of the long green bounded area, we see it 11th Street and Lake Street on the old railroad causeway that curved little bit that is currently eligible and is locked out. There's two buildings there, and you and I spoke at the public comment session, but I think it's important to put it on the record here. Why are those two buildings on that tiny little piece being cut out of the approved area?

[10:16] This updated map follows this streets. And kind of rather.

[10:23] Than having it extend, rather than having the overlay extend portion of the way down this road. It is more of a consistent line. It cuts it off at that road there.

[10:35] Those properties were all notified as part of this process.

[10:37] Okay. So thank you. You've gotten to my next question because that is very hyper specific. That those folks were notified of the intended change. All right. Very good. Thank you. And my I think Commissioner Plumlee has answered my last question, but maybe you could just reaffirm what he said or augmented. Why are there two maps. I heard about the vibe district what he said. Is there anything you'd like to add to that?

[11:09] I will just reiterate that the resolution map was the one that was presented from during as part of the resolution adopted by Council, and then alternative A was presented during the Planning Commission meeting. And that does include that change with the vibe district in the 17th Street.

[11:26] So that completes my questions. I would also like to add the comment that I am glad that your enforcement actions are proceeding because illegally operating stores don't help us across the board. That's an that's a problem in many respects. So I'm glad you're making some traction on that. Thank you.

[11:50] So we need.

[11:51] To make a decision now.

[11:54] Or.

[11:57] Do we have a consensus on on this resolution or alternative, a plan among the group that we could proceed on consent with it? Is that possible?

[12:07] I'm going to.

[12:10] Yes.

[12:10] We do have speakers on this item. Thank you.

[12:12] We do have speakers.

[12:18] Okay.

[12:18] So everybody's good with a.

[12:21] Focus on.

[12:21] Opposition.

[12:23] So it will be heard as one item. And when it comes time to make a motion you can specify if it's for approval which version you are moving to recommend for approval. And if it's denial of any change, then it would just be a recommendation for denial.

[12:42] And this is one and two. Is that.

[12:44] Right?

[12:45] Okay. Thank you.

[12:49] Item three is an ordinance to amend sections 2100 and 2102, and add section 2107 to the city zoning ordinance pertaining to workforce housing. This amendment proposes to remove the Locality restriction from the Workforce Housing Ordinance, and requires the property owner to enter into a compliance agreement with the city prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any Workforce housing unit for rent in a development approved pursuant to the Workforce Housing Ordinance. As this ordinance is currently written, the requirements in the rental housing component of the city's Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program. Conflict with the requirements of federal and state programs such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credits or low tech. These conflicts prevent developers from using such programs in conjunction with the city's Workforce Housing Density Bonus program. This amendment is in conjunction with an amendment to chapter 16 of the City Code and amendment to that amendment of that chapter. The city code will go directly to City Council and don't require a hearing by the Planning Commission. Sharon Cioffi with Housing and Neighborhood Preservation is here if you have any questions on this amendment, but staff does recommend approval of this item. And again, it brings it into compliance with other state and federal programs.

[14:03] So I did have a conversation with Sharon prior and prior to the meeting. And I, I think it might be helpful if we're able just to take a couple sentences of that and put it on the record to inform the rest of the commission. So I'd like to ask Sharon a question.

[14:33] Could you introduce yourself?

[14:34] Sure. I'm Sharon show. I'm the housing development manager with the City of Virginia Beach Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation.

[14:42] Thank you for being here and for entertaining my question.

[14:44] Sure.

[14:45] My question is. It is my understanding from the comprehensive plan, from the housing study, and from conversations at City Council and among this commission, that one of the priorities we are trying to solve in this city is the ability of folks who work in this city like teachers, our first responders and others to live in the same city where they work. That is a very high priority. If I understand this proposed amendment, this proposed amendment takes away that preference and priority and opens this housing to anyone. And so, in fact, it dilutes the housing stock that is available by removing the preference. Now, I understand that developers, those creating more stock would like to be able to rent it to anyone. But as far as our priority, our first top priority of looking out for those who work here and having them nearby. Could you talk to that?

[15:58] Sure. Um, so first, I guess I want to clear something up. I think the developer who had intended to use this had fully expected to prioritize that group. Um, they did not have a problem with it until it got to the point where their attorney had to look to see if the funding source allowed that. And so that's why we're here today. Um, when you use these federal programs, there's a general public use requirement. And those programs, the low income housing tax credit program and tax exempt bonds are pretty much the the most critical funding source for affordable housing, um, and workforce housing. So, you know, when they looked at the code and they realized this, um, they said, well, you know, we want to produce more affordable housing, but it's just not going to work with this particular funding source, which is pretty critical. Um, and I did want to point out to and I didn't realize this until later, but our housing study actually asked us to review this ordinance, and they asked the question, are our proposals using light tech and other dedicated affordable housing programs, easily able to participate in the Workforce Housing Bonus Density program? So they asked us to look at this, and I never really thought about it until we got here a few months ago. And we realized that there is an issue here. Um, the just because there isn't a preference doesn't mean anybody can't apply for it. Who lives or works in the city? And in talking to the developer, they said that's typically our who we get applying for these because you don't really see people who, you know, work really far away wanting to live way out here if they have to commute long distances. So they mostly get applicants who are living and working in the locality. When they do open these buildings. So again, I just wanted to point out we would like to keep it, but it's going to and I worked for a nonprofit back in 2013 and we were considering using it, but the project never went through. Um, and we would have run in, I guess, to this same issue when we got further along that, hey, you can't use these two programs together. So that's that's what I'll say. When we had a discussion with the some of the attorneys that have to do an opinion letter for the developer on the use of the tax exempt bonds. They said your only option is to go back to the federal government and get this changed. So I'm not saying that couldn't happen. They do say that you can have a preference if it's a, if there's a, a prior a preference that like a program at the state or federal level, but it doesn't say local. And so that's where the problem was.

[19:08] Thank you for sharing that information to help us in the public better understand this. In closing, if we make this change and Council upholds our recommendation, Do you believe that that then triggers a comment from your groups to say, hey, we do need to refocus on the folks that we really do want to prioritize. This tool doesn't allow us to do it. So maybe vouchers or some other type of program need to be brought a little higher up in the list of considerations.

[19:45] Yeah, I mean, we could definitely entertain anything if if money is no object.

[19:57] We're all trying to do the right thing here.

[19:59] Yeah I know, and we I did want to point out to you there's two components to this program. There's home ownership and there's rental. And the home ownership did not change. We still left that requirement in there because there's no prohibition to doing that with any other, as far as we know right now. And we have used the home ownership program before for one development. So without any issue.

[20:22] Mr. Plumlee with the, um.

[20:28] With the compliance agreement. Tell us a little bit about if you can explain what is going to be in the contents of the compliance agreement for the developer to sign on to?

[20:40] Sure. Um, so they are required to follow basically the rules and regulations that are laid out in our program in chapter 16, which restricts who the income limit of the applicants that they can rent to or sell houses to. And it outlines the sales, prices and rent prices that they have to adhere to. And go.

[21:04] Ahead.

[21:04] And it's for 50 years.

[21:06] Okay.

[21:06] Yeah, it's an agreement for 50 years. And does it tell the developer what they have to confirm in order to assure that the program is being followed as intended.

[21:18] Yes.

[21:18] To the confirmation of income and that sort of data.

[21:22] Yes. They have to follow pretty much the rules that HUD and like all these federal programs. And that's another change we're making. But it's the chapter 16 which City Council is going to look at. So we made a lot of changes not just to this part of the code, but to that chapter as well, which I'm going to be presenting to them. Yeah. Because again, we ran into some issues where we had some eligibility that didn't match the tax credit and the federal most, most affordable housing eligibility requirements. They usually follow these HUD rules. And ours kind of veered from that. So we're trying to get everything in alliance. We also put out another program, the Attainable Workforce Housing Performance Grant. And that follows these federal rules too. So we didn't want when we're monitoring these developers, we don't want all these different rules. We want one set of rules, so we're all working on the same.

[22:20] My understanding is the feds are going to have to comply with the Commerce Clause. They can't interfere with all these created preferences. And distinctions are very carefully laid out. So we have to comply with that. So these funding sources are available for the purposes that we need.

[22:41] Yeah. We're basically trying to align our local programs with all these federal programs.

[22:49] Anything else?

[22:51] Any other questions?

[23:00] Before I move on to item four. I want to jump back to item one and two. Is it the desire of the group to vote on those? As a slate. We'll hear them together. Do you want to vote on them as one or.

[23:11] He's shaking his head.

[23:13] Separate?

[23:14] Yeah.

[23:19] There are two different questions because which plan is selected is different than. I mean.

[23:25] The effect on the.

[23:27] People that are left grandfathered. So I think they should be tempered.

[23:31] Hey.

[23:36] Good morning.

[25:57] Was the letter of objection rescinded? I thought I saw that letter.

[26:06] One letter of opposition was rescinded, but there was a secondary letter of opposition that was received and has not been rescinded at this time. But there are no speakers signed up for this request as well.

[26:16] Thank you.

[26:21] I spoke with Rob Bowman.

[26:22] Who represents.

[26:25] This application, and he would. They withdrew it last month so he could further meet with the with the neighborhood. And everything's been resolved. I think that was proven by the retraction of the letter of opposition. And, um, furthermore, there's there's this instance, I think, Alexis, what is it to the north of this property? There's similar.

[26:54] Yes. If you look to the north and you'll see it better in this aerial. That is the subject parcel that received the subdivision variance back in 1990. So you'll see there are two single family dwellings that front on Entrada that at the time met dimensional standards. And then there were two lots what we would refer to as flag lots that were created in the rear that necessitated the subdivision variance due to their lot with efficiency.

[27:17] Um, and I've not heard any opposition to this, so I think we should be good to go.

[27:24] Good for consent.

[31:46] Thank you Marshall. This one is in my district. Yes, and I have not heard any concerns about it. I am glad that the things that we worked out last time related to pedestrian access here are not being altered. That with the Greenwich East Greenway to the southeast and the Virginia Beach Trail to the north. The church's own plans for people to walk and bike to services will be enabled. I stated at the last time, and I'll reiterate here before I make a motion for consent, that it is deficient in terms of site size. But my exception that I could accommodate on this is that it's next to a large lake. There is no neighbor next to it to be bothered, and there's no way for them to acquire more property on this site because the lake and the interstate highway. So for those reasons, I'm happy to see it on consent.

[32:43] All right. Good, good.

[32:45] Commissioner, can't you read?

[32:47] Yes, ma'am.

[33:00] Agenda. Item six is a request for a modification of conditions to a subdivision variance to remove the ingress egress easement in 1995. A subdivision variance to section 4.4 B of the subdivision regulations was granted on this property to subdivide a single family, a single parcel, into two parcels. As a condition of approval across. Access easement was required to access a subject parcel for the benefit of 4137 Charity Neck Road. The application in the application intends to construct an addition to the existing single family home located on the site, a portion of which would encroach into the existing easement. Since both parcels created by the subdivision variance now each have independent access to Charity Neck Road. A modification of conditions is required to remove the condition. The request for a modification of conditions is, in staff's opinion, acceptable. The site falls within the rural context area and is within an agriculture. Non place type, which calls for limiting the development intensities and uses within existing agricultural zoning. The proposal will not require the extension of city services or result in any adverse traffic impacts on the surrounding property owners. Based on these considerations, staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

[34:15] I'd heard anything, any opposition to this whatsoever. So I move for the consent.

[34:25] And you read it.

[34:32] Agenda item seven.

[34:35] Yes.

[34:38] Agenda item seven is a request for a modification of conditions to a conditional use permit for an indoor recreational facility to modify the conceptual site plan and landscape plan on February 17th of 2026, a conditional use permit for an indoor recreational facility was granted on this property to repurpose and expand a vacant movie theater building with a indoor recreational facility. The approved conceptual plan also depicted an 8200 square foot restaurant, which is a by right use in the B2 community business district. The condition specified the site be developed in substantial conformance to the conceptual site plan and conceptual landscape plan. Therefore, modification of conditions is required. The applicant intends to reduce the boundary of the of the Conditional Use Permit to only include the western half of the site, and intends to develop the eastern half of the site with a self storage facility. A conditional use permit for a mini warehouse is being requested under a separate application. There are no changes proposed to the 2026 Conditional Use Permit proposed with this request. The applicant will continue to satisfy the parking study approved with the previous request, which established a minimum parking requirement of five parking spaces per court, and all required parking spaces will be accommodated on the western half of the site that is subject to this request. The request for modification of conditions is, in staff's opinion, acceptable. This site is located within the resort area. SGA, which calls for the rehabilitation and preservation of historical historic structures and properties. And while this site is not historic. The proposal is an adaptive reuse of an existing building. While the resort SGA plan recommends that parking be located behind buildings when possible. Since the applicant is proposing to utilize the existing parking lot, retain and expand the existing building, and retain the existing landscaping along Laskin Road, staff proposal staff finds the proposed reuse appropriate. Although the Active Transportation plan calls for an 11 foot wide shared use path along Laskin Road. The applicant has indicated the installation of the path would be difficult due to various site constraints, including reworking curb and gutter, relocating or modifying utility lines, stormwater systems and existing streetlights. Filling in of wetlands along the northeast portion of the site. Removal of existing mature vegetation and removal of a row of existing parking spaces along the northwestern portion of the site. Additionally, the site is located within the boundary of the Alaskan Road. Phase two CIP project, the design and plans for which are currently in progress. The applicant presented to the Resort Advisory Commission's Planning and Design Review Subcommittee, or PRC, at their June 30th, 2026 meeting. A formal letter was not received regarding that meeting, and based on the considerations, staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

[37:18] Only.

[37:21] Alexis are there? Is there opposition.

[37:23] Modification?

[37:25] No. None of the letters of opposition that have been received have been for the modification of conditions request.

[37:32] There's a lot of opposition associated with these two applications together. And is there an update with the second application?

[37:41] Yes. Regarding item eight. and I'll just pop over to that slide. The. It's a request for a conditional use permit for a Midi warehouse facility to redevelop the site with a self storage facility with ground floor retail. At this time, the applicant has submitted a letter of deferral to request a 30 day deferral in order to engage in additional public outreach.

[38:00] And so the I just want to make sure I understand the applicant wants to proceed with the modification of the previous approval and defer the, um, subdivided side. And the questions regarding the mini storage. I just want to make sure I understand that that's what the proposal is.

[38:21] Yes, they want to move forward with modification of conditions being heard at this Planning Commission hearing, and then have requested the 30 day deferral regarding item eight.

[38:31] If this is the will of the applicant, I don't have any opposition to proceeding with the modification separate from the second.

[38:40] Application, but.

[38:42] It's not my application.

[38:48] Two questions. Alexis I ask that the site visit, but again, to put it on the record here. Previously, this large parcel had certain shared services. It's now being divided into two applications for separate consideration. Could you confirm that each of these is independently satisfying its requirements in terms of parking and other type things. So there's no interdependency. One is not relying on the other for something.

[39:23] Yes, they will be submitting a plot to subdivide the parcel. To separate them out, they would each meet their own requirements, both from a dimensional standard for the plot, but also for the independent uses to include parking and all of their other facilities on the site. Now I will say there may be the need for a cross access easement, potentially just with shared travel between the two sites, but that is something that, if it is required, would be determined during site plan review.

[39:50] So our ability to act as described here is not constrained by something yet to happen. We can deal with this issue now in its entirety.

[40:01] Yes.

[40:01] All right. And then my second question is at the site visit, we discussed if we look at the site plan where the driveway entrance off of Laskin Road occurs, immediately to the right of that there's a tree and then a little stub. And that is all set to receive those pedestrians coming down the front of the building, heading toward Laskin. Except it's not a sidewalk. And what we've got here is pedestrians being directed into the driveway of cars turning off of Laskin Road. Now we know that long term Laskin Road has a CIP that will provide certain pedestrian and bike amenities out there. But on the site, there needs to be a way for people to get to that. Would you please describe what's going on there, and the request we made to talk to the applicant about getting people safely to the future sidewalk?

[40:58] Yes, I did bring that request to there at the applicant's representative who will be here today. They did look at their request. They indicated the part of the reason for that area to be grasped is a is they're seeking to try and reduce as much impervious on the site as they can, which is why that area is grassed. They did indicate that they were having their engineer look at it, and that's something they were open to discussing today at the hearing. So but that is certainly something that can be discussed with the applicant. And if it is the will of the body, a condition could be added regarding that.

[41:27] Yeah, I agree, I think we should hear it because if I understand this right, we're talking about 15ft long and four feet wide, honest to goodness 60ft² of pavement versus pedestrian safety. Coming off Alaskan, we need to hear this.

[41:42] I guess what my confusion is, I'm sure a lot of people who are intending to come and speak on the second item, we're told this has been deferred. And so now they're not coming. And so we're going to have this to put it on consent and to, to do it, I think just appears a little, um, unequal in that regard. And so we should we should have this heard no matter what our position is.

[42:06] On before we do that. Can I just clarify, are we talking about the same section of land that we talk? But the last time they came where we decided that it was too expensive to try to put that sidewalk there now and we're going to wait because of all the infrastructure, dominion, power and so forth. Are we talking about a different section of land?

[42:25] We're talking about a different section of land? Commissioner, I agree.

[42:29] When you're talking about which section are you referring to?

[42:32] The the comments you're making are along the street, the future sidewalk that will be built someday when the road is improved. That's not what we're discussing here. I'm talking within the site. There's a little stub of land to the right of the driveway, and that's all I'm asking. If they consider.

[42:53] Use.

[42:53] Laser pointer.

[42:54] I just want to clarify. I'm sure it'll work on the screen. It does.

[42:57] Yeah.

[42:58] But. So we're not talking about the one on the far side. We're talking about just that little section right there.

[43:03] That's it.

[43:04] That's all I'm talking about.

[43:05] Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure we were not talking about this. I thought we addressed that from the last time you made sure.

[43:10] And like I mentioned, the applicant did indicate they were open to discussing it, and they'll be here today. So if you do want to hear and have that conversation with them, they'll be here. And as I mentioned, if that is something that the body wants to add a condition to the request regarding, they certainly can if that is the will of the body.

[43:28] I appreciate that the applicant is going to be here and available to answer questions, but I also am very sensitive to Commissioner Plumlee comment, and I've experienced the same in comments to me. And that is the public believes that this has been deferred, and it seems more appropriate to me that they be heard together so that people who want to speak either for or against it, have an opportunity to do so.

[43:57] I think we can bring that up at the hearing and make our points and make a decision on.

[44:01] Transparency is very important, especially right now. There's so much sensitivity in the city that things are happening, and the public is not aware of what's going on. It it seems better if the two are heard at the same time.

[44:17] That's why I want to have a chance to talk to the applicant in public and try to bring this out as to why they should be separated, if there is.

[44:25] A good reason.

[44:27] I'm a little confused. So from I understood that they were going to specifically ask to defer the storage side. Are we trying to force a hearing on the one that they're deferring?

[44:39] No no no. We're trying no are seven and eight. But they wanted to hear.

[44:43] They wanted the first one to be to to go ahead and go forward. Have we checked with them to be sure that they are okay with deferring this whole thing and having a discussion?

[44:52] We haven't made a decision.

[44:53] Yeah, we're going to ask that.

[44:55] Yes. Expressed her opinion. We have not decided we're going to have a hearing so that we can ask the question from everyone and hear it all together. And this is the kind of thing that we should have in public for as to whether or not we should, what action we should take. I should put that.

[45:14] Okay. So you hear it?

[45:15] Yes.

[45:38] Okay. Items nine and ten. Option two is a request for a conditional rezoning from our ten residential district to conditional I-1 light industrial district, along with a conditional use permit for a bulk storage art. The property is located within the greater than 75 noise contour and the APC one. Under the city's Acres regulations, bookstores jars is considered a compatible use within both the High Noise Zone and the Aps-c one. The site is currently developed with a vacant single family dwelling that has been vacant for over a year, about a year since fall of 2025. The proposal is to develop the approximately 2.89 acre site with a storage yard for contractors, vehicles, equipment and materials. The conceptual site plan proposes 14 fence storage lots, ranging from approximately 3200 to 5200ft² in size, along with a future steel storage building, a stormwater management facility, and a 12 foot wide maintenance access path surrounding that stormwater facility. The site will be fully gated and secured with controlled access, security cameras and site lighting. Light poles will not exceed 14ft in height and as recommended in the conditions, all lighting will be fully shielded and directed directed inward to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. The zoning ordinance requires category six screening around the bookstore yard, consisting of a solid six foot tall, a minimum six foot tall, um, solid fence with landscaping. The applicant is proposing a ten foot wide category six landscape buffer around along the eastern and western property line, and a 15 foot wide buffer along Potter's Road. A six foot tall, earth toned privacy fence will enclose the entire storage yard, with chainlink gates only at the individual storage entrances. The proposal also includes a monument style sign along Potter's Road that will not exceed six feet in height, with the required landscaping, as well as a ten foot wide multi-use path along the roadway. The applicant is requesting a deviation under section 221 I of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required 25 foot landscape yard buffer adjacent to the property to the east to ten feet. Staff supports this request because the adjoining property is currently developed as a religious institution rather than a residential home. The adjacent area is constrained by environmental features that limit future residential development and the existing vegetation. Together with the proposed category six, screening will provide adequate buffer between the uses. Staff recognizes the Comprehensive Plan and the Lynnhaven Strategic Growth Area Master Plan. Envision this area for office and mixed use riverfront development. However, the property's location within the APC one and the greater than 75 noise zone significantly limits the uses that can reasonably be developed on the site. Many of the office uses envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan would not be considered compatible within the APC, one under whose guidance. In contrast, the proposed book storage yard is a low intensity, low occupancy use that does not concentrate employees or the public on the site for extended periods of time and is considered compatible with both the high noise zone environment and the APC one. While the proposal does not fully advance the comprehensive long range vision for mixed use development, staff believes the property's unique military compatibility constraints are significant. This is a significant planning consideration. Given these constraints, the book's proposed book, storage Art, represents a reasonable and appropriate use of the property that balances the city's redevelopment goals with its long standing commitment to protecting and the operational mission of Naval Air Station Oceana. Therefore, staff finds the proposed conditional rezoning, the conditional use permit, and the requested landscape buffer deviation to be appropriate and recommends approval subject to the proffers and the conditions listed in the staff report. The applicant conducted public outreach with the church and the single family dwellings adjacent to the site across Potter's Road. Staff did receive one letter of opposition, stating concerns related to the location of the bookstore yard near an established residential neighborhood and its location within the Lynn Haven SGA, as well as its close proximity to sensitive waterways. I'll be happy to answer any questions. We don't have anyone registered to speak on this item?

[50:25] Um, yeah. This is my district. I haven't gotten any phone calls other than I have spoken with the client. Uh, the applicant. Um, and it's my understanding from the conversation that, uh, they are looking into and planning on, uh, actually putting, um, on the fence. The inside is, uh, covered fence area so that even the materials that the contractors, their rented space would not be visible to the public or to other, uh, contractors as well. Uh, and of course, the security, um, and the lighting, uh, helps. I know, speaking with, uh, Mr. Baluchi the other day, uh, on this, I know there's there's a lot of history with this piece of property and the house and the homeless and and, uh, a lot of bad blood with the neighbors across the street. And I know they would like to see it definitely cleaned up. And, uh, um, I think this does help that situation a lot.

[51:41] Commissioner Bowman.

[51:43] I guess, you know.

[51:45] I got a little history from Mike about this side and the concerns for safety out here and the sort of blighted condition of it. Um, I guess the one critique I have, which I'm not sure is all that valid, because I'm looking at the homes across the street.

[52:02] And I.

[52:02] Provider, they appear to have blockage, but that gate is a highly unattractive.

[52:08] Gate.

[52:09] Um, to have directly across from your house. I didn't know if there was any alternative that could be used.

[52:16] That's probably just a suggested, I mean, which I think we can discuss that with the client.

[52:22] Yeah. If, you know, I, I sort of understand the limited options for the site and not having it continue to congregate that is threatening. But the residents across the street to have a gate like that.

[52:39] I think that would be something that we would want to have across from us. That's my only comment.

[52:53] Thank you. Marcel. The church owned property to the east that is currently zoned residential. Is that also within the apex zone? So if the church wished to develop that under the new law that enables churches to create housing on their property. Would they be constrained by the by the APC?

[53:21] Yes.

[53:23] That is my understanding because we do not. In our compatibility table, single family homes are not compatible uses in the APC.

[53:30] One reason I'm asking this is the applicant is seeking less landscaping on that side on the border than would normally be required. And so I'm testing a little bit. Would there ever be homes on the other side? No, it would not because of the other condition.

[53:48] Yes.

[53:48] All right. Thank you. Second, with regard to the conceptual site plan and specifically to the gate, I will say that.

[53:57] Sorry. There you go.

[53:59] The way that it is inset into the site, I find highly favorable because Potter's Road went through a road diet. that is. It used to be two lanes each. Each direction. Now it is one lane each direction with a wide bike lane on each side. It is a main safe, slowed down access way east west across the city, parallel to 264. It is intended to receive a lot of bike ped traffic, so setting that gate back away from the street so trucks with trailers have a good sightline. They pull up, stop and see what's coming. The gate isn't right. Hard up against that street is a good safety move. Now, the appearance of that gate structure to the homes across the street. I certainly concur with Commissioner Plumley. That's not something I'd like to look out my window and see. And I would hope that there is an ability with some landscaping or some other form of more attractive screening to set this use back a little better.

[55:06] I do want to say I just noticed that this is not the most recent plan. There have been street trees at it along Prados Road, so if you look in your staff report, you should see the the most recent plan. But I'll get this updated. Sorry about that. So street trees have been added in. The buffer has been widened to 15ft.

[55:27] All right. You see my next question?

[55:29] I just noticed that. I'm sorry about.

[55:30] That. They cut them.

[55:31] Down from here to there. We got a different problem. But they're.

[55:34] At.

[55:34] It.

[55:36] For.

[55:36] Conversation with the client. He did mention that they they actually added landscaping. They did more than what is suggested by the city.

[55:45] They did.

[55:46] So I would just say that as this goes through site plan review, to maintain those sightlines and understand, even though we don't see it yet today. Phase four, the trail is funded. It's under design. Within four years, it's going to be here, and you're going to see a different set of behaviors on Potter's Road in this section.

[56:06] Yes. And I will revise this slide before the formal.

[56:11] That's okay.

[56:12] Are we good with consent and consent? Yes, I'm.

[56:16] Good with consent.

[56:21] This is.

[56:23] Fine in.

[56:23] 1092.

[56:27] Mr. Anderson, when you read those nine.

[56:29] And ten, I have two.

[56:34] Oh.

[56:38] Okay. The next item before you is item number 11. This is request for a conditional rezoning for a 7744 square foot parcel from our 7.5 residential to conditional a 12 apartment district to allow the development of a duplex, resulting in a density of approximately 11.25 units per acre. The property is a vacant infill parcel along Euclid Road within the Pocahontas Village neighborhood and the Central Village district of the Pembroke SGA. A single family dwelling previously occupied the site, but was demolished in 2019. The proposal consists of a duplex. Each unit will be two stories in height, with a maximum building height of 30.5ft, which is below the 35 foot maximum height permitted in the 812 apartment district. The applicant has proffered architectural elevations depicting a residential design with premium vinyl siding, brick veneer, architectural shingles and PVC trim. The staff staff believes these materials and the architectural elements are consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and provide a development that resembles a large single family residence rather than a typical apartment building. A six foot tall earth tone privacy fence is proposed around the yard, and the required ten foot Category four landscaping buffer will be maintained along the northern property line along the Eastern and western property lines. The applicant is requesting a deviation to a two a five foot wide category four landscape buffer, which is one of several requested deviations associated with the rezoning. Specifically, the applicant is requesting deviations to the minimum lot area side yard setback, the maximum lot coverage, and landscape buffering requirements. These include a reduction in the required lot area from 10,000ft² to 7744ft², a reduction in the side yard setback from 10ft to 5ft, and increase in the maximum lot coverage from 30% to 35%, and a reduction in the eastern and western landscape buffers from 10ft to 5ft. Staff finds these deviations to be relatively modest and largely the result of the property's limited size and configuration as an infield lot. In staff's opinion, the overall site design, architectural quality, buffering, and public improvements adequately mitigate mitigate the requested deviations. The proposal also includes several public improvements along Euclid Road, including construction of a five foot wide sidewalk, a six foot wide public multi-use trail easement, and an 11 foot wide right of way. Dedication. This dedication exceeds the eight feet requested by our Department of Parks and Rec, and will accommodate future protected bicycle facilities identified in our city's active transportation plan. Parking requirements are exceeded and on site, which each dwelling unit will provide. A one car garage and two additional off street parking spaces, for a total of three, where only two are required by the zoning ordinance. The property is located within the Central Village district of the Pembroke SGA, as I mentioned previously, which is identified in our comprehensive plan as a local center. The comprehensive plan encourages local centers to provide a variety of housing types, increasing housing opportunities, and support compact, walkable development patterns. Staff finds that the duplexes represent an important middle housing type that advances these housing objectives, while remaining compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. A significant consideration in staff evaluation was ensuring an appropriate transition between the local center and the surrounding single family neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed duplex accomplish this. This accomplishes this through its residential scale architecture, two story height, quality, building materials, enhanced landscaping, and overall building massing which are all compatible with nearby homes. Throughout the review process, the applicant worked with the city, with city staff and neighbouring property owners to better understand community concerns regarding compatibility, buffering, drainage, traffic and overall scale of the project. Staff believes the applicant made a good faith effort to address these concerns through revisions to the proposal, while balancing the city's broader housing objectives. Overall, staff finds the proposal represents a well-designed infill residential development that is consistent with our long term vision of our comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the. Although several zoning deviations are being requested. Staff finds that they are justified by the unique characteristics of the property and are appropriately mitigated through the project's design and proffered improvements. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the conditional rezoning subject to the proffers listed in the staff report. Staff did receive two letters of opposition from adjacent property owners, stating concerns of the rezoning of the parcel to the apartment district and how that would affect the or impact the surrounding neighborhood. However, staff has not had anyone at this time signed up to speak in opposition to this request.

[1:02:07] So this is my district. Those of you who have been on here for a while will remember it came before us, and a lot of a lot of consideration and reworking of this plan has taken place, including more more drawings, reducing reducing it down to a duplex and more community outreach. Um, I support it, I, I support it, I never know until I vote and I hear everything, but at this point, I think it's a good plan. And I will say that, um, I believe it meets our comprehensive plan because this area, Cleveland Street and Pembroke, we know it needs affordable housing. We know that people who work in town center need a place to live nearby. And this is easy walk, easy bike. And it's a transition area and it's not in the middle of the neighbourhood. That was key to me. It's on the outskirt. It's on a road. The 35 miles an hour and has trucks going by. So to me it's a good plan. I have not had anyone reach out to me in opposition.

[1:03:16] Mr.

[1:04:46] Well, good.

[1:04:48] I just want to make a comment, just like Brian said. You know, I that was my first house in Connersville. It's like as I've said before, um, the first time it came up, I did vote for it, which I second guessed myself afterwards. Uh, but and I was prepared to vote against it this time until I saw the plan and then reduced from three stories down to two stories and, uh, you know, like, uh, um, Catherine said it's a lot of work has gone into it. And I appreciate the client, uh, working with. And it's it's a better plan. Personal note. Um, I hope in the site approval process that they would maybe look at a divider fence, uh, on the back side of the property and not, you know, and have that, uh, put there while under construction versus waiting for somebody to buy and then have to build, you know, because there is no divider fence between the two Duplexes on the in the backyard. That's just a personal note.

[1:05:51] In the same spirit of this discussion, I voted against this last time. It was too much building for too little site. It did not fit with the neighborhood, and I urged the applicant to go back and rework this. And I'm delighted that that's what happened. I think that that's great. And there's a tremendous amount to like about this new proposal. I will say I remain troubled by the lot size, but I get it that it's a changing area. It's an area in transition. I am hopeful that when this comes through finalization, that more accommodation to the side neighbors with regard to the landscaping might actually occur. Then this conceptual plan we're seeing, it's important to come in right with the neighbors when you're making a change over there. But I do commend the applicant for taking our advice and reworking this thing.

[1:06:50] So.

[1:06:52] Commissioner Marsh, would you read it?

[1:06:54] I'd read it.

[1:07:05] Agenda item 12 is a request for a conditional use permit for a residential kennel for up to 12 dogs and a 5.38 acre, 82 zone parcel. The property includes a primary 5500 square foot dwelling, accessory structures and two fenced in pastures. The applicant plans to operate a sanctuary for senior or disabled dogs. The dogs will live inside the primary home with no outdoor kennels or exterior modifications proposed. Dogs will be outside only for short bathroom breaks and fresh air. The yard and bathroom area will be maintained on a daily and weekly basis. The applicant previously operated the same use under a conditional use permit at another location without any known complaints or violations. Also in 2016, the site was granted a conditional use permit for residential kennel for up to eight dogs under a different applicant, with no known complaints or violations. A condition has been added to make the previously approved Conditional Use permit null and void. The property lies within the courthouse context and transition areas were. Low impact. Low intensity uses are envisioned. The use will generate minimal traffic as the owners are the sole employees, and the kennel is not open to the public. Staff received three letters of support a petition with ten signatures and one letter of opposition. Staff does not anticipate adverse impacts to the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions in the staff report.

[1:08:30] Are there any speakers?

[1:08:32] No.

[1:08:34] I have not heard anything. Uh. Any opposition? Um, And then, as the gentleman has done this before.

[1:08:42] I don't.

[1:08:44] I think we should be good.

[1:08:51] On five acres.

[1:08:52] Agenda item 13 is a request for a conditional use permit to operate an adult daycare within a 1700 square foot suite on a 5.09 acre I-1 light industrial parcel. The facility will operate entirely within suite 107 of an existing one storey office building, with no building modifications proposed. The adult daycare will serve up to seven adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities offering supervised day support services. Hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. with two staff members on site. No overnight or residential care is proposed. The applicant plans to obtain a license with the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health once the conditional use permit is granted. The zoning ordinance requires five parking spaces for the 1700 square foot suite. The facility will have access to 25 spaces, meeting and exceeding the requirement. Clients will not drive. They will arrive via third party transportation, family or staff, resulting in minimal parking demand. The use aligns with the local center edge type vision for small scale community services, and will operate fully indoors, with no anticipated impacts to surrounding properties. For these reasons, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the staff report.

[1:10:10] I have not heard anything on, you know, for or against on this. So, um, I don't see any issues with it. To put it on consent.

[1:10:24] In December?

[1:10:25] Yes, ma'am.

[1:10:29] Agenda item 14 is a request for a conditional use permit for a religious use within a 5313 square foot portion of an existing building in the I-1 light industrial district. The site is located within the Western Campus Overlay District of the Pembroke SGA. The church currently occupies 3995ft², located in suite 103, and proposes expanding into adjacent suites 100 and 101 for a total of 5313ft². No building modifications are proposed. The sanctuary currently contains 150 seats and will not increase. The added space will support classrooms, offices and ministry activities. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., and Sundays from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.. The church has five employees and does not anticipate additional staff at this time. The zoning ordinance requires 30 parking spaces, and the site provides 25 assigned spaces, plus access to additional spaces in the shared lot approved by the landlord. Therefore meeting the requirement. The expansion aligns with the Pembroke SGA in the city center edge place type vision. The applicant plans to work with the property owner to add a bike rack near the main entrance, as requested by city staff. Parking and operational impacts are not expected to affect surrounding properties. For these reasons, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the staff report.

[1:11:59] I have.

[1:12:00] Not heard any opposition or.

[1:12:03] Support.

[1:12:03] It's been a quiet. I do have a question. Um, originally, many years ago, when I found out you needed a conditional use permit for religious services in B2 zoning, other business owner, I questioned why I, I asked, uh, then Mayor Oberndorf. Why? Well, what they what the city had against religious institutions. And she said, well, part of the reason is the traffic, that it all comes in at once and it all leaves at once. Is there a certain number at which we require the church to have someone out there directing traffic?

[1:12:45] I would have to refer.

[1:12:46] To Caitlin for that.

[1:12:47] There's no number that I'm aware of. I do know this particular church. I don't remember what she paid on the staff report. They had a plan in place to, um, have, like, parking attendants and kind of be mindful of that with the existing operations that's happening. And it's not supposed to increase in terms of the number. Um, so I wouldn't anticipate it, but there's no number that I'm aware of.

[1:13:08] And this is an area where I expect there to be a new traffic issue anyway. I was just curious about that. Thank you. Caitlin. So I've heard no opposition. I believe that it is right for consensus.

[1:13:22] Would you read.

[1:13:22] It for me? Yes. Thank you.

[1:13:38] All right. The next item is items 15 and 16. And they are request for two conditional use permits to allow a commercial Marina and dormitories for marine pilots to facilitate the redevelopment of the Virginia Pilot Association facility located on this 13,000 square foot parcel zoned before mixed use. The Virginia Pilot Association has operated from this location since 1986. The association provides 24 hour year round services for commercial government Navy vessels entering and leaving Port of Virginia, ensuring the safe and efficient navigation of vessels through the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding waterways. Here are a few images of the site today. The proposal will replace the existing aging facility with a modern operations center that consolidates Marine maintenance. Administrative offices. Dispatch. Dispatch functions. Training space and residential dormitories for pilots during on call rotations. The facility is a secure private operation and is not open to the general public. The proposed building contains approximately 14,625ft², and will have a maximum height of 55ft and 11in. The architecture incorporates durable coastal materials including brick, masonry, wood siding, and a standing seam metal roof, which are well suited for the waterfront environment. The design also includes coastal architectural elements such as articulated building elevations, balconies, extensive glazing and landscape frontage that are consistent with the Shore Drive Corridor design guidelines to maintain uninterrupted operations. Redevelopment will occur in two phases over an approximately 18 month construction period. Phase one includes demolition of the existing pilot station and construction of the new facility. Once the new building is complete, the existing maintenance shop will be removed and the remaining site improvements completed during phase two. The facility will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with approximately 15 employees per shift. Although the operation is continuous, staff does not anticipate any increase in noise impacts, as the Virginia Pilot Association has operated from this site under the same operational schedule for decades, and most maintenance activities occur during normal daytime hours. The site provides 36 parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance based on the mix of use, dormitory, lodging, and marine service uses. A portion of the property lies within the Special flood hazard area and the limit moderate wave action. Because of these floodplain constraints, the building will be required to comply with the city's floodplain ordinance, including construction on pile foundations and elevating the lowest horizontal structure member to at least to at least three feet above the base flood elevation. Additionally, because the marine shop is considered a water dependent use, the applicant will be required to obtain an administrative floodplain variance during site plan review for only that portion of the building. The applicant is also requesting a front yard setback deviation under section 221 I of the zoning ordinance, while a 35 foot front yard setback is required. Required. A zero foot setback is proposed due to the narrow configuration of the property. Even with this deviation, the building will remain approximately 75ft from the edge of the Lesnar Bridge. In addition, portions of the proposed development extending to the city's right of way along Cape Henry Drive. Should this application be approved, the applicant will be required to obtain a separate and current encroachment agreement approved by the City Council before site plan approval. That request is reviewed and independently through the Department of Public Works and other other departments within the city, and approval of these conditional use permits do not constitute approval of that encroachment agreement. The Fire Marshal Office also reviewed the proposal and requested a dedicated fire apparatus turnaround. The applicant provided a fire access exhibit to address this requirement, which was approved by the Fire Marshal's office. Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the intent of the coastal neighborhood place type. While that place type emphasizes residential development, it also supports limited non-residential uses that serve the surrounding community and waterfront. Staff believes this proposal represents a unique marine time related use that supports the Port of Virginia, while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed building has also been designed to complement the Shore Drive corridor through high quality architecture. durable coastal materials and enhanced landscaping. Because the property is located within the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District. The applicant presented the proposal to the Bayfront Advisory Commission on July 16th of this year. Following its review, the Commission voted unanimously in support of the application based on the proposed site design, architectural quality, compatibility with the surrounding area, compliance with floodplain requirements, and continued support of a central marine time operation that has served this location for nearly 40 years. Staff finds the requested conditional use permits to be appropriate. Therefore, we are recommending approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Staff is unaware of any opposition to this request. Two letters of support were provided by the Associated Association of Maryland Pilots, as well as the manner in which were provided in your supplements. I'll be happy to stand by for any questions you may have.

[1:19:18] Rochelle, I just wanted to.

[1:19:20] Confirm with you as our process.

[1:19:25] This, in essence, is a replacement building. You know, of their current operation? Yes. Um, and so just clarify for me what is triggering that they can't just do this by writing.

[1:19:38] Because they need conditional use permits that they have not had on the site. This site has been located here since 1986. So to come into compliance, they're getting the proper permits that they need to move forward.

[1:19:49] That's I just wanted to confirm that. So administratively, they're coming to the planning Commission for the permits for the conditional use?

[1:19:56] Yes. To bring the site into compliance.

[1:19:59] Um, so I've had no letters of opposition. Um, we all went out to the site visit. This was presented to the design committee of the Bayfront Advisory Commission, who then had conversation with the applicant in turn. Then the commission did vote on it. I know there's been questions, and I thank the planning staff for clarifying some issues on the encroachment agreement. Um, so I'm in support of this application. I think, you know, the pilot certainly provided ordinary service to our maritime industry. Um, they've reached out to their neighbors who are in support of them. And so I would recommend for the consent agenda, unless the commissioners have any other questions or thoughts on this matter.

[1:20:49] Okay.

[1:20:50] Question 42 and I'll go along with that. But I'd like a discussion about the notice. I was very uncomfortable when I went there and saw that the notice signs were beyond signs that said private property beyond a very tall fence and a gate and were not visible, in my opinion, from where the public had to stop.

[1:21:17] So according to staff, the signs were legally required. But it's up to you if you feel, um, if you want to address that in regards to signposting, it is in your purview to make that decision.

[1:21:31] I would note that they very specifically immediately moved the signs when they were informed that there was some concern. I immediately moved it.

[1:21:42] Thank you Marshall. As you opened your brief to us, I believed you used words something like this is a secure facility, not open to the public. Did you? You said something like that.

[1:21:54] Said.

[1:21:54] Yes, because there is, you know, most public don't come to this site. It's usually for the marine pilots.

[1:21:59] And as our vice chair said, the.

[1:22:04] The applicant has erected their own sign saying private property. They have put a security fence with an intercom there. And I know that it's open during the day, but every outward appearance is people don't belong here. And to have signs that are hundreds of feet deep into the property, with their thin edge facing what the public could possibly see, I think there is no reasonable ability that somebody over there could have been aware that this is a site that something is supposed to happen on, and I'm not sure that there's necessarily harm done in this case on the specific application before us, but I am not okay with the idea that it was legally sufficient, but practically insufficient. And I would say, I believe, with the concurrence of the vice chair's spirit of her comments, that in the future, if we have a site where it is legally required to put them in someplace that the public can't see, that we need a second set of signs where the public can see them. And I think that's what should have been done here. Had there been two signs at the front door, 100ft in behind the fence. Fine. Put another one up by the fence where people at the Lesnar Inn or Bubba's or somewhere else could see it and become aware and turn one out on the beach so that the boaters who are going by and may have some impact from the development might have seen it too. That's my opinion as a commissioner.

[1:23:40] I just want to point out that the ordinance it does specify where the sign should be, but there is also language that says or any other, any other location as designated by the planning director. So I'm not sure that it would be necessary to have two sets of signs, but that that location of what is legally permissible can be changed at the direction or approval of the planning director.

[1:24:03] Yeah, I agree that the public should have.

[1:24:06] Signage and it's often difficult in certain locations that they have even the best situation sufficient signage. We do advertise these hearings. What concern I have about this application, which I consider it significantly different in that I think this is a public service that's being provided. And delaying this project, I think, creates some concern to me because we have this provides certain infrastructure for our Navy, our, you know, our military that, that and as well as commerce. But I'm talking about public safety on a grand level. It's going to take time to tear this building down and replace it. And I, I agree we should take all efforts to make the public aware whenever we can. But in this instance, I think we need to be concerned about delaying this particular project. So I would still want it to be moved along. If you feel like we need a public hearing to add to the publicity to it. Uh, um, then fine. But I would want this. My preference would be for this application to keep moving along in the system.

[1:25:20] Sure.

[1:25:21] I do not advocate for a public hearing. I'm in support of consent. I found the signs to be inadequate. I don't think there was any harm done this time, but I really want us to be more careful going forward. Again, transparency and the governance of the city and land use is of paramount importance and we need to, whenever possible, do our part to make sure that in proper place.

[1:25:49] Commissioner, watch that count.

[1:25:52] Um, I agree with a lot of the concerns that have been shared so far about the sign placement and just in general, when it comes to making sure that the public is fully informed. The one thing that that eases my mind considerably is this site specific point where it goes and then talking with staff. We, the city itself, did send letters to adjacent owners, property owners, and in order for anybody to really see this anyways, they would need to have come off of the bridge to go specifically there. Um, and in my head that means that they saw a public notice somewhere else to get them to divert themselves off of Shore Drive to go down there. So I think it has been publicly noticed sufficiently, although I think we can do better in the future, and I think we should all be cognizant of that. But I would also like to see it on the consent agenda.

[1:26:59] I've accomplished what I wanted to accomplish in speaking about the notice here and suggesting to staff that we do a better job in the future on that, I don't see a need to hold the applicant up with what they're doing, because I don't think harm was done in this specific case. I do have another comment, though, that I called the applicant yesterday to discuss this because they sent a letter to us, and in that conversation, I talked a minute about the encroachment agreement, which they only own this small triangle, but they're using property all the way up within ten feet of the bridge for parking, for circulation. And that's a $1 payment to the public to use public land. Period. I want to ensure that if council wants to go ahead with.

[1:27:51] The.

[1:27:52] Approved plans for the Shore Drive corridor plan and create that Waterman's walk sometime that that ten foot access along the bridge from the beach over to the restaurant area is still possible, and I appreciated that. The applicant's representative talked to me about looking at those field conditions, and we're not going to see that encroachment agreement. It doesn't come here. That's public works dealing with the applicant, but that I impressed upon the applicant that if there is a new condition that has been created by the bridge with that embankment or some other issue yielding a foot or two of that parking lot will not inhibit their operations at all. But it would enable the council adopted plans to be enacted. And I believe public access to that beach is something that we should not forego administratively. If that's going to happen, it needs to be by an open vote. I would also say that in the briefing to the Bayfront Advisory Commission, it's my understanding that at least two things about the context of this site were not drawn out that there was a focus on the building, as if the boat building sort of floating in thin air. The discussion of the Shore Drive corridor plan, the Waterman's walk, the long term vision for what this area is wasn't necessarily emphasized. And I talked to the chair of the commission about this. I also noted, and also with the applicant, that discussion of the Lynnhaven Tide Gate, the Army Corps of Engineers project that the city has jointly engaged in, that is going to dramatically change this waterway and potentially impact the ability of this applicant to use their new building. At least the representative who wrote us the letter that I spoke to was unfamiliar with it entirely. And I think those are things that are of a scale that we need to try to do better with our applicant, with our advisory boards, so that when we get a letter that says we support something. It's not a building in thin air. It's in support. In the context of the council adopted plans and with recognition of megaprojects going on next to it, that can in fact use.

[1:30:12] Good consensus.

[1:30:15] Yes.

[1:30:21] That's 15 and 16.

[1:30:24] And then we can do that as a bloc.

[1:30:27] Hello.

[1:30:28] Agenda item 17 is a request for a conditional use permit for a child care. Educational as a child care education centre. The site is located within the Green Run Land Use Plan. And the land use plan limits uses on this parcel to those permitted by right or conditionally within the B1, a limited community business district. Since child care education centres are conditionally permitted in the B1, a limited community business district, a conditional use permit is required. The applicant is proposing to care for up to 25 children, ranging from infants to three years of age, with seven employees proposed on site. The applicant intends to use the existing outdoor play area to provide a place for the children to play outdoors. The space is approximately 930ft² and is fully enclosed with a vinyl fence. Per section 203, A 33 of the zoning ordinance, shopping centers require one space per 250ft² of floor area. The 8402 square foot shopping center requires 34 parking spaces, and the site currently contains 61 parking spaces, thereby satisfying and exceeding the parking requirement. There are no changes proposed to the site, as the signage for the facility has already been installed, as you'll see in the site. Photos. The request for Conditional Use Permit for a Child care education center is, in staff's opinion, acceptable. The applicant proposes to care for up to 25 children, ranging from infants to three years of age, within an existing suite. The applicant's proposal includes no major alterations to the existing building and will add to the mix of businesses in the shopping center, and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts as recommended by the Department of Public. Of Parks and Recreation, the applicant has agreed to install a bicycle rack on the site and has already installed that bicycle rack. Staff is recommending approval of this request, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. You will likely hear this item as there is at this time. One speaker signed up to speak in opposition to the request.

[1:32:26] Next item agenda item 18 is a request for conditional Use permit for a short term rental at 328th Street, unit 105. The applicant is seeking to operate a one bedroom, short term rental within the nearly 54,000 square foot Playa Ranch condominium complex. Playa condominiums have 42 units, and 14 of those units are operating as short term rentals with conditional use permit. There is one assigned parking space for this unit located in the condominiums parking lot, which is acceptable to staff as Playa Ronda condominiums have a historic exemption allowing short term rentals to operate on the site with only one parking space. The site has no prior zoning complaints or violations. The site is not currently advertised and there are no prior documented stays, and staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

[1:33:18] I don't have any objection.

[1:33:22] And there's no one speaking.

[1:33:23] Not at this time.

[1:33:25] Commissioner.

[1:33:27] Yes, ma'am.

[1:33:31] Agenda item 19 is a request for conditional use permit for a short term rental at 516 22nd Street, unit 100. The applicant is seeking to operate a four bedroom short term rental within an existing three unit condominium. The four bedroom short term rental is required to have four off street parking spaces. The site has two assigned parking spaces for the unit, and the applicant has provided an intent to lease offsite parking. Agreement to lease two off street parking spaces at the 25th Street Municipal Garage, located 0.25 miles from the site, for a total of four parking spaces. During the review of this application. Staff advised the applicant of the pending text amendment proposing the prohibition the prohibition of the use of spaces within city owned parking garages to satisfy parking requirements for short term rentals, and the potential impacts to the subject request. The site has no prior zoning complaints or violations. The site is not currently advertised and there are no prior documented stays. Staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

[1:34:28] Objection.

[1:34:30] That's a good question. Maybe I missed.

[1:34:34] Can you go over.

[1:34:35] That parking.

[1:34:36] Again?

[1:34:36] That they want to lease from a parking garage, but they're not allowed to lease from a public parking garage. So what is did I miss here?

[1:34:45] They are proposing to lease from 25th Street. At this time, they are not prohibited from leasing from a municipal parking garage, as the proposed text amendment has not been approved at this point in.

[1:34:55] Time.

[1:34:55] To the.

[1:34:56] Wire that they wouldn't be able.

[1:34:57] To do this.

[1:34:58] After council.

[1:35:00] Would they? Is that correct?

[1:35:02] And I'll point out if should it be changed? So before this item goes to City council, if they're.

[1:35:10] The.

[1:35:10] Prohibition to use spaces within the city garage passes, they will have to provide an approved parking plan in order to get their annual permit. Um, so it just will depend on the timing.

[1:35:24] And the applicant is aware of that. And they are looking at potential alternatives. Should that proposed text amendment be approved by city council.

[1:35:31] All right.

[1:35:31] Thank you for clarifying what could happen here. I didn't understand that.

[1:35:36] Commissioner Parmley.

[1:35:38] Will you.

[1:35:38] Read that? Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

[1:35:41] Agenda item 20 is a request for conditional use permit for a short term rental at 414 19th Street, unit 104. The applicant is seeking to operate a one bedroom short term rental within a unit within an existing apartment complex. The one bedroom short term rental is required to have one off street parking space. The site has one assigned parking space for the unit, thereby meeting the parking requirement. The site has no prior zoning complaints or violations. The site is not currently advertised and there are no prior documented stays during the review of the application. Staff advised the applicant of the proposed modification to the short term rental boundary being considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, and the potential impacts to the subject boundary, should the subject boundary be modified. Staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

[1:36:27] I did have one person who lives near here approached me about this. Is there an issue on the parking here?

[1:36:35] No. No issue that I'm aware of. The subject site. There is one space assigned for the unit and there are spaces assigned for the other units meeting their parking requirement.

[1:36:44] Thank you, Commissioner Kemp.

[1:36:46] So last night at City council, there was at least one other short term.

[1:36:51] Rental.

[1:36:52] In the same kind of circumstance of the area that is now permitted. But if council adopts the boundary they've asked to be changed would not be. And if I recall right, the councilman for this district asked that that item be deferred. And his statement was that he wanted to align his decision on that short term rental with whatever happens with the boundary. This was during the informal session yesterday as they set the agenda. And so here we're going to continue to recommend into it based on.

[1:37:26] The.

[1:37:26] Rules we have. But we're already observing City Council holding these up. Am I observing correctly. Is that what happened yesterday.

[1:37:36] They didn't defer a application for a short term rental. They deferred the consideration of the changes to the short term rental parking.

[1:37:44] Okay. All right. Thank you for the clarification.

[1:37:48] I think.

[1:37:49] It's rather natural that we get this rush before change, and it's going to.

[1:37:53] Be.

[1:37:54] You know, what we have to endure. But I don't see basis to really.

[1:38:00] Right.

[1:38:00] Prohibit this. And I'll read it if it's on consent.

[1:38:03] Thank you.

[1:38:09] And the final item is agenda item 21 is a request for a conditional use permit for a short term rental at 415 20th Street. The applicant is seeking to operate a three bedroom short term rental within an existing single family dwelling. The three bedroom dwelling requires three parking spaces. The site contains a two car driveway, and the applicant has submitted an intent to lease offsite parking agreement to lease two parking spaces at the circa Del Mar parking lot, located adjacent to the subject site. Cerca Del Mar requires 55 parking spaces and the site contains 64 parking spaces, thereby meeting and exceeding the parking requirement by nine parking spaces. A notice of violation was issued by staff on April 21st, 2026 for the operation of a short term rental without a conditional use permit or short term rental zoning permit. The violation was resolved when the rental listing was changed to list the site as a home share. The site is not currently advertised in. The last known documented stay was May 26th, 2026 during the review of the application. Staff advised the applicant of the proposed modification to the short term rental boundary being considered by the Planning Commission and City Council and the potential impacts to the subject request, should the boundary be modified. Again, staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

[1:39:21] So I'll read it.

[1:39:30] Item four.

[1:39:32] Hannah.

[1:39:33] Sabo I was sorry on for John Cromwell.

[1:39:37] Okay.

[1:39:39] I've got the minutes.

[1:39:41] We've got the minutes.

[1:39:49] Mr. chair, I have to abstain from item 17 due to the conflict.

[1:39:55] And.

[1:39:56] I'll be putting a letter on file with the city attorney's office.

[1:40:06] Mr. chair, I would like to move that the consent agenda also include four sets of minutes.

[1:40:14] Wait wait, wait.

[1:40:15] Uh, 54 sets of minutes would include the site visit for July 2nd. And just verifying the chair. Cast and commissioners. Cromwell, Plumlee and Cuellar. Are you intending to abstain because you were not at that site visit?

[1:40:29] Yep.

[1:40:57] Yeah.

[1:40:58] Did you want.

[1:41:00] I didn't.

[1:41:00] See.

[1:41:00] Anything underneath this.

[1:41:04] Story.

[1:41:05] How are we doing? Eight, nine. As far as reading for consent.

[1:41:09] Okay.

[1:41:14] I'm not nine and ten.

[1:41:17] We have no items requesting to be withdrawn. We have one item. Item agenda eight requesting a 30 day continuance or deferral. We have no items requesting an indefinite deferral. 16 items on our consent agenda. Being agenda items three, 456, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 minutes. And the minutes we have for items to be heard. Agenda items one, two, seven and 17.

[1:42:04] We also do have the vote on the annual report

[1:42:08] amendments.

[1:42:09] Put that on the consent.

[1:42:10] Agenda for this.

[1:42:13] We're good with the consent agenda.

[1:42:15] Yeah. Everybody with the consent.

[1:42:18] Report.

[1:42:22] Thank you. Marshall. Appreciate all the amendments that you took on that and getting that done for us.

[1:42:29] Does Do we need someone to read something into the record for the annual report?

[1:42:36] Okay.

[1:42:37] Okay, thanks. Along with the minutes?

[1:42:40] Sure.

[1:42:41] Okay. That'd be great.

[1:42:42] Makes sense.

[1:42:48] Um, that's it for the standard agenda. And if you are ready to move on to new business.

[1:42:55] Yes, ma'am.

[1:42:56] Uh, so it's come to the attention of Chair Coston and to my attention that our public hearings are increasingly long and that that can be a hardship on people who want to speak but can't stay all day, sometimes into the night. And it's also a hardship on the applicants and their representatives. Um, we want everyone to be heard. Obviously, I'm sure everyone feels that way, but we need to take care to be orderly and to respect limits that are put on speakers and to try to keep things moving on. So if we're going to have a retreat, I think that's an item that perhaps should be brought up. Um, also, it's there have been comments about the order in which people speak. Currently everyone in support speaks, and then afterwards everyone in opposition speaks. And when we have contentious items with a lot of speakers, sometimes opinions are made up after they've heard all of the support before they get to the opposition. And some people may feel that was unfair placement. So a suggestion was to have everyone speak in the order in which they signed up so that it's mixed in. Again, that's an item that could be taken up if we have a retreat. So I just throw those two items out for consideration. Maybe it's three. Should we have a retreat?

[1:44:39] Please be mindful of the length of the meetings. And then how about the order of the speakers?

[1:44:47] Thank you.

[1:44:51] On that note, for the length of the meetings and, um, I was going to see what would make it most helpful for you to be able to address us if we have if we have comments. Um, I know some people raise their hand. I know some people turn their microphone on. What would be what would be easiest for you so that you just don't miss somebody.

[1:45:10] If I see the light on, I'm happy.

[1:45:13] Okay, so just push your microphone button and kind of sit back and wait. Wonderful. And as long as all microphone lights are off, then we're good to go.

[1:45:23] Yes. All right.

[1:45:24] While we're in this new business, I just want to take a moment to remind everyone, um, that if you were going to be sending an email to any of the planning commissioners, that I would advise that you not send an email to more than two or but you wouldn't send it to two or more, um, commissioners, because sometimes it can invite the temptation to respond immediately, which could be construed as a meeting that was not properly noticed. We have not had that issue occur. Um, and a lot of times with email, there is such a lag that it would not be an issue. But just to avoid the temptation or accidental reply all um, to the group, I just would like to remind you all that that's best practice. You can.

[1:46:09] Always send.

[1:46:10] Things out to city staff or and they can send it out to the commission. Or you could also be CC individuals so that there's not that temptation to hit reply. All right.

[1:46:22] Yes.

[1:46:23] I did so on the retreat with five of us having terms that end in February. The time's going to go quick, and then everybody else at this table has a term ending next year. I think if we want to have a retreat, we ought to get scheduling on that soon. So I don't know. Is there a consensus to have a retreat? I mean, you asked the question, but I didn't hear the answer.

[1:46:49] Um, I think everybody wants a retreat. But I was just talking. Mike and I put together, you know, a agenda last year, and I think I just talked to him real quick, whispered to me. But I think we'd be willing to do the same thing this year and with with all of the information that we have gathered, just like today. Hey, this what if we do a retreat, and I feel confident that the two of us can put together another agenda and fix some of the stuff that we wanted to do last year that I think we should look at sooner than later for a retreat.

[1:47:33] And and to that note, with the retreat, I think, I think we've, we've we got a lot of the, the majority of, of all of our, I would say questions, concerns, issues that we wanted to address. We put them on paper. So I can't imagine that this one would be as, as kind of in-depth, but maybe more so, uh, what we've done, what we still need to do, and new new questions or concerns that we may have, and so that we can kind of expedite it a little bit if we can find the time to do a retreat within the time frame that Walters asked for.

[1:48:16] Go ahead.

[1:48:18] I just want to. Good morning everyone. I just wanted to make a quick comment regarding the speaker's policy. There's nothing to stop you. We can send out the speaker's policy to you if you decide as a group that you do want to change, that you would just have to vote on that at your next meeting or an upcoming meeting. You don't need to wait for a retreat for that.

[1:48:36] Just for clarity.

[1:48:37] That.

[1:48:38] Speaker's policy that we currently have or we're currently going by is mirrored off of city councils.

[1:48:44] Correct.

[1:48:45] So so the way city Council that anyone who registers in advance, they typically put in support, then opposition, then anyone who walks through the door that night and registers gets just added to the list, no matter what their position is.

[1:49:03] Mr.

[1:49:53] outside of the hearing. I think that's worked pretty well, because we can come back and rebuttal period to talk to the applicant. As far as changing the order, I'm just going to let my feelings.

[1:50:04] Be known and I won't do it.

[1:50:06] But, uh, as far as changing the order support, not support, I've seen it gamed either way. You know, people rushing first to sign up. Um. People alternating. You know, if you're a savvy, uh, agent, you can figure out how to try to balance it the best you can. I think that's why we came back around to all in support, uh, you know, etc.. All opposed as a means of organization. Um, if you talk to anyone before the hearing, everybody assumes you made up your mind. Um, there's no convincing them that just because the support came first, that you made up your mind at the end of the hearing, but you know your body, so everybody's going to express their opinion on it. I think it retreats the appropriate place to do it. I think we're coming up on one year, and we should probably begin to get our planners out and decide when we're going to.

[1:51:02] Have we have to bring that staff because they have to be available.

[1:51:07] Mhm.

[1:51:08] I sure don't want to work them too hard because we do work and we're.

[1:51:13] Well, if you want to coordinate amongst the. If Monch and Anderson are taking the lead, if you want to coordinate, um, a couple of dates that are that work for at least the majority.

[1:51:24] Maybe, maybe if staff would be able to give us a time frame that this might be, uh, good to do, and then we can coordinate those dates with the the commission, because I know there's an advertisement and and really their time. Your time. Um, because you guys already have obligations that are on the books, and I don't I think we'd prefer to not conflict with those if we don't have to.

[1:51:51] It may be best to come back at a public hearing or to advertise. So we don't exchange improper emails to one another.

[1:51:58] Yeah.

[1:52:00] Big spreadsheet.

[1:52:04] So I just want to, um. Right on. Um, Commissioner Plumlee thought. You are absolutely right that folks think that we've already got our minds made up before we even come to this part. Um, I don't know that changing the order of the speakers makes a difference. Okay. Um, it's, you know, we can go by on a majority rules. Um, I can see. I can see where it's it's beneficial to do everybody to support everybody against or everybody against then everybody in support or mix them up. Um, it just depends on what the majority wants. But they're going to think that we made up our minds before. I mean, you look on you look on social media and that's that's the trending thought. Oh that right. They already made up their mind. So I don't I don't know that that matters. Just saying.

[1:53:06] Well yeah I just wanted to ask you at the site visit, you indicated that one of our upcoming meetings. There are very few applications.

[1:53:15] We had very well.

[1:53:17] I don't know if.

[1:53:18] We had a reasonable number on our most recent intake. So October. I it always depends though, on what happens with the items tentatively scheduled for September. Um, naturally some just tend to bump, so.

[1:53:34] I just didn't know. And I'm very mindful of how much work goes involved with the hearing, but I'm just thinking about days that if October was going to be really short, then we could have the hearing, have a break, and then potentially do the retreat. And we've already set that day aside. I'm just thinking as a calendar scheduling perspective. Um, but maybe the first question would be how much time do we want to dedicate for the retreat being sensitive to staff time? Um, but, um, you know, truly, Like, if October is going to be short, we could have the hearing. Maybe have a break and then, you know, come back and do the retreat. I just wanted to put it out there as an option. Let's take a look at it.

[1:54:18] That's the seventh.

[1:54:19] No, that's the 14th.

[1:54:20] Reserve those days.

[1:54:24] Also to to expedite things that the vice chair suggested two topics that could be at a retreat. I'm sure that there are others and ones left over from last time. But this business about the order of the speakers, that seems so modest that if we were to just add it to the new business agenda, we talk about it just like an ordinary item, and we can dispense with it. We don't need a retreat to do that item. It doesn't rise to that level of some other things. So I'm certainly open to handling that issue in that manner if that just expedites and gets something clear.

[1:55:01] So just as far as the date for this meeting, Are we saying that we could potentially do it on the 14th, which was the day of the hearing?

[1:55:09] We can look at it.

[1:55:10] Okay.

[1:55:10] Potentially.

[1:55:11] So I mean, I'm just saying I'm more than available on that day to go as long as we need to go. I just want to put that out there, but want to know what's on their calendars for that day. It might be a good opportunity to look at them and voice any concerns for it. If anybody has any hard stops. But but I do not.

[1:55:31] I also wanted to put out there that I don't. Our last retreat was facilitated. Does anybody feel the need for that? Because I don't know. We're there. Okay. Thank you. I thought we were past that point. So.

[1:55:48] And I'm glad you brought that up because our budget unfortunately cannot support that this year, so we'll have to figure that out.

[1:55:56] Perfect sentiment.

[1:56:02] We do have a briefing. We're just working to pull it up.

[1:56:06] Does anybody else have that day free on their calendar? 14 14th of October?

[1:56:11] I'll just take them all off.

[1:56:12] Everybody's good.

[1:56:13] In case we go to 1:00 in the morning, you never know.

[1:56:16] Yeah, we got planning that day. I don't know if we can do it. Oh, okay.

[1:56:19] Sorry. Good. Because I'll be gone two weeks in September.

[1:56:26] Next up to the rest.

[1:56:27] Of the year. All right.

[1:56:32] Good morning again, everyone. Um, so we're here again to talk about data centers. Um, just a briefing this morning. Um, during the April 8th Planning Commission meeting, staff provided general information on a briefing on what data centers are and then how our zoning ordinance currently addresses them, which is by right within the industrial districts. From that presentation, there was a lot of conversation generated on whether or not City council should consider further restrictions on data centers and then add a discretionary approval process. On the June 2nd meeting. Staff including Peter Wallace, the city's IT director, provided a more detailed briefing to City Council with more information on data centers, including infrastructure, data center types, needs of a data center and environmental impacts. And during the HDC Regional Planning Directors meeting that was on July 30th. The directors in the area voiced desire for HDC to lead a regional effort regarding the data center regulations. And we'll talk a little bit more about how there's not a good source for a good, consistent definition of data center. And we're all kind of looking at them a little bit differently. There's no, um, universal consider regulations on these. Um, so as staff continues ongoing communication with industry professionals and regulators. So staff is currently working with a representative from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, We talked to a representative from the Data Center Coalition. We have toured a data center in Richmond, as well as utilizing multiple resources and looked at other ordinances and regulations. We've also spoken with a representative from Oceana. We want to make sure that we are addressing any of their specific concerns around data centers. We've looked at a lot of regulations from surrounding localities and spoken to their planners, zoning administrators about lessons learned, what their recommendations are, what's working, not working within their localities. So data centers, there is one of the kind of roadblocks or issues we're running into is there's no industry standard definition for a data center. The term is used in different industries, in different ways. When we're talking about data centers. It's going to kind of be the umbrella term, which could mean a co-location, which is the smaller version. It's a data center where multiple tenants housed their own servers and networking equipment. Operators are providing power, cooling, physical security, and then connections all the way to the largest, which would be hyperscalers, which are cloud platforms operating proprietary global networks. And a lot of the times that includes AI. There are millions of servers in some of these locations. And then in the middle there are data centers, which are the data centers of data centers. And those are just facilities that house computing infrastructure. And it can be for one user, the mini. The municipal center has a data center where we store our servers. Or it could be where providing space for multiple users. They provide computer storage, manage the housing for different users.

[1:59:45] So looking at standards for data centers, while there is an abundance of information around data centers, there aren't established industry standards or established best practices as such as an established definition. Suggested setbacks, buffering and noise thresholds. But there are best there are information from other localities that have currently they do have data centers there. And of course, there is lots of information that we can use to get started or to work on our ordinance here. Specific information around cooling systems and data centers and energy uses. A lot of times it's considered proprietary and they don't want to share that. There are some bills within the state they're looking at requiring information to be shared. So moving forward there may be additional information available. Um, there's research on long term environmental and infrastructure impacts on the use is currently minimal. But again, there are requests for studies to be done on those impacts. So we have a good starting point. But there is more information that will come forward um, through the next as we move forward on this and as this user use is established. So scale of data centers, data centers can mean, as I discussed, data centers can be relatively small, like the one we have with the municipal center all the way up to a hyperscalers. And the data centers can go anywhere from one megawatt of energy all the way up to the high energy use facility, which is what the state considers. And that's 100MW of power. And so looking at limiting the maximum energy usage, and then we could also limit the square footage of data centers, could ensure that some of those businesses that are already within Virginia Beach are able to continue to be there and have some opportunity for growth without permitting those larger data centers or hyperscalers. So that's one way of limiting making sure that we are allowing some of those smaller data center uses while limiting the size and power and the impacts. But even with the A size cap or a limitation on data centers, the smaller data centers could still have some impacts. So the impacts that we are looking at, we're looking at noise data centers can produce the constant hum varying frequencies. And they can also run generators backup power sources monthly for testing power outage outages. So we're looking at a requiring a noise study, a sound modeling study prepared by a professional engineer to include maximum sound levels specific to that proposed data center, and then recommendations for sound mitigation measures. So that allows it to be a site specific based on how that data center operates and based on what the local what uses and structures are around that data center. A site specific analysis. We can also limit the hours in which a data center can run their generators for testing to make sure they're not running those, late at night or early in the morning. Another consideration is land. Data centers in Virginia. In Washington, D.C., are ranged from parcels that are less than an acre to 3000 acres. Buildings this small is 527ft². Up two millions of square feet. So considering those significant that significant impact. We are looking at a the possibility of a technology overlay zone within the industrial parks. And that way we can regulate the reuse of existing buildings and better focus in on where we think these uses are appropriate.

[2:03:28] One of the major impacts of concern for data centers is energy. And depending on the data center of business model. Again, going from whether it's a co-location or a hyper scaler, that can be a vast difference in what that energy usage is. So again, we're looking at limiting the maximum megawatts of installed capacity at that facility. Um, and so that would again allow those smaller data centers, those that are, um, just have locations that are have mind smaller impacts. Allows those to be established. And then preventing those hyperscalers, those one that use that significant amount of power. We're also looking at the impacts of water usage. Data center cooling systems can use a lot of water. Um, so we can however require a that any water cooling that's used is has a closed loop or a recycled water system. So while the initial creation of that system would have a large water intake, it would not consistently be adding new water to the system. It would recycle those the existing water. Um, so we could add that requirement to make sure that it's not consistently using a massive amount of water.

[2:04:43] So looking at next steps here, surrounding localities like Suffolk and Chesapeake. They have adopted moratoriums on data centers while their staffs are working through amendments. And that's a option that City Council could look at. But in the meantime, staff is continuing to work with our with other localities and continue our research. We have a meeting with the representative and the Weldon Cooper Center on Friday to continue talks about what they are seeing kind of nationally and within the state on what those impacts of data centers are. But we are continuing to work towards providing a an ordinance that would have add data centers at a specific use, require a conditional use permit, and then look at what those, um, requirements would be if there was any guidance questions.

[2:05:35] I got one over camp.

[2:05:41] Iowa I was looking into this a little bit when I was up in Richmond, because I knew some people who were working on data center issues and apparently, well, I should back up and say, I think to some degree, we can't avoid all data centers of every variety because, you know, everything is going to function using them. And especially as we're trying to bring in tech businesses and things like that, it will matter. So I think the question is more along the lines of where and how and which variety. But I had learned a few things that I thought might be interesting to the group. Um, when some of these aren't even using water and I've got, sorry, a couple little notes here, I got to zoom in to see them, but apparently they're actually able to do, um, to function very differently than they used to. A lot of what we think about data centers is actually very old information from old versions. Um, but let's see, there was a little bit here. Um, water usage. So apparently depending on the type they can use significantly less than we think. Apparently, most are using only 83% of about the same amount of water that the average large office building is using, which is, we'll see. And in some case, they might even use less than the typical household. So I think it depends on the type and the size and so forth. So it may not be quite as bad as we've been thinking. Um, but you know, I think there are some areas. And somebody mentioned to me Mecklenburg was doing a very good job with whatever they've been working on specifically about it. But, um, it's another piece of this. I'm just scrolling through my little notes here. Um, and something that had been brought up to me quite a bit, both online and just in conversation, concerns about energy usage. And from what I understand, they're not they are paying the normal rates that other people are paying. They're not getting special rates, and they're not damaging our ability to get energy in some cases. And they're giving back. so it may not be quite as bad as we think. So just as we go through this process of looking into this issue, I just think we might want to, um, uh, keep in mind that it's not they're not what they were 20 years ago, and that we're going to have to have something doesn't necessarily mean there has to be gigantic. And obviously we don't want anywhere near farmland or anything like that. We want to be very cautious what we do, but it sounds like it's not quite as bad as we were thinking.

[2:08:08] Thank you for the briefing, and I certainly appreciate the level of research that you're putting into this. That's excellent. That's what I had hoped would happen here. And I think that's what this issue deserves. I do have a couple of thoughts that I hope will be taken constructively to help. I think as a threshold item, this use type should require a conditional use permit. And I didn't see that as one of the bulleted items. Maybe it's just a given. But I think as we start to lay out how we're going to handle this, I would like to see that as a first step. The second is taking the types of things you've described here. I see a sorting out based on scale, and those can be measured by the following things, some of which you've mentioned the noise generated, the water consumed, the square footage, the energy usage, and importantly but not mentioned, the energy source. Whether this will be on site, energy produced in some manner or taken off the grid. Those are ways to sort out the big from the little. All of these to me, are industrial uses. I think this takes us right into the natural definition of some might be light and some might be heavy, and we have a comp plan that says we're heavy and light industries go. So if you follow through with what's already in the comp plan by first sorting them out by scale, saying they're industrial, and then which of the industrial definitions best fits, we already start to then get into place types and some of the things that then naturally the next question. Finally you get to mitigation standards. If it is, let's say a heavy industrial use and it's in a certain place type, then maybe certain setbacks or other things are appropriate. If it's a different model in a different place, then maybe other mitigation steps, or maybe it's not permitted at all. That's how I've organized it in my head. In order to do this in a logical fashion that uses the documents we already have In terms of working forward. I just have two comments. One, I believe given the public interest in this, whatever you come up with should not be given to us and we are expected to vote five days later. I believe you should brief us on the regulations that you developed. Let the public do that. Briefing digested. Send in comments. I'd rather deal with email over a month and use it constructively than have a line of 100 people, and we don't have the ability on the fly to modify the draft ordinance. So I see a two step. And then lastly, based on the time you envision here, I would certainly support recommending to council a moratorium on the current loophole that lets buy right. Development of these occur on industrial parcels until such time as we're able to put in a new regulatory scheme. Thank you for listening to me on that.

[2:11:34] Thank you.

[2:11:35] Mr.

[2:12:47] Thank you, Vice Chair.

[2:12:48] Thank you Hannah. Appreciate it. Um, so looking at your, um, segmentation cable center, close data centers and hyper centers is the only difference between the kolos and the data centers. Uh, the ownership of the actual devices that are storing it.

[2:13:09] So, as I mentioned, there isn't really a industry standard definition of what a co-location versus a data center is. Um, and so but basically.

[2:13:22] Yes, a co-location is you have multiple users that are storing space within a facility, but there are a lot of locations that call themselves data centers that are considered data centers that also have space for other people to rent, for other users to rent space within their facility.

[2:13:38] So it's just the ownership?

[2:13:40] Yes.

[2:13:42] Is the same?

[2:13:42] Yes. The ownership.

[2:13:52] Battery storage is separate from data centers. Battery storage is energy. There are. Um, and one of the things that we that we did look at is to, to Mr. camps, um, comments. There are some data centers that have their own power source. So whether it's wind or solar, and when they have that, they will also have battery storage on site. So we want to make sure that we are addressing that as well. But we have battery storage as a use already in our ordinance with pretty hefty conditions associated with that. Um, so we can easily make sure that those are applied here if there is a data center that has its own power source and data and battery storage associated with it. So that could be a use with a data center, but they're not always there.

[2:14:35] Okay.

[2:14:36] I really appreciate this. And I'm going to say what everybody knows this is going to be a hot button for the citizens of Virginia Beach. And there are going to be a lot of passionate people. And we want to make sure that we're transparent and everything we do. Thank you.

[2:14:53] Commissioner.

[2:14:55] We're going to be long here.

[2:14:57] Um.

[2:14:58] I went to the left.

[2:15:00] So is there not an SIC code.

[2:15:03] For this use?

[2:15:06] This is the Department of Labor sets. Use codes.

[2:15:08] For.

[2:15:10] Every type of.

[2:15:11] Light.

[2:15:11] Or heavy industrial.

[2:15:12] Use. Do we not have one for it?

[2:15:14] I have to check that.

[2:15:15] Um.

[2:15:17] I would suggest that we have a site visit.

[2:15:23] Put together like we have for the battery storage facility in Richmond. Um, um, we did it so as not to violate the meeting limitation.

[2:15:32] Um.

[2:15:33] It was very useful to see.

[2:15:35] It.

[2:15:35] Firsthand, uh, that everybody was given the opportunity to do it. Um, and so you don't have to make your own private accommodations. And we hope everyone had the chances formalized. I thought it was extremely useful and something that we should consider here. And it should be a large facility, uh, to give us a view of what what it really has with regards to impacts. And I think we should try to plan that soon, if at all possible. Um, I had a couple of other, um, questions for Hannah. You know, we are receiving the Atlantic. Atlantic data crossing, where at that.

[2:16:11] Point.

[2:16:12] We also have Dominion's wind energy farm nearby. Does that make our area any more Important or strategic with regards to these types of facilities. I'm asking it so you can find out. I'm not suggesting you would know off the top of your head, but I'm just wondering if that plays a role. We know the Northern Virginia. There are a number of these facilities. There are far fewer in this area. Um, um, and I'd be curious to get that information.

[2:16:44] While we were touring the facility, I did ask, and again, this comes from a representative from the data, um, company. So I it's not representative of all data centers, but what she, I asked about about that location and in, in relation to both power sources and to the cables that we have here. And what she referenced was that as customers are expecting higher, um, data centers to be able to do more things like doing AI and things like that, that they are more accepting of the latency that could come from distance. So having these data centers kind of separate from the end user or in this case from those, um, landing cables, knowing that these data centers would need bigger scale. So that was that was her reference is that they are sometimes at least that particular facility is willing to give up some closeness in order to have more land available.

[2:17:47] You know, these these technologies that are developing rapidly are very difficult at your hands on and put in your mind. When we visited the battery facility, which had 150 foot buffer around it so it could just burn out if it caught fire. For these lithium batteries, quite a frightening, uh, concept. Uh, um, it was suggested by one of the, uh, folks there that there was silicon, uh, capacity that they were looking at very seriously. That would have no fire outcome. And so if there can be advancements like we're talking about less water, you know, reduced, mitigated opportunities, we we need to be on the kind of the cutting edge to get that information, to understand what's being presented to us versus what is just down the road as potential new technologies. So it's a very difficult subject. I do appreciate your work.

[2:18:47] Thank you, Mr.

[2:19:00] The state has specific requirements for those data centers, which are over 100MW. That's kind of their threshold for having these additional requirements.

[2:19:12] Okay.

[2:19:13] Well What is the total capacity of the wind farm and all 100. And what is it, 87 windmills?

[2:19:21] I don't have.

[2:19:22] That. When they come ashore, 650 gigawatt, 650.

[2:19:27] Is it megawatt or gecko? 650 is the number.

[2:19:30] It is a larger one.

[2:19:32] So basically from that.

[2:19:37] Figure you couldn't even power. You could power one hyperscale and that's it.

[2:19:46] The whole wind farm would be consumed.

[2:19:52] Okay. So another question is as as these things scale up, um, they use diesel generators for backup. Sure. How many horsepower? What are the requirements? Uh, for the horsepower of these as the, Data centers increase in their size. What is the relevance to horsepower for a generator? You're talking massive, massive acoustical sheet metal with evidence of that 150 zero zero £0 loads.

[2:20:29] Yeah. When that was an open that came up while we were touring the facility and they indicated that, um, a data center and this is based on their operational rather than a code requirement, but they want to make sure they have enough generators to be able to power the facility at whole. So whatever their maximum capacity is for energy, they want to have enough generators to do that. And then the size of the generators could is determined by how many generators they have. Um, and but I mean, absolutely, they're going to have generators. We want to make sure that when they do those testing we can put limitations on that. And there are setbacks and safety requirements, um, in place for those generators.

[2:21:14] Right. But we need to. I'd like to. I'd like to know, you know, specifically horsepower.

[2:21:22] It's it's done in Watts.

[2:21:24] Do I know.

[2:21:25] They don't use horsepower.

[2:21:27] For it?

[2:21:27] Diesel generators don't use horsepower.

[2:21:29] Diesel generators, too. But the the offshore capability of a wind turbine is 4 to 15MW.

[2:21:38] It's 15 per. Per mile.

[2:21:39] Per one quarter.

[2:21:40] 15. I misspoke, it's 2.6 or 2600 megawatt. Is that wind farm? I was thinking 650,000 homes. It's 2600 megawatt is a C valve capacity.

[2:21:52] The onshore ones are 2 to 3MW. So that's that's your area.

[2:21:59] I was just wondering, you know, and as far as scale is concerned.

[2:22:04] Yeah. And you know, as we've discussed the data centers Again, big umbrella term. Anywhere from one megawatt up to those hyperscalers. And if we do put a cap on the maximum capacity. That is a way to make sure that we're addressing that, those concerns that would also put a cap on the generators, the horsepower of those generators that are on site. So we can and that will we can address that as well.

[2:22:31] I would just warn everyone that if you're getting this information from ChatGPT, I think it has an agenda here.

[2:22:42] I don't use chess. Maybe just playing.

[2:22:44] On Google is fine.

[2:22:48] Okay. Lunch time.

[2:22:49] Okay. Yes, it is lunchtime. So it's past lunchtime.

[2:22:54] At the site visit, a question was asked that we didn't give an answer to, which was for our fall planning. The question was asked, what is the status of the master transportation plan? When should we expect that to come back to us, and perhaps at the same time, we could just get the answer on the master plan. So we understand these two items that are also part of our agendas.

[2:23:18] Sure. So for the master transportation plan, we are waiting for Public Works to do their modeling that we need. I don't have a timeframe on that, so I'll have to see where we are with them and then let you know. And then on the item, we are waiting on a draft of the first document, a first draft of the document that we plan to present. So we are supposed to have that sometime in August. We'll review that internally before we start rolling it out to present.

[2:23:48] So you think it might be October that we would see something like that?

[2:23:52] I just I need to wait and see what the document looks like and what type of internal review we need to do with the various departments. So I'll be able to give you an update soon on that.

[2:24:02] Thank you.

[2:24:04] I did want to step up just to let you know that, as you know, the comprehensive plan, one of the main priorities is to start the zoning update process. So we have issued the RFP and those proposals will be due back in September 15th. So just to let you know that process is now moving forward.

[2:24:26] Jeff thank.

[2:24:26] You.

[2:24:27] Thank you.

[2:24:30] Meeting adjourned.

[2:25:04] I pledge allegiance to the.

[2:25:05] Flag.

[2:25:06] Of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[2:25:26] At this time we will introduce the Planning Commissioners, beginning with our City attorney, followed by the Planning Administrator, Miss Caitlin Alcock, who will introduce the members of staff.

[2:25:39] Tori Eisenberg, Deputy City Attorney Michael McCabe.

[2:25:43] The pleasure of serving the city as the At-Large representative.

[2:25:46] Walter Camp, representing Kemptville.

[2:25:50] John Cromwell, district two, Punggol and Blackwater.

[2:25:55] Good afternoon, Mike Anderson. District three.

[2:25:59] Good afternoon, Catherine Byler. District four that includes Virginia Beach, Town Center, Burton Station, and all the way up to the Norfolk border.

[2:26:09] John Coulston. District nine.

[2:26:12] Holly Cuellar, district eight.

[2:26:15] Katherine Schoonover, district five.

[2:26:17] Bryan Plumlee, beautiful district six. From historic SeaTac to the north end of Virginia Beach.

[2:26:23] Susan Shippen, district seven. Way on the other side of town. That's Centerville. That's part of Kemptville Green, not Green Run. Um, yeah. You know.

[2:26:35] Nina mariani, district ten. Caitlin Alcock, planning administrator. Clark. To my left, we have Brittany Harrison and Grace Smith and the audience, we have planning director Cathy Warren, deputy director Kerry Holt, zoning administrator Hannah Szabo. With our planning team, we have Marshall Coleman, Alexis Bailey, Ariana Lowe, Lane Herington and Kara McLean.

[2:26:57] Thank you very much, Madam clerk, can you please describe the rules and order of business for today's meeting?

[2:27:03] Yes, chair. The Virginia Beach Planning Commission takes pride in being fair and courteous to all parties in attendance. It is important that all involved understand how the Commission normally conducts its meetings. It is equally important that everyone treat each other and the members of the Commission with respect and civility. Request that cell phones be put on silent during this meeting. This is an abbreviated explanation of the rules. The complete set of rules is located in the front of the Planning Commission agenda. Following is the order of business for this public hearing. Withdrawals and deferrals. The chairperson will ask if there are any requests to withdraw or defer an item on the agenda. Consideration of these items will be made first. Consent agenda. The second order of business is a consideration of the consent agenda, which are those items that the Planning Commission believe are unopposed and which have favorable staff recommendation. Regular agenda. The Commission will then proceed with the remaining items on the agenda when agenda item has been called. We will recognize the applicant or the representative first following the applicant or the representative in person. Speakers will be called. Next and then the speakers participating via WebEx. Speakers in support or opposition. Of an agenda item will have three minutes to speak per item unless they are. Representing a large group such as a civic league or homeowners association, in which case they will have ten minutes per item. If the speaker does not respond, or if a technical issue occurs which renders the comments unintelligible, we will move on to the next speaker or the next order of business. After all speakers, the applicant may return to the podium to offer rebuttal and answer questions of the commission. Please note that the actions taken by the Commission today are in the form of a recommendation to the Virginia Beach City Council. The final decision to approve or disapprove an application will be made by the City Council. The Commission thanks you for your attendance, and we hope that your experience here today leaves you feeling that you have been heard and treated fairly. Thank you.

[2:28:51] Thank you, Madam Clerk. The next order of business is consideration of request to withdraw or defer an item. Are there any items to be withdrawn?

[2:29:00] Thank you.

[2:29:05] Our next order of business is consideration of items to be deferred. Please come forward if you have an item to be deferred.

[2:29:21] Good afternoon. Chairman, vice chair. Byler. Members of the commission. My name is Tyler Rose. I'm a local land use attorney with the law firm Williams Mullen. I'm here today on behalf of the applicant for item eight, the Real Estate Pursuits, LLC, or LC matter. We're requesting a 30 day deferral until the September 9th Planning Commission meeting to conduct further community outreach and also evaluate some of the comments we've received from staff in the staff report and from some of the commissioners.

[2:29:48] Thank you. Thank you.

[2:29:52] Does anyone have any item to this item? Any objection to this item being deferred?

[2:30:01] So I have a motion to defer.

[2:30:03] Item eight I move to defer item eight for 30 days as requested by the applicant.

[2:30:08] Second.

[2:30:10] It has been moved by Commissioner Plumley and seconded by Commissioner Hibben that this item be deferred for 30 days. Are we ready for the vote?

[2:30:22] One second. We're setting up the vote.

[2:30:34] We're going to move to a verbal vote.

[2:30:39] Commissioner.

[2:30:40] Mouch, high.

[2:30:42] Commissioner.

[2:30:43] Kemp.

[2:30:43] High.

[2:30:44] Commissioner. Cromwell. High commissioner Anderson.

[2:30:48] All right.

[2:30:49] Vice chair. Baylor. I chair Coston.

[2:30:52] I.

[2:30:53] Commissioner Cuellar.

[2:30:54] I.

[2:30:55] Commissioner Schoonover.

[2:30:57] I.

[2:30:58] Commissioner Plumley.

[2:30:59] I.

[2:30:59] Commissioner.

[2:31:00] Pippin I.

[2:31:02] Commissioner I by a vote of 11 to 0. Item eight has been recommended for a 30 day deferral.

[2:31:11] Thank you. Our next order of business is the consent agenda. And I'm going to turn that over to the vice chair to run that portion of the meeting.

[2:31:19] Thank you, Chair Costin. Today we have 16 items on the consent agenda. These are applications that are recommended for approval by staff. And the Planning Commission concurred. And there are no speakers signed up to speak in opposition. The first items for consideration today are several sets of Planning Commission minutes and the annual Planning Commission report. I've asked Commissioner Kemp to read these items into the record.

[2:31:49] Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. This portion of the consent agenda consists of a motion to approve the Planning Commission's annual report and several sets of draft minutes, as amended by the Commission for four Planning Commission meetings. Specifically, by ordinance, all appointive agencies in Virginia Beach are required to submit an annual report to City Council, which includes their mission, accomplishments, goals, and recommendations. The Commission expresses its gratitude to Senior Planner Marshall Coleman for her work on this project, which the Commission has reviewed, offered comments and revisions to, and has been recommended for approval by consent. In addition, the site visits held on July 2nd, 2026 with Chair Colston and Commissioners Cromwell, Plumlee and Cuellar abstaining because they did not attend the informal and formal hearing minutes for the hearings on July 8th, 2026, with no abstentions, and finally, the minutes of the site visit held on August 6th, 2026, with Commissioners Hibben and Plumley abstaining because they did not attend. That completes this item for recommendation of approval on the consent agenda.

[2:33:06] Thank you, Commissioner Kent. The next item on our agenda is item three. City of Virginia Beach. Uh, Miss Szabo, would you please read that into the record for us?

[2:33:24] Item three is an ordinance to amend sections two, 100 and 2102, and to add section 2107 to the city's zoning ordinance pertaining to workforce housing. This amendment proposes to remove the locality restriction from the Workforce Housing Ordinance, and requires the property owner to enter into a compliance agreement with the city prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any workforce housing unit for rent in a development approved pursuant to the Workforce Housing Ordinance, as the ordinance is currently written. The requirements in the rental housing component of the city's Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program. Conflict with the requirements of the federal and state programs such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit or Logitech. These conflicts prevent developers from using such programs in conjunction with the city's Workforce Housing Density Bonus program. The amendment is in conjunction with an amendment that's going to City Council and is for chapter 16 of the City code. Staff does recommend approval.

[2:34:17] Thank you. You may be seated. Is there any opposition to this matter being included on the consent agenda? Thank you. The next item is agenda item for the Crawl Residential Incorporated. Is there a representative here today to speak on this?

[2:34:45] Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

[2:34:47] Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Mr. chair, members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Rob Beeman, local land use attorney at the Troutman Pepper law firm. Here today. On behalf of the applicant, we've had a chance to read the conditions. They're acceptable, and we certainly appreciate being on the consent agenda. Thank you.

[2:35:00] Thank you. You may be seated. Is there any opposition to this item being placed on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Cromwell to read it into the record.

[2:35:15] This application is located at 2540 and Trotter Drive. The applicant is requesting a subdivision variance to section 4.4 of the subdivision regulations for lot width on this 5.56 acre or 15 residential district zoned parcel which is located in our neighborhood. The subdivision plat for section one was recorded in 1968, and Mac Book one and Mac Book 76, page 13. The plot included three parcels identified as parcel A, parcel B, and parcel C, all of which were significantly larger than the other proposed parcels. Parcel C is the subject of this request, and contains a single family dwelling constructed in 1968, which is proposed to remain. The applicant seeks to subdivide parcel C to create three single family parcels. The R 15 residential Zoning district requires a minimum lot area of 15,000ft² and a minimum lot width of 100ft, while proposed lot C1 and C2 will meet the all dimensional requirements of the AR 15 residential Zoning district. Proposed lot C will be deficient in lot with with the proposed width of 24.41ft. As such, a subdivision variance is required. Hearing no opposition to this request. We put it on the consent agenda.

[2:36:49] Thank you, Commissioner Cromwell. The next item is agenda item five and that is the Church of Virginia Beach. Is there a representative here today to speak to on this matter?

[2:37:07] Welcome, sir. Please state your name for the record.

[2:37:09] Yes, I'm Paul Neeson and I'm a minister with the church in Virginia Beach.

[2:37:13] Welcome. Are the conditions acceptable to you?

[2:37:16] Yes. Very acceptable.

[2:37:18] Thank you. You may be seated.

[2:37:19] Thank you.

[2:37:20] Is there any opposition to this item being placed on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Kemp to read it into the record.

[2:37:33] Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. The church in Virginia Beach is seeking modification of conditions for religious use for property located at 5263 Greenwich Road. The applicant is requesting a modification of conditions to a Conditional Use Permit to modify the site layout and building elevations on this 1.59 acre, oh two office district zoned parcel on October 7th, 2025. The conditional use permit for religious use was granted on this property to construct a 10,500 square foot church with a 200 foot sanctuary. The applicant is now seeking to revise those plans and construct an approximately 11,327 square foot building on the property, including the same 200 seat sanctuary, classrooms and admin offices. The application otherwise is not changing what was previously approved and with no opposition and compliance with all of our other plans and requirements. It is therefore recommended for passage on the consent agenda.

[2:38:43] Thank you, Commissioner Kent. Next is item six, Stephanie Martire Hoc. Is there a representative here today to speak on this item? Please come down.

[2:38:59] Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

[2:39:02] My name is Stephanie Martire Houk.

[2:39:05] Are the conditions acceptable to you?

[2:39:07] Yes.

[2:39:08] Thank you. You may be seated. Thank you. Is there any opposition to this item being placed on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Cromwell to read it into the record.

[2:39:23] This application is at 4121 Charity Neck Road.

[2:39:29] The applicant is requesting a modification of conditions to a subdivision variance approved by the city council in 1995 to remove an ingress and egress easement, thereby allowing the construction of a residential addition on this 43 43,489 square foot, 82 Agricultural District zoned parcel. The applicant intends to construct an addition to the existing single family home located on the site, a portion of which would encroach into the existing easement. Since both parcels created by the subdivision variance now has independent access to Charity Neck Road. A modification of conditions is required to remove the condition requiring a cross access easement. Hearing. No opposition to this was placed on the consent agenda.

[2:40:22] Thank you, Commissioner Cromwell. The next matter is agenda item 9449 London LLC. Is there a representative here today to speak on this item?

[2:40:38] Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

[2:40:40] Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. For the record.

[2:40:42] Eddie Burton, Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant for 49 London LLC on items nine and ten. Yes, sir. And all seven conditions of the use permit are acceptable to my client. We appreciate being on the consent agenda and appreciate Marshall's work on this application. And it's based on the landscaping plan that's in this package, not the one that you've had on the board this morning.

[2:41:19] Thank you. This is for agenda item nine and ten, located at 2548 Potter's Road. The applicant is requesting a conditional rezoning from our ten residential district to conditional I-1 light Industrial district, and a conditional use permit for a bulk storage yard to develop the site, with a storage yard for the storage of contractors, vehicles, equipment and materials on approximately 2.89 acre property. The site is located within the greater than 75 decibel noise zone of the acres and the Accident Potential Zone one. The proposed use of a bulk storage yard is considered a compatible use within both the noise zone and the APC one, as depicted on the conceptual site plan. The property is proposed to be divided into 14 fenced storage lots, ranging in size from approximately 3000 to 5000 square foot. The conceptual plan also includes a future steel storage building for the storage of materials associated with the operation. In addition, the site is proposed to include a stormwater management facility with a 12 foot wide maintenance access path surrounding the facility to accommodate ongoing maintenance and inspection activities. Having no opposition, we put this on the consent agenda.

[2:42:44] Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. The next matter is agenda item 11. Shakeela Verner, is there a representative here today to speak on this matter?

[2:42:58] Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

[2:43:01] Thank you. Shakeela Verner.

[2:43:03] Are the conditions acceptable to you?

[2:43:05] Yes, ma'am.

[2:43:06] They are acceptable. And I also just like to share my deepest gratitude to all of you. All for this man my second time around and just talking to me, supporting me, providing guidance and to the entire planning staff. I appreciate you all and to Marshall for doing a tremendous job on my proposal. I'm very grateful. Thank you.

[2:43:26] Thank you. Miss Verner, you may be seated.

[2:43:28] Thank you.

[2:43:29] Is there any opposition to this matter being added to the consent agenda? Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Marsh to read it into the record.

[2:43:40] The applicant, Shaquille Verner, is requesting to rezone a 7744 square foot parcel from our 7.5 residential to conditional a 12 apartment district to develop a duplex. The parcel fronting Euclid Road is currently vacant. Situated within the Pocahontas Village neighborhood and lies in the Central Village district of the Pembroke Strategic Growth Area. The request to conditionally rezone this parcel from R7 five residential to conditional a 12 apartment district to allow for the development of a duplex is acceptable by planning staff, commission members and having no opposition present. We have decided that it's acceptable for this item to be placed on the consent agenda.

[2:44:25] Thank you, Commissioner Marsh. The next item is agenda item 12 Dogs Real Estate two, LLC. Is there a representative here to speak on this?

[2:44:41] Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

[2:44:43] Good afternoon. My name is Delphine Carnes.

[2:44:46] Thank you. Ma'am. Are the conditions acceptable to you?

[2:44:49] Yes, ma'am. And thank you so much to members of the Commission and to the planning staff, particularly Miss Ariana Lowe, who was really helpful to us.

[2:44:57] Thank you. You may be seated. Is there any opposition to this matter being added to the consent agenda? Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Cromwell to read it into the record.

[2:45:12] This application is located at 1652 Flanagan's Lane. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a residential kennel for up to 12 dogs on this 5.38 acre site. AG two Agricultural District zoned parcel. The parcel includes a 5500 square foot primary single family dwelling, a pool house, three storage sheds, a barn, and several outbuildings. The property will be used as a sanctuary for old or disabled dogs. No other animal types will be present. Dogs will retire or live out the remainder of their life at the property. The applicant proposes no more than 12 dogs at a time. All dogs will reside in the existing primary dwelling. No outdoor kennels are proposed. The dogs will only be outside for bathroom breaks and fresh air. The zoning ordinance allows for up to four personal dogs on a personal property without a conditional use permit. Since 12 dogs are proposed to be kept on the property. A conditional use permit is required. Hearing no opposition to this. We put it on the consent agenda.

[2:46:28] Thank you, Commissioner Cromwell. The next matter is agenda item 13, Unique Carts, LLC. Is there a representative here to speak on this?

[2:46:46] Welcome, ma'am. Please state your name for the record.

[2:46:49] Kayla.

[2:46:54] Yes.

[2:46:55] Thank you. You may be seated.

[2:46:56] Thank you.

[2:46:58] Is there any opposition to this being added to the consent agenda? Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Anderson to read it into the record.

[2:47:08] Thank you. This is for agenda item number 13, located at 408 Investors Place. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an adult daycare facility within an existing 1700 square foot suite on a 5.09 acre parcel zoned I-1 Light Industrial District. The proposed facility will operate within an existing one story building designed for office and business uses. The adult daycare will function solely within suite 107. No building modifications are proposed with this request. With hearing no opposition, we put this on the consent agenda.

[2:47:49] Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. The next matter is agenda item 14. Casa do to nuevos. Oh. I'm sorry. I'm going to make a mess of this. I'm not bilingual. Is there a representative here to speak on this?

[2:48:10] Thank you. Ma'am. Please state your name for the record and also the name of the applicant to correct my poor pronunciation.

[2:48:19] My name is Garcia.

[2:48:21] Thank you. Are the conditions acceptable to you?

[2:48:24] Yes.

[2:48:25] You may be seated. Is there any opposition to this matter being added to the consent agenda? Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Cuellar to read it into the record.

[2:48:38] Thank you. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for religious use within a 5313 square foot portion of the existing building, located in the I-1 light Industrial District. The site is located within the Western Campus Overlay District of the Pembroke SGA. Hearing no opposition and a favorable recommendation from staff. The Commission is recommending this for the consent agenda.

[2:49:05] Thank you, Commissioner Cuellar. The next item on the consent agenda is item items 15 and 16 collectively. Clerk Nixon, incorporated. Is there a representative here?

[2:49:22] Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

[2:49:24] Good afternoon. I'm Damien Seitz with Clerk Nixon Architecture and Engineering here on behalf of the Virginia Pilot Association.

[2:49:30] And are the conditions acceptable to the applicant?

[2:49:34] Yes, they are, and we appreciate being on the consent agenda.

[2:49:36] Okay.

[2:49:37] Thank you. You may be seated. Is there any opposition to these two items being added to the consent agenda?

[2:49:46] Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Cuellar to read it into the record.

[2:49:50] Thank you madam.

[2:49:52] Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permits for commercial Marina and dormitories for marine pilots to redevelop the site with a facility for marine maintenance, administrative oversight, and dormitories for the Virginia Pilot Association on this 13,920 In 920 square foot B for mixed use district zoned parcel. The applicant is seeking to replace the existing pilot house with a modern integrated operation center designed to streamline maritime safety services, hearing no opposition and a favorable recommendation from staff. The Commission is recommending this for the consent agenda.

[2:50:32] Thank you, Commissioner Cuellar. The next item is agenda item 18, Mark Morrison, David Morrison and Lisa Morrison. Is there a representative here to speak on this?

[2:50:49] Welcome. Please state your name for the record.

[2:50:51] Lisa Morrison.

[2:50:53] Thank you. And are the conditions acceptable?

[2:50:56] Yes.

[2:50:57] Thank you. You may be seated to.

[2:50:59] The short term.

[2:50:59] Rental department for.

[2:51:00] Being so helpful all the time. Thank you.

[2:51:03] Thank you. Is there any opposition to this item being added to the consent agenda. Hearing none, I've asked Commissioner Plumley to read it into the record.

[2:51:16] This is an application by Mark Morrison, David Morrison, Lisa Morrison at the address, 304 28th Street, unit 105, for short term rental conditional use permit. It meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. There's been no opposition and therefore it was appropriate for consent.

[2:51:35] Thank you, Commissioner Plumley. The next matter is agenda item 19. Raymond Lee Smith and Kristen June Golladay. Is there a representative here to speak on this?

[2:51:53] It appears not.

[2:51:57] And do we know if the conditions are acceptable?

[2:52:02] We have not been told that they do not agree with it, so we would assume that they are.

[2:52:06] All right. Is there any opposition to this matter being added to the consent agenda? Hearing none, I've asked Commissioner Plumley to read it into the record.

[2:52:18] This is an application from Raymond Lee Smith and Kristen June Golladay for short term rental conditional use permit for 516 22nd Street, unit 100. It meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. There's been no objection, no one here to speak in opposition, and therefore it's been placed in the consent agenda.

[2:52:41] Thank you, Commissioner Plumley. The next item is agenda number 20, Wave Investment Group, LLC. Thank you sir. Please state your name for the record.

[2:52:52] Madam Vice Chair. For the record, Eddie Vardon, Virginia Beach attorney representing Wave Investment Group, LLC. I want to briefly thank Alexis Bailey for correcting the zoning map on the staff report to depict the nine units, all short term rentals on the property directly adjacent to the east of this property. We appreciate being on the consent agenda. All 20 conditions are acceptable.

[2:53:19] Thank you. May be seated. Is there any objection to agenda item 20 being added to the consent agenda? Hearing none, I have asked Commissioner Plumley to read it into the record.

[2:53:33] This is an application for short term rental conditional use permit from Wave Investment Group, LLC. The address is for 14 19th Street Unit 104. It meets the restrictions of the zoning ordinance. There has been no opposition and therefore the Planning Commission believed it was appropriate for the consent agenda.

[2:53:53] Thank you. And the last item on the consent agenda, excuse me, is item 21, Christopher Tang, property Owners.

[2:54:11] Welcome, sir. Please state your name for the record.

[2:54:14] Christopher.

[2:54:16] Are the conditions acceptable to you?

[2:54:18] Yes, ma'am.

[2:54:19] Thank you. You may be seated.

[2:54:21] Thank you.

[2:54:22] Is there any opposition to this item being added to the consent agenda?

[2:54:29] Hearing none, I've asked the Commissioner for district six, Commissioner Plumley, to read it into the record.

[2:54:35] This is an application for short term rental conditional use permit by Christopher Tang for 415 20th Street. It meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. There is no opposition. Therefore, the Planning Commission believed it appropriate for consent.

[2:54:52] Thank you, Chair Costin. That was the last item on the consent agenda. The Planning Commission places the following applications on the consent agenda, the reading of the minutes and the annual report and item. Agenda items three, four, five, six, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21.

[2:55:24] Thank you. I have a motion to approve these items as read by Vice Chair.

[2:55:29] So moved.

[2:55:30] Second was that made? It's been moved by Commissioner Schoonover and seconded by Commissioner March. Are we ready for the vote?

[2:55:44] The vote is open.

[2:55:58] By a recorded vote of 11 to 0, with all aforementioned abstentions. All aforementioned minutes. The 2025 2026 Planning Commission Annual Report and items three, four, five, six, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 have been recommended for approval by consent.

[2:56:26] Thank you. If we had an application that was on the consent agenda, your request will be now scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. Staff will contact you about the date for those applicants on the consent agenda. Thank you for your participation and you may remain in the meeting either virtually or in person, but you're free to leave.

[2:56:50] The next order of business is a regular agenda. The regular agenda will proceed as follows. The applicant will be given up to ten minutes to present their item. We will then hear from speakers in support and opposition. The applicant may then return to the podium for up to three minutes for rebuttal, and then answer any questions from the commissioners. Madam clerk, we are ready for the first item.

[2:57:13] Our first items are items one and two. City of Virginia Beach.

[2:57:23] Good afternoon. Hannah Szabo, zoning administrator for the City of Virginia Beach. Items one and two are both related to short term rentals at the oceanfront. Item one is an amendment to section 241.2 of the zoning Ordinance, and item two is an amendment to the Oceanfront Resort Short Term Rental Overlay District on April 21st of 2026. City Council approved a referral resolution sponsored by Vice Mayor Wilson, Council members Remick, Schulman, and Henley relating to STRs in the oceanfront resort district. That was a two pronged resolution. The first was a amendment to adjust the SDR overlay boundary. And then the second was a revision to the parking requirements for short term rentals in the oceanfront resort. Today we are hearing the overlay boundary revision. The STR parking requirements was already heard by the Planning Commission of the previous meeting. Legally, operating short term rentals that are mapped out of the overlay would become grandfathered, and they would be permitted to continue to use their STR under the conditions of their conditional use permit, with the exception that grandfathered STRs cannot expand the footprint of the dwelling beyond 25% or 1000ft², whichever is less. And if they are not used as an STR for a period of two years, they would lose their grandfather designation. If this ordinance is approved, any STR operating illegally outside of the new boundary would no longer be able to apply for a conditional use permit. The updated STR overlay map proposed as part of the resolution is shown here. The portion in purple would be removed during the July 8th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. An alternative map was presented, and this map is alternative A that keeps the portion of the vibe district within the STR overlay, along with the block to the north of 17th Street and half blocked the south of 17th Street. We can zoom in to the area that shows the difference between the two maps. If you toggle between the two, you can see alternative A keeps a portion of the vibe district and that portion around 17th Street. Since the resolution adopted by City Council during their April 21st meeting, multiple commissions and boards were briefed on this amendment and during the July 7th City Council hearing to extend the resolution and then the later the Planning Commission meeting. We did not have any speakers signed up at those meetings. On July 22nd, a landing page was added to the STR website providing information on this update, including both maps provided along with contact information for anyone who had questions. There was a drop in style citizen outreach meeting held on August 4th in the evening, within walking distance of those affected areas, and five members of the public came and asked questions. Staff received about 15 calls last month with questions about the overlay change, and there was a letter of opposition which was included in the supplement package. During the vote, we will ask that you'll need to identify which map you will be voting on. Again, this is items one and two, both relating to the STR overlays and staff does recommend approval.

[3:00:26] Discussion or.

[3:00:27] Motion.

[3:00:28] We do have speakers.

[3:00:29] We have speakers.

[3:00:30] We have speakers.

[3:00:33] Yes. Our first speaker is Myra Guitarra, followed by Scott Westfall.

[3:00:51] Please state your name for the record.

[3:00:53] My name is Mayra Garcia, owner of Rich Bio Estates LLC in the Bio District. Good evening. Members of the Virginia Beach City Council. Fellow Virginia Beach residents and constituents. My name is Myra Garcia. I am an Old Dominion University graduate who was accepted into the MBA program at college, William and Mary, and have lived in Virginia Beach area for nearly two decades and have been an entrepreneur in our community for more than ten years. Virginia Beach is not simply where I conduct. Business is where I built my life. My journey in real estate began when I was 19 years old in college. I purchased my first property in drift II condominiums here in Virginia Beach. Since then, I have worked hard to raise a family, build businesses, invest in real estate, and participate in the community that I chose to call home. Over those years, I've also learned the privilege and responsibility that comes with owning property near the water. Today, after years of work and investment, I own property near Virginia Beach Oceanfront. I have watched this area grow, change, and become increasingly valuable. I took my time getting here. I saved money, weighed my options carefully, and made deliberate decisions about where to invest. When I finally purchase this property, I specifically chose an area where short term rental use was permitted because that opportunity was an important part of my decision and my financial planning to learn that, and even a year later, that the parameters and boundaries that may change is deeply discouraging for owners like me, who rely on the rules that were placed when we made our investments, that simply does not feel fair. That is why I'm deeply concerned about the proposed changes that could further restrict or reduce the areas where short term rentals and similar uses are permitted when the city changes an establishment map or land use expectation. That decision does not come in a vacuum. It affects real people who purchase property, borrow money, renovate buildings, pay taxes, and make long term plans based on those rules and opportunities that existed when they invested. Virginia Beach real estate has become increasingly expensive and competitive as a new investment continues to enter our city. It becomes harder for the ordinary local resident and a small business owner to acquire property and participate in the economic growth of the oceanfront. I respectfully ask a council to distinguish between future speculative development and the 16 property owners who rely on the good faith on the city's prior zoning maps and regulations when making substantial investments, properties that were lawfully eligible for short term rental use, or that were acquired and developed in reasonable reliance upon the eligibility, the serious consideration for grandfathering status, vested protection, and a specially designated overlay or map. I also ask Council to consider the people who have spent years, in many cases decades, paying taxes here, raising families here, creating jobs here, purchasing properties here, and contributing to this community. This is not an argument against progress. It is an argument that progress should not come at an unnecessary expense of the people who helped build and invest in Virginia Beach before the growth arrived on January 1st, 1963, Princess Anne County and the former city of Virginia Beach came together to form the unified city of Virginia Beach that we know today. Our history reminds us that the future of the city has always required balancing differing communities, neighborhoods, businesses, residents, and generations under one municipal government. More than 60 years later, we should continue making major decisions with the understanding that we are one Virginia Beach. I therefore, respectfully ask this Council to consider the proposed boundaries and examine alternatives that protect existing property owners, recognize legitimate, investment backed expectations, and preserve opportunities for the long term Virginia Beach resident and locally established businesses. Please consider grandfathering qualified properties in process status, establishing the appropriate overlay or specific district. Develop another lawful mechanism that allows existing local property owners to continue participating responsibly in the Virginia Beach tourism economy. I have watched Virginia Beach grow for nearly two decades. I have raised my family here. I educated myself here. I built my business here, I invested here. I pay taxes here. I have repeatedly chosen to continue calling Virginia Beach my home. Thank you.

[3:05:49] Do we have any questions?

[3:05:52] Commissioner Plumley.

[3:05:54] Thank you very much for your well-considered comments. I appreciate it. Let me make sure I understand your particular circumstance. Are you saying that you have an application before us right now for conditional use permit for.

[3:06:09] Short.

[3:06:09] Term rental?

[3:06:09] I do.

[3:06:10] Virginia Beach.

[3:06:11] Okay.

[3:06:12] And it's in the what would be a purple area in either one of these.

[3:06:17] Maps on the borderline, in my opinion, where my hearing comes next month. And I was told that I was in the middle of everything, so I had.

[3:06:27] To speak up.

[3:06:27] So you have an application that's pending. It's already been submitted.

[3:06:32] Correct.

[3:06:32] Okay. Um, any other general comments that you have regarding your opposition, I think I understand your personal circumstance. Yes, but you understand the city has a right to determine the areas where there would be short term rent.

[3:06:47] Correct.

[3:06:47] How long ago did you purchase your building?

[3:06:50] Over a year ago.

[3:06:52] Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

[3:06:53] Thank you.

[3:06:57] Any other.

[3:06:57] Questions?

[3:06:58] Comments?

[3:07:02] I have a question for staff because her application is in process. Is she grandfather? Is she part of the grandfather portion?

[3:07:17] Only those properties which have a conditional use permit for an STR. When this ordinance goes into effect would be grandfathered. So those that are still in process would not be grandfathered.

[3:07:31] Okay. Thank you.

[3:07:36] Any other questions? You may be seated.

[3:07:39] Thank you.

[3:07:42] Our next speaker is Scott Westfall, followed by Kathy Owens.

[3:07:54] Hi.

[3:07:54] My name is Scott Westfall. Good afternoon. Members of the Planning Commission. Again, my name is Scott Westfall. I have lived in Virginia Beach since 2010. I've been a licensed real estate broker here for the last 11 years, and I've really worked in the local real estate industry since 2011. I got my start in the industry, managing vacation rentals from Croatan to Old Beach to the North End, many of which had been weekly vacation rentals dating back to the 1960s. Um, I've had a front seat to watch the industry grow, from vacation rentals to what we know is short term rentals today. And one thing I can say with confidence is, is that short term rentals are not new in Virginia Beach. I think we all know that they've been a core fixture of the oceanfront community and tourism economy for over six decades. So needless to say, I am here today in strong opposition to the proposed amendment to reduce the oceanfront resort short term overlay district, which when did we start calling it the short term rental overlay district? Is it the oceanfront overlay or oceanfront resort, or is it short anyways? Um, while stricter oversight made sense when Airbnb and other platforms like emerged, it's my opinion. The city rushed regulation in 2018, and ever since, they've continually moved the goalposts, changing the rules whenever it fit the narrative best. The justification being used for the proposed amendment, protecting neighborhood character and long term housing simply does not hold up. The area being carved out is not old beach, nor does the proposed the proposal generally protect housing stock, claiming this changes. This change saves housing stock is kind of absurd when you look at the data. This boundary change affects very few properties that aren't already legally operating as short term rentals. The remaining homes in the areas often don't meet the current zoning rules, and would never become short term rentals anyway. If we can't enforce and regulate illegal short term rentals today, how do shrinking this map change anything? And a private correspondence with one of the authors of this proposal. Council member Wirth Remick in an email last year when I heard about this, I emailed him. I asked him what was going on, and he admitted the real driving force to me. And I quote, hotels are not too happy either, with more short term rentals as they see short term rentals as unfair competition.

[3:10:24] It's deeply troubling to see public policy leverage to protect well-funded hotel and corporate interest at the expense of local property owners who played by the rules, secured conditional use permits and jumped through every hoop required, instead of constantly restricting property owners and shutting out new ones. Why are we not focused on enforcing the rules already on the books?

[3:10:48] I appreciate that all the properties that are conditional have a conditional use permit will be grandfathered, and I think that is sensible. And so if but if you do feel compelled to vote for this change, I strongly urge you to adopt the least restrictive alternative map. Specifically, the Creative District must remain inside the oceanfront resort overlay. It really does not make sense to move that out of it. I don't understand what we're defining as oceanfront resort anymore. Um, it's where a lot of the tourism comes to. Also, where the wave pool is. That doesn't make sense to me either, but neither here nor there. I respect that the city can zone it how they'd like. Um. Furthermore, I ask that if you are supporting amendment two that you would expand the grandfathered protection so that law abiding property owners aren't stripped of their investments. Ultimately, I'm asking you to please don't penalize local residents to shield corporate interests. Thank you.

[3:11:44] Do we have any questions? Commissioner Kent?

[3:11:47] Yes, sir. Thank you for coming before us today and offering us your thoughts and opinions on this. You were speaking fast, and so I don't want to say what I think I heard. Help me out. I believe I heard you made a statement that this ordinance would not protect the housing stock in that area, or that short term rentals weren't affecting the housing stock. Could you say that again more slowly and help me understand what you're saying?

[3:12:14] Yes, I appreciate you. Yes, I was nervous talking fast. Yes. I think if we look at the map, the number of properties within the purple area right now that are either not operating as a short term rental are very few. So if the argument is that we are protecting housing stock for people who want to live here for 12 years, there's a larger chunk of this green zone with more housing in it than where we are looking at right now. And so I just I think if you I don't have the data, I would love if the if the planning staff knew how many actual properties are within the purple map, and then how many of those could actually be short term rentals under the current zoning ordinance, I would I would suspect it's very, very few. And the ones that are legally operating or are available based on the current ordinances are already operating legally that way.

[3:13:07] Okay. Thank you for clarifying your statement.

[3:13:09] Does that make sense?

[3:13:11] I'm not going to agree or disagree with you.

[3:13:13] I have. Did it make sense?

[3:13:15] Yeah, I, I understood I think what you were trying to tell us. So thank you sir.

[3:13:20] Any other.

[3:13:21] Questions?

[3:13:23] Thank you sir. You may be seated.

[3:13:27] Our next speaker is Kathy Owens via WebEx. Followed by Adarsh Chow.

[3:13:39] Hi.

[3:13:39] Can you hear me?

[3:13:42] Yes.

[3:13:43] Okay, great. Hi. Good afternoon, chairman, vice chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Kathy Owens, and I thank you for this opportunity to address the commission. I also apologize for being virtual due to my work commitments. So bottom line up front is I respectfully ask you to the city to withdraw this ordinance or for you to vote against this ordinance, including either the proposed maps, because it removes valuable property rights without a demonstrated factual basis. I also echo all of the points that Miss Garcia and Mr. Westfall made, and I'd like to. Additionally, in addition to my points that I made in both of the letters that I sent to the Planning Commission both last month and this month in opposition, I'd like to highlight a few of those points. So you've heard some of my concerns, and both in my letters and at the August 4th meeting and from these other opponents to this ordinance, but we did not see those reflected in the staff report. That's a concern. Um, also that in the staff report for this agenda, I do not see a recommendation from staff. I did hear verbal.

[3:15:06] The staff verbally say that they approved, uh, recommendation, but it did not see that in the agenda. Um, writing secondly, at the open house, the staff stated that their outreach at the Civic League meetings, that residents had stated that the neighborhood had become saturated with short term rentals. When asked what saturated means, there was no answer and an objective definition, or to identify what number a percentage of short term rentals would be appropriate for Virginia Beach's premier tourism district. What was also noteworthy was that there are properties in this overlay district that are not within boundaries of any neighboring Civic League because it's a tourist zone. So given that the affected property owners don't have an organized association representing their interests, it's even more important that the city conduct meaningful outreach directly to those property owners before recommending permanent changes to their property rights. Planning decisions should be based on measurable standards, not objective, objective opinions. I would also point out that about 60% of the area proposed to be removed in the overlay is city owned property, including the convention center, the sports center, and municipal parking lots. I would support removing those public parcels. And finally, the short term Rental Enforcement Tax Task Force recommended improving enforcement, not reducing overlay boundaries before removing established property rights. The city should demonstrate that existing regulations are being effectively enforced and that objective evidence supports this proposal. Again, I respectfully ask the Commission to not deny this ordinance until objective planning criteria and measurable standards are established. Thanks for your time and consideration.

[3:17:08] Do we have any questions for the speaker?

[3:17:12] Thank you ma'am.

[3:17:14] Thank you.

[3:17:17] Our next speaker is Adarsh Jain followed by Amrish Jain.

[3:17:29] Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Adarsh Chain. I'm a homeowner on 20th Street. Under the current proposal, the city's cutting our side of 20th, 20th and half street out of short term rental overlay. I'm speaking today to ask you to reject this reduction. Sorry to reject this reduction entirely or at a minimum, adjust the proposed boundary line to 20th Street. I urge you to consider three key points. First, splitting 20th and half street down the middle is completely arbitrary. Under this proposal, one side of 20th and half Street remains in the STR zone while the other side is removed, drawing a zoning boundary between the down the center line of a half street, and both sides share the same pavement. Traffic and parking, which is also used by 20th Street residents. Serves no legitimate planning purpose. Drawing the line at 20th and Half Street was, as 28th Street has no functional relevance to moving the line a few yards to 20th Street creates an open, meaningful boundary rather than an arbitrary split down a half street. Second, removing this property from the STR zone will not solve Virginia Beach's housing shortage. Across this entire proposed reduction, we are talking about fewer than 50 total homes in a quasi commercial area. So this kind of answers the number of houses that people are talking about. We use AI to determine how many houses are there and that's it. I can be completely off the mark, but it's pretty close to 50 or less homes. And that too, in a quasi commercial area, because there are a lot of coffee shops, there are a lot of other businesses, there are Their restaurants and everything. So before I purchase my property in 20 and Half Street, it sat on the market for over eight months. So if somebody comes in to buy the property for an STR, it makes sense because it was sitting there for eight months. I mean, I can, I can you can look at the data. And in fact, the four homes that were built, one home is still on the market. It hasn't sold. Um, so restricting STRs and the small pocket will not create affordable long term housing. It simply strips property rights in a neighborhood inherently suited for tourism. Third, STRs drive vital redevelopment across these aging streets. Over 95% of homes in this affected zone are more than 30 years old. Short term rentals give property owners the incentive to redevelop and maintain these aging properties. Moreover, being located directly behind a commercial hotspot and in the oceanfront zone, our homes host travelers with families who directly support local housekeepers, maintenance workers, and nearby businesses. In conclusion, splitting. 20th, 20th, and half street down the middle creates an illogical boundary that solves zero parking, traffic or housing issues. I respectfully ask, respectfully ask you to vote against shrinking the STR overlay in its entirety or at a minimum, adjust the proposed boundary line to 20th Street. Thank you so much for hearing me out.

[3:20:48] We have any questions?

[3:20:52] Thank you sir. You may be seated.

[3:20:54] Thank you.

[3:20:56] Our next speaker is Amrish Jain, followed by Mike Lancaster.

[3:21:10] Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Council members. My name is Amrish Jain and I'm a property owner at 20.5 street. Um, so, uh, my my property will be cut down from the str overlay, uh, either from either of the proposals. Uh, I'd like to urge you to request you to, um, to vote against this proposal today. And I'd like to bring some points to your attention. First is str, str, or short term rental? I'll call it SDR, but short term rental brings a lot of jobs and local promote local businesses. So like cleaning, maintenance, hospitality, it offers, uh, visitors like small families and militaries, uh, an extended stay option which is not covered by, uh, large businesses, large hotels. They're very expensive for these type of stays. So, uh, cutting this boundary affects the small businesses, the stress and in fact helps big businesses, the big hotels. Which is contrary to like Virginia Beach and other government to promote small businesses. The second is enforcement versus zoning, I think. Earlier speaker also said that we should enforce the, um, the existing laws. If the problem is nuisance and complaints, noise, parking, trash. I think laws are already there to enforce. Just rezoning it won't solve that problem. Um, we have to we have to solve the problem we have. The problem is the third is, uh, I think, um, during the July 8th meeting or seventh meeting, Commissioner noted that the reduction is aimed at preserving housing stock for future growth for Central Beach District. Um, I'd like to understand, like what kind of analysis is being done, especially for 20.5 the street, because part of 21 side of 20.5 street is kept in are kept in an updated proposal, but other half is cutting is being cut. So I like to understand is there like this is incentive. Incidentally swept in the proposed cut or parcel level justification has been done about the density, about how many short term rentals versus actual properties are there. Um, and, uh, in closing, um, I'd like to again reiterate that please consider these points and reject this proposal today. Thank you.

[3:23:43] Commissioner.

[3:23:45] Yes, sir. Thank you for coming down and speaking with us today. Would you please clarify? Do you own a property in this area that is proposed to be taken out of the, uh, the boundary?

[3:23:56] Yes, sir.

[3:23:57] And is that operating under as an STR now?

[3:24:01] No, sir.

[3:24:02] So it is something you would like to do? Yes, sir. Do you have an application in currently?

[3:24:07] Um, we had an application. That application was rejected. We we like to, uh, you know, go next year again.

[3:24:14] All right. Thank you so much.

[3:24:16] Thank you.

[3:24:18] Any other questions?

[3:24:20] Okay.

[3:24:20] You may be seated. Thank you.

[3:24:23] Our final speaker is Mike Lancaster.

[3:24:35] Good afternoon.

[3:24:36] My name is Mike Lancaster. I'm here to speak on behalf of Mrs. Gutierrez. I'm a building contractor. Uh, I was hired a while back to help her get everything situated in her facility. We have spent a lot of time and money and energy getting the building prepared for you folks. And just to be hit with a a map change. Uh, so I'm requesting that you folks please hold off on this particular map. Um, I grew up in the area. The first time I got a haircut was literally right around the corner from where this particular building is. When I originally met Myra. I felt that I said, you're not going to have any problems getting this approved because I see what's going on. I'm a product of the ocean front. Um, so I'm really just asking you folks to please just kind of hold back on that map. Uh, this lady had helped me when I was fighting stage three cancer, so I'm doing everything I can to help her get where she needs to go. Uh, so I, you know, we really need you folks to reconsider that. Thank you very much.

[3:25:39] Any questions? Thank you, sir. You may be.

[3:25:43] Seated.

[3:25:48] That was our last speaker.

[3:25:51] Well, Madam Szabo, would you like to come back and do any rebuttal or anything?

[3:25:58] I have a motion for. Prepare to hear this.

[3:26:03] And that if she wants to.

[3:26:13] I'll just add that the.

[3:26:15] There are 223 affected parcels within that resolution map, all of which were sent notices during prior to the original Planning Commission meeting where it was deferred and then prior to this meeting.

[3:26:28] Thank you. Thank you.

[3:26:31] Ask a question of the staff.

[3:26:33] Yes, ma'am.

[3:26:34] Yes. I believe Commissioner.

[3:26:35] Mister.

[3:26:36] Commissioner.

[3:26:37] Can go ahead.

[3:26:39] Several of the speakers raised the issue of enforcement. Would you care to state on the record your progress on enforcement in this area?

[3:26:48] Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much for that opportunity. Our short term rental team has been doing a lot of good work out in that area. Um, we pull up the the make sure I had that number is the non-compliant short term rentals within the oceanfront resort. From December 2025, we had 107 identified. And as of this month, there were only 16 identified as operating illegal short term rentals within the oceanfront resort. So it does take time. We have to go through the court process, but we are absolutely diligently working on that. The short term rental team has been hard at work.

[3:27:26] Thank you.

[3:27:27] Commissioner March.

[3:27:28] Um, do we know how many, uh, active applications that we have in the pipeline for short term rentals that may be affected in this new proposed either alternative A or the other resolution? Now.

[3:27:46] It would take us a few minutes to.

[3:27:48] Pull.

[3:27:48] The actual number.

[3:27:49] I know that you have a couple.

[3:27:50] On your.

[3:27:51] Application.

[3:27:52] Or in.

[3:27:52] Your.

[3:27:52] Agenda today, and.

[3:27:53] I know.

[3:27:54] Of.

[3:27:54] At least three more that are in our pipeline. But if you give us a little bit of time, we'll check to see if there are any others that came in.

[3:27:59] Okay. Thank you.

[3:28:03] Okay. Commissioner Plumlee.

[3:28:04] Yeah, I have a motion to approve. You know, and I want to thank everyone for speaking their mind on this. Obviously there's some with real concrete interests immediately impacted. There are others who have general concerns about the reduction. I appreciate every one of their comments. I will say there is a rational basis for this law. This amendment, it's quite clear with regards to both housing stock and the intensity of short term rentals as opposed to residential. With regard to the application that's pending, I would say you have the building for a year and you've been able to apply. This has been noticed and we got an extension with regards to the map Modification. So it's been months that we've been considering this. This is not a shock. We extended the period for additional input. However, we're only making a recommendation. It's council that ultimately passes this. I encourage you to make these thoughts known to council. They may take into consideration exactly your circumstances. It doesn't prevent them from doing so simply because we've been asked to make a recommendation, which we are time sensitive, having to respond to. Um, I spoke to Miss Owens directly on the phone. I've talked to a couple of other folks over this time. There have been very few objections laid out by, um, folks living in this area. We do have the Central Beach project being considered is only, um, at this point, a plan that has not been before us for consideration. So it's nothing concrete, but I have consistently spoken out against the proliferation of short term rentals and asked for the reduction of the number of short term rentals. And I've been on the record since I came on this commission three years ago stating my opposition. So with all of that, with the long processes that we've put in place to try to take into consideration everyone's position, I'm making a motion to approve both the um, ordinance amendment to grandfather, um, current um, currently permitted folks in that area so they do not have to come back for continued administrative renewal and for the reduction, but not using the resolution map, but using the alternative, a map which decreases the amount of the reduction. And that's my motion.

[3:30:42] Excuse me. Chair. Sorry. Based on the discussion and informal, we were going to have this as two votes, which is how we have it in the system.

[3:30:50] I thought we were.

[3:30:51] Going to hear them separately, and then they came together.

[3:30:53] So I didn't know how you want that address.

[3:30:55] I'm more than happy to make them separate, if.

[3:30:57] That's the way you want to do it.

[3:30:59] Um, so I would move to approve. I guess it's item one is the first one.

[3:31:06] Is that.

[3:31:08] Okay? It's been moved by Commissioner Plumley and seconded by Commissioner Schoonover that we, uh. Item one be approved.

[3:31:17] The vote is open.

[3:31:28] Commissioner. Your vote.

[3:31:37] Could I ask before my vote, and I apologize, I was I was having a conversation to see which which, uh, either item number one or item number two. Um, I would like to to ask if there could be a transition rule put in place that any active applications can be viewed, um, as a, prior to, just to, to make sure that the people have who, who had intentions prior to anything being passed through further would be able to be looked at as if the rules were in place after they, uh, their application is heard.

[3:32:15] And is that part of item one?

[3:32:18] And that's that's what I was getting.

[3:32:20] That's what we're considering.

[3:32:23] Yes, that's item one.

[3:32:28] Item two as the.

[3:32:29] Deadline I think they would.

[3:32:31] They would.

[3:32:32] Both need to be changed because the.

[3:32:34] Grandfathering.

[3:32:35] Provision.

[3:32:35] And number.

[3:32:36] One is specific to.

[3:32:38] Those that.

[3:32:38] Have been granted, uh, before September 1st, 2026. I'm not sure if there is a desire to have some sort of transition rule, or for those that are currently in.

[3:32:48] I don't have that desire. I considered it while it was being presented. I don't have that personal. Now you can make a motion to substitute. Obviously that's your right to do it. But, um, City Council has asked us to make a decision on their request. It's been months. We got an extension for it. They can consider how they want to deal with transition if they'd like to. So for that reason and I, I appreciate your thoughts with regards to that. It is a sensitive issue. But I think we need to draw it to an end and and put this before council. So that's that's my motion. It's without that.

[3:33:30] Okay.

[3:33:30] And so I'll have an opportunity.

[3:33:33] For voting on.

[3:33:34] Right now. I'll have an opportunity to speak later. I voted already.

[3:33:38] Yeah.

[3:33:40] Well I think everybody's just about voted except for.

[3:33:46] Has everyone voted?

[3:33:47] Yeah, yeah I recorded.

[3:33:49] Of 11 to 0. Item one. City of Virginia Beach has been recommended for approval.

[3:33:58] And so.

[3:34:00] Yeah.

[3:34:02] Excuse me one second, Mr. Chair. Just. We wanted to provide those numbers to you before you go to the next vote.

[3:34:07] It looks like there are seven applications that are in the pipeline. However, six are in one location, so it'd be six units in one building.

[3:34:15] In one building.

[3:34:16] One other application that is in the pipeline.

[3:34:19] Again, I think that can be considered by council. I frankly, we're just being asked to make a recommendation on this on this alternative. A so I don't want to overly complicate what goes to them. We're we're looking at the the reduction in the principle of the reduction. And then we've already passed with regards to item one. So based on all the reasons I've already said, I moved to pass alternative A under item two.

[3:34:52] So a motion to approve item two. Is there.

[3:34:56] A second?

[3:34:56] I'll second just so that I can get my comments on the record. Um, moving forward and City Council does listen to and take into account what we have to ask or say. And I would just request that there be some sort of a transitional rule. Um, that council would consider moving forward. With that being said, I will vote yes for this discussion.

[3:35:18] Vice chair and then Commissioner Kemp.

[3:35:21] By way of discussion, I would like to say that I appreciate those who have come out to speak on this, and I recognize that it means a lot to you. I will say that most of what I heard today in opposition to this has to do with economics, and that's important not to undermine it in any way. However, we're also talking about the nature of neighborhoods. I'm an adjunct professor at Regent Law School teaching real estate transactions, and I've studied the short term rental impact on neighborhoods extensively. And it does change. It changes the way neighbors relate when your neighbor changes every seven days. It changes the way trash pickup happens and the way traffic and parking matter when people pull up on lawns to unload chairs and coolers. And I appreciate that. Miss Szabo told us that the licensure, the permitting has come into compliance largely, but that doesn't mean that all of the enforcement of the regulations and being a good neighbor have come into compliance. Just because they're license doesn't mean they're good neighbors. So you can still have a lot of problems, a lot of parties, a lot of issues. Plus, the economics are clear that when you start leasing weekly, the value of the property goes up because now you're valuing the property based on the revenue it brings and not as a residence. That means tax base goes up and everybody's taxes go up. So it's a very complicated issue. It's certainly not just one way or another. Having said that, I will support this and I do support alternative A which is the larger reduction. No, it's less a reduction. It's a larger footprint. Thank you.

[3:37:23] Commissioner Kemp.

[3:37:25] I concur with the vice chair on this, that there is a balancing of interests and what we haven't heard from today, but we have heard testimony at prior hearings about homeowners who have their own viewpoint about the neighbors that they get. When a cup for short term rental is granted. And both of these are important interests. The preservation of existing neighborhoods, the allowance of property rights, and maximizing of value to whomever it is that is got an application and to put six stars in one building. I believe in one of our prior hearings, I asked the question, or maybe it was on a site where I don't remember that STR isn't the only way to skin the cat. If I recall that a boutique hotel with six units in it has some different requirements, but it's another way to achieve an economic interest out of that same piece of property, in the same general spirit. It's not exactly the same, but it's another way to do it. I am not trying to create a loophole here, but I'm just pointing out if you have one already in the pipeline, it doesn't mean that you are entirely foreclosed from all of your options. There are conversations to be had there in addition to those that Commissioner Plumlee has recommended. Thank you.

[3:38:53] Any further discussion? I believe we've already voted.

[3:38:58] The vote is open.

[3:39:13] By a vote of 11 to 0. Item two Cindy of Virginia Beach has been recommended for approval.

[3:39:21] Our next item is item seven, BVI Real Estate, LLC.

[3:39:39] Is there anyone here to represent? Item seven.

[3:39:47] Good afternoon. Chairman, vice chair, alert members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tyler Rose. I'm an attorney with the law firm Williams Mullen here today on behalf of the applicant. I want to thank you. Thank staff for their hard work on the application, and we appreciate the recommendation of approval. This afternoon, I did had an opportunity to monitor the informal meeting this morning. So I think I understand the nature of the questions and why it's being heard today. So I want to just to take those in turn as I understand the scope of the questions. First, my understanding is one of the first questions is whether to consider this application today or to defer it until September 9th to be considered with item eight, which is the conditional use permit for the storage facility on the eastern portion of the property. And then the second question being adding a pedestrian refuge to the property in the concept plan. So turning to the first item, um, I think in the staff report and in the discussion this morning, I think there's kind of a bit of conflation in terms of the purpose and scope of this application in relation to the storage facility application. Um, the staff report actually says that the applicant, the boundary line, the project line is being moved, um, for this applicant to develop a storage facility on the other portion of the property, which is incorrect. There are two separate applications, entirely separate developers. Um, this application is simply to modify the project boundary, whereas the prior approval covered the entirety of the parcel because the subdivision line wasn't in place at that time. Now the subdivision plat is in place and the request is simply to move the project boundary approval line to align with the subdivision of the property. So the permit and the paddle facility and those conditions only apply to the appropriate parcel and does not encumber the separately subdivided parcel. That would no not be a part of the paddle facility. The this modification, given the nature of the concept plan and the landscape plan that was approved as part of the prior approval would be needed, regardless of what is being developed on the other portion of the property. So, and we believe that it would be appropriate and reduce further confusion to consider this application today, given that the purpose of the modification is simply just to move the boundary line, just to align with the subdivision plat. This subdivision wasn't in place at the prior approval. The applicant acquired the property during the post approval period, and the subdivision was not a part of that, those transaction terms. So it wasn't really able to proceed with the subdivision plan and understand the line until that prior until the property was acquired. So we believe this is mainly a cleanup item to just ensure that the conditions are properly encumbered with this property, not posing a further encumbrance development encumbrance on the other portion of the property. And then this will be needed regardless of what happens on the other portion. If there was not a storage facility being considered, if there was some other development being considered on that portion of the property, we would still need this modification and we would still be requesting this modification just to ensure that the conditions are contained to this property. So we would request that the application be considered here today. We would request a recommendation of approval and then that would allow for separate consideration and full consideration of the Storage facilities Cup, even in discussions with the community, and we're going to have to continue to continue those discussions with the community related to the storage facility. There weren't any objections to the modification once you explained what was going on. They're very excited about the paddle facility. Excited about the, you know, an opportunity to have a new athletic facility there. They believe that would be an additive use to that area in the community. But there is a bit of a conflation between the two applications. And even though it wasn't our intent to defer to separate the applications, we think it would be beneficial at this point to allow for separate consideration so we can fully have the issues associated with the storage facility and the public opposition be considered and not have this confuse those matters as well. So that would that's kind of the nature and the scope of the application. That's why we would request consideration today. Not deferring it, having a recommendation of approval. And then on the second item, the pedestrian refuge, I believe Commissioner Camp raised that. And so we discussed with the project engineer. He actually is here today as well. But with that we find that agreeable. We would be happy to do that. Just we were trying to clarify the actual location. We think the it's on the right side of the entrance of the driveway, that little grass area. So maybe just take a piece of the landscaping there. But yeah, totally acceptable to us. So we'd be happy to entertain a condition or whatever, whatever, however that needs to be documented. Um, so yeah, appreciate your time this afternoon. Happy to stand by for any questions. The proposed conditions are acceptable. And thank you for your consideration.

[3:44:56] Before we move to the commission. Uh, are there any other speakers on this item?

[3:45:01] We have one speaker, Jackie L Schulberg.

[3:45:08] Jackie L Schulberg.

[3:45:13] There are no other speakers.

[3:45:15] Okay.

[3:45:18] Commissioners.

[3:45:19] I have a question for the applicant.

[3:45:24] And I and I did want to see if anyone should have to speak because two applications coming in together. There is a sense that they're joined together. I don't see that. But I want to make clear this removes the restaurant from the plan on the paddle facility. Is that correct? Correct. That's what this modification does.

[3:45:42] Correct? Yeah. Effectively takes the boundary line from the far. You know, the entire parcel moves it just to the paddle facility during the original approval. When the application was submitted, it was obviously for the paddle facility, the rehabilitation of the beach cinema site. In discussing from an engineering standpoint and the use impact, there was some questions about how the site would fit together with a use on the other side of the parcel. We had always discussed and entertained by right B to use, but there wasn't. The purchaser at the time had really no idea what they were going to do with that portion of the property. Um, through those discussions, in terms of analyzing traffic and use of the property. Given the high nature of traffic related to restaurant. In order to inform the traffic analysis, a restaurant was included on the concept plan. The concept plan made it through to the approval, and that has now basically constituted a development restriction on that portion of the property. So once the property subdivided, if they wanted to do anything else on that portion of the property, we would need to one modify the boundary line as we're doing now, just to ensure that it's on this portion of the property and then allow for basically remove that development restriction on that other portion of the property, regardless of a storage facility or anything else.

[3:46:56] That's what we do. We require pre-approval for doing less. You know, in other words, that's what's what's recommended is a less intense use. What struck me initially was why would the applicant want this? Because then now you're cutting off all this parking A available parking for uses. So you're limiting yourself to the uses for that site. And I'm fine with that. I don't have any philosophical objection to that. I just wanted to make sure that that was understood, because this doesn't mean anything gets granted next month or months after that. It's simply it's simply being a request to remove that restaurant and have this subdivision. That's that's all we're looking at.

[3:47:41] Correct. Yeah. It's a fact that we're just moving the concept plan line to the the subdivision line, which reduces the footprint. And then the rest of the restaurant building associated with that part of the concept plan, since that would not be part of the project parcel.

[3:47:55] Thank you.

[3:47:57] Commissioner Kemp, then vice chair.

[3:48:01] I think you may have answered the question, but indulge me a moment. Just to clarify, if we can come back to the site plan, please. The boundary line that is being drawn here bisects the driveway so that what I might call the entrance is on the parcel in question here, and the exit is over on the other side. The item that's being deferred today, is that correct?

[3:48:33] Correct. Yeah. It's. Yeah. The exit is on the other portion of the property. Yeah. The two to be subdivided portion of the property. The eastern portion of the property.

[3:48:55] No.

[3:48:56] Well, I was about what occurred to me on that was there would be an easement. It's the common owner. So it wouldn't be an entrance exit issue.

[3:49:04] Right. I believe that would be cleaned up during the site plan approval process. And yeah, that that would be put in. Put in place.

[3:49:10] Yeah. Okay. That's what I'm getting at. It's common ownership now. It may or may not be in the future. Correct. And when I asked the question earlier about do these things to stand independently, that the intent is not to squeeze in and out on one side of that we're going to use it as as we've seen it accustomed in the past. Correct. And so there's going to need to be some, some agreement to, to do that.

[3:49:34] Correct. Yeah. And I'm not handling the transaction either. But typically in my transactions there's, you know, cross easement agreements and things of that nature as part of the transaction. But my understanding and and the project engineers here as well. But during the discussions I've been a part of, there's always been an understanding that there would be some reciprocal easements associated with the two properties to allow ingress and egress.

[3:49:57] All right. Thank you for the clarification that we're not going to try to accomplish both just on one side of the driveway. Correct. Do something else on the other. Thank you.

[3:50:05] I wanted to add a little clarification. The plot was submitted to us yesterday for review. It was accepted today for review, so it hasn't been recorded yet. It's just now under review. But it does show a proposed shared ingress egress easement over it. It hasn't been reviewed yet by staff, but we'll make sure that there is the appropriate recreation in place.

[3:50:24] Thank you for the clarification, Miss Holt, that the late submission of documents creates some of these questions that we then run into, and I appreciate your clarifying that you didn't have it to review, and we didn't have it to see, which is why we're now belaboring this. Thank you.

[3:50:45] Madam Vice.

[3:50:45] Chair.

[3:50:47] I have no questions for the applicant. I do have a comment to make whenever appropriate is appropriate. My concern with this, and I don't know how how much this will bear on our decision, but my concern with this is that we're doing two things. We're changing the whole package as it was presented as approved previously by removing the restaurant. And secondly, we're, um, we're allowing the one item to be deferred and the other to be heard. And there were a fair number of people who wanted to speak on the matter that's being deferred. And they didn't show up today because they were being told it was being deferred. And I'm not sure that they understand that one will be heard today and won't may be heard next month. Otherwise, they may have been here. And I'm all about transparency, and I don't want the public to think we're doing something behind their back. So because of that, unless there's some compelling reason why I would like this matter to be her next month along with the adjacent application. so that's my position.

[3:52:08] Can we hear from the applicant regarding that interest?

[3:52:19] Thank you for the comments, Vice Chair. I will say in my engagement with the community and Miss Schulberg actually, who was signed up to speak. She's been coordinating a lot of the community efforts. And so, you know, communicating with her as well. But in communicating the deferral, we ensured that they were aware was just the storage facility. And just this was a separate application. So we had separate community meetings. We've been treating everything separately in terms of the communication with staff and the community. It's been entirely separate. There have been letters of opposition related to the storage facility, but not the modification. So we've done everything that we can to ensure that they understand there's a distinction. And in my communication there is an understanding that the one would be deferred while the they're being treated separately and one would be deferred and this one would be considered today. So we've done everything we can to ensure that they are separate. Everyone understands they're separate and that they were made aware in terms of the deferral today would be for one and not the other. So we obviously want to make sure we weren't inconveniencing anyone. But I would just add that for your consideration that I think we've done as much outreach as we can to understand, to drive home the point that these would be considered separately. So I would just add that for your consideration. Thank you.

[3:53:40] Thank you, attorney Rose. And I have no doubt that you did, but it's confusing even to the commissioners at times. There were a couple on the agenda today that were two agenda items, and even we get them confused. So if the public gets it confused, I wouldn't be surprised. But thank you for your comments and your effort.

[3:54:00] Commissioner Schoonover.

[3:54:01] In light of this information, may I please make a motion that we approve this project?

[3:54:07] Seconded.

[3:54:09] It has been moved by Commissioner Schoonover and seconded by. Was that Martin? Johnny? Okay. That we approve. Item seven.

[3:54:23] The vote is open.

[3:54:34] By recorded vote of 11 to 0. Item seven Bye-Bye. Real estate, LLC has been recommended for approval.

[3:54:43] Our final item is item 17, Pamela Hinton Tiny Learning Center, LLC.

[3:54:51] Mr. chair, I am abstaining from this item. It is the last.

[3:54:55] Item.

[3:54:56] On our agenda. Is there any other business that we anticipate.

[3:55:00] This is the last item she said.

[3:55:02] Okay.

[3:55:06] Thank you.

[3:55:10] Hello. I'd like to thank you guys for inviting me to come and speak on my company's behalf. My name is Pamela Hinton. I am the owner of Tiny Roots Learning Center. Um, we are going to provide quality child care to the community in Virginia Beach for ages six weeks through three years old. I have 30 plus years experience with early childhood education, and through my career I have assisted multiple child care centers in opening their facilities. I'm well versed on community care licensing, Department of Ed requirements, and I've worked closely with the Department of Health and the fire marshal to get this building open. I do understand that the importance of being a good neighbor, and in operating in a manner that is respectful for the local families in the neighborhood.

[3:56:12] I feel like, um, this center is needed in this community. There was a child care center there previously, and since I've been in there, um, multiple people have come and in support of me being there because the other one disappeared on them. So they're happy to have me there. But with that, I just want to be considered by the council that the my business be approved.

[3:56:47] Uh, Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers?

[3:56:49] We have one speaker, uh, Ava Langhorne, via WebEx.

[3:56:54] Okay.

[3:56:55] You can be seated.

[3:56:56] Okay.

[3:56:57] She.

[3:57:01] She is not present.

[3:57:05] Okay. I'm sorry to have you go back to your seat and come back. Are there any. Are there any questions for our applicant?

[3:57:18] Are there any questions for our applicant?

[3:57:21] No question, Mr. Chair, but I believe the only reason this was not on consent was out of respect for the speaker. And I don't want to move ahead from the district representative, but I will certainly support a motion to approve this if one is made.

[3:57:37] Yes.

[3:57:41] I'll make a motion.

[3:57:42] Okay.

[3:57:48] Approve.

[3:57:49] Second.

[3:57:52] This has been moved by Commissioner Johnny and seconded by, uh, was that March okay?

[3:58:01] That we approve this item?

[3:58:04] The vote is open.

[3:58:05] And for the record, there is an abstention letter on file from for Commissioner Plumley.

[3:58:19] By a vote of 10 to 0, with one abstention from Commissioner Plumley. Item 17 Pamela Hinton. Tiny Learning Center, LLC has been recommended for approval.

[3:58:31] Thank you everyone for participating today. The Planning Commission meeting is adjourned.

Planning Commission Public Hearing, 8/12/2026

Transcript